D&D 5E 5e Warlock

[I'm A Banana]

Did anyone else notice that the flavour text allows your relationship with your patron to be a romantic one...?

I can honestly say that image right there gave me a weird vibe.

Happens all the time in Japan, right? Man, 5e is so anime.

I agree that the whole patron thing could be problematic as written. It raises quite a few questions. Do warlocks have to obey their patrons? Is there any consequence for turning against them? Can the patron take the warlock's powers away? Can the warlock continue to gain levels in the warlock class without its approval? What happens if the patron dies? Etc. I agree that if clerics and paladins don't have to worry about being stripped of their powers for failing to obey their god/oath, warlocks certainly shouldn't be singled out for punishment.

It'll probably be up to the individual table how draconian they want to be about it.

Implying that taking that class means you have a master who you have to serve bugs the heck out of me--because it places classes on unequal footing unless it applies to all classes equally. If all fighters have a lord they must obey, all thieves have to maintain an affiliation with a guild to gain levels, and all mages must remain in the personal favor of the god of magic, then sure, warlocks can be part of the club. But singling out one (or a few) classes is absurd.

If the idea of being bound to a patron doesn't appeal to you, why would you want to play a class that is explicitly bound to a patron? I mean, you can discover arcane secrets in a book or in your blood or just by taking a feat. You don't HAVE to be a warlock, right?

That said, I personally lurve the idea of linking every class to an NPC or organization in the world. Juicy flavor goodness.

 

[doctorhook]

Someone hasn't read Brimstone Angels.

Guilty. I have seem some weird, Star-pact-y **** on those Japanese noody sites though.

EDIT: I see Kamikaze Midget is also familiar.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Guilty. I have seem some weird, Star-pact-y **** on those Japanese noody sites though.

It's a Forgotten Realms novel of the 4e period--one of the better ones. Main character has a sort-of romance with the devil who's her patron.

...

Then again, given how unhealthy the relationship is (as it should be), perhaps this was not a good counter-example to your discomfitted reaction.

 

[doctorhook]

It's a Forgotten Realms novel of the 4e period--one of the better ones. Main character has a sort-of romance with the devil who's her patron.

...

Then again, given how unhealthy the relationship is (as it should be), perhaps this was not a good counter-example to your discomfitted reaction.

Ah, abusive relationships... Why do we romanticize them so?

 

[Syunsuke]

A fallen angel found a pitiable orphan girl and started helping her for some reason he didn't understand. The girl heard and glimpsed him, understood who helped her, and got a crush on him even she didn't know who/what he was, for he was only figure she could rely on.
As she grown up, eventually the fallen angel understands why he helps her; he was fallen in love that innocent girl, who reminds his own "innocent" era which is eons ago…
After they struggle through a long, winding, perilous path, maybe after she passed away, he finds he is no longer fallen angel.

I guess he has rather long legs or something
Or this month's new release of Harlequin Romance

Edit;

Happens all the time in Japan, right? Man, 5e is so anime.

Obviously Nyaruko. Star pact

 

[Mouseferatu]

Ah, abusive relationships... Why do we romanticize them so?

Oh, the book doesn't romanticize it. It's never presented as a good or healthy thing. This ain't Twilight.

 

[Feeroper]

I really like the focus on role playing the books are presenting. With the Warlock I like how it says to talk to your DM up front about how big a role you want your patrons relationship to be, so that way you can have as much or little involvement from your patron as you as a player are comfortable with. I think having a patron interject into your life makes it more interesting.

Someone earlier in this thread wondered about what happens if you disobey your patron an how deep does this relationship go? I think that actually presents some great roleplaying opportunity, but again as much as you are comfortable with as you should discuss with your DM from the outset. It is pretty clear that this relationship will differ from a cleric and their deity. It is more personal in a lot of regards, but perhaps more unpredictable or unstable.

 

[1of3]

One thing that really bothers me is how the fluff insists that you basically must serve your patron in some way. Is it going to say the same thing for clerics? I sure hope so, because I despise with a passion the idea that a warlock is somehow more bound to their patron than a cleric to theirs.

Actually, there is no single definition in D&D on how a cleric is bound to their god. Or whether those gods exist at all. Just compare Forgotten Realms, with their individual and rather human gods, with Eberron, where even the angels haven't seen their masters and pretty much any crazy idea can be used for religious magic. (Patriotism didn't work. They tried.)

Third edition even mentioned clerics who do not serve a god:

If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, he still selects two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities.

Warlocks, on the other hand, I cannot imagine without the patron having a name and a personality. And, if rumors are correct, 5e warlocks will not choose fae or infernal pacts, but individual patrons.

 

[pemerton]

One thing that really bothers me is how the fluff insists that you basically must serve your patron in some way. Is it going to say the same thing for clerics?

<snip>

I don't think either fluff or crunch tying a character's class abilities to their relationship with an NPC has any right to an exclusive place in the game.

I didn't see anything that said the patron must be an NPC, in the sense of being a character under the predominant control of the GM rather than the player.

 

[doctorhook]

Actually, there is no single definition in D&D on how a cleric is bound to their god. Or whether those gods exist at all. Just compare Forgotten Realms, with their individual and rather human gods, with Eberron, where even the angels haven't seen their masters and pretty much any crazy idea can be used for religious magic. (Patriotism didn't work. They tried.)

This is one of my favorite things about Eberron: realistic diversity of beliefs. Not that the kind of polytheism in FR (and others) doesn't make sense in its own context, but religion in Eberron is a lot more interesting. Eberron has the kind of complete diversity of religious belief systems that the real world does.