Scrolls created by Warlock. Arcane? Divine? or Neither?

[Jhaelen]

A) All the scrolls created by warlocks are neither arcane nor divine.
B) All the Scrolls created by warlocks are arcane.
C) Scrolls created by emulating arcane spells are arcane. Scrolls created by emulating divine spells are divine.

I'd go with C). I don't think this situation is comparable to the Artificer who is (in 3E) explicitly flavored in a way to be 'neutral' regarding power sources.

While I agree that evidence suggests Warlocks are best treated as belonging to the arcane realm, I don't think that should extend to the magic items they create. Imho, the fluff suggests warlocks will emulate whatever power source would be required to get the item created properly, i.e. they'd select a class to emulate and create the scroll accordingly.

 

[irdeggman]

I'd go with C). I don't think this situation is comparable to the Artificer who is (in 3E) explicitly flavored in a way to be 'neutral' regarding power sources.

While I agree that evidence suggests Warlocks are best treated as belonging to the arcane realm, I don't think that should extend to the magic items they create. Imho, the fluff suggests warlocks will emulate whatever power source would be required to get the item created properly, i.e. they'd select a class to emulate and create the scroll accordingly.

Even though the text says "as if he had cast the required spell"?

Now unless he doesn't count as arcane when he does his invocations that duplicate spells it doesn't make any sense to treat it any differently, at least it goes against a lot more evidence to support it being treated as arcane.


To my knowledge the only class that is treated as neither arcane nor divine is the artificer and that is from a specific setting (Eberron) and not setting neutral like the warlock.

So for Eberron the artificer class exists but not for other settings, unless house-rules apply (but that also means that Action Points must be incorporated since part of the artificer class abilities rely on spending action points).

 

[frankthedm]

C. sounds like the answer that works best.

 

[Runestar]

Even though the text says "as if he had cast the required spell"?

So if the warlock scribes a scroll of heal by emulating heal as a 5th lv adept spell, is it arcane or divine in nature?

The evidence cited doesn't really make sense to me. The links between them appear to be tenuous at best, and some, I don't even agree with.

CA pg 7 "Finally, unlike other spell-like abilites, invocations are subject to arcane spell failure chance as described under Weapon and Armor Proficieny above."

This just means that the SLAs a warlock uses are an exception to the normal rule about SLAs normally not being subject to ASF, possibly for game design reasons. But everything else not stated otherwise remains mechanically identical to how SLAs normally work. It certainly does not suggest anything about it being arcane in nature.

Noting that "+1 divine spellcasting class" is not included in this benefit, which provides further evidence that the class is arcane in nature and not divine nor neutral.

That could simply mean that the warlock is treated as an arcane spellcasting class solely for purposes of interacting with spellcasting progression from prcs, nothing more. It would be fallacious to assume that this implies that it is an arcane spellcasting class for every other aspect.

3e dnd is very specific about the benefits/disadvantages you get. What the text states, you apply, nothing more or less. That is the lesson I learnt - don't try to reach too much into things.

 

[irdeggman]

So if the warlock scribes a scroll of heal by emulating heal as a 5th lv adept spell, is it arcane or divine in nature?

Arcane - just like a cure light wounds spell scribed by a bard, which can't be used by anyone other than a bard without using the UMD skill.

Or as another example - a wizard and a cleric cooperate to create a scroll of heal. The wizard is the "creator" and thus gives up his xp. Is the scroll arcane or divine? The RAW states it is arcane - which means that neither character can use it without using UMD.

The evidence cited doesn't really make sense to me. The links between them appear to be tenuous at best, and some, I don't even agree with.

Unfortuneately not everything in D&D "makes sense" as we have discovered repeatedly when looking at the RAW. That is one of the main reasons for people using house-rules, so that the rules they use make sense to them.

This just means that the SLAs a warlock uses are an exception to the normal rule about SLAs normally not being subject to ASF, possibly for game design reasons. But everything else not stated otherwise remains mechanically identical to how SLAs normally work. It certainly does not suggest anything about it being arcane in nature.

And what else is not stated that should remain the same here?

You have at least one reference to warlocks functioning in the arcane world and no references that state otherwise (that they are neither arcane nor divine). The class is located in the Complete Arcane with supplemental material in the Complete Mage. No reference to them in the Complete Divine or other Divine related books.

Note that there is a Prestige Class in the Complete Mage that combines Warlock with a Divine casting class. So the combination is inherently possible and yet that book does not make the not to apply the +1 arcane casting class rules from Complete Arcane to a warlock's invocations - which is something that "logic" dictates they should have done if they had intended for the class to be neither arcane nor divine. (Oh wait that again assumes that everything in the D&D rules makes sense - which we (EnWorlders) have repeatedly pointed out they don't).

The only class that is neither arcane nor divine is the artificer and that is a campaign specific class. Using something written for a specific campaign (that inherently has differences from the generic rules - for example dragonmarks and more specifically use of Action Points) as a basis for a "generic" (as in non-campaign specific) class is more of a shakey basis IMO than applying the "base rules".

That could simply mean that the warlock is treated as an arcane spellcasting class solely for purposes of interacting with spellcasting progression from prcs, nothing more. It would be fallacious to assume that this implies that it is an arcane spellcasting class for every other aspect.

Or it could mean that it is an arcane class at its core.

3e dnd is very specific about the benefits/disadvantages you get. What the text states, you apply, nothing more or less. That is the lesson I learnt - don't try to reach too much into things.

Correct. And what is the issue that is not written that should be applied here?

There is no such thing as a caster that is neither arcane nor divine other than a campaign specific one. None of the Core nor any of the supplemental books addresses such a case at all. That is one of the important pieces of evidence to consider.

 

[Runestar]

Or as another example - a wizard and a cleric cooperate to create a scroll of heal. The wizard is the "creator" and thus gives up his xp. Is the scroll arcane or divine? The RAW states it is arcane - which means that neither character can use it without using UMD.

Actually, RAW states that it is divine. The end result looks at the spellcaster contributing the spell to be cast, not the crafter. I believe it is covered either in the FAQ or the DMG. I will try to locate it and post it later.

Unfortuneately not everything in D&D "makes sense" as we have discovered repeatedly when looking at the RAW. That is one of the main reasons for people using house-rules, so that the rules they use make sense to them.

Which I feel can only end up over-complicating this debate. What we should be focusing on is answering the OP's query solely from a rules perspective, without inserting our own POV about how we feel the rule ought to work instead. Let him houserule his way if he does not like the final answer, rather than we doing the houseruling and trying to pass it off as canon.

For example, the warlock cannot take supernatural transformation since his abilities are technically derived from his class, even though his flavour suggests that his powers are "innate". You can argue until the cows come home about why he should be allowed to do so, but the fact remains that he cannot by a literal reading of the rules. If he is not happy about it, he can certainly rule otherwise. But we, as rules interpreters, should not claim the latter as RAW simply because we feel it "ought" to be the case.

There is no such thing as a caster that is neither arcane nor divine other than a campaign specific one. None of the Core nor any of the supplemental books addresses such a case at all. That is one of the important pieces of evidence to consider.

And the warlock is technically not a caster in the sense of the word. For instance, it does not benefit from practiced spellcaster (as clarified by the FAQ). It is merely treated as a spellcaster for all intents and purposes of interacting from a very narrow and specific list of benefits (all of which are scattered throughout CA), such as what prcs it may qualify for, what feats it can take and the like.

Here is the relevant entry (page27 for reference).

What effect would the Practiced Spellcaster feat (Complete Arcane, page 82) have on a warlock?

A strict reading of the feat’s benefit indicates that the warlock would gain no benefit from Practiced Spellcaster. The warlock is not a spellcasting class for normal purposes—the exception noted on page 18 of Complete Arcane applies only to prestige class benefits—and thus it could not be selected as the class to be affected by this feat.

This means that it is in fact, neither arcane or divine. Why it was included in complete arcane, I have no idea (perhaps the designers felt it covered a role similar to other arcane spellcasting classes?), nor do I feel it really matters in this context.

As such, my reply is, and has always been this: The warlock can emulate spells to meet the crafting requirements of magic items, and the nature of those spells (ie: arcane or divine) will depend on which he wants to replicate (typically, you will want to choose the lower lv version or the version without costly arcane material components to cut down on crafting costs). For instance, if the warlock12/chameleon2 wishes to scribe a scroll of identify, he can (and should) opt to emulate it as an oracle domain1 spell, rather than the wizard/sorc version (since the divine version does not require a 100gp pearl, and is thus that much cheaper).