D&D (2024) Warlock cantrips

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

I feel like someone thought it would make them feel more 'magical' if they couldn't accomplish anything without a discreet magical spell. Writing, handling a sword, having slightly more cantrips...

This is happening because we didn't push back on Familiars being a spell.

I don't mind familiars being a spell (although I don't need it to be) but writing in your book is a page too far.

 

[DnD Warlord]

so we playtested this. Our warlock had the familiar and the weapon pacts to start. She even went so far as to say she had sold shadow to a fey and gave half of her true name to a demon for the power (familiar was a small shadow fey, weapon was a demonic axe) and it wasn't really broken at all.

We just hit 3rd level and she took the fiend pact (like she has a choice only one in playtest) and said it was a devil now that she has entered into a temporary deal with.

So now when she 'hex' someone and they die a portion of there soul goes to the devil she made her alliance with.

 

[Charlaquin]

so we playtested this. Our warlock had the familiar and the weapon pacts to start. She even went so far as to say she had sold shadow to a fey and gave half of her true name to a demon for the power (familiar was a small shadow fey, weapon was a demonic axe) and it wasn't really broken at all.

I’m pretty sure you’re only supposed to get one of those.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I’m pretty sure you’re only supposed to get one of those.

Nah, just take the Book of Shadows and use that to take the other two

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m pretty sure you’re only supposed to get one of those.

Just realized @DnD Warlord was saying they were playtesting allowing warlocks to choose pact Cantrips with their cantrip slots

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

so we playtested this. Our warlock had the familiar and the weapon pacts to start. She even went so far as to say she had sold shadow to a fey and gave half of her true name to a demon for the power (familiar was a small shadow fey, weapon was a demonic axe) and it wasn't really broken at all.

We just hit 3rd level and she took the fiend pact (like she has a choice only one in playtest) and said it was a devil now that she has entered into a temporary deal with.

So now when she 'hex' someone and they die a portion of there soul goes to the devil she made her alliance with.

So I don't think it is necessarily "broken" to allow a warlock to select all the pact cantrips. But it is apparent that the intent is to introduce a choice to differentiate different playstyles.

After review, do you find value in the differentiation so that only one is chooseable, defining a single pact style, and a clarification can be made in later packet?

Or would you prefer that all warlocks can have all three pact cantrips?

 

[DnD Warlord]

After review, do you find value in the differentiation so that only one is chooseable, defining a single pact style, and a clarification can be made in later packet?

Or would you prefer that all warlocks can have all three pact cantrips?

We are still playing, but as is I see no reason not to let warlocks pick up the other pact cantrips. In fact me and 1 other player said as much in our feedback.

Maybe it worked out cause we only had 1 warlock, if we had multi that might have felt 'samey' and the one we had was RP her heart out with the price of her pacts, so that too might have made it okay.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

We are still playing, but as is I see no reason not to let warlocks pick up the other pact cantrips. In fact me and 1 other player said as much in our feedback.

Maybe it worked out cause we only had 1 warlock, if we had multi that might have felt 'samey' and the one we had was RP her heart out with the price of her pacts, so that too might have made it okay.

I totally understand and respect that point of view. Sometimes when I run a 1:1 game for my partner l like to let them "gestalt" and mix and match things or give them all the options of a thing, because they are the center of the story. I love that kind of house-rule play where the hero has more options. But I do think for RPG design purposes, I'd prefer the Pact choice to provide meaningful impact to the option and playstyle of the character.

 

[DnD Warlord]

I totally understand and respect that point of view. Sometimes when I run a 1:1 game for my partner l like to let them "gestalt" and mix and match things or give them all the options of a thing, because they are the center of the story. I love that kind of house-rule play where the hero has more options. But I do think for RPG design purposes, I'd prefer the Pact choice to provide meaningful impact to the option and playstyle of the character.

I disagree. I see no reason why the pact choice makes any difference. having 2 or even all three will still not be a major change.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I disagree. I see no reason why the pact choice makes any difference. having 2 or even all three will still not be a major change.

I'm not thinking about the individual character here. I don't think it's broken to allow. I'm thinking about design, and how it offers choices and creates different playstyles and focuses.