6
\$\begingroup\$

I am currently in a game with a GM/DM that is saying that Warlock and Sorcerer Magic Items are subclass specific.

That they are not available in stores, they would have to be gifted by the Patron or Otherworldly Power, furthermore that a warlock or sorcerer from a different subclass would not be able to use them.

While I understand this would make sense from an in-game roleplaying sense, are there any rules RAW that support this, or are warlock/sorcerer items usable by any that pick them up?

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Wait, I get the argument for Warlock, even if I'm unaware of any rules support for it, but why do they think Sorcerer would be the same? Sorcerers aren't tied to any particular sponsor, or even any particular means of acquiring their power (it could be in their blood, from a blessing, bestowed by exposure to a power source, etc.). \$\endgroup\$ Jan 27 at 23:35
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Why are they making this claim anyway? Did they have enemy Warlocks drop powerful items, that they then said you couldn't use? \$\endgroup\$ Jan 27 at 23:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ No, he gave a list of items and values. There were items for wizards, cleric and paladins. I asked to add one for warlock or sorcerer and he stated the above. \$\endgroup\$
    – CrimRei
    Jan 28 at 7:22

1 Answer 1

13
\$\begingroup\$

There is no rules support for this interpretation

Nothing in any 5E rules I'm aware of limits Warlock or Sorcerer items to specific subclasses of those classes (there may be individual specific items that do this, but simply being tied to the Warlock/Sorcerer class would not).

There is no guarantee that any but the most common magic items (e.g. potions of healing) are available for sale, so your DM is well within their rights to deny purchasing items, by any class, but claiming Warlock-specific items must be gifted by the Patron is inventing rules; there's no meaningful rules support for this sort of restriction, and it's a nerf to the class if they're simply not eligible to get basic power-boosting items for their class (e.g. Rod of the Pact Keeper) where other classes can get their equivalents without strings.

I can't see much of an argument for applying this rule to Warlocks that wouldn't equally apply to Clerics (not just on domain subclass, but on patron deity). If a Warlock can't use Warlock-specific items created by Warlocks of other Patrons, it should be equally impossible for a Cleric of Selûne to use a Cleric-specific item created by a Cleric of Shar, and vice versa.

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • 8
    \$\begingroup\$ "inventing rules" seems like a very negative way to say "adding house rules, which is a normal things for many GMs and groups to do". \$\endgroup\$
    – VLAZ
    Jan 28 at 9:49
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ @VLAZ: I'm okay with the (IMO mildly) negative phrasing, given it's a penalty they've decided to apply arbitrarily to Warlocks and Sorcerers, and no one else. The DM has the right to do this. They have the right to do a lot of things. But they're being kind of a jerk by doing it, especially if this wasn't clearly conveyed before players chose to play Warlocks or Sorcerers. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 28 at 14:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ Worth going into more detail about the fact that items like "Rod of the Pact Keeper" exist in the DMG. All it says is "requires attunement by a warlock", which implies that any warlock that has one could give it to another warlock. With Tasha's, there are similar items for all caster classes, boosting spell-save DC and spell attack modifier. such as the Bloodwell Vial (requires attunement by a sorcerer), and Amulet of the Devout (requires attunement by a cleric or paladin) \$\endgroup\$ Jan 28 at 21:44
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I myself appreciate and feel like magic items are part of the game, but they're a completely optional part of the game - the LORE doesn't support that warlock magic items are subclass specific, but iirc the RAW specifies that in general, magic items are so rare that no one in their right minds would sell them. As such I don't think it's necessarily fair to label the DM as a jerk in this case, so much as claim that their decision to limit these particular magic items comes in poor packaging; that they even tried to give a reasoning is more effort than was required of them. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 29 at 2:01
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @TheFallen0ne: A campaign setting like the OP's where magic items for other classes are available in the shops is a lot different from the 5e default you're talking about. The DM might have game-balance reasons for this arbitrary narrative / world-building choice, and it's reasonable to ask them about it if you're feeling hard-done-by in a gameplay sense. Maybe they intend for those Cha casters to get magic items, but wants to provide them a different way. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 29 at 2:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .