D&D General Warlocks' patrons vs. Paladin Oaths and Cleric Deities

[Distracted DM]

I've had trouble with warlocks all through 5e, and I could use some insights from other folk. Maybe I just need the discussion.

I've been playing and running since AD&D, so I have solid ideas of what the strictures of a cleric and paladin should be, where their powers come from, and the responsibilities of those classes. In some ways, they're still baked into the class, even if 5e has handwaved a lot of it away. But Warlocks, as they are now, are a 5e construct.

A paladin's power is drawn from their oath, their faith (in that oath or deity). I still ask paladins players to pick a deity or something in that vein.
Clerics get their powers from their deity, their faith, etc.
Warlocks, according to their 5e14 class description, get their power in exchange for performing services for their patron.

Here's one hurdle: the warlock actually gets their power by leveling up- whether it's experience points or milestone leveling, the warlock doesn't need to be doing anything for their patron to "gain power." You could say similar things about clerics and paladins, but a paladin just has to keep to their oath- a cleric just needs to adhere to their faith. If they violate those, then there's trouble; class changes, power-stripping, the kind of stuff that doesn't actually happen at most tables but the mechanical suggestion is there, both consequence and requirement.

A warlock is ... a lot less "firm" in what the heck it needs to be doing, if anything. And if you do start to require things of the warlock, that seems to put a lot more focus on that one player. They need to acquire the Jewel of Kabaz if they want to level up. If they don't ... do they level up anyway? Whether you're doing experience or milestone leveling via quests/story arcs, is the warlock leveling at a different pace than others? Probably not. So does their patron matter, outside of mechanics?

I guess there's just so little provided to work with as a DM, and so much more of an expectation- the warlock-patron relationship seems closer/more "present" than a paladin oath/cleric faith because supposedly warlocks need to be periodically doing direct tasks for their patron if they want more class features.
I've been trying to nail down my issues, and to figure out solutions- I guess the other thing is, it seems like almost anything can be a warlock patron. You don't need a deity- lowish-CR creatures can be warlock patrons.. So it's hard to make a list of strictures n' such for warlocks.. since their patrons are basically "whatever."
I don't know, I'm still trying to figure this one out. Maybe it's just about GMing style, but again I've never had a problem with paladins n' clerics.

Has anyone else had this problem with warlocks?

 

[Maxperson]

I've had trouble with warlocks all through 5e, and I could use some insights from other folk. Maybe I just need the discussion.

I've been playing and running since AD&D, so I have solid ideas of what the strictures of a cleric and paladin should be, where their powers come from, and the responsibilities of those classes. In some ways, they're still baked into the class, even if 5e has handwaved a lot of it away. But Warlocks, as they are now, are a 5e construct.

A paladin's power is drawn from their oath, their faith (in that oath or deity). I still ask paladins players to pick a deity or something in that vein.
Clerics get their powers from their deity, their faith, etc.
Warlocks, according to their 5e14 class description, get their power in exchange for performing services for their patron.

Here's one hurdle: the warlock actually gets their power by leveling up- whether it's experience points or milestone leveling, the warlock doesn't need to be doing anything for their patron to "gain power." You could say similar things about clerics and paladins, but a paladin just has to keep to their oath- a cleric just needs to adhere to their faith. If they violate those, then there's trouble; class changes, power-stripping, the kind of stuff that doesn't actually happen at most tables but the mechanical suggestion is there, both consequence and requirement.

A warlock is ... a lot less "firm" in what the heck it needs to be doing, if anything. And if you do start to require things of the warlock, that seems to put a lot more focus on that one player. They need to acquire the Jewel of Kabaz if they want to level up. If they don't ... do they level up anyway? Whether you're doing experience or milestone leveling via quests/story arcs, is the warlock leveling at a different pace than others? Probably not. So does their patron matter, outside of mechanics?

I guess there's just so little provided to work with as a DM, and so much more of an expectation- the warlock-patron relationship seems closer/more "present" than a paladin oath/cleric faith because supposedly warlocks need to be periodically doing direct tasks for their patron if they want more class features.
I've been trying to nail down my issues, and to figure out solutions- I guess the other thing is, it seems like almost anything can be a warlock patron. You don't need a deity- lowish-CR creatures can be warlock patrons.. So it's hard to make a list of strictures n' such for warlocks.. since their patrons are basically "whatever."
I don't know, I'm still trying to figure this one out. Maybe it's just about GMing style, but again I've never had a problem with paladins n' clerics.

Has anyone else had this problem with warlocks?

The best way is to write up the pact at level 1. The patron(you) and the PC(player) negotiate out a contract for the power. Then the warlock needs to uphold it every bit as much as the paladin oath. When you negotiate it, do so with an eye for the flavor of the patron. A fey is going to bargain for different things than a demon.

 

[Steampunkette]

Max has a really solid idea, there. Another way to do it?

Flesh out the Patron.

Sit down with your Player/DM and figure out who your patron is, what they want, how you'll get it for them. Decide how the relationship is between Warlock and Patron.

Is the relationship purely transactional with no greater feeling? Does the Warlock -despise- their patron, but serve because the power is needed to do good? Does the Patron see themself as a pseudo-parental figure for the warlock? Or are they just fattening up a future snackrifice?

After all, if the Warlock hits 20th level and the Patron calls in their marker for the warlock's soul: They likely also get all the warlock's stuff. And a level 20 D&D characters has LOTS of resources and powerful magic items that can be used to spread the Patron's influence and help them achieve their goals.

The patrons are loosely themed so that you can flesh out what a specific patron is like, rather than all Fiend Warlocks serving Asmodeus.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've had trouble with warlocks all through 5e, and I could use some insights from other folk. Maybe I just need the discussion.

I've been playing and running since AD&D, so I have solid ideas of what the strictures of a cleric and paladin should be, where their powers come from, and the responsibilities of those classes. In some ways, they're still baked into the class, even if 5e has handwaved a lot of it away. But Warlocks, as they are now, are a 5e construct.

A paladin's power is drawn from their oath, their faith (in that oath or deity). I still ask paladins players to pick a deity or something in that vein.
Clerics get their powers from their deity, their faith, etc.
Warlocks, according to their 5e14 class description, get their power in exchange for performing services for their patron.

Here's one hurdle: the warlock actually gets their power by leveling up- whether it's experience points or milestone leveling, the warlock doesn't need to be doing anything for their patron to "gain power." You could say similar things about clerics and paladins, but a paladin just has to keep to their oath- a cleric just needs to adhere to their faith. If they violate those, then there's trouble; class changes, power-stripping, the kind of stuff that doesn't actually happen at most tables but the mechanical suggestion is there, both consequence and requirement.

A warlock is ... a lot less "firm" in what the heck it needs to be doing, if anything. And if you do start to require things of the warlock, that seems to put a lot more focus on that one player. They need to acquire the Jewel of Kabaz if they want to level up. If they don't ... do they level up anyway? Whether you're doing experience or milestone leveling via quests/story arcs, is the warlock leveling at a different pace than others? Probably not. So does their patron matter, outside of mechanics?

I guess there's just so little provided to work with as a DM, and so much more of an expectation- the warlock-patron relationship seems closer/more "present" than a paladin oath/cleric faith because supposedly warlocks need to be periodically doing direct tasks for their patron if they want more class features.
I've been trying to nail down my issues, and to figure out solutions- I guess the other thing is, it seems like almost anything can be a warlock patron. You don't need a deity- lowish-CR creatures can be warlock patrons.. So it's hard to make a list of strictures n' such for warlocks.. since their patrons are basically "whatever."
I don't know, I'm still trying to figure this one out. Maybe it's just about GMing style, but again I've never had a problem with paladins n' clerics.

Has anyone else had this problem with warlocks?

Think of it like this:

Do you forbid your employees from learning new skills and becoming more effective employees, simply because they haven't met 100% of their stated goals prior to learning such skills? I would assume probably not, at least if you want to keep any actually good employees for more than one pay period. Do you fire employees on the spot if they happen to be having a bad week and thus have gotten fewer tasks done than usual? Again, I would assume probably not.

Warlocks are independent contractors working for an employer. That means, generally speaking, there is some lenience in the specific details of the task completion, because of the whole "independent" thing. You don't go auditing your books every day to make perfectly sure every independent contractor has spent exactly eight hours working and paid not one penny more than necessary and (etc., etc., etc.)--you give them the space to work and you check in on them from time to time for progress reports and updates.

Now, in the case of the warlock patron, there's a teensy bit more than that: what you specifically want from them probably changes over time, and (often) you're trying to change who they are to make them more like you. That means you want them to think your way, to think like you think, to work like you work. So, generally speaking, I think your problem is one of putting the cart before the horse.

You should be starting with "What demands did the patron make of you before you got your first taste of Real Power? And how did that Real Power feel? It felt good, didn't it? Great, even. You felt like a million bucks. And then it was gone--but you were promised all that and more, if you'd just go strangle Mrs. Ketterley's prized geese." Oh, and you'll get even more if you just pour this little bottle of "oil" into the village well--don't worry, nobody will die from it...no, I, your loving patron, wouldn't want to harm anyone in the village.

Etc. That's what you want in your Warlocks. You want them hungry for the deal. You want them like junkies. "I can quit at any time!" That's what the typical Warlock patron wants. Not a fervent believer. They want a proud skeptic who is oh-so-confident that they've never, ever been their patron's puppet.

And all the while, the patron's machinations advance. In all likelihood, they're being honest! No one in the village will be harmed--but the children who grow up drinking the water from that well will grow into Aberrant Sorcerers, and one of them will open a door that should have stayed closed. Or, someone will turn to dark forces to deal with the "threat" looming over the town because the forces of good can't find the source of the problem. Or, or, or--the world is your oyster.

Just remember: Think like an abusive manipulator, like a loan shark for superheroes. You don't want their soul. That's a lame consolation prize. You want their labor. Because with it...you can change the world.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I've been playing and running since AD&D, so I have solid ideas of what the strictures of a cleric and paladin should be

You mean the ones removed in 5e?

In 1st edition, the restrictions on the paladin were intended to balance the power of the class. About half way through the run of 3e WotC figured out that role play restrictions didn’t work for mechanical balance. Ergo, in 5e only mechanics figure into class balance. So, if the DM tries to impose role playing restrictions when some classes don’t have them they are being fundamentally unfair. So it’s up to the player to decide on any role playing restrictions that affect their character, such as religious tenets or patron demands. It has been removed from the DM’s purview.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yea it's bad design built primarily so it caters to munchkinism under an umbrella of "RoLePlAyInG" that shields it from the gm ever leaning in or calling bs. All of that was before Crawford gleefully leaned in talking about how it was by intended design that the warlock patron couldn't expect or deny anything from the warlock.

I once had a table of players who were going off on a quest to clear out a ancient temple/tomb/fortress kinda thing so one of the players could do a thing there using the natural energy present (iirc it involved a wizard crafting a magic weapon for the party fighter). Wanting to involve more players by hooking in their PCs when I was building it I decided that it would be occupied by a group of fey of a different faction than the fey pact warlock in the party figuring that the self proclaimed roleplayers who loved reminding us would have some reaction to finding out it was get occupied.

When the players were given the quest it was made explicitly clear that the temple was fet occupied... No reaction from the feylock player.

The players had something∆ to finish in town after finding out about the quest. When one of the other players brought up a few minutes later how it might be a problem that they should plan for the warlock player literally said "no warlock doesn't work that way, my patron can't do anything to me even if it's their fey".

When the gm responded with uhh... You are always invoking the "I'm a RoLePlAyEr and.." swear and really should reach out.the fey pact player said "ok I do that"§.

When the player was pushed to elaborate on how, there was an effort to brush it off with "the way I usually do when I need to reach out"§. One of the other players (cleric maybe?) at the table called BS on that for the gm and convinced the fey pact player that they need to engage in & describe some kinda ritual like that time their cleric did x
$thing. "Oh I guess I buy cake and leave it in the Forest, let's go"§. The fey pact PC was visited by a fey messenger and told story stuff about the temple they were told to dedicate to their mutual patron/ruler so it could be claimed by them and taken from the fey who were defiling it. Party goes through the whole temple slaughtering fey who try to verbally make it personal with an enemy representative and the other players are more involved in the banter than the fey pact PC's player. At no point did the warlock player take any act whatsoever to claim or dedicate the temple to their patron and they literally cited Crawford on the matter. Obviously whatever fet based series of adventures was jettisoned into the nearest dumpster fire but the campaign continued for a few months of weekly sessions but ultimately that was also one of the last groups I was willing to run 5e for, I very much doubt that I would allow warlocks at my table if that were to change

∆it wasn't relevant what the something was. iirc it was holiday related and I gave their PCs Christmas presents or something silly?

§ Word For Word Quote. No over the months of play at that point the player had not once attempted to reach out to the patron

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I had planned to write up a thread about this. But too many kids and too much work. Here are some thoughts related without the citations and page numbers.

The actual way a warlock gets power is multifaceted, possibly contradictory and is often choose your own adventure.

If power is just granted, “learning and growing in power” is an odd thing.

The fact you can get some warlock abilities
Through feats suggests not just warlock can do some warlock things.

Being taught secrets is not just injecting power. You can ride a bike if I teach you how.

Nothing says anything about losing power if “x” does not happen.

There are statements about self-study too. And so on. Sometimes the warlock taps into the power of a patron without the patron knowing!

The relationship between warlock and patron is not a balancing issue in the game. That is, the 2014 warlock is not at all more powerful than sorcerers or wizards.

Suggestion: do what you want and do what is fun. As dm and player…

We usually let the player decide how to rp it. I do as dm and so do my friends when they dm. Only do a warlock quest adventure if it is a starter for and adventure for the whole party that they would like it too. Otherwise assume it is off camera…or not needed.

I have a fiend pact character who is good hearted and is driven to break chains of others and rebel for good. The voice that drives him is actually a demon who wants him to go too far and do atrocities in the name of good. His axe talks to him…and the party thinks he is crazy.

Over time, he has gotten wilder…so I took a level of barbarian…

I also took blade pact to lean into this idea of his axe being his source of power. He uses improved pact weapon as his spell casting focus only emphasizing that his weapon is the source of his new power (in his mind).

Anyway, point is this: I am using the pact for roleplaying and it’s not enforced or a problem. It’s not overpowered, does not unbalance the game, does not detract from the adventure or party….and is fun.

Now that we are higher level, there has been a hint we might have fought some minions of the patron. Not sure how dm might use this but it’s not by being ham fisted, restrictive, playing “gotcha” or worrying about balance. It’s fine.

The warlock class is a playground. Have fun and only take the rides (as dm or player) that seem fun.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I've had trouble with warlocks all through 5e, and I could use some insights from other folk. Maybe I just need the discussion.

I've been playing and running since AD&D, so I have solid ideas of what the strictures of a cleric and paladin should be, where their powers come from, and the responsibilities of those classes. In some ways, they're still baked into the class, even if 5e has handwaved a lot of it away. But Warlocks, as they are now, are a 5e construct.

A paladin's power is drawn from their oath, their faith (in that oath or deity). I still ask paladins players to pick a deity or something in that vein.
Clerics get their powers from their deity, their faith, etc.
Warlocks, according to their 5e14 class description, get their power in exchange for performing services for their patron.

Here's one hurdle: the warlock actually gets their power by leveling up- whether it's experience points or milestone leveling, the warlock doesn't need to be doing anything for their patron to "gain power." You could say similar things about clerics and paladins, but a paladin just has to keep to their oath- a cleric just needs to adhere to their faith. If they violate those, then there's trouble; class changes, power-stripping, the kind of stuff that doesn't actually happen at most tables but the mechanical suggestion is there, both consequence and requirement.

A warlock is ... a lot less "firm" in what the heck it needs to be doing, if anything. And if you do start to require things of the warlock, that seems to put a lot more focus on that one player. They need to acquire the Jewel of Kabaz if they want to level up. If they don't ... do they level up anyway? Whether you're doing experience or milestone leveling via quests/story arcs, is the warlock leveling at a different pace than others? Probably not. So does their patron matter, outside of mechanics?

I guess there's just so little provided to work with as a DM, and so much more of an expectation- the warlock-patron relationship seems closer/more "present" than a paladin oath/cleric faith because supposedly warlocks need to be periodically doing direct tasks for their patron if they want more class features.
I've been trying to nail down my issues, and to figure out solutions- I guess the other thing is, it seems like almost anything can be a warlock patron. You don't need a deity- lowish-CR creatures can be warlock patrons.. So it's hard to make a list of strictures n' such for warlocks.. since their patrons are basically "whatever."
I don't know, I'm still trying to figure this one out. Maybe it's just about GMing style, but again I've never had a problem with paladins n' clerics.

Has anyone else had this problem with warlocks?

All three are the same. None of them HAVE to do anything to get their abilities if you, the DM, do not ask of them to do anything as part of the roleplaying in-world.

You say the Paladin and the Cleric have to select an Oath and a Deity. Great. That's the same as the Warlock selecting a Patron. But at no point does the player of the Paladin or the Cleric actually HAVE to roleplay that Oath or relationship with the Deity. There's nothing in-game or within the rules that requires it-- it all comes down to how the player chooses to have their character act, or you the DM require the player to have their character act. Which is exactly the same as the player with the Warlock and their Patron.

Some call it a "failure of design" that there are no points these players have to hit in order to gain or level up abilities. But all those points are just ways the game would force players to roleplay a certain way-- "if you want to level your character up, you as a player must have your character do X, Y, and Z." But that kind of statement written down in the book serves zero purpose unless the DM ENFORCES those points. Which no DM is required to do, and most DMs will ignore if they don't find them interesting, compelling, or necessary. The books cannot FORCE people to roleplay or use the rules in a certain way-- all they can do is give ideas of how you COULD roleplay or use the rules if they wanted to.

Which means it all comes down to the age-old argument of what method is better for putting information in the rulebooks-- write a specific thing that DMs can just ignore if they want... or don't write a specific thing that a DM can add if they feel it necessary. Some people find the lack of restriction and ease of creation from the latter to be better. Others find the ease of not being forced to do some of the work that they want to see from the former to be better-- it's easier to remove something you don't want than adding something you do as the saying goes. And every DM who falls on either side of that wall will have a differing opinion whether the Warlock and their Patron not having concrete or clear-cut rules or fluff on the relationship between the two to thus be a good thing or a bad thing (or as some people like to put it, a "success" or a "failure" of design.)

But at the end of the day... you're the DM. Only you can determine just how important these Oaths, Deities, and Patrons are within your game, and what you will ask of your players to "act out" via the roleplaying. You want the players to do more? You have to incentivize or punish them appropriately so they will. But you can't expect the book to do it for you, because the book hasn't and doesn't wish to.

 

[tetrasodium]

You mean the ones removed in 5e?

In 1st edition, the restrictions on the paladin were intended to balance the power of the class. About half way through the run of 3e WotC figured out that role play restrictions didn’t work for mechanical balance. Ergo, in 5e only mechanics figure into class balance. So, if the DM tries to impose role playing restrictions when some classes don’t have them they are being fundamentally unfair. So it’s up to the player to decide on any role playing restrictions that affect their character, such as religious tenets or patron demands. It has been removed from the DM’s purview.

Except 5e didn't remove them. It simply removed the parts with gm facing levers and replaced them

Spoiler: with this

The player facing levers were all left in place or even scaled up in lore weight even before wotc staff went around doubling down on that being the intended design.

As cool as the Lucifer/Constantine and Winchester/Crowley backnforth might be in passively consumed tv/comic format, those work because they are passively consumed stories about "The Main Character(s)" and those characters are proactively involved in doing things while carrying problems who have ties of their own that can't be ignored. None of that is true in d&d. What the end result winds up being is a broken hinge that can expect to one sidedly lean on the gm for assistance from higher powers.

I say one sided because the gm looks like a jerk shutting down what could be a cool path of roleplay even when they know it's just Lucy with a football and wotc bent over backwards making sure that the gm also looks like a jerk if the world reacts logically to Lucy yanking that football when the gm continues the path later.

 

[Gorck]

I can’t say I’ve ever struggled with this distinction. As I understand it, Clerics and Paladins worship Gods/Deities. Warlocks make a pact with powerful beings that aren’t quite a Gods/Deities. It’s more like the mafia: you make a bargain to gain something on your end, with the understanding that you owe the bargainer a future debt or your undying loyalty or something. Maybe that bargainer is a wannabe deity, a demon/devil, a solar/celestial, an archfey, or a Demon Lord/Archdevil, etc.