D&D 5E Warlock Clarification

[Kobold Stew]

I've argued about this before, in favour of the broad reading. The best argument is the absence of the "Pick any class..." instruction. But, as I have come to see, the grammar is not clear and cannot be parsed with certainty, because we do not know whether "any" modifies "class" or "list".

Is "any class's list" mean "the list of any class" or "any list of a class"? The former (narrow) possibility is more idiomatic.

Now, if it said "any class list" that would, unambiguously, indicate the broad option.
If it told you to choose a class and pick any spells from that list, that would, unambiguously, indicate the narrow option.

I (now) think it's easier to see the wording "any class's list" as favouring the narrow option, but it will always be possible to argue for the broad reading.

 

[Digitalnamshub]

I have asked this question in an email to Sage Advice for their March column. Not having Twitter, I didn't use that option.
Here is what I sent Jeremy:

"Can a warlock with Pact of the Tome choose cantrips from different lists for each of the three cantrips, or must he choose from one list only, similar to Ritual Caster Feat?

Same question with warlock and Book of Ancient Secrets and rituals."

I just want to say thanks to everyone for chiming in on this. I realize that nit picking questions like this can distract from the fun of the game for some, so I appreciate the patience. This is my first D&D foray in 30 years. I have spent the past 20 years playing Mage from WoD in both its incarnations and thus am use to a more broad definition of magic. I'm admittedly spoiled.

Something else I would like opinions on: My DM says one reason he doesn't like it is it is too powerful in his view, which is why Ritual Caster and Magic Initiate use wording to confine those abilities. What do you think? Is it? I am not interested in breaking the game. While I realize he could just make the Rituals I find few and far between, I would be much more interested in showing him logically it's not as potent as he thinks.

Thanks in advance,
DN

 

[Mallus]

Something else I would like opinions on: My DM says one reason he doesn't like it is it is too powerful in his view, which is why Ritual Caster and Magic Initiate use wording to confine those abilities. What do you think? Is it? I am not interested in breaking the game. While I realize he could just make the Rituals I find few and far between, I would be much more interested in showing him logically it's not as potent as he thinks.

"Is X too powerful" is super-subjective and not really the right question to ask. A better way to frame it is: "Will X be a problem for my DM and the rest of my group?".

The way to test this is through playing the game (over a period of time).

This is the way my group works. We don't nerf or restrict PC options -- at first. If something turns out to be a problem, we fix it. It's a compromise, an informal social rule. The DM agrees to allow players to build PCs "with all options on" and the players agree to accept changes/nerfs/outright bans should a particular option prove to problematic for the DM or other players in the group.

Tl;dr we agree that maintaining game balance is an ongoing process which is the entire group's responsibility.

 

[Digitalnamshub]

"Is X too powerful" is super-subjective and not really the right question to ask.

I addressed what you considered a better way to ask the question when I pointed out the DM has the ability to make the rituals I find few and far between. He could go with the broad definition, and use his abilities as a crafter of stories (or editor of 'Treasure Found' ) to keep my char from having every ritual in the PHB. Social contract upheld. This is how most friends game; give and take. You point is well made, but I am looking in another direction.

I possibly did not frame my question correctly. I am trying to discern the mechanics of a system like D&D 5e, coming from a less crunchy RP background like WoD and Fate systems (the RP gunslinger!). Mechanically is there something I am missing? For example, only being able to obtain a ritual half my char's level is one limiting factor, or components required, etc. This is what I seek to understand. I hope that is more clear.

I do agree, that even though I am asking about mechanics, it is still subjective whether having ritual ABC from Wizard list and XYZ from Bard list is pushing the envelope of game balance, but these are appropriate questions the Designers ask themselves when deciding if Book of Ancient Secrets should have every ritual from every class's list available at any time or to narrow it like Ritual Caster. So I don't see why we can't discuss them as well.

Maybe we can narrow the discussion this way: 1> Are there any mechanics I might be missing that limit having every ritual available, and 2> is there a similar mechanic or system from another class that is even more potent than what would be gained by say, at level 18, having every ritual in the book from every class? (Lets just go to the extreme.)

Thanks in advance
DN

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Rituals are useful to the group, but provide very little individual character power. It's like asking if proficiency in thieves' tools is too powerful. It's nice for someone in the group to have it, but it rarely matters how many people have it, and it doesn't make the individual character seem much more powerful--just useful to the group.

Also, I've noticed that players who come to 5e fresh from 3e-4e often have a knee-jerk reaction that certain things are too powerful. This is often because they haven't yet read through all the rules. This edition is chock full of things that would be extremely over-powered in 3e-4e. The balance is that the whole system is chock full of such things. Everyone gets them. It's not just one class, race, spell list, etc that has improved power levels compared to prior editions.

Since determinations of whether or not something is overpowered rely on comparison with other similar things, you have to compare 5e to 5e, and not try to compare it with 3e-4e because it looks similar at first glance.

Most people trying to nerf these particular aspects of warlock features are probably not quite up to speed about how we do things in 5e-ville.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Rituals are useful to the group, but provide very little individual character power. It's like asking if proficiency in thieves' tools is too powerful. It's nice for someone in the group to have it, but it rarely matters how many people have it, and it doesn't make the individual character seem much more powerful--just useful to the group.

In general, very much agreed. The vast majority of rituals basically serve as "you can take a lot longer and spend resources to do something that, if you had a specialist, would be a simple check." A few of them are pretty good on their own, and some could be contextually super important...but presumably the ones that would be most game-changing could simply be avoided by the DM, since you can only get them as treasure.

Also, I've noticed that players who come to 5e fresh from 3e-4e often have a knee-jerk reaction that certain things are too powerful. This is often because they haven't yet read through all the rules. This edition is chock full of things that would be extremely over-powered in 3e-4e. The balance is that the whole system is chock full of such things. Everyone gets them. It's not just one class, race, spell list, etc that has improved power levels compared to prior editions.

Not sure what 4e fans would feel that way--almost everyone I know that is real into 4e sees 5e as either a major step down, back, or sideways. There's little, if anything, I'd consider "brokenly good." I think there are some frustratingly weak things, and design choices that I vehemently dislike, such as re-introducing hard complexity gaps between classes (no Fighter, even an Eldritch Knight, can ever be as complex as the simplest Cleric for example), but very little if anything is "brokenly good." And much which IS that good is either sharply limited in some way or is so good mostly because of it being a recent jump in power (e.g. Moon Druid CR limitations), so it doesn't stay that good.

5e is considered a successor/alternative to 3e for very good reasons. That is (pretty clearly) the edition it most closely resembles, mechanically speaking, but it's applied fixes to some of the known flaws. Lighter and softer fixes than those applied in 4e, and (IMO) not actually sufficient to solve those problems, but that the (attempted) fixes are there cannot be denied.

 

[Kalshane]

Not sure what 4e fans would feel that way--almost everyone I know that is real into 4e sees 5e as either a major step down, back, or sideways. There's little, if anything, I'd consider "brokenly good." I think there are some frustratingly weak things, and design choices that I vehemently dislike, such as re-introducing hard complexity gaps between classes (no Fighter, even an Eldritch Knight, can ever be as complex as the simplest Cleric for example), but very little if anything is "brokenly good." And much which IS that good is either sharply limited in some way or is so good mostly because of it being a recent jump in power (e.g. Moon Druid CR limitations), so it doesn't stay that good.

The difference in class complexity is actually by design. There are plenty of people who just want to play a fighter or a rogue and not have to sift through a bunch of powers to figure out what their character can do. 5E gives them that option, where 4E did not. (Neither did 3E, with the sheer number of feats, though it was still a little easier than 4E. Just stick to feats that grant static bonuses and you're good.)

I find it refreshing, personally, after years of 3.x and Pathfinder (with a brief detour into 4E before deciding it just wasn't the game for me).

 

[Mallus]

1> Are there any mechanics I might be missing that limit having every ritual available, and 2> is there a similar mechanic or system from another class that is even more potent than what would be gained by say, at level 18, having every ritual in the book from every class? (Lets just go to the extreme.)

#1 - I don't think so, no. A Tome Pact warlock can acquire every ritual in the book, assuming they encounter a way to learn them during play.

#2) - No other class can duplicate this level of ritual access. It's unique to the Tome Warlocks with that specific Invocation. The question is how potent is this? It's handy, sure, but the utility is going to vary depending on the specific campaign's style/composition. Personally, I wouldn't call 'potentially all ritual access' potent.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The difference in class complexity is actually by design.

I...yes, I get that. That would be why I used the phrase "design decisions."

There are plenty of people who just want to play a fighter or a rogue and not have to sift through a bunch of powers to figure out what their character can do. 5E gives them that option, where 4E did not. (Neither did 3E, with the sheer number of feats, though it was still a little easier than 4E. Just stick to feats that grant static bonuses and you're good.)

I find it refreshing, personally, after years of 3.x and Pathfinder (with a brief detour into 4E before deciding it just wasn't the game for me).

See, the problem here is not that a problem has been solved: it is that a pendulum has swung back to the other extreme, leaving the middle feeling very excluded. I freely admit that 4e (at least prior to the Essentials line) normalized everyone to a level of complexity that wasn't great for some players--but, for other players, it was just as you put it, "refreshing," because you could finally play a character with the "fights with grit and strength and skill at arms" archetype and have significant mechanical depth behind it.

5e is, thus, as I said, a step back or sideways. It completely dispensed with the good part of what 4e brought in this narrow sense--that is, "martial" characters with significant mechanical bits and bobs--and wholly switched over to "simple" martial characters again. Which D&D has done for pretty much every edition since it began. The actual "solved this problem" state would be one where there is a range of complexities for all classes, which the devs advertised quite openly at first and then slowly and steadily backed away from until 5e ended up being just like 3e and those before it: the most vastly complex Fighter you can build is still strictly less complex than the least complex Wizard, Druid, or Cleric.

For people who just want to blast away and not fiddle about with spells, and for people who want to play a "master of battle tactics" that actually engages their thinking caps, the very thing that is your "refreshment" is their "ah well, it was nice being included for a while."

 

[Mouseferatu]

While it may not be where 4th was, I think the battlemaster subclass and the rogue's Cunning Action options make them more mechanically complex/option-oriented than fighters or rogues/thieves in the core books of editions prior to 4th.