D&D General Frustating Misunderstandings About Warlocks

[EzekielRaiden]

At your table. It's an extremely reasonable take to believe it's either a god or someone sitting at the right hand of a god, like a saint, which makes the difference between a celestial warlock and the divinely powered classes mostly a matter of different mechanics.

I mean, you can make that argument if you like, but the text pretty pointedly does not mention deities as an option. It says, "Your pact draws on the Upper Planes, the realms of everlasting bliss. You might enter an agreement with an empyrean, a couatl, a sphinx, a unicorn, or another heavenly entity. Or you might call on numerous such beings as you pursue goals aligned with theirs. Your pact allows you to experience a hint of the holy light that illuminates the multiverse."

Both the Fiend and the Great Old One patrons explicitly call out either outright divine (e.g. Tharizdun) or debatably/nearly divine (e.g. Asmodeus) figures. It's very noteworthy that the Celestial patron refers to "heavenly entities" and not gods. Beyond that, nothing in the Celestial warlock actually requires a divine figure of any kind--or indeed even sapience of any kind. It's basically just you being a fount of radiant energy--healing and restoring to your allies, blinding and burning to your foes.

So, while you could decide that, as a special thing just for your table, that your Celestial Warlocks are actually god-botherers. But it wouldn't really be in keeping with the lore of the class, which speaks of how "Warlocks view their patrons as resources, as means to the end of attaining magical power." It does note that some Warlocks may respect or even love their patrons--but many do not.

Point being, it's less an "extremely reasonable" take that Celestial Warlocks serve some god or gods, and more "just barely avoiding outright contradiction with the text". It isn't expressly contradicted, sure, but the preponderance of evidence points to Celestial Warlocks getting their powers from less-than-full-deity patrons. Worth noting, in 5e, "empyreans" are specifically the non-deity children of deities, so it's not even like they were dancing around the deity/non-deity split there, they go all the way up to the brink but then don't actually say the thing.

Despite the screaming of warlock players on ENWorld, who either have been or are anticipating being traumatized by an aggressive DM, this is an extremely common take by anyone who hasn't yet had a warlock fan screaming into their face about the issue.

Is it really? That surprises me, given the text only barely avoids rejecting the idea.

Warlocks are still in their 1E paladin era, where arguing about the class' flavor and who has a say over it are very much still open questions. It's definitely a class one should discuss with their DM before play, to make sure everyone's on the same page.

I don't think it's nearly so in flux, but personally I would say talk to your GM about ANY class you want to play. Period. End--or, rather, beginning--of discussion.

But that's mostly because 5e has inducted us into this glorious new era where every single rule, every. single. one. needs to be treated as though it is a gossamer filament prepared to evaporate at the kiss of dawn's first light, until your GM specifically and explicitly confirms that yes that is in fact actually a rule of the game. Until they decide it isn't. Which they can do at any time.

 

[Mephista]

Please if you could not throw such career destroying acussation without evidence, that would be nice.

If anything will destroy a career, it's not going to be a tongue in cheek flippant remark.

It's going to be the fact that he did not do his due diligence with the research he claimed he did. his obsession with EB during the video for one. Even if we ignore True Strike, he completely ignored Pact of the Blade as an alternative to EB spam.

The amount of misleading info is bad. Even if this is a simplistic view of the class.

And I perfectly understand what he meant by it, I'm starting to think people in this thread are looking for worst-faith reading to be offended and complain people on another website do not play the way you do.

Now who's throwing around accusations ?

To paraphrase PH, "People don't often multiclass Wizard, because they don't want to give up Wish. Bit Warlock is multiclassed because they only get level 5 spells. At class level 9."

Context wise, it's clear he doesn't realize that warlocks get level 9 spells. let alone genie warlocks getting Wish as an option.

Except of course that player's handbook says you do not know your patron before level 3 and letting you know them earlier is a DM's chocie that may be seen as unfair by any other player using Warlock at the table.

Do you feel compelled to be a carny with the entertainer background? Must all criminals be in dark alleyways? That's in the phb too.

You're taking a bit of flavor text meant to invoke spooky vibes and making it sound like a hard requirement .

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I mean, you can make that argument if you like, but the text pretty pointedly does not mention deities as an option. It says, "Your pact draws on the Upper Planes, the realms of everlasting bliss. You might enter an agreement with an empyrean, a couatl, a sphinx, a unicorn, or another heavenly entity. Or you might call on numerous such beings as you pursue goals aligned with theirs. Your pact allows you to experience a hint of the holy light that illuminates the multiverse."

Both the Fiend and the Great Old One patrons explicitly call out either outright divine (e.g. Tharizdun) or debatably/nearly divine (e.g. Asmodeus) figures. It's very noteworthy that the Celestial patron refers to "heavenly entities" and not gods. Beyond that, nothing in the Celestial warlock actually requires a divine figure of any kind--or indeed even sapience of any kind. It's basically just you being a fount of radiant energy--healing and restoring to your allies, blinding and burning to your foes.

So, while you could decide that, as a special thing just for your table, that your Celestial Warlocks are actually god-botherers. But it wouldn't really be in keeping with the lore of the class, which speaks of how "Warlocks view their patrons as resources, as means to the end of attaining magical power." It does note that some Warlocks may respect or even love their patrons--but many do not.

Point being, it's less an "extremely reasonable" take that Celestial Warlocks serve some god or gods, and more "just barely avoiding outright contradiction with the text". It isn't expressly contradicted, sure, but the preponderance of evidence points to Celestial Warlocks getting their powers from less-than-full-deity patrons. Worth noting, in 5e, "empyreans" are specifically the non-deity children of deities, so it's not even like they were dancing around the deity/non-deity split there, they go all the way up to the brink but then don't actually say the thing.

Good thing Pointy Hat doesn't actually say that Celestial Warlocks get their powers from a god, he makes a joke that Celestials are so close to gods this may as well be distinction without difference.

It's going to be the fact that he did not do his due diligence with the research he claimed he did. his obsession with EB during the video for one. Even if we ignore True Strike, he completely ignored Pact of the Blade as an alternative to EB spam.

He made a joke that EB is so good that other options may as well not exist, which we have argued about in this thread whenever it's true or not. But you are coming at it with extremely bad faith reading of his words, he flat out did not said what you say he said.

If anything will destroy a career, it's not going to be a tongue in cheek flippant remark.

Acussations of using AI are serious and should not be thrown around as flippant remarks.

To paraphrase PH, "People don't often multiclass Wizard, because they don't want to give up Wish. Bit Warlock is multiclassed because they only get level 5 spells. At class level 9."

He was very much talking in context of ulticlassing and spellcasting rules, he makes a point multiple times later that one of Warlock's strength is their way of using magic works entierly different from other classes. Again, you are going out of your way to be offended here.

Do you feel compelled to be a carny with the entertainer background? Must all criminals be in dark alleyways? That's in the phb too.

You're taking a bit of flavor text meant to invoke spooky vibes and making it sound like a hard requirement .

There is a difference between a flavor text of a background, seeing how backgrounds needed feats and Ability Score Modifiers to stop being nothingburger, and description of how the class works. The moment you put that into description of a feature it becomes how it is intended to work RAW and while you could ignore it, that is on individual table and individual DM and does not change this is a bad game design.