D&D 5E 5e Warlock

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

I would love to see more settings with religions as well done as Eberron, and hopefully no more "Lolz pantheon sorta" stuff. Unfortunately the default assumption of the 5E multiverse seem to pour cold water all over than, and give a big high-five to the most eye-roll-inducing pantheons possible.

 

[Thaumaturge]

I love the short rest default being one hour long. I think it causes a lot of good decision points for the players. That being said, the Warlock class appears to be the one that will be most affected by how often a particular table uses short rests. If a table uses short rests 3-4 times a day, a warlock will be more powerful than he is at a table where they use 1-2 short rests a day.

This is probably ok, but it is interesting to me.

As I think about it, one could easily argue there are tables where fighters are more powerful than rogues. This is just a new interaction of playstyle and relative power.

Thaumaturge.

 

[gyor]

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

EDIT: I see Kamikaze Midget is also familiar.

Some of the possible star pact patrons given as examples make Japanese Tentacle Porn Monster seem normal and friendly. One is the Chaos Hound, a giant dog made up of maggots whose purpose in life is to eat the souls of the faithful, he can't stand the taste of the unfaithless and false. Now imagine having a romantic relationship with that!

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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?

Primarily because it is a restriction that 5e introduces that wasn't present in either 3e or 4e warlocks. I can't see introducing a new restriction as being somehow in harmony with a goal of inclusivity.

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.)

Yep, and that's how it should be. It shouldn't be hard coded into either the crunch or the fluff for 5e, since it wasn't in either 3e or 4e, which makes up a good chunk of previous D&D players.

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.

I can, easily. Read the original warlock entry in 3e Complete Arcane.

Also, it's worth noting that Mike Mearls himself had a warlock character in the livestream that didn't fit the description I'm reading in the 5e version. He was fiend pact, but his "pact" was some sort of connection to a more abstract infernal iron law concept. The other warlock we saw in the livestreams was a fey pact warlock who was trying to find a way to break his connection to his patron (or something similar).

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Having a relation with your star-pact patron, that was one of the first things I thought if the patron was some sort of tentacle monster. Which makes wonder what happens if for one of the favours of the pact is to help produce children for the patron, and having to spend a later part of the campaign watching out for the Warlock's monstrous children.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Seems like the warlock's 'bond' is more current and open to negotiation. A cleric is just supposed to have faith. The warlock's relationship is more mercenary - 'service' for knowledge/power.

It's the kind of thing that can fade into the background if the player or DM don't feel like dealing with it - assuming it wasn't used as some sort of clumsy balancing mechanism, that is.

 

[doctorhook]

I would love to see more settings with religions as well done as Eberron, and hopefully no more "Lolz pantheon sorta" stuff. Unfortunately the default assumption of the 5E multiverse seem to pour cold water all over than, and give a big high-five to the most eye-roll-inducing pantheons possible.

For sure, although I'm pretty forgiving about it. For one thing, the "Here, have some pantheons!" approach is at least as old as 1E AD&D's Deities & Demigods, and that was itself rooted in fantastical tales from pantheon-worshiping cultures (Norse, Greco-Roman, and Egyptian, just for starters). Second, all we've really seen for 5E settings is peeks of Forgotten Realms. FR is neck-deep in pantheons, but it makes sense in FR's terms: if gods are literally people that sometimes walk down your street, there's probably a lot of them, and there's probably very little variation between types of religions. Finally, a tidy pantheon can make religion a lot more straightforward in your game; I was a big fan of 4E's pantheon for exactly this reason.

I love Eberron, and I love its careful, nuanced approach to belief-systems, but I don't think a similar approach would be desirable in every game.

Some of the possible star pact patrons given as examples make Japanese Tentacle Porn Monster seem normal and friendly. One is the Chaos Hound, a giant dog made up of maggots whose purpose in life is to eat the souls of the faithful, he can't stand the taste of the unfaithless and false. Now imagine having a romantic relationship with that!

Wait, what other than normal and friendly would you consider Japanese Tentacle Porn Monsters? I'd say they're the very model of friendliness, by at least some definitions.

Primarily because it is a restriction that 5e introduces that wasn't present in either 3e or 4e warlocks. I can't see introducing a new restriction as being somehow in harmony with a goal of inclusivity.

Even as far back as when the warlock was introduced in 3.5E, there was still the implication that every warlock had a patron, even if there was mechanical enforcement of that. The same was true in 4E, with the exception of the vestige warlock (who killed 3.5E's binder class and took its stuff). We still have yet to see the 5E warlock in its entirety, so it's much too early to complain about what warlocks are forced to do.

It shouldn't be hard coded into either the crunch or the fluff for 5e, since it wasn't in either 3e or 4e, which makes up a good chunk of previous D&D players.

Clerics have gods. Warlocks have patrons. Depending on the table you're playing at, you may play a whole campaign without ever even having to specify who your god/patron is. At the moment I see no reason to expect 5E to deviate from this pattern. What's the problem?

I can, easily. Read the original warlock entry in 3e Complete Arcane.

Also, it's worth noting that Mike Mearls himself had a warlock character in the livestream that didn't fit the description I'm reading in the 5e version. He was fiend pact, but his "pact" was some sort of connection to a more abstract infernal iron law concept. The other warlock we saw in the livestreams was a fey pact warlock who was trying to find a way to break his connection to his patron (or something similar).

The word "patron" certainly implies personification, but I think that might be a misnomer for the concept it represents anyway. I don't see any reason why the examples you've given couldn't be perfectly legitimate.

 

[doctorhook]

Having a relation with your star-pact patron, that was one of the first things I thought if the patron was some sort of tentacle monster. Which makes wonder what happens if for one of the favours of the pact is to help produce children for the patron, and having to spend a later part of the campaign watching out for the Warlock's monstrous children.

Whoa there, Wilbur Whateley.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Primarily because it is a restriction that 5e introduces that wasn't present in either 3e or 4e warlocks. I can't see introducing a new restriction as being somehow in harmony with a goal of inclusivity.

Warlocks have always had patrons, though?

From 3e: "Long ago, they (or in some cases, their ancestors) forged grim pacts with dangerous extraplanar powers, trading portions of their souls in exchange for supernatural power...they are still chained by the old pacts through which they acquired these powers. The demand to further the designs of their dark patrons, or to resist them, drives most warlocks to seek the opportunities for power, wealth, and great deeds (for good or ill) offered by adventuring"

Since their inception, their story has been: "I am obligated to serve a supernatural power"

Plus, I think you might be reading too much into the story material. Much like that flavor text in 3e, I'm sure the flavor text in 5e is for story purposes. Neither is "bound to follow the source that gifted him with magic," but all have a context in which not following that source is a rebellion against it. There is some NPC or organization or entity out there which particularly *gave* you power in each case (according to the presumed story, anyway), and they presumably will be grumpy and possibly vengeful (because none of these powers are NICE) if you defy them. But their requirements might simply be, "Go forth, and do as thou wilt."

....and now I want to play a LG Paladin/Warlock who reformed of her evil ways and keeps the oath she swore to a demon lord in order to lure him into fighting her someday...

 

[Ichneumon]

I expect that the extent of influence a patron has on play will be decided at each table, and can range from background fluff up to and including power confiscation. A warlock can always put their patron as their Bond, or even Flaw ('My patron wants me dead').

Though I'd personally stay away from imposing mechanical penalties on a noncompliant warlock. I see the typical patron as being fully aware that warlocks don't tend to be the most obedient types, and using tactics like bribery and appealing to the warlock's baser instincts to get their way.