iserith
Magic Wordsmith
You monster!(for example, I hate Revivify and have banned it)
You monster!(for example, I hate Revivify and have banned it)
I don't know if I agree with that. If a GM said something like that during a pitch/introduction/session zero I personally would take it as an invitation to step up myself to engage in the conversation that I need to flesh out the game style & group dynamics they are aiming to foster.You asked for specifics and that’s my take. It’s not simple, you need to see it in action. Also, many types of players can be problematic but this thread is about avoiding power gaming at the table. The answer is personal and will vary by person. I’m an optimizer that some folks might consider a power gamer, and others a total noob. Which is why I think “no power gaming” isn’t going to work.
If you make a deal with a patron, the patron is getting something out of it. An archfiend gets your soul. Other patrons get something similar out of the deal. Perhaps the act of making a deal weakens the walls between worlds, letting these beings have greater access to the Material Plane. Perhaps a GOO or Archfey gets your psychic energy or rides behind your eyes and gains your knowledge. Perhaps noble genie ensures that their element gets spread around a little bit more on the Material than it normally would be, thus making the Prime one step closer to joining their elemental plane. Perhaps an undead/undying patron is satisfied with you spreading negative energy around the Material.That's never made sense to me. Why would any patron (or god) make a deal with a mortal that's so one-sided that the PC can keep what the patron gives them no matter what?? It just reads to me like an excuse to let the player do whatever they want, because that's easier than adjusting the character sheet.
And the classes "ficiton" consequences should mostly balance out. There isn't an equivalent for a Wizard, Bard, Druid, or Sorcerer. That's a problem with taking away Warlock and Cleric magic (which isn't mechanically supported in 5e, anyway).Fiction first. There are consequences for your actions.
The issue as I see it is that, without providing guidance in the book, they are saying that no PC has to listen to anything the DM has to say about how their pact might work. They are functionally super powers, whether the DM wants that in their world or not.If you make a deal with a patron, the patron is getting something out of it. An archfiend gets your soul. Other patrons get something similar out of the deal. Perhaps the act of making a deal weakens the walls between worlds, letting these beings have greater access to the Material Plane. Perhaps a GOO or Archfey gets your psychic energy or rides behind your eyes and gains your knowledge. Perhaps noble genie ensures that their element gets spread around a little bit more on the Material than it normally would be, thus making the Prime one step closer to joining their elemental plane. Perhaps an undead/undying patron is satisfied with you spreading negative energy around the Material.
It's also fully possible that giving a warlock some magic takes up very little of the patron's energy. Plus it's possible that, because patrons aren't gods, they can only give the magic; they don't have enough control over it to channel it to their warlocks the way that a god can channel it to their clerics.
And this is without having the warlock actually RP their devotion or what form their initial pact took--which is and should be up to the DM and player. I don't blame the books for not specifying what activities warlocks should perform in order to appease their patron. Not only would it be impossible to cover every type of activity for every type of patron, but it would logically include some very unsavory things, like human sacrifice--which flies in the face of the idea of heroic characters. The hexblade player in one of my games decided on their own that their sword wants blood and wants the PC to consume it. I'm more than happy to continue with that idea and have already worked out with the player a possible way this could go (Ravenloft, dark powers checks, transformation into monstrous form, yadda yadda).
If the DM doesn't want them, they can ban the class.whether the DM wants that in their world or not.
Maybe don't decide to betray your patron/god? And if suffering consequences for your own actions is somehow unfair, there are plenty of ways to make other classes suffer for making choices.And the classes "ficiton" consequences should mostly balance out. There isn't an equivalent for a Wizard, Bard, Druid, or Sorcerer. That's a problem with taking away Warlock and Cleric magic (which isn't mechanically supported in 5e, anyway).
How about they want them as the fiction in the text depicts, and not as people with irrevocable super powers and a "patron" that exists solely to define the theme of said super powers.If the DM doesn't want them, they can ban the class.
First, that's no different than how any other spellcaster works. How do rangers get their spells? If they stop doing rangery things, should they lose their spells? No, of course not. Bards wouldn't lose their spells if they never touched a musical instrument again. Sorcerers don't lose their spells if they go no-contact with their great gramma dragon. Wizards don't even lose their spellcasting if they actually lose their physical spellbook--they would wouldn't be able to switch their spells out for different ones, but they'd still have all their slots. Why should warlocks be any different by RAW?The issue as I see it is that, without providing guidance in the book, they are saying that no PC has to listen to anything the DM has to say about how their pact might work. They are functionally super powers, whether the DM wants that in their world or not.