Have the writers forgotten about Celestail Warlocks?

[somethingrandom]

It seams like the writers wrote the discription and mechanics of the Celestail Warlock in chapter 1 of Xanathar's and then forgot about them.
There seams to be very few Warlock spells particularly higher level ones that do not seem thematically inappropraite for a
Celestial Warlock.

[Dr. Cliché]

Quite honestly, I think the Celestial Warlock is a subclass that should never have existed in the first place.

To my mind at least, the Warlock always seemed to be based on pacts with powerful beings that are, at best, neutral (with a great many being outright evil). Hence why most of their magic - especially their unique spells - has a dark or nefarious feel to it.

If you want a pact with a being in the upper planes, we've already got Clerics and Paladins. :smalltongue:

[Chaos Jackal]

Thing is, the "thematically appropriate" spells for a celestial warlock are there. In the subclass bonus spells.

The main list for the class is about the entirety of the class, not for each subclass. A sun and rainbows spell might be fitting for a celestial warlock, but there's a whole bunch of grimdark patrons for which the spell would make no sense.

And naturally, subclasses which purposefully go against the typical flavor of their main class are going to find spells and main class abilities less thematic.

[diplomancer]

Quite honestly, I think the Celestial Warlock is a subclass that should never have existed in the first place.

To my mind at least, the Warlock always seemed to be based on pacts with powerful beings that are, at best, neutral (with a great many being outright evil). Hence why most of their magic - especially their unique spells - has a dark or nefarious feel to it.

If you want a pact with a being in the upper planes, we've already got Clerics and Paladins. :smalltongue:

I think one thing in common with most warlocks is the adversarial (or at least neutral/indifferent) relationship with the Patron. This also thematically sets them apart from Clerics and Paladins.

So how do you do it with a being of the upper planes? By being a bad guy (or at least someone who did something terrible in the past), and is now being "redeemed", willy-nilly, by his Patron; the Celestial Warlock I'm playing with right now did something terrible that resulted in the accidental death of a childhood friend, long forsaken for more exciting, criminal friends; childhood friend's last words were wishing that I'd grow a conscience. Boom! Celestial Patron that's now interested in keeping me on the straight and narrow.

That said, I think the most "problematic spell level" is 4, which has basically Banishment and Dimension Door, that's it; at higher levels, you always have at least 3 or 4 appropriate spells.


As to appropriate spells for Celestial patrona published AFTER Xanathar's- like some in Tasha's might be- that did not get into the general Warlock spell list, just talk with your DM about it

[Amnestic]

Does seem a bit odd they got a slew of summon spells (fey, undead, shadowspawn, aberration, fiend) but not celestial as an option in tasha's.

[MaxWilson]

Does seem a bit odd they got a slew of summon spells (fey, undead, shadowspawn, aberration, fiend) but not celestial as an option in tasha's.

Since Expanded Spell List is a feature of individual PCs, not of warlocks in general, and since the DM has to sign off on it anyway, why not just talk to the DM about customizing it shortly further and adding Summon Celestial and Conjure Celestial instead of Summon Fiend/etc.? I mean, if you're going to assume that you're getting stuff from the DM, why not assume that you're getting stuff that's thematically appropriate?

[diplomancer]

This is really not something that is up to developers/designers, but the one issue I see with spells like Summon Celestial not being on the list are the automized character building tools from the likes of Fantasy Grounds, Roll20, and DNDBeyond. DND beyond is trivially easy to Homebrew it so your character can access it, I don't know how easy it is to do in on the other platforms, though.

[Amnestic]

Since Expanded Spell List is a feature of individual PCs, not of warlocks in general, and since the DM has to sign off on it anyway, why not just talk to the DM about customizing it shortly further and adding Summon Celestial and Conjure Celestial instead of Summon Fiend/etc.? I mean, if you're going to assume that you're getting stuff from the DM, why not assume that you're getting stuff that's thematically appropriate?

I understand your point.

But

There's a difference between saying "hey DM, I think [spell that's not on my list] is thematically appropriate, can we add it?" and "hey DM, I think [spell that's offered as an optional addition to my class in an official book] is thematically appropriate, can we add it?"

And yeah, I think in this specific instance, a celestial lock saying 'can I get summon celestial plz' is probably not going to be any worse off than a fiend lock asking for summon fiend, but just in general, the expanded spell lists of Tasha's are (by nature) more likely to get approved by a DM than bringing them a rando spell, in general.

[MrStabby]

I think it is a persistant problem with 5th edition that too much of the class content (for pretty much every class) got bolted on to the class and too little to the subclass. It leads to problems like this where if the warlock spell list was a lot narrower but the Pact lists were a lot broader we would see a set of spells that would make a lot more sense.

We also run into issues where books are released in sequence and it might make a lot of sense for a subclass to get a particular spell but as the spell was released after the subclass, no luck there.




My approach as DM is to just have the player describe the character they want to play and I can swap some stuff out as needed. So in this example a celestial warlock could pick up sunbeam, sunburst, possibly heal (depending on the other classes in play), crown of stars, conjure celestial. Even better come up with bespoke spells for the character based on what they want to do.

[Unoriginal]

Seriously, though, can you imagine any Warlock worth their salt (or their other chemical compounds) going "power over Celestials? Nah I don't want that."?

[MaxWilson]

I understand your point.

But

There's a difference between saying "hey DM, I think [spell that's not on my list] is thematically appropriate, can we add it?" and "hey DM, I think [spell that's offered as an optional addition to my class in an official book] is thematically appropriate, can we add it?"

And yeah, I think in this specific instance, a celestial lock saying 'can I get summon celestial plz' is probably not going to be any worse off than a fiend lock asking for summon fiend, but just in general, the expanded spell lists of Tasha's are (by nature) more likely to get approved by a DM than bringing them a rando spell, in general.

Note: it's an optional addition to an individual PC (kind of like DMG Chapter 7 charms/blessings /bonus feats/bonus skills). It's explicitly NOT a campaign-wide automatic addition to the class, nor is it tied to level except as a prerequisite--a DM might let you choose one of them as a capstone or a tier capstone, for example.

That gives us:

"Hey DM, I think [spell that's offered as an optional addition to my PC in an official book] is NOT thematically appropriate, can you give me [similar spell] instead?"

[Amnestic]

Note: it's an optional addition to an individual PC (kind of like DMG Chapter 7 charms/blessings /bonus feats/bonus skills). It's explicitly NOT a campaign-wide automatic addition to the class, nor is it tied to level except as a prerequisite--a DM might let you choose one of them as a capstone or a tier capstone, for example.

On rereading Tasha's, I think you're not right here.

The wording is as follows:


You gain class features in the Player's Handbook when you reach certain levels in your class. This section offers additional features that you can gain as a warlock. Unlike the features in the Player's Handbook, you don't gain the features here automatically. Consulting with your DM, you decide whether to gain a feature in this section if you meet the level requirement noted in the feature's description. These features can be selected separately from one another; you can use some, all, or none of them.

Empasis mine. Yes, it says 'consulting with your DM', but the stress is still on the player's input not the DM's. They're not in the DM tools section of the book (chapter 4), they're in the character options section with explicit reference to the player deciding.

[Jon talks a lot]

Hey Max, I've seen you all over the DND forum, and that has had me wondering about your signature often. Even though you are everywhere, I've never actually seen you use the purple text. Do you ever use it?

[stoutstien]

Since Expanded Spell List is a feature of individual PCs, not of warlocks in general, and since the DM has to sign off on it anyway, why not just talk to the DM about customizing it shortly further and adding Summon Celestial and Conjure Celestial instead of Summon Fiend/etc.? I mean, if you're going to assume that you're getting stuff from the DM, why not assume that you're getting stuff that's thematically appropriate?

IMO. Thematic spells lists should have been the standard rules rather than fixed spell lists. Subclass list the same way.

[diplomancer]

On rereading Tasha's, I think you're not right here.

The wording is as follows:


Empasis mine. Yes, it says 'consulting with your DM', but the stress is still on the player's input not the DM's. They're not in the DM tools section of the book (chapter 4), they're in the character options section with explicit reference to the player deciding.

Good luck adding any of the optional features in the optional book if your DM says "no" when you consult with him (and this is not even mentioning that, in English, "you" can also be plural).

[MaxWilson]

On rereading Tasha's, I think you're not right here.

The wording is as follows:


Empasis mine. Yes, it says 'consulting with your DM', but the stress is still on the player's input not the DM's. They're not in the DM tools section of the book (chapter 4), they're in the character options section with explicit reference to the player deciding.

Hmmm. You might be right.

[Amnestic]

Good luck adding any of the optional features in the optional book if your DM says "no" when you consult with him (and this is not even mentioning that, in English, "you" can also be plural).

Yeah, thanks, I mentioned that already. I was objecting to framing them in the same was as DMG blessings/boons/charms as 'rewards' instead of 'a thing my character can just do', which seemed to be what MaxWilson was saying.

[diplomancer]

Yeah, thanks, I mentioned that already. I was objecting to framing them in the same was as DMG blessings/boons/charms as 'rewards'instead of 'a thing my character can just do', which seemed to be what MaxWilson was saying.

Yes, in this you are right, definitely not like blessings/boons/charms, which are supposed to be rewards for a character's accomplishment. Those extra class features are a simple matter of agreement between DM and Player, no story reasons necessary; but it's still up to both DM and Player to decide to add them to any character.

[MaxWilson]

Hey Max, I've seen you all over the DND forum, and that has had me wondering about your signature often. Even though you are everywhere, I've never actually seen you use the purple text. Do you ever use it?

It depends on the discussion context. E.g. in a thread on Barbarians I might remark in passing that in 5E's ruleset, melee warriors are weaker than archer warriors, in order to not sidetrack discussion. Or I might say priests don't fit any fantasy archetypes and shouldn't be in D&D except as a wizard variant.

[Thunderous Mojo]

One aspect of 5e that I think tends to get overlooked is while the use of mechanics for different themed characters may be the same, the 'In World/ In Character aspects' can be wildly different.

In Eberron, a Celestial Warlock that has a Couatl Patron, (that has retained their identity after merging physically with the Silver Flame), is going to roleplay using a Greater Summon Demon spell very differently from a Fiend Patron Warlock that serves a Lord of Dust.

Just as the Shadow in the Flame, has learned things from the Silver Flame, perhaps the Silver Flame has learned and passed on how to bind demons to their disciples. Maybe the demons the the Celestial Warlock summons are minor demons that are also bound within the Silver Flame....The Celestial Lock is just using their labor on a prison furlough..ala the movie 48 Hours.

A Smart-Alleck Chasme, role played by the player could very well earn you Inspiration.

Likewise, a spell such as Sickening Radiance can be reskined into Awesome Radiance....many Earth mythologies incorporate the idea that unfiltered Divine Power destroys material matter.

Even if a DM won't allow thematic spell list changes, such as adding Summon Celestial or Planar Ally, many DM's would allow cosmetic changes, even before TCoE.

[Witty Username]

It seams like the writers wrote the discription and mechanics of the Celestail Warlock in chapter 1 of Xanathar's and then forgot about them.
There seams to be very few Warlock spells particularly higher level ones that do not seem thematically inappropraite for a
Celestial Warlock.
I have never heard of a Celestail warlock.:smalltongue:

I think it is more indicative of the problem of trying to define differences between themes with a short list of spells. It seems like their thought is that you only need 10 thematically appropriate spells.


Likewise, a spell such as Sickening Radiance can be reskined into Awesome Radiance....many Earth mythologies incorporate the idea that unfiltered Divine Power destroys material matter.

Isn't material matter just matter?

Reskinning can get you places, also warlock has a lot of theme neutral spells like hypnotic pattern, banishment, dimension door etc.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

It seams like the writers wrote the discription and mechanics of the Celestail Warlock in chapter 1 of Xanathar's and then forgot about them.
There seams to be very few Warlock spells particularly higher level ones that do not seem thematically inappropraite for a
Celestial Warlock.

I can agree that the warlock does need a few more selections for the higher level spells but also the design of 5e so far has not to been pouring out the spells for individual classes so as to avoid content bloat. Also you want to talk about forgetting subclasses then that is the Undying Patron for the warlock.

[Kvess]

As a DM, I always enjoy having a warlock at the table.

I'm currently running a campaign with a warlock — the player knows the character is a Chain Pact Warlock with a Fiend patron, but doesn't know anything else about the being's identity aside from the fact that it's some sort of fiend who appeared in published material. His character does not know that he serves a fiend and the rest of the party does not know what flavour of patron the warlock serves.

The patron has appeared to the character in dreams as an old woman with feathered wings and scabby, burnt skin, and has a genuine interest in ending the Death Curse in Chult. I intend to keep her nature ambiguous to the rest of the party for as long as possible, and I am using her to feed the party new quest objectives.

If I had a Celestial Warlock at the table, I would want to give the players a reason to be distrustful of their patron. I think you could get there by asking a question: Why is a Celestial being offering power to a mortal independently of the gods?

Maybe this is a renegade Celestial taking matters into their own hands, skirting whatever arrangement the gods have that prevents them or their minions from interfering directly. Maybe this is a Celestial who has seen something that made it have a crisis of faith. Maybe Celestials were told explicitly not to enter into pacts with Mortals, because that kind of unmediated divine power shouldn't be directly wielded by corruptible beings.

That could account for a bit of strangeness.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Isn't material matter just matter?.

That was a speech to text transcription error, that I failed to catch, (replied to this thread moments before a D&D session), but the short answer is no.

In Greek Myths there is a distinct difference between Divine Matter and Mundane or Earthly (Material Plane) matter.

Hera tricked the mortal Semele into requesting from Zeus the 'boon' of seeing Zeus not clothed in a mundane form but in his Divine Form.
A mortal that sees an 'unfiltered' divine form dies. So, I do indeed think there is a categorical difference between mortal matter and divine matter.

Zeus once impregnated a 'lover' by turning into a rain of gold, and seeped through the roof and absorbed into her skin. Technically, this was still a 'mortal form' though a highly magical form.

(The story also lends itself to a somewhat crude joke..that I will leave unstated).

[Reynaert]

Zeus once impregnated a 'lover' by turning into a rain of gold, and seeped through the roof and absorbed into her skin. Technically, this was still a 'mortal form' though a highly magical form.

(The story also lends itself to a somewhat crude joke..that I will leave unstated).

It's quite plausible that that particular myth actually started out as that joke.

[Azuresun]

I think one thing in common with most warlocks is the adversarial (or at least neutral/indifferent) relationship with the Patron. This also thematically sets them apart from Clerics and Paladins.

So how do you do it with a being of the upper planes? By being a bad guy (or at least someone who did something terrible in the past), and is now being "redeemed", willy-nilly, by his Patron; the Celestial Warlock I'm playing with right now did something terrible that resulted in the accidental death of a childhood friend, long forsaken for more exciting, criminal friends; childhood friend's last words were wishing that I'd grow a conscience. Boom! Celestial Patron that's now interested in keeping me on the straight and narrow.

I think Jean val Jean, from Les Miserables is a good model for a Celestial Warlock. No magical powers, of course, but he's a reformed criminal who was given a second chance not to rot in jail, on condition that he devote his life to doing God's work. And it's not easy for him! He ends up having to uproot his life twice, caring for the daughter of a woman he barely knew, risking his life in a struggle that he doesn't have a stake in and eventually living out his last days in self-imposed exile.

[thorr-kan]

Quite honestly, I think the Celestial Warlock is a subclass that should never have existed in the first place.

To my mind at least, the Warlock always seemed to be based on pacts with powerful beings that are, at best, neutral (with a great many being outright evil). Hence why most of their magic - especially their unique spells - has a dark or nefarious feel to it.

If you want a pact with a being in the upper planes, we've already got Clerics and Paladins. :smalltongue:
Character sincerely wants power to do good, doesn't have the WIS chops to be a Cleric or the alignment to be a paladin.

Reward for service from a being who isn't worshipped.

[KorvinStarmast]

Quite honestly, I think the Celestial Warlock is a subclass that should never have existed in the first place. It's the flip side of the coin of the Fiend Patron warlock.

My pact of the Tome Celstial Warlock is a joy to play.

Our party has no cleric; she's a dedicated servant of a particular deity/patron who 'heard the call' as it were. It works.

Thing is, the "thematically appropriate" spells for a celestial warlock are there. In the subclass bonus spells. Yep. It is fun to cast wall of fire, and then on the next turns repel various creatures into it with repelling blast, if need be.

[king_steve]

Character sincerely wants power to do good, doesn't have the WIS chops to be a Cleric or the alignment to be a paladin.

Reward for service from a being who isn't worshipped.

Side note, just wanted to point out that in 5e paladin's don't have alignment restrictions per say. They take an oath as part of their subclass, which can be broken and result in said paladin becoming an Oathbreaker but that would be up to the DM to decide. The oath is kinda almost but not exactly an alignment restriction.


It would be kind of interesting to homebrew the spell list for each subclass to 9th level. I've often wondered why the subclass spell lists stop at 5th level spells in general. The only exception I can think of at the moment is the Genie Warlock having access to Wish.

[Valmark]

It would be kind of interesting to homebrew the spell list for each subclass to 9th level. I've often wondered why the subclass spell lists stop at 5th level spells in general. The only exception I can think of at the moment is the Genie Warlock having access to Wish.

Maybe it was too unbalancing to increase the versatility of higher level spells. That's kind of the only thing I can think of.

What I really don't understand is why the warlock's ones aren't automatically known while everybody else's is. If I'm not wrong they also have the smallest number of spells known in general.

[P. G. Macer]

Maybe it was too unbalancing to increase the versatility of higher level spells. That's kind of the only thing I can think of.

What I really don't understand is why the warlock's ones aren't automatically known while everybody else's is. If I'm not wrong they also have the smallest number of spells known in general.

If you look strictly at the “Spells Known” table for the class, it’s tied with the sorcerer for least number of spells known among full-casters (though the PHB Ranger subclasses and the one third-casters have even fewer spells known than them). However, I included the strict-look approach clause for a reason, which is that Mystic Arcanum spells do not count against a warlock’s spells known, so not counting Invocations (which is a whole other can of worms), a Level 20 Warlock knows 19 spells, but can only cast 4 of them once per long rest, while a Sorcerer has 15.
I’m with OP on Celestial Warlocks getting the short end of the stick with spell selection. I do, however, think that WotC has given at least one spell intended primarily for Celestials to the general warlock list, and that is wall of light. Unlike the flavor of Sickening Radiance, WoL lacks the sinister, eldritch connotations of being the “dread light of dread stars” à la 4e Star Warlocks, which the GOOlock is the successor to. I mean, you could reflavor Wall of Light to have the same aesthetic, but you can reflavor a lot of things, and while WoL isn’t outright Holy™, as evidenced by being on the Wizard spell list, it does work rather well with Celestial Warlocks, and less so with other Patrons.

[MaxWilson]

Side note, just wanted to point out that in 5e paladin's don't have alignment restrictions per say. They take an oath as part of their subclass, which can be broken and result in said paladin becoming an Oathbreaker but that would be up to the DM to decide. The oath is kinda almost but not exactly an alignment restriction.

Heh. Now I want to see a Chaotic Evil Devotion Paladin who originally swore his oaths as part of a con job (e.g. trying to get away from creditors pursuing him, stumbled across an order of holy knights on their way to prayers and infiltrated their ranks), not knowing they would take, and now keeps his oaths purely out of external motivations (e.g. paranoid schizophrenia, he's convinced that Someone is watching him at all times, ready to smite him if he deviates). He's constantly grumbling about the Good Old Days when he could do whatever he wanted.

Catchphrase: "Bad Things will happen if I..."

"Bad Things will happen if I just cut your throat and dump your body in the river, so instead I'm going to tie you up and leave you some food. Waste of food if you ask me. Hope a crocodile eats you."

"Bad Things will happen if we don't give that staff back to its rightful owner. With any luck he'll turn out to be already dead with no heirs so we can keep it."

"I hate kids, but Bad Things will happen if we just leave them to die in the wilderness. We have to escort them back to the surface and make sure nothing eats them."

[Unoriginal]

(e.g. paranoid schizophrenia, he's convinced that Someone is watching him at all times, ready to smite him if he deviates)

If he is old enough to have lived in the 3.X era, that belief would have been justified back then.

I'm now picturing an extremely jittery elf using a spiked chain as a weapon.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I run Celestial-like Warlocks as being the "default (ish)" for priests in the community. We know that most priests are not clerics by default. My idea is that they don't usually have the purity of faith to be led around like clerics. Instead, the schools of divinity teach secrets of their gods and induct the new priests into the pacts to their deity (or his attendant servants, demigods, or angelic figures, depending on the rite). These priests basically have the Pact spells and not much more (or use a variant spell list, because I'm not strict about NPCs sticking to the same spell lists[1]). Many of them are charismatic preachers. Few of them are great casters. This also explains why they don't all take the same spells--they get what their particular initiation rite provides, nothing more and nothing less.

The other option is for Divine Soul sorcery--those "called" by birth to the priesthood. These tend to be heavier on the cleric list than the sorcerer list.

I tend to have clerics as being a separate branch of most churches--not beholden to the hierarchy but also not protected by the hierarchy. Wise priests will listen to the wandering clerics, but clerics tend to wander, acting as the direct mortal agents of the gods, who can't really meddle directly otherwise.

[1] And would be willing to extend that to players if they asked. No one has asked so far.

[stoutstien]

It seams like the writers wrote the discription and mechanics of the Celestail Warlock in chapter 1 of Xanathar's and then forgot about them.
There seams to be very few Warlock spells particularly higher level ones that do not seem thematically inappropraite for a
Celestial Warlock.

To be fair, we have only had one general player option book released since XGtE so it's hard to say they have forgotten about them or have written them off as a loss cause like say half the PHB barbarian options.

[thorr-kan]

I run Celestial-like Warlocks as being the "default (ish)" for priests in the community...

The other option is for Divine Soul sorcery--those "called" by birth to the priesthood. These tend to be heavier on the cleric list than the sorcerer list...
That's a very interesting take on using class mechanics for worldbuilding. I like it a lot.

[KorvinStarmast]

That's a very interesting take on using class mechanics for worldbuilding. I like it a lot.
Not to mention that the Charisma stat for a religious leader - is thematically appropriate. As to taste: I like the Divine Soul sorcerer better than the Favored Soul in 3.5 (which was the last 3.5 character I ever played). My celestial Warlock is very much the "traveling servant of her deity/deity's servant" sort. There's a whole thing on 'charisms' from the original Greek word (charis which comes off as 'grace' in English) that seems apt for the leaders of sects or other deity-focused social groups, but I'll stop there to avoid crossing into real world religion stuff.

In 5e, warlocks are positioned to be cult leaders (I think that is in the PHB, but maybe it is only in Mords?) Cults need not only be based in devils or fiends or GOOs - they can be based on more benign beings from the outer planes. My Warlock's ultimate goal is to establish the cult of beer ... her Empyrean patron is aligned with the deity underwhom beer's falls, domain wise. :smallbiggrin:

See also the Wikipedia entry on the Goddess of charm, beauty, etc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charis_(mythology))

And last but not least: in my brother's world (me Co DM when he's overworked) he has given approval for me to take all of the Priest/Acolyte type NPCs and use Charisma for their spell casting stat (I just swap wisdom and charisma on the NPC sheet) as well as the Cult Fanatic NPC. We think it fits the fiction better: how the heck is a priestess with low Charisma gonna attract new people to her faith? Low Cha would reflect poor social skills, poor persuasion, lack of self confidence, maybe or maybe not attractive, but the cleric/priest/local shrine leader Needs People Skills in order to do their job.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's a very interesting take on using class mechanics for worldbuilding. I like it a lot.

Thanks!

I'll note that I use the "class" mechanics very loosely for NPCs. More their fiction (ie getting taught secrets by a patron vs channeling the power directly vs being born with the power). NPCs are very fuzzy.

It all grew out of having non-god worshiped beings. They can't grant cleric spells (they're not gods), but they have to be able to empower their followers. So warlocks/sorcerers came naturally there. And then it got extended to everyone.

[samcifer]

I'm playing a sorlock in my Icewind Dale campaign (clockwork soul/celestial) and have found the healing to be very useful. In the last session we had 3 battles in a row with no rest in between and four of the five players went down. I only avoided being downed due to leaving the circular area we were all fighting inside of and terefore avoided the naster AoEs that hit everyone else. My celestial healing managed to keep 2 party members from biting the big one and between me and the paladin, we managed to survive the battles as a group. As for the spells, yeah, not very celestial, are they? I think having access to the full base spell list for Clerics would have made more sense than just a few spells.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm playing a sorlock in my Icewind Dale campaign (clockwork soul/celestial) and have found the healing to be very useful. In the last session we had 3 battles in a row with no rest in between and four of the five players went down. I only avoided being downed due to leaving the circular area we were all fighting inside of and terefore avoided the naster AoEs that hit everyone else. My celestial healing managed to keep 2 party members from biting the big one and between me and the paladin, we managed to survive the battles as a group. As for the spells, yeah, not very celestial, are they? I think having access to the full base spell list for Clerics would have made more sense than just a few spells. I am negotiating with my brother (the DM) to have the 5th level Summon Celestial from Tasha's added to my Patron spells, and I'll even trade away one of the two that are already there. That means dumping Flame Strike, getting Summon Celestial.

I hope he agrees.

[MrStabby]

I am negotiating with my brother (the DM) to have the 5th level Summon Celestial from Tasha's added to my Patron spells, and I'll even trade away one of the two that are already there. That means dumping Flame Strike, getting Summon Celestial.

I hope he agrees.

Does dumping flamestrike count as a trade? Simply not having it seems like an upgrade as it avoids accidentally casting it and wasting a spell slot! Actually its not quite that bad on a celestial, but I couldn't resist the dig.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

I think Jean val Jean, from Les Miserables is a good model for a Celestial Warlock. No magical powers, of course, but he's a reformed criminal who was given a second chance not to rot in jail, on condition that he devote his life to doing God's work. And it's not easy for him! He ends up having to uproot his life twice, caring for the daughter of a woman he barely knew, risking his life in a struggle that he doesn't have a stake in and eventually living out his last days in self-imposed exile.

That's... actually a really good comparison. Taking a few lines from the play, it's even characterised like a pact ("My soul belongs to God, I know; I made that bargain long ago"), and personally linked to an individual servant of a deity ("I have saved your soul for God", "My soul he claims for God above") - just switch Myriel from a Cleric to an Angel and give Valjean an eldritch blast and your set.

Might nick this for my next character, see if anyone notices.

[MaxWilson]

I think Jean val Jean, from Les Miserables is a good model for a Celestial Warlock. No magical powers, of course, but he's a reformed criminal who was given a second chance not to rot in jail, on condition that he devote his life to doing God's work. And it's not easy for him! He ends up having to uproot his life twice, caring for the daughter of a woman he barely knew, risking his life in a struggle that he doesn't have a stake in and eventually living out his last days in self-imposed exile.

My biggest objection to this perspective is that AFAIK there were no conditions imposed on Jean Valjean. He reformed himself out of stunned gratitude for his second chance, and he viewed himself as obligated, but neither the Bishop nor anyone else ever suggested for one minute that they would send him back to jail for not keeping some kind of deal. (Javert wanted to send him back to jail of course, but not because of a deal--indeed, refusal to make a deal or accept the possibility of redemption is one of Javert's defining traits up until the end when Javert segfaults and suffers Critical Existence Failure (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalExistenceFailure).)

The 5E equivalent would be a Celestial warlock who has no Pact obligations at all, just a rough past and an interested mentor. Or for that matter, a wizard who has a mentor--or even a fighter.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My biggest objection to this perspective is that AFAIK there were no conditions imposed on Jean Valjean. He reformed himself out of stunned gratitude for his second chance, and he viewed himself as obligated, but neither the Bishop nor anyone else ever suggested for one minute that they would send him back to jail for not keeping some kind of deal. (Javert wanted to send him back to jail of course, but not because of a deal--indeed, refusal to make a deal or accept the possibility of redemption is one of Javert's defining traits up until the end when Javert segfaults and suffers Critical Existence Failure (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalExistenceFailure).)

The 5E equivalent would be a Celestial warlock who has no Pact obligations at all, just a rough past and an interested mentor. Or for that matter, a wizard who has a mentor--or even a fighter.

Not all Pacts have obligations. CF many GOO pacts where the patron doesn't know the warlock even exists (which is for the better).

[Witty Username]

I thought obligations weren't actually in the rules for warlocks in any event, kinda like paladins where the oaths are made-up and the tenants don't matter. And its a open question if a warlock can actually lose their powers or not.

[Segev]

Don't forget that, with a DM's permission, you can also refluff and even edit some spells. Maybe Hunger of Hadar is all wrong for your pact with a holy being. But Divine Presence is the same spell with a blinding white light instead of blackness, a gregorian chant rather than whispers and slurping, and psychic and radiant damage instead of cold and acid. If the mix of elements is too powerful, cold works fine with a "cold radiance" or fire could go there. Whatever suits your thematic and balance needs.

[MrStabby]

Don't forget that, with a DM's permission, you can also refluff and even edit some spells. Maybe Hunger of Hadar is all wrong for your pact with a holy being. But Divine Presence is the same spell with a blinding white light instead of blackness, a gregorian chant rather than whispers and slurping, and psychic and radiant damage instead of cold and acid. If the mix of elements is too powerful, cold works fine with a "cold radiance" or fire could go there. Whatever suits your thematic and balance needs.

Its a nice image... I agree that small flavour changes can go a long way as well.

I was never really sold on the celestial warlock but things like this could mean I could get behing one a lot more and it is a really great example of an adjustment.

[KorvinStarmast]

Does dumping flamestrike count as a trade? My proposal to my brother is that for my warlock, flame strike as a choice would go away, and summon celestial becomes an available choice when I get to 9. I'll see what he thinks, at the moment I am DMing for the group and he's really focusing on being a better paladin ...

[thorr-kan]

Thanks!

I'll note that I use the "class" mechanics very loosely for NPCs. More their fiction (ie getting taught secrets by a patron vs channeling the power directly vs being born with the power). NPCs are very fuzzy.

It all grew out of having non-god worshiped beings. They can't grant cleric spells (they're not gods), but they have to be able to empower their followers. So warlocks/sorcerers came naturally there. And then it got extended to everyone.
Fair point. 5E isn't as wedded to metaphysical construction based on game rules as it could be.

I have an idea for celestial warlock or divine soul that hasn't gelled yet. But I spent an enjoyable afternoon over Christmas break taking a wiki-walk through Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox terminology for a title for a non-ordained church member who has some actual ecclesiastic standing.

I settled on Elder. :smallbiggrin: Go figure.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Fair point. 5E isn't as wedded to metaphysical construction based on game rules as it could be.


For which I'm very very grateful. I strongly dislike game-rules-as-setting-physics. Unless I decided to incorporate them and explain them that way myself.

[thorr-kan]

For which I'm very very grateful. I strongly dislike game-rules-as-setting-physics. Unless I decided to incorporate them and explain them that way myself.
I'm the other way. To a point. I prefer the metaphysics reflect the rules. Usually. Though I'm not wedded to the concept.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm the other way. To a point. I prefer the metaphysics reflect the rules. Usually. Though I'm not wedded to the concept.

Reflect, yes. Be the same as, no. The rules are game UI, a translation layer between the fiction and the players. So the rules and the metaphysics should fit (no playing a FPS with RTS controls). But it can be a loose fit, not a 1:1 correspondence.

[MaxWilson]

I'm the other way. To a point. I prefer the metaphysics reflect the rules. Usually. Though I'm not wedded to the concept.

Likewise. I'm a simulationist at heart, although I make concessions to gamism and narrativism for the sake of player pleasure.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Likewise. I'm a simulationist at heart, although I make concessions to gamism and narrativism for the sake of player pleasure.

I used to be that way. Then I realized that it actually detracted from my enjoyment, because games that try to simulate inevitably fail, and their attempt makes the failure more visible. Same thing with movies or books--if they don't claim to be "realistic" or "historically accurate" or whatever, I can give them a wide suspension of disbelief. Things happen for narrative reasons or aesthetic ones, and that's fine. But the ones that claim to be accurate, and then fail...that shatters my verisimilitude hard.

And I've yet to find a game designer that can meet the high standards I have for accuracy once they try. I know enough about various things to be able to see (without trying) the flaws. And those flaws make me feel that the designer has failed at their goal (simulating a world). At least if they're still providing a viable game ruleset. Better (in my eyes) to abandon the idea that the rules simulate the world and instead treat them as a necessary translation layer for a game. They're support infrastructure to help DMs do a better job, a toolkit for them to apply and a shared language. If they badly conflict with the world[1], that's a problem. But the details of the rules and the details of the world don't need to map onto each other directly.

But I totally understand that this is a matter of personal taste, not some objective quality standard.

[1] For me, personally, building a sci-fi setting out of 5e D&D and just calling magic "technology" crosses the line hard. Or having a really dark and gritty world where death is cheap and easy, using a ruleset that makes actually killing someone nearly impossible. Or doing super-low magic (ie no spell casters, basically no fantastic elements at all) in 5e D&D.

[MaxWilson]

I used to be that way. Then I realized that it actually detracted from my enjoyment, because games that try to simulate inevitably fail,

You seem to be discussing GNS simulationism, which is different from GDS simulationism. I'm all about taking the rules seriously and at face value (except for the stupid rules, which I rewrite to be non-stupid) in order among other things to maximize player agency--it sounds like you perhaps were attempting to simulate the real world by writing more and more rules. Not the same thing at all. My way does not fail.

The idea is to explore the simulation on its own terms. It's a simulation of a world, but not necessarily our world, and in fact it's clearly NOT our world by RAW because in our world humans cannot fall from orbit and reliably survive. Simulationism asks, "This, therefore what?" and explores the consequences. Conveniently, this tends to make the world more fun for players--if individuals can be more powerful than armies, under certain conditions, then a PC who rules a kingdom can deal with his hand-picked Knights of the Square Table (who might also be PCs) more often than he deals with the logistics of troop movements and supply chains, because supply chains matter less than in our world.