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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.