D&D 5E Warlock Clarification

[Digitalnamshub]

Pact of the Tome - "When you gain this feature, choose three cantrips from any class’s spell list." Looking around the internet it seems everyone takes the view that the cantrips can be chosen from any list (1 from Wizard, 1 from Bard and 1 from Cleric as an example) and are not confined to one list, as is required in the Ritual Caster Feat. Is this view because the wording "Choose one of the following classes: bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard. You must choose your spells from that class’s spell list" is NOT include in the Pact description? Is it spelled out more clearly somewhere else? Is it wishful thinking? The phrase "Class's list" which is singular possessive is used in each instance and might imply you can only choose from one list.


Book of Ancient Secrets - "Choose two 1st-level spells that have the ritual tag from any class’s spell list." Same thing here. Is it the lack of the Ritual Caster wording that leads everyone to believe you can mix and match from any list? Is it clarified somewhere? Or by a developer? While there is the restriction of actually finding the ritual spells, it does seem very powerful compared to Ritual Caster.


Thanks in advance!
DN

 

[Thyrwyn]

I would not read it as restricting choice to the list associated with one class.

1. how would it have to be worded to indicate that it was not limited to one class?

2. why would it need to be limited to only one class? Or, what does not limiting it break?

 

[Uller]

I've never really thought about it before. But I guess in my case when a rule is ambiguous I go with the broadest definition possible unless it is clearly detrimental to everyone's enjoyment of the game. To me, if they had meant for it to work like Ritual Caster, then they would have worded it like Ritual Caster. If a kid came trick or treating to my door and I said "choose two pieces of candy from any basket" and I had three baskets with different sorts of candy I would expect some kids to choose two pieces from two different baskets. If I wanted them to choose two from the same basket I'd say "pick a basket and take two pieces of candy from it."

 

[jgsugden]

This is one of those 'ask your DM, accept the answer and move on' situations. Thinking about the minutia like this is a highway to nowhere.

 

[Digitalnamshub]

I would not read it as restricting choice to the list associated with one class.

1. how would it have to be worded to indicate that it was not limited to one class?

"...any classes's lists" (currently reads 'class's list') - because that is the plural possessive form of the phrase. I am assuming the book was edited by someone who understood English grammar better then me, but I'm fairly certain that is the correct form to indicate plural possessive; many many different classes different lists. But it is obvious there is a lot of ambiguity and mistakes in the book. Such as the quick start spell given to Warlocks that Warlocks can't even take....

2. why would it need to be limited to only one class? Or, what does not limiting it break?

I think the thought is RAI is broken. Meaning, Ritual Caster is limited because the intention was to give a spell caster a secondary focus of ritual study. Wizard magic is much different the Druidic magic in flavor and theme. The same thing could be said to apply here. Flavor is reinforced by a mechanic. Which arguably was one of the main focus' of 5e. RP over min/max.

 

[Digitalnamshub]

If a kid came trick or treating to my door and I said "choose two pieces of candy from any basket" and I had three baskets with different sorts of candy I would expect some kids to choose two pieces from two different baskets. If I wanted them to choose two from the same basket I'd say "pick a basket and take two pieces of candy from it."

To make the analogy percise I think it would need to be:

"Choose two pieces of candy from any basket's inventory." - which could imply you only get to choose from one basket

basket's = class's
inventory = list

as opposed to the above reply I made. Any baskets' inventories. Both Basket and inventory now being plural.

Here is the ironic thing: I am playing the Warlock and want rituals from many lists I am asking to convince my DM who is on the fence, and hope by arguing his point I come to understand his POV better, and get responses that help clarify to him, my POV.

It would have been nice if they had said something like "Mix and Match! Take what you like! Any ritual is up for grabs!" or something less ambiguous

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

"...any classes's lists" (currently reads 'class's list') - because that is the plural possessive form of the phrase. I am assuming the book was edited by someone who understood English grammar better then me, but I'm fairly certain that is the correct form to indicate plural possessive; many many different classes different lists.

I would vote the plural possessive as unnecessary and bad writing. From my perspective, the way it's written is exactly how I would write it if I intended you to choose freely.

HTH.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

5e Rules Intent Philosophy: If a rule is unclear, go with the option that is more fun and permissive for the player.

 

[Digitalnamshub]

5e Rules Intent Philosophy: If a rule is unclear, go with the option that is more fun and permissive for the player.

That should be true of any game. The purpose of a game is to have fun.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Have to agree with Uller and others. Given that they already have perfectly good phrasing in the game under Ritual Caster, the fact that they choose not to use that wording says to me that the intent was likely different.

Besides, when you take Ritual Caster, you're modeling a second path of study. The warlock pact boons are powers granted you by your patron. No reason your Queen Mab, Mephistopheles, or Yog-Sothoth would limit these (fairly minor) magics to those bounded by one mortal (and, let's be honest, largely arbitrary) means of categorization.