D&D 5E 5e Warlock

[Li Shenron]

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.

I agree that it should be seen as a flexible idea that can be enforced or ignored, depending on your preferences. And I also don't think there's a wanted balancing mechanism.

I might be wrong, but I used to think the original inspiration/concept of the Cleric is that of a mix between a crusader (hence the fighting skills) and a saint (divine spells = miracles), her ability fueled by her faith*, while that of the Warlock is the witch (in medieval terms, i.e. consorting with the devil, and because of that capable of sorcery).

*most commonly this is interpreted in RPG as "stick to your religion's agenda or be stripped of your magic powers", but many times I've told my players that the truth might be more mysterious, and that a Cleric might actually not know why she can heal the sick and resurrect the dead, only believe it's coming from her God while it might be just coming from herself

 

[the Jester]

I might be wrong, but I used to think the original inspiration/concept of the Cleric is that of a mix between a crusader (hence the fighting skills) and a saint (divine spells = miracles), her ability fueled by her faith*...

Interestingly, in 1e, clerics got their 1st and 2nd level spells from their training in their faith rather than from their deity.

Each cleric must have his or her own deity... It is then assumed that prior to becoming a first level cleric, the player character received a course of instruction, served a novitiate, and has thoroughly read and committed to memory the teachings of and prayers to his or her chosen deity, so that the character is dedicated to this deity and is able to perform as a cleric thereof. It is this background which enables the cleric to use first level spells.

Furthermore, continued service and activity on behalf of the player character's deity empower him or her to use second level spells as well, but thereafter another agency must be called upon.

Cleric spells of third, fourth and fifth level are obtained through the aid of supernatural servants of the cleric's deity. That is, through meditation and prayer, the cleric's needs are understood and the proper spells are given to him or her by the minions of the deity.

Cleric spells of sixth and seventh level are granted by direct communication from the deity itself. There is no intermediary in this case, and the cleric has a direct channel to the deity, from whom he or she receives the special power to cast the given spells of these levels.... It is obvious, therefore, that clerics wishing to use third or higher level spells must be in good standing.

Emphasis is in the original text (what is bolded here is italicized in the DMG).

Indeed, this is a minor plot point in the background of the pregenerated characters in, IIRC, Hidden Shrine of Tomoachan: the clerics of the cleric's home temple were corrupt and the pc discovered that they were only receiving first and second level spells, leading to his or her exile and escape. (I may have some of the exact details wrong, it's been a while!)

 

[Wormwood]

Whoa there, Wilbur Whateley.

aaaand I think I have my first 5e character.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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.

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?

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.

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...

Here's the most relevant text from the 3e Complete Arcane:

"Warlocks are born, not made. Some are the descendants of people who trafficked with demons and devils long ago. Some seek out the dark powers as youths, driven by ambition or the desire for power, but a few blameless individuals are simply marked out by the supernatural forces as conduits or tools. The exact nature of a warlock's origin is up to the player to decide; just as a sorcerer is not beholden to the magic-wielding ancestor that bequeathed his bloodline with arcane power, a warlock is not bound to follow the source that gifted him with magic."

The 4e PHB assumes you personally formed the pact, but it is all over the place on what that meant and whether your patron was an individual, a collection, a body of secret knowledge, etc. And it makes no requirement that you stay in their good graces or have any ongoing commitment (just like it makes no such requirement for clerics or paladins).

So the only real problem I'm having with the 5e fluff, and it is a big one, is that they are formalizing that you must serve your patron in some way. (I'm pretty sure there will be no mechanics backing it up though.) That feels contrary to inclusivity to me, since I was fine with the fluff in either 3e or 4e, and now they specifically make it less inclusive! "Loved the 3e warlock? Thought the 4e warlock was fine? Well have we got a surprise for you--we've changed the fluff to invalidate the previous warlocks you've liked!" That's a completely counterproductive move. The only reason I can think of is that they are trying to keep it simple and clear for new players.

 

[Snapdragyn]

Looking through the alpha spell list, I'm really interested trying to optimize spell choices (Note: I'm also fine with flavor - probably going to take Anueresis or whatever that 'scribe' cantrip is through Pact of the Tome, and get the rituals invocation too - just enjoy the challenge of crunching stuff).

Just as a thought challenge, what are people's ideas of 'best' spells (or general 'rules' for optimized spell choice) at each level for warlocks?

Points I've been considering:
- Does the spell do more when using a higher level slot? (they cast at max spell level, might as well make the most of that)
- Concentration spells - good or bad choice (from an optimizing viewpoint)? OT1H, with so few spell slots they might as well use one on concentration while zapping w/ cantrips & letting 'regular' casters use multiple spell casts; OTOH, it'd better give a lot of 'oomph'... & there's the eventual 'autofail on damage' thing to worry about, too. Also - something on a save > no effect but single save > multiple saves for effect to end early.
- Counterspell - at first I thought 'oooh, yes, always max level slot so very good chance of success!'... then realized, 'oooh, TRAP, waste a very limited slot on a smart caster tricking you with a level 1 spell!'
- OTOH, Dispel Magic - maybe not bad. You're likely using it when you REALLY want a spell effect down, so why not be the 'go to' person who can likely handle that?

I actually think a warlock could work surprisingly well as an illusionist/enchantment specialist (Archfey or Great Old One pact). At will Silent Image, mmmm, yummy.

Any other stand out points to consider, or counter views on things?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Here's the most relevant text from the 3e Complete Arcane:
....
"a warlock is not bound to follow the source that gifted him with magic."
...
So the only real problem I'm having with the 5e fluff, and it is a big one, is that they are formalizing that you must serve your patron in some way. (I'm pretty sure there will be no mechanics backing it up though.) That feels contrary to inclusivity to me, since I was fine with the fluff in either 3e or 4e, and now they specifically make it less inclusive! "Loved the 3e warlock? Thought the 4e warlock was fine? Well have we got a surprise for you--we've changed the fluff to invalidate the previous warlocks you've liked!" That's a completely counterproductive move. The only reason I can think of is that they are trying to keep it simple and clear for new players.

[/QUOTE]

The 5e suggestion is that the arrangement is like one of master and apprentice. So this seems similar. An apprentice isn't bound to serve their master -- they can take the knowledge and run. They will be defiant, but so would a 3e warlock.

Furthermore, the additional specificity helps motivate storylines in play (like I said, I am a fan of EVERY PC being linked to some entity in the world because of their class). It's a source of character motivation and a reason to go on adventures. "Your patron wants you to explore these ruins."

 

[Salamandyr]

Well, the nice thing is, unlike the cleric, worship isn't required. It's perfectly reasonable for the relationshp between a patron and his warlock to be a business-like, quid pro quo affair. Something like the relationship between Dr. Strange and the Vishanti, or Hoary Hosts of Hoggoth. It's a scratch my back, I'll scratch yours deal.

Or it could be a semi-abusive, unwilling but necessary relationship, a la Elric.

But really, from a storytelling standpoint, other than powers there really isn't a whole lot of difference between a warlock and a cleric. Which brings up interesting metaphysical questions.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

{Quoting Kamikaze Midget (formatting problems)}
The 5e suggestion is that the arrangement is like one of master and apprentice. So this seems similar. An apprentice isn't bound to serve their master -- they can take the knowledge and run. They will be defiant, but so would a 3e warlock.[/quote]

Yeah, exactly! I don't have a problem with that way of doing it. Well, really I don't have a problem with just about any way of doing it. I just would prefer it stuck with the more vague idea of your powers deriving from some supernatural source that you somehow ended up getting connected to, with a pact with a specific being as the most common method. It's pretty much how 3e did it, and it seems unnecessary to narrow the class concept.

The way I would run most of the contract-style pacts, is that you usually do make an agreement to do certain things for your patron when he/she/it gifts you with powers. But once they make you a warlock, you can meet your end of the bargain or not. If you fail to honor your side of the deal, then you just got a big place on the crap-list at the minimum, and they might start sending someone or something after you or try to collect on any defaulting provisions in the arrangement. Purely role-playing, and not affecting your powers. But, as I said, I only want that to be one option--not the only option for how warlocks function.

Furthermore, the additional specificity helps motivate storylines in play (like I said, I am a fan of EVERY PC being linked to some entity in the world because of their class). It's a source of character motivation and a reason to go on adventures. "Your patron wants you to explore these ruins."

Sure. That's campaign building, which I fully approve of. I like character to have all sorts of integration with their world and have their training come from somewhere. I just don't want it specifically mandated to me by the class description.

Well, the nice thing is, unlike the cleric, worship isn't required. It's perfectly reasonable for the relationshp between a patron and his warlock to be a business-like, quid pro quo affair. Something like the relationship between Dr. Strange and the Vishanti, or Hoary Hosts of Hoggoth. It's a scratch my back, I'll scratch yours deal.

Or it could be a semi-abusive, unwilling but necessary relationship, a la Elric.

But really, from a storytelling standpoint, other than powers there really isn't a whole lot of difference between a warlock and a cleric. Which brings up interesting metaphysical questions.

Yep! The difference is pretty arbitrary. In a lot of cases I think we are interpreting clerics with way too modern of an attitude. Most ancient religions (any many modern religions) saw priests as receiving the power of the gods--not as simply a matter of training or strength of belief, but through a conferral of a portion of that power. Much like the 4e concept of the Invoker. And the only real difference conceptual difference between your typical ancient priest and a warlock is the nature of the source of their power and their societal role--and that difference isn't even universal!

And then you get into the whole concept of "What constitutes (or should constitute) a god?" in D&D. I prefer to define "god" as a statement of connection between worshipper and powerful being they worship. You can call Odin, a fiend, a fey, or the rabid owlbear running around in the woods your god if you want to. I prefer the "creature type" we normally mean when we refer to deities to be more clearly defined (BECMI had Immortals, and Planescape had Powers, I think "Immortal Powers" is a great term), and the idea of what counts as a god or not left in the realm of in-world philosophy, (The Athar in Planescape, for example believe the Powers are super powerful beings, they just don't think they should be worshipped as gods,) rather than a fairly arbitrary distinction that requires things such as deciding whether Asmodeus is a deity or a fiend, how you want to define Titania, etc. Just say that the Immortal Powers are wielders of divine forces (clerical magic) and their followers can access it, while other powerful beings have different sorts of powers available. Of course, the idea that Bane or Pelor can't make warlocks if they wants to is rather absurd (and if true definitely challenges the claim that they should have the unique right to be called deities, if they can't even pull off what the fiends and fey can.)

So yeah, I'm just kind of frustrated when they make changes that have no effect on how I run the game, but mean I have to explain more than I should have to to my players after they read the PHB, and increase the amount by which I have to verify and potentially ask for special dispensation from any DM whose game I want to play in before deciding which character to make.

 

[Boarstorm]

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').

Clever. I keep forgetting that we have these little categories to tie into now.

 

[tecnowraith]

I don't have my copy yet, what is the different from this version than previous version? Does the 5e version still the Eldritch Blast which was the main ability I liked? From the preview Warlock now get spells and along with Invocations? I was a bit confused when I saw the preview about that.