D&D (2024) Warlock cantrips

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

the rule also doesn't not state that Warlocks are forbidden from taken Primal cantrips.

If D&D were an exclusions based rule system the PHB would be 5,000 pages long.

but no one can mistake a primal cantrip for a warlock cantrip... you can easily mistake a warlock cantrip for a warlock cantrip

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

That doesn't mean that there are zero magic items. It means that the balance point is different from the practical play experience, which is a bad thing.

If they're common, then adding +1 at 5, +2 at 11, and +3 at 17 isn't an issue. Its not like they stack. It also makes them at least on par with Eldritch Blast, rather than having the already sub-par option be at the mercy of the DM to patch it. Too much of 5E is "lol, DM you make it work because we can't be assed to!"

It's a simple fix. Why vote against it?

 

[Vaalingrade]

the rule also doesn't not state that Warlocks are forbidden from taken Primal cantrips.

If D&D were an exclusions based rule system the PHB would be 5,000 pages long.

No, just the threads debating its loose language and poo-pooing fun thought experiments.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In Magic The Gathering, the line is often "Reading the Card explains the Card". And tbh, this seems very self-explanatory, the Cantrip section states:

Bolded for emphasis. Those pact cantrips are not on the Arcane spell list. Neither are they on the Divine or Primal spell lists. So the only way to get them is from the Pact Boon class feature. So at this point it seems like a failure of reading comprehension, which is understandable, but not something I feel is a valid argument.

What is funnier, and probably legal is a 2014 Warlock which does draw from the Warlock spell list. And these are Warlock spells. But I don't want to get into a compatibility argument here

I don’t think it is remotely legal. You can take a subclass from 2014 on a 2024 warlock, but that doesn’t mean you can just freely mix and match features within the base class.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I don’t think it is remotely legal. You can take a subclass from 2014 on a 2024 warlock, but that doesn’t mean you can just freely mix and match features within the base class.

I agree with you on this, Doc. I would allow 2014 classes and subclasses at the same table as 2024 classes and subclasses. That is compatibility.

But some will push back and say if 2024 classes don't fit the 2014 sublasses into them perfectly, it doesn't count as compatible. I would disagree with that stance.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree with you on this, Doc. I would allow 2014 classes and subclasses at the same table as 2024 classes and subclasses. That is compatibility.

But some will push back and say if 2024 classes don't fit the 2014 sublasses into them perfectly, it doesn't count as compatible. I would disagree with that stance.

Yeah, and tbh if one sidebar in the class section is all it takes to solve any confusion on using 2014 subclasses with 2024 classes, that’s completely compatible IMO.

But it sure as heck isn’t required that you be able to mix and match base class features between the two!

If you’re using the 2024 Warlock, you’re using the 2024 Warlock. Subclasses, invocations, etc, as long as they haven’t been updated, are fine, but no if they change Uncanny Dodge you can’t play a 2024 Rogue but use the 2014 version of Uncanny Dodge.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I expect that the Backwards Compatibility guidelines will have explicit rules for how and whether 5e classes can take spells from the 1D&D rule books and vice versa.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

except the new book will (if printed as the UA) add them as warlock cantrips... and not have a separate list, and can easily be read as then being added to the list of warlock cantrips

If you play the RAW game, actually use RAW. So no. Argument countered.
The compatibility note probably will say: all arcane spellcasters chose their spells form the arcane list now.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

but no one can mistake a primal cantrip for a warlock cantrip... you can easily mistake a warlock cantrip for a warlock cantrip

If you intend to do so, yes.

By I agree. This could happen unintentionally. So maybe they should be called: pact cantrips.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

By I agree. This could happen unintentionally. So maybe they should be called: pact cantrips.

I think the idea of pact cantrips would be a big improvement