Mizzium Apparatus: What constitutes "Your class's spell List"?

[Damon_Tor]

To me, it seems very straight forward: Every spell list has the name of a class. The Wizard class has the Wizard Spell List, the Ranger class has the Ranger Spell List, the Sorcerer has the Sorcerer Spell List, and so on. There is no Fighter Spell List: a fighter who for some reason has access to a Spell List in some way shape or form (for example, an Eldrich Knight) cannot use the Mizzium Apparatus unless he is also a member of a class with a spell list. The same applies to an Arcane Trickster rogue. Or, for that matter, a Divine Soul Sorcerer as pertains to the Cleric spell list.

Again, this seems rather clear to me.

However, on these forums and elsewhere, I see it assumed that you can use the Apparatus to attempt to cast spells from any Spell List you have any sort of access to. Nobody seems to challenge this assumption when it's made. So could someone explain to me why this assumption seems to stand?

And if we assume class features like Arcane Trickster and Divine Soul allow the use of the Apparatus to cast whatever spells one desires from those spell lists, explain why the Arcane Initiate feat doesn't allow the Apparatus to freely cast spells from that spell list as well?

[Sigreid]

I'm mostly with you except Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight both call out the wizard list as being their list.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My understanding is that "your class's spell list" means that if you have levels in:

Barbarian -> No spell list
Bard -> "Bard" list. Magical secrets don't count because they're added to your personal list, not the class list.
Cleric -> "Cleric" list. Domain spells don't count because they're subclass features not class spells.
Druid -> "Druid" list. Land circle spells don't count.
Fighter (non-EK) -> No spell list.
Fighter (EK) -> "Wizard" spell list (all spells)
Paladin -> Paladin list, no oath spells
Ranger -> Ranger list, no bonus spells
Rogue (non-AT) -> No spell list
Rogue (AT) -> Wizard list
Sorcerer -> Sorcerer list
Warlock -> Warlock list, no pact spells but including mystic arcana
Wizard -> Wizard list.

I could see an argument to include the "bonus" spells, but not magical secrets, personally.

[Man_Over_Game]

A lot of it has to do with semantics. As Sigried said, Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight explicitly say they use the Wizard spell list as their own. On the other hand, Divine Soul does NOT say that, and it instead says you may choose to select spells from the Cleric list as your own, but not that you get the Cleric spell list. The difference is the same as reaching the same conclusion as someone else (Scenario A), or stealing their homework (Scenario B). Magic Initiate, Lore Bard, Ritual Caster all do similar things, where they gain the ability to cast spells from another class, but don't actually consider those spell lists as your own.

Otherwise, a Tomelock could technically have virtually every spell list accessible at level 4, which seems...odd.

[Millstone85]

The mizzium apparatus requires attunement by a sorcerer, warlock, or wizard.

This rules out single-classed EK and AT.

Now, I assume that if the character were an EK/sorcerer, AT/sorcerer, or cleric/sorcerer, they could only use the apparatus as a sorcerer. But I get that, by a strict reading of RAW, that would not necessarily be the case.

[Damon_Tor]

A lot of it has to do with semantics. As Sigried said, Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight explicitly say they use the Wizard spell list as their own.

But the Apparatus do not say "your spell list" is says "your class's spell list". There's a key word there.

[JackPhoenix]

Divine Soul doesn't give you access to the cleric list. It allows you to add selected cleric spells (and those cleric spells only) to your sorcerer spell list. "It becomes a sorcerer spell for you." Similar wording is present in land druid bonus spells, bard's magical secrets, cleric domains, paladin oath spells and warlock pact spells.

Magic Initiate doesn't say that.

[Serafina]

The only edge cases are these

- classes that use a spell list that is not their own (Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster)
However, this seems really easy to solve - just use the Wizard list. That's the easiest, fairest solution.


- cases where spells get added to a personal list, but not the "class list" (Magical Secrets, Domain spells, Circle Spells, Divine Soul spells etc.)
Name one situation where that actually matters? Every class right now that has such a feature uses either spells know (so you can cast the spell anyway), or gets the relevant spells as always-prepared. Right, there is one case where it can matter - Guild spells. And there it says "for you, the spells are added to the spell list of your spellcasting class". That's clear-cut wording, and whether they're on the list for anyone else shouldn't matter, they are for you.

Of course the more spells you allow the Mizzium Apparatus to cast, the more powerful it gets - but it's already a really powerful item, as are several other Ravnica-items. Making it accessible to Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters won't be more broken than it would be in the hand of any other character, and if you use this item but want to forbid the option to cast Guild spells with it I'm really questioning what you're doing.

[Citan]

Hey guys ;)

Thanks to you I got intrigued and finally laid eyes on that magic item.
Annnd...

Well...

Is it me or is this thing, COMPLETELY, UTTERLY, BEYOND STUPIDITY BROKEN whenever multiclass is allowed, by RAW (even if RAI is very intuitive)?

Step 1: check item, which says "The spell you choose must be on your class's spell list and of a level for which you have a spell slot, and you must provide the spell's components."
Step 2: instead of undertanding the intuitive way, completing "for which you have a spell slot" by "as provided only by this specific class", read it simply as "having effectively, among your available slots, one slot of the appropriate level" (disregarding whether you actually know spells of such level from any of you class).
Step 3: check multiclass rules: "Spell Slots. You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, and half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table."
Steap 4: pick one level in each and every fullcaster, just one level in Warlock, two in Paladin or Ranger if you really fancy either exclusive spells, and just finish taking levels in casters. Or pick both Paladin in Ranger if you really want to be the ultimate.
Spellcaster level: 20-1(Warlock)-1(if Paladin 2) -1(if Ranger 2) = 17th level caster.
17th level = 9th level slot.
Step 5: profit?

Congrats, you can know technically cast ANY 1st to 9th level spell of ANY AND EVERY CLASS.
Better than Wizard, Bard and Cleric all fused together.
Intelligence check is not that big a deal either: if you pick Bard (or Knowledge Cleric) as main while keeping INT high (or using a Headband of Intellect), between double proficiency, possibly Lucky feat or Diviner Portent or ally's Bend Luck / Bardic Inspiration / Bless / whatever, even a 28 DC check is within reason (max potent from yourself with 20 INT: 12+3+20, so 7th would be hard and 8th and 9th out of reach, but just one Guidance and a Bless can change chances significantly). You could cheese out of Simulacrum too (although that would be costly) by using its Bardic Inspiration.

Or you can "play safe" and replace that max caster level by Arcane Trickster 11 (so caster level still a respectable 3+8 = 11, access to 6th level spells including Warlock ones but excluding Paladin and Ranger), to ensure you always succeed (Reliable Talent means minimum result is 10+12+3 -because multiclass requirements I wouldn't expect high stats - still 25, so you auto-succeed on every cast)...
So you'd be a guy/gal that is extremely hard to detect (Stealth) and that could impose any debuff up to a 6th level one at disadvantage with Magical Ambush.
Yeah, right...

How the hell could WoTC start the engine on such a predictable train wreck???
When it would have been far enough (and possibly clearer in the first place) to state "you cannot use this item to cast a spell of a higher level than the spell of the highest level you know or can prepare in that class" or "for each class, you determine which level of spells you can use with this item based on levels you have in that class".
It's the first time I really find them sloppy on a writing...

I admit it's not *really* a big deal, since it's still the DM that controls what magic items PC gets ultimately, so it's very simple to just never make it appear in a campaign... But that's a shame that such an item would otherwise require a "session 0 ruling" to keep it in check.

[Cybren]

I admit it's not *really* a big deal, since it's still the DM that controls what magic items PC gets ultimately, so it's very simple to just never make it appear in a campaign... But that's a shame that such an item would otherwise require a "session 0 ruling" to keep it in check.
If one of your players is seriously considering taking a level in literally every spellcasting class, that's not really wotcs problem

[Sigreid]

Hey guys ;)

Thanks to you I got intrigued and finally laid eyes on that magic item.
Annnd...

Well...

Is it me or is this thing, COMPLETELY, UTTERLY, BEYOND STUPIDITY BROKEN whenever multiclass is allowed, by RAW (even if RAI is very intuitive)?

Step 1: check item, which says "The spell you choose must be on your class's spell list and of a level for which you have a spell slot, and you must provide the spell's components."
Step 2: instead of undertanding the intuitive way, completing "for which you have a spell slot" by "as provided only by this specific class", read it simply as "having effectively, among your available slots, one slot of the appropriate level" (disregarding whether you actually know spells of such level from any of you class).
Step 3: check multiclass rules: "Spell Slots. You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, and half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table."
Steap 4: pick one level in each and every fullcaster, just one level in Warlock, two in Paladin or Ranger if you really fancy either exclusive spells, and just finish taking levels in casters. Or pick both Paladin in Ranger if you really want to be the ultimate.
Spellcaster level: 20-1(Warlock)-1(if Paladin 2) -1(if Ranger 2) = 17th level caster.
17th level = 9th level slot.
Step 5: profit?

Congrats, you can know technically cast ANY 1st to 9th level spell of ANY AND EVERY CLASS.
Better than Wizard, Bard and Cleric all fused together.
Intelligence check is not that big a deal either: if you pick Bard (or Knowledge Cleric) as main while keeping INT high (or using a Headband of Intellect), between double proficiency, possibly Lucky feat or Diviner Portent or ally's Bend Luck / Bardic Inspiration / Bless / whatever, even a 28 DC check is within reason (max potent from yourself with 20 INT: 12+3+20, so 7th would be hard and 8th and 9th out of reach, but just one Guidance and a Bless can change chances significantly). You could cheese out of Simulacrum too (although that would be costly) by using its Bardic Inspiration.

Or you can "play safe" and replace that max caster level by Arcane Trickster 11 (so caster level still a respectable 3+8 = 11, access to 6th level spells including Warlock ones but excluding Paladin and Ranger), to ensure you always succeed (Reliable Talent means minimum result is 10+12+3 -because multiclass requirements I wouldn't expect high stats - still 25, so you auto-succeed on every cast)...
So you'd be a guy/gal that is extremely hard to detect (Stealth) and that could impose any debuff up to a 6th level one at disadvantage with Magical Ambush.
Yeah, right...

How the hell could WoTC start the engine on such a predictable train wreck???
When it would have been far enough (and possibly clearer in the first place) to state "you cannot use this item to cast a spell of a higher level than the spell of the highest level you know or can prepare in that class" or "for each class, you determine which level of spells you can use with this item based on levels you have in that class".
It's the first time I really find them sloppy on a writing...

I admit it's not *really* a big deal, since it's still the DM that controls what magic items PC gets ultimately, so it's very simple to just never make it appear in a campaign... But that's a shame that such an item would otherwise require a "session 0 ruling" to keep it in check.

This is a ruling admittedly, however; since it's a wizard, sorcerer or warlock item only and relies on an Arcana check I intend to call it as no matter what shenanigans you try with multi-classing only those three spell lists are usable.

It just makes sense to me that given attunement requirements, that would be the limit.

[Cybren]

The Divine Soul Sorcerer effectively has 2 lists. By RAW and RAI.

"When your Spellcasting feature lets you learn a sorcerer cantrip or a sorcerer spell of 1st level or higher, you can choose the new spell from the cleric spell list or the sorcerer spell list. "


It doesn't add Cleric Spells to Sorcerer List. It's effectively 2 lists to choose spells.

You missed the part where it literally says: "You must otherwise obey all the restrictions for selecting the spell, and it becomes a sorcerer spell for you."

[Citan]

If one of your players is seriously considering taking a level in literally every spellcasting class, that's not really wotcs problem
Funny how to try derision to deny facing the actual problem.

Even with just a classic Sorcerer/Warlock you can actually be more versatile than a Wizard or Druid.
You are making Bards's iconic feature completely useless.
By RAW, you can superceded a class's own limit, like Eldricht Knight which usually has a very restricted spell selection, with just a single level dip in Wizard.


Whether DM allows crazy multiclass fluff-wise or not is irrelevant. With initial 5e WoTC had made a great, truely impressive job at keeping the whole game in check balance-wise, even taking multiclassing and feats into account.
SCAG mostly kept that true, although weapon cantrips were signs of the start of a power creep.
Xanathar has been a definitive step up with some options being clearly above the power curve compared to other ones, although still manageable.

But this is a clear derailment. Even worse than the worst case of Wish actually. This should simply not have been published.


This is a ruling admittedly, however; since it's a wizard, sorcerer or warlock item only and relies on an Arcana check I intend to call it as no matter what shenanigans you try with multi-classing only those three spell lists are usable.

It just makes sense to me that given attunement requirements, that would be the limit.
I completely understand your reasoning and I may steal it if I had to manage that item in my games, but it just scales down the flaw from "galaxial" to "stellar".
Since it still means you could make a Sorcerer that has all spells from Sorcerer (already an extreme boost to the class) + Warlock + Wizard + possibly Cleric (if Divine Soul, depending on how you articulate RAW) for a measly 2 level dips.
And those are honestly manageable fluff-wise.

This is just written in a worse way that a tryout homebrew. This is very disappointing.
If at least it had been of the highest rarity or a steeper DC scaling, I could have understood...
As is, it's either a ban or a homebrewed variant at my tables, definitely.
And this is a guy that loves munchkinism and (occasional) ûberpower builds saying that...


You missed the part where it literally says: "You must otherwise obey all the restrictions for selecting the spell, and it becomes a sorcerer spell for you."
I understand your argument and I'd tend to agree, but I think his can be defended, considering it applies on all spells Sorcerer can ever learn when progressing in this class.
Yours is definitely RAI though, that's for sure. ^^

[Prince Vine]

This is just written in a worse way that a tryout homebrew. This is very disappointing.
If at least it had been of the highest rarity or a steeper DC scaling, I could have understood...
As is, it's either a ban or a homebrewed variant at my tables, definitely.
And this is a guy that loves munchkinism and (occasional) ûberpower builds saying that...

This isn't wrong in a vacuum but Ravnica is designed to be used with Ravnica. A super high magic world with major social partitions. A Mizzium Apparatus in the hands of anyone other than a decently well ranked/connected sorcerer or wizard of a particular organization is expected to be super rare (and possibly hunted). It is the same thing with people who had issues with the backgrounds, taken out of the situations they are intended for it seems overpowered (while yes, more options are always better I don't find a slightly expanded spell list to be broken, you still have the same number of picks).

It does put more work on the DM, but I think they decided to err on the side of allowing theoretical craziness that DMs and players have to agree on or mitigate than go the old paladin path of writing in the situational limitations mechanically.

[Misterwhisper]

This isn't wrong in a vacuum but Ravnica is designed to be used with Ravnica. A super high magic world with major social partitions. A Mizzium Apparatus in the hands of anyone other than a decently well ranked/connected sorcerer or wizard of a particular organization is expected to be super rare (and possibly hunted). It is the same thing with people who had issues with the backgrounds, taken out of the situations they are intended for it seems overpowered (while yes, more options are always better I don't find a slightly expanded spell list to be broken, you still have the same number of picks).

It does put more work on the DM, but I think they decided to err on the side of allowing theoretical craziness that DMs and players have to agree on or mitigate than go the old paladin path of writing in the situational limitations mechanically.

I am beginning to think JC had very little to do with the ravnica book and they just let the guys on the M:TG guys write it.

It is so mind numbingly overpowered to casters that it is like fan made crap.

[Sigreid]

I completely understand your reasoning and I may steal it if I had to manage that item in my games, but it just scales down the flaw from "galaxial" to "stellar".
Since it still means you could make a Sorcerer that has all spells from Sorcerer (already an extreme boost to the class) + Warlock + Wizard + possibly Cleric (if Divine Soul, depending on how you articulate RAW) for a measly 2 level dips.
And those are honestly manageable fluff-wise.



Or a generous person could assume they left it open to interpretation so that tables could interpret it the way that they want to. Some very narrowly, some going for it all.

If I played with a lot of strangers this might bother me more than it does. Currently I only play with friends I've played with for over a decade and we got all our baggage worked out already.

[Cybren]

It means, you use Cha Instead Wis.

Divine Soul Sorcerer effectively has 2 lists to choose new spells, explicitly.
"When your Spellcasting feature lets you learn a sorcerer cantrip or a sorcerer spell of 1st level or higher, you can choose the new spell from the cleric spell list or the sorcerer spell list. "


It couldn't be more explicit.

This is ridiculous. It's literally called a sorcerer spell. You're allowed to learn sorcerer spells but from a different list. You aren't gaining access to an entire other class list.

[Galithar]

This is ridiculous. It's literally called a sorcerer spell. You're allowed to learn sorcerer spells but from a different list. You aren't gaining access to an entire other class list.

Backing him up with Sage Advice:


https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/25/can-a-divine-soul-sorcerer-use-any-scroll-that-has-a-cleric-spell-on-it/

I personally disagree with this ruling but JC agrees that Divine Soul's only get to count cleric spells they have taken even though they have access to, and potential to cast, the entire list. To me for this ruling to make sense you should only ever be able to cast from scrolls if you've already learned/prepared the spell.

Either way the Mizzium Apparatus is, in my opinion, an asinine magic item. If you or your group are going to have issues ruling what should or shouldn't be castable with it, it should never see play at your table.

[HappyDaze]

As a side issue: The MA acts as an arcane focus for the wearer yet it specifically requires the wearer to have the material components of the spells it accesses. Perhaps this only applies to spells with a costly material component, but otherwise, it's kinda weird on this one.

[Chronos]

And for spells with an insignificant material component, an arcane focus is a valid component. That, at least, isn't a problem.

[Sigreid]

As a side issue: The MA acts as an arcane focus for the wearer yet it specifically requires the wearer to have the material components of the spells it accesses. Perhaps this only applies to spells with a costly material component, but otherwise, it's kinda weird on this one.

My interpretation would be that it is a focus for prepared spells, but if you're getting hinky, you need the components.

[JackPhoenix]

This is ridiculous. It's literally called a sorcerer spell. You're allowed to learn sorcerer spells but from a different list. You aren't gaining access to an entire other class list.

It's just Drako's new account again. Don't argue with him.


I personally disagree with this ruling but JC agrees that Divine Soul's only get to count cleric spells they have taken even though they have access to, and potential to cast, the entire list. To me for this ruling to make sense you should only ever be able to cast from scrolls if you've already learned/prepared the spell.

It uses the same logic every single off-list spell you get. Bards don't get to use any spell scroll just because their Magical Secrets allow them to nab spell from any class's list. Same with tomelocks.

[HappyDaze]

And for spells with an insignificant material component, an arcane focus is a valid component. That, at least, isn't a problem.

I would think that the wording here makes the specific (you need to provide the components) override the general (this is an implement and implements can be used to replace components). Otherwise, what is the point of mentioning that components are needed?

[Prince Vine]

I am beginning to think JC had very little to do with the ravnica book and they just let the guys on the M:TG guys write it.

It is so mind numbingly overpowered to casters that it is like fan made crap.

Not completely wrong, especially given that as a setting it theoretically could/should surpass Eberron in an everyone (important/interesting) does magic way. It is a setting where magic suffuses EVERYTHING. Magic research is a big deal, construction is done in a way to create magic glyphs in the architecture, food and animals are created magically, cops have magic wands and magic ghost-traps, every courtroom uses zone of truth. It is definitely a caster focused world, especially the magic gear for special agents from the guild of magic engineering. It is a taste thing, much like if you don't like psionics you will probably not like most of a Dark Sun book.

I was legitimately surprised backgrounds (or some other mechanic) didn't give everyone a variant of the magic initiate feat at creation.


All that aside, given that it IS the Izzet, I would (will probably) crank the failure chance on that thing up a bit, but I also don't allow much breaking of the factions' ideology for mechanical benefit. Not really any Izzet clerics or Golgari warlocks running around for example.

[Kadesh]

What classes do you have? What spell lists do they use?

Those are your classes spell lists. RAW.

[Chronos]

I don't know; I wouldn't be too surprised to see an Izzet tempest cleric (or maybe even light or knowledge). And you could probably find an appropriate archfey patron for a Golgari warlock. Though a life cleric is probably Selesnya, and a fiend warlock is almost certainly Rakdos.

[Sception]

Ye, golgari fey (think unseelie) or undying or maybe even hexblade depending on if/how you refluff it for ravnica warlocks make plenty of in-setting narrative sense. The only reason to disallow golgari warlocks is mechanical, not narrative. And if you put some sensible hard limits on resting (ie, no more than one long rest per in game day, no more than two short rests per long rest), then warlocks with animate dead aren't a mechanical problem either.

Otherwise, I'd also be inclined to say that eldritch knights and arcane tricksters get to count wizard as their class spell list, though I can see the opposing RAW argument. I'm not sure why allowing that would be a problem with the apparatus, though, as EKs and ATs can't attune it without multiclassing a 'real' caster class first anyway, and EKs/ATs who multiclass full caster are probably multiclassing wizard anyway. And while multiclasses between wizard and sorcerer get a lot out of this, each classes casting stat is the other's primary dump stat, so it's kind of a not great multiclass combo to begin with, and I'm not going to begrudge such a hot mess whatever power they do manage to stumble into. Sorcerer/Warlock is actually a good multiclass combo, but in that case the spell slots of those classes don't stack, so such a character isn't doing anything unreasonable anyway.

You can maybe get something weird out of this for, say, a sorcerer/bard? I guess? But that's not enough more power on a strong enough base for me to personally care about it.

As per divine sorcerers, I'd personally go with the interpretation that cleric spells they choose as known count as being on the sorcerer class list for them, since the feature says they count as sorcerer spells, but cleric spells they haven't yet selected as known don't.

[Prince Vine]

I don't know; I wouldn't be too surprised to see an Izzet tempest cleric (or maybe even light or knowledge). And you could probably find an appropriate archfey patron for a Golgari warlock. Though a life cleric is probably Selesnya, and a fiend warlock is almost certainly Rakdos.
I have to run pre-guildpact collapse (just because I have that lore on hand without extra research) and I don't recall any real Patrons running around much beyond Rakdos. Definitely leaning hard on book recommendations but also not using Nephalim as a patron, more of a bestial intelligence force of destruction, which they always seemed depicted as.

I am also generally a fan of choices coming with limited options. I have a whole run of backgrounds in a homebrew that are the only ones with access to certain fighting styles but those same backgrounds can't be wizards or sorcerers, for example

I may have missed a lot in not looking at the later two blocks.

[Millstone85]

I don't know; I wouldn't be too surprised to see an Izzet tempest cleric (or maybe even light or knowledge). And you could probably find an appropriate archfey patron for a Golgari warlock. Though a life cleric is probably Selesnya, and a fiend warlock is almost certainly Rakdos.
I have to run pre-guildpact collapse (just because I have that lore on hand without extra research) and I don't recall any real Patrons running around much beyond Rakdos. Definitely leaning hard on book recommendations but also not using Nephalim as a patron, more of a bestial intelligence force of destruction, which they always seemed depicted as.GGtR counts "a warlock with the Archfey (Mat'Selesnya) as a patron" among typical religious leaders in the Selesnya Conclave. I would interpret this as a character who was taught and empowered by a voda, perhaps Trostani herself, but couldn't truly commune with the Worldsoul.

I also think that:

The Boros Legion would have warlocks of the Celestial (Aurelia).
The Golgari Swarm would have warlocks of the Undying (Jarad or another lich) and the Archfey.
The Orzhov Syndicate would have warlocks of the Undying (Obzedat) and the Fiend (deathpact angel).

[HappyDaze]

GGtR counts "a warlock with the Archfey (Mat'Selesnya) as a patron" among typical religious leaders in the Selesnya Conclave. I would interpret this as a character who was taught and empowered by a voda, perhaps Trostani herself, but couldn't truly commune with the Worldsoul.

I also think that:

The Boros Legion would have warlocks of the Celestial (Aurelia).
The Golgari Swarm would have warlocks of the Undying (Jarad or another lich) and the Archfey.
The Orzhov Syndicate would have warlocks of the Undying (Obzedat) and the Fiend (deathpact angel).


Deathpact Angels are still Celestials, not Fiends.

[Sception]

yeah, orzhov would have Undying and Celestial. The members of the Ghost Council also make a good substitution for the default hexblade patrons, but that's more a homebrew lore substitution rather than a direct translation.

But yeah, there are enough powerful semi-feyesque blends of natural and supernatural 'green' power amid the Golgari to strongly justify fey warlocks there. I do not see a reasonable narrative reason to refuse it. Mechanical reason, sure, if you don't want to put limits on short rests per long rest, but narratively any guild with green in it's color pair should reasonably fit in most any naturey or fey themed class or subclass. The darker inherent theming of a warlock is also a good fit for the black side of golgari's color pair, so... yeah, fey warlocks should be a fine thematic fit.

[Millstone85]

Deathpact Angels are still Celestials, not Fiends.I knew I would get that answer.

Yes, they are lawful evil celestials that claim people's souls as indentured spirits, forever or until the angel needs to regenerate.

[HappyDaze]

I knew I would get that answer.

Yes, they are lawful evil celestials that claim people's souls as indentured spirits, forever or until the angel needs to regenerate.

So, in other words, not Fiends. The Celestial patron allows for evil warlocks, and those most likely serve evil celestials--like deathpact angels.

[Millstone85]

So, in other words, not Fiends.Yup, totally not fiends. No sir.

Seriously, how does an angel who has fallen all the way to evil stay a celestial? Zariel sure ain't a celestial no more.

I think they kept celestial because Ravnica only has demons, and this is more of a devil archetype.


The Celestial patron allows for evil warlocks, and those most likely serve evil celestials--like deathpact angels.Does it? Evil warlocks on a path to redemption, perhaps, like a good warlock could struggle under a fiendish pact.

[Serafina]

So, in other words, not Fiends. The Celestial patron allows for evil warlocks, and those most likely serve evil celestials--like deathpact angels.Just because the patron is called "Fiend" doesn't mean it absolutely has to represent Fiends.

Look at what the Fiend Patron does:
- you get stronger (temporary hitpoints) from killing opponents. This fits pretty well with Orzhov Angels, which would certainly encourage their servants to do such things. Orzhov even famously has life-drain effects, so this fits really well.
- your pact with your patron can alter fate in your favor. This is pretty agnostic - it can fit onto any patron really - so it fits with Orzhov too. You're just taking on some additional debt, to be paid off through service.
- You get more resilient through damage resistance. And, surprise surprise, Orzhov did have some "Protection from Color" effects in it's card history, so this fits too!
- Hurl through Hell - say, sending them into exile? This is very much an Orzhov thing too.
- you get some spells that impede and command. Very Orzhov-fitting
- you get a bunch of spells that deal with fire. Now these do fit badly because Orzhov never really god burn-spells, or spells that dealt with fire. But hey, Celestial gets Sacred Flame, Flaming Sphere, Wall of Fire and Flame Strike too, so you have to do some flavor-adjustment anyway. Make it more ghostly fire.

And when you contrast and compare whether the Celestial Pact fits better with Orzhov:
- it's arguably more about blasting than Fiend, getting a relevant cantrip and Charisma-to-damage
- it does a lot of healing, which does fir with Orzhov (they're a church
- they also get damage resistances, so that's a wash
- spells don't really fit better either

So at the end of the day, the only argument for why one pact fits better is their name - but why stifle creativity like that?

[Sception]

If we're skipping default fluff and basing these things on mechanical fit, then the obvious warlock pact for Orzhov isn't celestial or fiend, it's hexblade, what with the focus on curses, including a lifedrain element, and especially the bit about forcing the spirits of a creature you slay into a day of post-life indentured servitude.