D&D General Frustating Misunderstandings About Warlocks

[Not a Decepticon]

Dead is the best condition. The party has to get the opponents there in the first place and preventing healing helps with that.

So is doing more damage

 

[Zardnaar]

So is doing more damage

Preventing healing fairly niche. More damage is always good. In terms of combat

 

[Warpiglet-7]

At your table. It's an extremely reasonable take to believe it's either a god or someone sitting at the right hand of a god, like a saint, which makes the difference between a celestial warlock and the divinely powered classes mostly a matter of different mechanics.

Despite the screaming of warlock players on ENWorld, who either have been or are anticipating being traumatized by an aggressive DM, this is an extremely common take by anyone who hasn't yet had a warlock fan screaming into their face about the issue.

Warlocks are still in their 1E paladin era, where arguing about the class' flavor and who has a say over it are very much still open questions. It's definitely a class one should discuss with their DM before play, to make sure everyone's on the same page.

I want to do a little essay on this topic at least as it applies to 5e 2014.

There is so much contradictory or supplementary guidance that you could have anything from a patron who does not know to one censoring your thoughts and you would all be correct no matter your take.

This is 100% a table issue. Even for controlling or demanding patrons, I have had some DMs all but ignore that and treated me as another adventurer who sometimes creeps people out by talking to the void.

GOO and fey are clearly and explicitly y hands off at times. Same for the fathomless. A lot of selective reading going on…

It’s dm and campaign dependent.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Okay I am going to push back onto this. I agree with Pointy hat on one crucial thing - Warlock is good BECAUSE it comes with pre-baked slot for an NPC to put in and build a story together with the DM.

Okay? So do I. Nothing I said contradicts that.

I absolutely loathe how 5.5 did everything possible to minimize and all but delete the role of the patron to the point it now is not something I can roleplay before Warlock takes 3rd level and RAW I am not allowed to have patron talk to Warlock before level 10.

This is literally false. You can have the patron talk to the warlock at any time. The Warlock cannot reliably contact the patron until level 10. That's all.

I'm sorry you had such bad experience with DM's

No. You don't know anything about me. Don't make foolish assumptions.

that abused the trust between player and DM,

I have lovely DMs. And I have players who don't enjoy having a patron that is trying to screw them over with no way to stop them, because they aren't reading a book, they're playing a character.

but the solution is not to remove the whole roleplaying appeal of the class to make it "big number go up" like Wizard.

No one has done this. It is entirely the invention of people on the internet, not a thing that is, in any way, in the book.

Hat is right if you don't want to deal with the Patron, don't play Warlock. If you are adamant that the class cannot have such mechanic like Patron, then I would rather Warlock be not included to begin with.

This has no bearing to anything I have said.

The Patron can be run many ways. You and Pointy Hat are completely off base if you think that there is only one legit way to do so. I've played Spawn-style adverserial Warlocks, Jack-like tricksters who got out-tricked and now are running from a terrible debt, a sugarbaby with a hot archfey sugardaddy, the grandson of a Great Fairie Queen who learned under her watchful eye, a shadowy eldritch shamanistic occultist to sacrificed himself to himself in a place of power and became his own patron, and others. It's my favorite class.

The relationship style that Point Hat talks about is just one of many ways to run the class. "Do it the way I like or you shouldn't play the class" is the literal worst type of take possible. It has made me have less respect for Antonio as a person, even if only slightly.

At your table. It's an extremely reasonable take to believe it's either a god or someone sitting at the right hand of a god, like a saint, which makes the difference between a celestial warlock and the divinely powered classes mostly a matter of different mechanics.

Where did i suggest that it can't be a god? Please show me the actual quote.

The Celestial Patron is quite often a celestial being but not a god, hell I've seen it played as the PC having found a vestige of a dead god's most powerful servant, and invoking the vestige into herself in exchange for access to it's power. I've seen it played as a reincarnation of a god that should be dead, hiding in mortal form from whatever killed it.

Despite the screaming of warlock players on ENWorld,

??

who either have been or are anticipating being traumatized by an aggressive DM, this is an extremely common take by anyone who hasn't yet had a warlock fan screaming into their face about the issue.

What the heck are you on about?

Warlocks are still in their 1E paladin era, where arguing about the class' flavor and who has a say over it are very much still open questions. It's definitely a class one should discuss with their DM before play, to make sure everyone's on the same page.

It's not that serious. Random youtubers have no say over what is a legitimate way to play or run for a warlock. That's it. There is one one true way. Period.

So is doing more damage

That is a very one dimensional take.

Dead is only the best condition if dead is the goal, first of all. Not just one way among many of getting to the goal, but the actual goal.
Otherwise, incapacitated so that the fight ends before more resources are used up is a vastly better condition.

Likewise, more damage can be the best way to end a fight, but it often isn't. It is often vastly better to make an enemy useless much earlier than you could possibly make it dead, and then either take care of it's friends, or otherwise put it at a massive disadvantage, or simply obviate the fight altogether while it is out of commission.

On top of all that, even if you cannot incapacitate it, it is often better to reduce it's efficacy for a it's remaining rounds, than to do a little extra damage that won't even reduce the number of rounds that it is alive.

Extra damage that doesn't make it die at least a round sooner is just set dressing.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Dead is only the best condition if dead is the goal,

Which it always is

This is literally false. You can have the patron talk to the warlock at any time. The Warlock cannot reliably contact the patron until level 10. That's all.

So in other words, if you want to have Patron by a recussing character that Warlock can interact with, you effectively delete their 10th level feature and turn it into a dead level. Also, you literally are not allowed to roleplay the patron before warlock reaches level 3 because you do not know which sublass the player will take and therefore any hint of the patron leaning one way or another inherently imposes on player's agency.

And I have players who don't enjoy having a patron that is trying to screw them over with no way to stop them, because they aren't reading a book, they're playing a character.

Then I am sorry they were hurt by abusive DMs who made them adopt adversarial mindset where DM is up to screw them. I am sorry you play at table with such glaring problems.

No one has done this. It is entirely the invention of people on the internet, not a thing that is, in any way, in the book

Except of course of the fact I am not allowed to use the patron at all before level 3 and not allowed to have them be an actual character you can talk to but have to use easily-ignorable messengers, othertwise level 10 Warlock is a dead level. Seems like they very succesfully rendered the patron into a non-entity and turned Warlock into purely mechanical "big number go up" for optimizers.

And speaking as an optimizer, I HATE IT

The Patron can be run many ways. You and Pointy Hat are completely off base if you think that there is only one legit way to do so. I've played Spawn-style adverserial Warlocks, Jack-like tricksters who got out-tricked and now are running from a terrible debt, a sugarbaby with a hot archfey sugardaddy, the grandson of a Great Fairie Queen who learned under her watchful eye, a shadowy eldritch shamanistic occultist to sacrificed himself to himself in a place of power and became his own patron, and others. It's my favorite class.

All of those relationships are what you describe as "imposing on player agency" just in different ways. The exception is "becoming your own patron" which sounds to me like a) you were just playing sorcerer with Warlock mechanics, reducing class to "big number go up" b)you removed the patron from the class. To remove any possibility of patron affecting player agency is to remove the patron entierly. You end with what Cleric and Paladin now are, where they got stripped from roleplay opportunnities for the sake of power gaming and are much worse because of it. Paladin at least still has an oath and I like the idea BG3 implied where all Paladins, even Oathbreakers, fall under Torm and he disguises himself as an Oathbreaker to take your powers away and talk with you whenever you should seek redemption or embrace new path.

What the heck are you on about?

the adversarial "DM is out to get me" mindset that is shown in pushback to an idea your character's god or patron may want to have excectations or wants of the character. You yourself show it too with the assumption that is patron wants something it is inherently a "trying to screw them over with no way to stop them".

The Celestial Patron is quite often a celestial being but not a god, hell I've seen it played as the PC having found a vestige of a dead god's most powerful servant, and invoking the vestige into herself in exchange for access to it's power. I've seen it played as a reincarnation of a god that should be dead, hiding in mortal form from whatever killed it.

Rick Sanchez voice: that just sounds like a god with extra steps.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Where did i suggest that it can't be a god? Please show me the actual quote.

I know you've been in fight the world mode for the last few weeks, but I literally quoted you.

What the heck are you on about?

The ENWorld trope of "the DM has strong opinions about how warlocks work in their setting; someone please call 911."

 

[Charlaquin]

Which it always is

you never have combats in your games that aren’t just fights to the death?

 

[Not a Decepticon]

you never have combats in your games that aren’t just fights to the death?

I do, and I also learned that no matter what I do, unless I explicit say a nuke will go out if a specific enemy dies, the players WILL find a way to solve it by murdering all enemies as fast as possible.

I also had players chase retreating enemies to "get rid of all loose ends"...and running into an unrelated threat on the way. And I had once a combat where pcs and villain raced to escape ship attacked by Kraken, and villain failed and was dragged down with the ship by tentacles...and my players tried to dive down behind them just to personally murder the villain solely so I cannot bring them back and say she survived. I have no idea where did that attitude came from since I never even pulled that trick beforehand.

AFTER that, I brought that villain back as undead tho....

 

[Chaltab]

I do, and I also learned that no matter what I do, unless I explicit say a nuke will go out if a specific enemy dies, the players WILL find a way to solve it by murdering all enemies as fast as possible.

I also had players chase retreating enemies to "get rid of all loose ends"...and running into an unrelated threat on the way. And I had once a combat where pcs and villain raced to escape ship attacked by Kraken, and villain failed and was dragged down with the ship by tentacles...and my players tried to dive down behind them just to personally murder the villain solely so I cannot bring them back and say she survived. I have no idea where did that attitude came from since I never even pulled that trick beforehand.

AFTER that, I brought that villain back as undead tho....

So before you start accusing other people of having poor relationships with their DMs maybe look into your relationship with your players because this seems a biiiit unhealthy.

 

[Charlaquin]

I do, and I also learned that no matter what I do, unless I explicit say a nuke will go out if a specific enemy dies, the players WILL find a way to solve it by murdering all enemies as fast as possible.

I also had players chase retreating enemies to "get rid of all loose ends"...and running into an unrelated threat on the way. And I had once a combat where pcs and villain raced to escape ship attacked by Kraken, and villain failed and was dragged down with the ship by tentacles...and my players tried to dive down behind them just to personally murder the villain solely so I cannot bring them back and say she survived. I have no idea where did that attitude came from since I never even pulled that trick beforehand.

AFTER that, I brought that villain back as undead tho....

Have you considered perhaps telling your players you’d like them to try playing heroes instead of psycho killers?