D&D 5E Warlocks & Patrons

[ChrisCarlson]

I don't think it should really matter. Trying to single out one player for trying to have an optimized build by imposing boundaries is not fair, but having a consequence for certain classes is fine. Choosing between a Fighter and a Warlock might not matter in some campaigns or tables, but some people like to use the fluff. If you want to build up a world or a feel to a campaign, being a little strict with 'playing to type' (ala Clerics following their deities main principles) isn't the wrong thing IF you let your players know ahead of time. If everyone is on board, it can give a lot of plot hooks or consistency.

You seem to be implying that the warlock fluff indicates the class comes with consequences.

It sounds like the OP tried to let his players know by having a session zero-type and not having character ideas before creation, but this player is ignoring it. Maybe because he's excited to play this build and he has awesome ideas for combos and has been building it up in his head for a while, which is great. Excited players are good players. But there has to be a bit of a compromise, the player/character has to adjust a bit to the setting/DM, and the setting/DM can adjust a bit to the player/character.

Out-of-character personality conflicts, differences of opinion, and playstyle expectations should never be dealt with in-game. At least IMO.

 

[Jediking]

You seem to be implying that the warlock fluff indicates the class comes with consequences.

Sure, there's lots of fluff for Warlocks. Entering into forbidden contracts and needing to do a Dark Master's dirty work on the Material Plane. Stealing power from a Fey Deity and trying to avoid repercussions. Having a thirst for knowledge and power and willing to trade away your own soul to get it.

OR, you choose a Warlock and a Pact and you Patron never gets mentioned once in your backstory or campaign.

OR, you play as a gifted 'Eldritch Knight', but take Warlock levels instead of Fighter because it offers better mechanics for your ideal progression.

Whether it has consequences or not is always a case-by-case basis. For this thread, the DM seems to want at least an explanation of where the power came from, and the player doesn't. (that's my view, not the OP).

Out-of-character personality conflicts, differences of opinion, and playstyle expectations should never be dealt with in-game. At least IMO.

That's good advice, and I always try and follow it. I always find it easier to talk over a beer than a pile of dice.

 

[Kreinas]

As a note, I'm at a loss to find anywhere in the PHB where it says anything about a warlock working against their patron at all. "Chafing under obligations" suggests to me that they would be performing what is asked of them by their patron. It is specifically stated that a warlock's magic is bestowed by their patron. "The warlock learns and grows on power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron's behalf" suggests that their powers rather dependent upon such. And it is mentioned that the warlock is in active communication with their patron.

I'm still sort of okay with what he wants to do (rail against his maker) just not how he wants to derive the powers and who specifically he wants to be his patron, I guess?

Right in between those two sections is discusses relationship with patron. An antagonistic relationship is given as a plausible example, and would entail one in which one would actively oppose the other. The patron bestows the power, and the player must uphold their end of the contract to receive said power.

It could be that the contract is "I will bestow you with power, but should you ever die your soul is mine." In accordance with the contract, the power is the players, and he could use it for whatever his whim may be; even destroying the patron altogether. Ask your player what the details of the contract are, and use that as a plot hook.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Ask your player what the details of the contract are, and use that as a plot hook.

I am not opposed to this at all. I just hope such an offer is being extended to every player at the table. Why shouldn't the fighter be given a chance to present a plot hook? The wizard? Cleric? They all should be given equal opportunities to contribute to the story.

 

[Icharbezol]

What consequences are the other PCs being asked to potentially deal with in exchange for their class features?

I think the only player whose character needs consequences so far is the warlock who gains powers from an extra planar contract who doesn't want to abide by the contract.

 

[Icharbezol]

For this thread, the DM seems to want at least an explanation of where the power came from, and the player doesn't.

This. It has been expressed to the player, and he explained something that is not really in keeping with most of the written Warlock class fluff, and I said I don't want that let's try for something else, discussion was made, and he went back to his original concept.

I think what I'll go ahead and do is let him use what he wants for his patron. But he does not get to create the actual patron, maintain its information, or decide how it is roleplayed (which is what he wanted to do with the SE dependent, and make her stay at home and out of trouble all the time and decide everything about the NPC and how it behaved and felt).

And then if he's not going to pull his end of the contract, she won't either.

 

[Caliban]

Not quite sure how the heck I'm going to make this work, as it really doesn't make any sense to me at all. Why would this warlock be able to level up and gain new warlock powers if he does nothing but attempt to destroy his patron and all those who serve it? Any ideas?

I love warlocks, the class has so many potential roleplaying hooks built into it.

There are multiple ways you could make this work.

Ask the player - "Why did the Warlock make the pact in the first place"? Was he tricked into it by the patron? If so, why did the patron want him in particular?

Is the patron sitting back on their dark throne, watching their warlock struggle and fight while rubbing their hands together and muttering "exactly as planned."?

Perhaps the patron has an enemy, one who is capable of granting the warlock their abilities in the patron's stead.

Perhaps the patron tricked the warlock into the pact because this prevents the warlock from gaining some ability or accomplishing some goal - just by the mere fact of being a warlock. They consider the warlock's actions against him a minor inconvenience at best - their grand scheme will not be derailed.

In my games, I assume that having a warlock is a net benefit for the patron, regardless of the warlocks specific actions. As long as the warlock survives and gains levels, the patron gains an even greater amount of power (or some other equivalent benefit). The warlock may be actively working against them, but unless they do something really epic, it's just not going to matter in the long run.

 

[Icharbezol]

I just hope...

Yes.

 

[Icharbezol]

I love warlocks, the class has so many potential roleplaying hooks built into it.

There are multiple ways you could make this work.

Ask the player - "Why did the Warlock make the pact in the first place"? Was he tricked into it by the patron? If so, why did the patron want him in particular?

Is the patron sitting back on their dark throne, watching their warlock struggle and fight while rubbing their hands together and muttering "exactly as planned."?

Perhaps the patron has an enemy, one who is capable of granting the warlock their abilities in the patron's stead.

Perhaps the patron tricked the warlock into the pact because this prevents the warlock from gaining some ability or accomplishing some goal - just by the mere fact of being a warlock. They consider the warlock's actions against him a minor inconvenience at best - their grand scheme will not be derailed.

In my games, I assume that having a warlock is a net benefit for the patron, regardless of the warlocks specific actions. As long as the warlock survives and gains levels, the patron gains an even greater amount of power (or some other equivalent benefit). The warlock may be actively working against them, but unless they do something really epic, it's just not going to matter in the long run.

I like this. Pursuing this thought process. I don't expect much more than "I want the powers but I don't want a contract because I don't want anything that can be used against me or considered a flaw." from him as an answer though.

 

[Icharbezol]

The patron bestows the power, and the player must uphold their end of the contract to receive said power.

That's pretty much how I am seeing it. Where the relationship may be antagonistic, the Warlock should not expect to be openly defiant and resistant and still receive power. Unless maybe some of the things others have mentioned (basically Patron is screwing with the Warlock and "all is going according to plan").

But I still do not like the Patron being a god. It's all going to be a lie, and the player will have to deal with that.