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

[Maxperson]

It's not in the rules. The same goes for clerics, paladins, etc. There are no rules in 5e for removing PC powers or denying them advancement.

I mean, that's just false when it comes to 5e. The paladin can be forced to become an oathbreaker, which gives different abilities, so the paladin has some powers removed from him. The DM hands out XP, so not handing the PC any XP denies advancement. And of course, the DMG says several times that the DM does not serve the rules, the rules serve the DM, so he can ignore the rules and create his own when he needs to, and that includes removing/denial/alteration of PC abilities.

So yes it is in the rules.

 

[Wolfram stout]

You've gravely misunderstood what The Archfey are. That fix you describe is likely a minor fey at best because The Archfey are entities like Lord/Emperor Oberon, Queen Mab, & Queen Titania. To put it into scale, one of those links goes to the fr wiki and another of them is a real world individual of the wild hunt myth who started out as Odin.

The Devil came up to Boston with Sully is a better analog to the behavior of player controlled PCs in d&d than down to Georgia, but it is an absolutely horrific example story to base anything in d&d on because single player d&d is rarely the norm and the gm needs to remain fair to all of their players while also credibility playing extremely supernaturally skilled beings who need to convincingly exist within the world as more than the punchline for Bob's latest warlock self insert slashfic where devil went down to/came up to level dopes are reasonable NPCs for Bob's Main Character.


Carrying a link to entities like The Archfey might be a total non-issue in a railroad chain of modules/hardcover adventure where PCs are pretty much welded to the module boundaries. That quickly starts to change & "well if you're the type of gm who.." is no longer applicable as things move more towards sandbox play though. That shift occurs because the nature of a sandbox means that the PC is carrying that link and can make use of it in ways that are simply not possible while chained to a series of potentially connected modules

Wow what a conclusion to jump to from one post. And to clarify my examples are of backstories not single player D&D.

As far as railroad vs sandbox, the pc has the powers the pc has, don’t see any difference there. And the dm can still use the patron. Maybe the patron tries to entangle the player/group in schemes? Or tricks them into accepting a debt.

Whist the subclass name is archfey, the text presents a wider range of ideas. After naming a few archfey is goes on to say this:

Exactly, there are so many fey type that the specifics are only limited to one’s imagination.

 

[Maxperson]

Spoiler: Paraphrased from here perhaps?

Seems pretty close to word for word with the first & definitely in sentiment for both. I'd not be surprised if one of the videos where Crawford gushed on exactly that has him saying it there too.

Unfortunately it's a badly designed message said so loudly & clearly in 5e's design along with a decade of messaging from wotc that

Except wotc has effectively redefined what "work with your GM" means by deciding that the GM is no longer a mere role at the game table & treating the GM "roleJob" as simply a service provider for so long. You need only look at the recent tortle thread for hundreds of pages with examples of how that choice of bad design & messaging where the GM saying "that PC doesn't fit because $reason but these seemingly important parts could kinda fit [like so] & I'm willing to add to/alter this bit of the world [in this way] to carry a little more, but the full tortle still doesn't fit" is repeatedly painted as the GM refusing to "work with" the player who has decided to run with the baton wotc loudly & clearly handed them by deciding "I want X in every way & your world will allow it because it's MyChArEcTeR Do your Job" .

Crawford's non-binding opinion commentary is third to the PHB language, which is different from his commentary, and the PHB language is second to DMG rules that let the DM change the game rules to allow alteration/removal of PC abilities.

 

[Maxperson]

What doesn't get mentioned enough is the positive thing about players having characters that are clerics, paladins and warlocks - which is the opportunity for collaborative world building.
Contracts, oaths, alignment, rituals, orders, attire, bonds, ideals, flaws, relationships with like and non-like minded individuals and factions, allies and enemies, public perception, side quests, tailored spells and invocations, relics, holy symbols & spell foci, theological or ideological doctrine and arguments, communication (if any) with the patron...etc

And this does not have to be limited to the player with that character alone to create ideas, the whole table can offer input as you pull the ones that best suit the campaign and the table.

You could also have a player that is actually comfortable not peeking behind the curtain, hoping to be surprised by the DM's ingenuity.

If you really have an asshat who wishes to ignore it all, without any explanation or consequences, then they are likely not suited to your playstyle.

Right. Despite the claims in this thread, the actual rules on creating warlocks in the 5e PHB say it's a player/DM collaboration. That can include ideas from the whole table. I'd certainly welcome input from other players. Lots of cool ideas come out of things like that.

 

[Maxperson]

By that logic, we should also just eliminate the Cleric, Paladin, and Druid. Just play a Sorcerer if you don't want to be constantly bothered by things actively trying to ruin your life!

So because some folks might not want to play a warlock, cleric, paladin, or druid as written, the classes should be eliminated for everyone? And that makes sense to you?

Alternatively, we could accept that people have different understandings or appreciations of what the Warlock provides, and that difference actually does matter, even though not everyone wants to engage 1,000,000% full-bore with every possible implication of the original inspirations.

Or we can understand that the classes are written like X, and if a player wants to play it like Y, he needs to get the DM's okay to do so. I think most DMs would work with the players to figure out something that fits the concept. At least almost all the DMs I've played with would do so.

 

[Maxperson]

You've gravely misunderstood what The Archfey are. That fix you describe is likely a minor fey at best because The Archfey are entities like Lord/Emperor Oberon, Queen Mab, & Queen Titania. To put it into scale, one of those links goes to the fr wiki and another of them is a real world individual of the wild hunt myth who started out as Odin.

I see the Archfey as high nobles of the fey. Think Lea(Leanansidhe) from the Dresden files. Oberon, Mab and Titania are going to be demigods or lesser gods in their own right.

 

[Maxperson]

Whist the subclass name is archfey, the text presents a wider range of ideas. After naming a few archfey is goes on to say this:

Right. An ancient hag who has grown in power to be much more, joining the ranks of the Archfey, or a large group of fey whose combined power is equivalent to an Archfey. The latter would be absolutely horrible to me as both a player and a DM, since each of those fey would have a hand in the requirements for the warlock and the fey like to mess with mortals.

 

[Maxperson]

The GM could put up a fight about it, but a good 5e GM is going to prioritize player desires over (entirely fungible) setting logic.

To an extent, yes. Sometimes, though, the player desire would be disruptive to the setting and would necessitate a ton of reworking of the entire setting by the DM. In those rare occasions, the DM should say no and explain why. The overwhelming majority of the time, what the player wants can be worked in entirely without change, or with super minor alterations which the player will generally be okay with.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

paladin can be forced to become an oathbreaker

No, they cannot. A paladin player could choose to become an oathbreaker using the optional subclass changing rules, but there is no way to force them to change.

I don’t think subclass changing is in the 2024 rules though (I could be wrong) so it’s actually impossible for a paladin to become an oathbreaker under the 2024 rules.

 

[TwoSix]

To an extent, yes. Sometimes, though, the player desire would be disruptive to the setting and would necessitate a ton of reworking of the entire setting by the DM. In those rare occasions, the DM should say no and explain why. The overwhelming majority of the time, what the player wants can be worked in entirely without change, or with super minor alterations which the player will generally be okay with.

Sure. There are always a few bad actors or just entirely clueless players. One of the benefits of being in my late 40s is that I've had decades to weed those people out.