Search results

Not particularly. I prefer to pick quite powerful creatures as patrons, though - Ghaunadar, Tiamat, that one Ancient Lich two mountains over, the one New God looking for followers, that sort of thing. When I DM, it does not come up, either. I don't expect the party would interact with them...

I highlighted the important one. Not having read the class section is not an excuse for a DM to do this.

That's hardly an excuse for jerking the player around, is it? If a player picks a class and concept and informs the DM in a reasonable time, the DM should then ask if they player wants their patron to be a part of the overall arc. Some will - I would. But to not ask or inform the player and...

And if the DM says nothing about it until the campaign is underway and then starts removing powers, that doesn't seem like good DMing to me. Talking about it from the outset (which, above, I said they ought to do if they plan for them to work this way) is what they should do. There is no...

They are essentially describing punishment for what they consider bad behavior. That's garbage. If they don't want warlocks at their table, they should do the right thing and ban them from the outset, not jerk the players around with the patron - particularly with the threat (or followthrough)...

Yeah, I did something similar back in 3e and it worked out fine. It would work even better in 5e because you really don't need a healer like you did in previous editions. I'd be tempted to allow warlocks in such a setting, though, but I just like them and they have enough limits to not break...

It got them pretty far in 5e - this was in many ways the nostalgia edition in early days.

Not really in 5e; there are far too many of them.

I do believe that is the point.

Which is, in part, an indictment of the edition.

I don't think it is at all that obvious they way some people talk about it. They sound more like they are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of punishing the player of the warlock for... playing a warlock.

This assumes all Warlocks need redeeming. I like "Warlock in Breach of Contract" better.

Seems neat. The whole idea about stripping powers only really made sense in 2e when Paladins were Fighters+ - a paladin that lost their paladin abilities was still a fighter. A 5e Warlock without their warlock abilities isn't even an NPC class; they're what, exactly? Even their hit die is...

You could say much the same about Rangers. Some stuff is just because it was; the game has a history, and people want parts of that history honored. Most of the other small race choices you list weren't original. Gnomes weren't core playable until 1989; halflings were core playable from 1978...

That would be a nice thing to include if and when the crunch about losing a patron was added; a bit like oathbreaker paladins.

If my DM signals they're going to be a jerk about the patron (I pick the patron, not them), I'd probably go to a different table. But: the class proficiencies section does not specify the DM picks. Anything regarding character creation where the DM makes the choice for the player is clearly...

I'd agree with that, but at least back when it was the current new hotness so many people wanted to go to 20 and beyond.

And this is why a mechanic for a warlock losing patron gifts doesn’t exist, because too many DMs would pull stupid crap like that. The patron is fluff, for crying out loud.

Well, the bad ending for the warlock need not even occur in the main story arc, either, right? I think the removal of ability lockouts for paladins means the same treatment for warlocks was the right call. Being locked out of class features would be even worse for the warlock than the paladin!

Why do you need a particular class chassis for a Faustian bargain to be a significant part of a story.