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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

We're playing a pirate game, the characters do not play morally clean types and setting itself, Mystara, leans more towards moral ambiguity and gray morality where no side is truly good and heroes and villains often depend on one's perspective. It would be hypocritical of me to demand players act like morally clean-cut, clean-shaven goody two-shoes.

And mechanically the game does reward just focusing fire and killing enemeis as fast as possible and it is very hard to add external factors and obiectives that do force players in combat to do something else. Why should I punish my players or call them out on behavior that system was designed to reward?

Also, as a player myself I have gotten tremendous pushback whenever I even bring an idea of playing a D&D character who doesn't kill. Not a pacifist, not someone who doesn't fight, just a character who is willing to beat up or even maim enemies, but doesn't kill people. Is okay with killing animals or monsters lacking sentience, but doesn't kill anyone who could be considered a person. The amount of vitroil I've got for bringing this idea to different people online multiple times while looking for group or asking communities about such concept, kinda makes me wonder if this game wasn't made TO play psycho killers.


I started rewatching the video and as I suspected, you picked this out of context. Pointy Hat very clearly says it is a benefit that helps Warlock being multiclass friendly because their spellcasting works differently from everything else and you do not have an actual table showing you you just gave up 9th level spell slot by taking levels in a different class the way full casters do.

Also funny thing that I'm 6 minutes in the video and he already multiple times acknowledged people who do not play Warlocks the way he is describing, sometimes humorously too. Yet you acussed him of telling people who play it different they're playing the game wrong, despite him going out of his way to not alienate them.

Have...actually seen this video? Because I am starting to have a suspiction you are going off on what someone else told you is in the video. It gives me the same vibe as when RWBY fans were mad at Hbomberguy's video about the show, saying he complaints about issues from early seasons that later seasons fixed, while ignoring that twice in the video he makes a point he sticks to early seasons only because while he also doesn't likes post-Monty seasons, they have completely different share of issues that would need a separate video to criticise.




If you don't have an actual counterpoint, you can just not reply to that part of the post, saying "nuh-huh" makes it hard to take your position seriously. Especially if you do it so many times in a single post.

Except it goes against what RAW says of how patron is supposed to contact the Warlock before level 10, through agents and messengers, who by virtue of being middle men are inherently easy to ignore. Also, patron showing up before level 3 when the subclass is selected imposes on player agency to be able to choose what their patron is at level 3.

So if player says "I don't know, I will pick up later" or multiclasses from different class into Warlock, I'm just unable to bring them anything to roleplay. A player who picked up Warlock 2 for a subclass and does not want to say what patron they want effectively never gets to interact with one and just reduces the class to "big number goes up".

I'm trying to be compassionate to people who come to the game with assumption the DM is out to screw them over by assuming this comes from bad past experience that resulted in lack of trust. Would you rather I just treat people with this attitude as selfish and entitled?

Your table experiences are so specific you could have literally 100% exact same thing you played through fine happen at antoher table and be seen as DM trying to mess with player agency.

I'm just saying that by the way game defines things, you would be a Sorcerer and you just reskinned Warlock for mechanics.

And quite lot entitled players are mad when NPCs want things from them or react accordingly to PC's actions and even mad when they're not allowed to ruin other players' time, seeing both as imposing on their agency. You yourself define patron being an actual npc and not just empty, meaningless set of mechanical bonuses, as toxic.

You can always roleplay, but things that were once built into the class to facilitate roleplay have been removed now for sake of "big number goes up".

Who now has, as you can see yourself saying in a different quoteblock in this post, a "misguided sense of superiority over people who don't play like you"

You treat the idea of patron not being rendered meaningless as DM tryign to get you, so I say it is relevant.

You mean the "trying to screw them over with no way to stop them" regarding the patron part? That part?

That part?

Well you wanted to show how Celestial Patron does not need to be a god and both options you chose were directly tied to a god, so...


And yet you are furious that someone on the internet made a video not catering to your preferences, one I am starting to think you didn't even watch. Also, this is a very entitled mindset, you see DM as your slave who has to bend the whole world to your idea instead of working together . Like, if I'm running a game in Mystara, where no fiends or celestials are allowed, I have right to say you cannot pick up Fiend or Celestial patron. I personally would let you have one of Immortals as your patron for Celestial or Enthropic Immortals for Fiend but that's it. You are treating the game as something you come to and are served by the DM and not a collaborative thing where anything that is not your way means DM is a jerk.

The DM fixing the bad design on their table does not make the bad design disappear. RAW this means your character is level 3 and not suitable for level 1 game due to clearly having what devs deemed a part of level 3 subclass benefit.


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.

He literally says that if what he describes as the correct warlock/patron relationahip doesn't appeal to you, straight up do not play the class. He explicitly says that.

the rest of this screed i wil simply say, I have already explained how you are wrong about warlock patrons before level 10 and all that multiple times even before this thread, and you are stuck on a quite unusual and unsupported interpretation of the rules.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

the rest of this screed i wil simply say, I have already explained how you are wrong about warlock patrons before level 10 and all that multiple times even before this thread, and you are stuck on a quite unusual and unsupported interpretation of the rules.

So you're just going to ignore all the counterarguments because you disagree with me on one thing and therefore it means I must be wrong on everything without you having to prove me wrong?

He literally says that if what he describes as the correct warlock/patron relationahip doesn't appeal to you, straight up do not play the class. He explicitly says that.

He also makes it clear he knows this is an over the top statement and poretty much gives the vibe that he is not entierly serious here, he points out it will not be a problem for people who don't like their agency messed with at all but for people who need to have 100% control at all times, he also makes several lines pointing out he does not mean only the situations where patron screws Warlock over but that inherently by having a patron you give part of control to DM and even brings up earlier in video Patron's other Warlocks or Warlock of patron enemies showing up to show how the existence of Patron can be used agaisnt the Warlock. You are taking him out of context and making mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Umbran]

No.

Not at all.

I don't understand what is causing you to not see the difference between the two things.

false.

Nonsense.

Cut the patronizing bull.

false

false

Complete, unmitigated, unambiguous, falsehood.

Then don't hobble yourself with a made up problem.

Nope. Your misguided sense of superiority over people who don't play like you seems to be coloring your perspective here.

Bull.

You should stop trying to make the discussion be about something else.

I better tell my wife that her Paladin can't roleplay anymore, I guess. or not, because this is nonsense.

That sounds ridiculous.

Not a fan of nuance, eh?

Mod Note:
Rude.

If I said, for example, you had a misguided sense of superiority that led you to think you could be a jerk to folks, you'd be furious with me. So, it is not at all clear why you'd do it to anyone else.

If you cannot be kind and respectful, you will not be posting in this discussion. I hope that's clear.

 

[Mephista]

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.

I'm not offended. I went into this with giving him the benefit of the doubt. something he lost. Rather, I'm going by his exact words.

Warlocks have just as much chance of losing their level 9 magic as a wizard. PH said the warlock didn't. This is objectively wrong.

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.

Less of a difference than going by an outdated video by JC that you're misattributing to the phb. The book doesn't actually say the warlock doesn't learn who the patron is til lvl 3. And even the flavor text uses generalized language ("many", "often," etc) and not absolutes.

I'd say that you don’t get to pick and choose which flavor text you get to change or ignore, but you're not even using the book text.

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 ddesign.

Flavor text are not rules.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Nevermind