D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[Snarf Zagyg]

This only works if it's a mutually agreed upon change/restriction/whatever. A lot of dm's will unilaterally impose oddball restrictions on warlock players and then be surprised when the players aren't totally onboard with arbitrary restrictions that only they (none of the other players) have to deal with.

Most of this disagreement that I have seen tends to arise between individuals who view a class as something seperate (tied into the lore), and those who view a class as merely a convenient name for a grab-bag of abilities.

Not that either approach is wrong, but generally people are happiest playing with others who share the same perspective.

Mostly because this comes up in a lot of areas- from multiclassing (are you adding a "career" with a RP reason to do so, or just adding some abilities?), to the relationship of the class to the lore (Cleric to Deity, Paladin to Oath, Druid to Nature, Warlock to Patron, Fighter to Hitting Stuff, etc.), to the need to "justify" things with an in-game reason.

General agreement on this tends to reduce friction overall.

 

[Oofta]

In my session 0 I always stress that there will be a cost to being a warlock. In my campaigns patrons are simply more involved (I only allow a handful of patrons for story reasons) in the day-to-day of the world. That there will be a cost someday.

I'll try to make it fun and I don't throw "gotchas" at players but the bill will come due some day. Maybe with installments.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You know it’s not binary, right?

I in fact do.

You made a proposal for a rite your warlock does.

I counter proposed with a slight adjustment.

You then replied, and I quote, "the DM finding RP loopholes to arbitrarily nix a perfectly reasonable action".

Frankly, it seems to me like you think that the warlock-patron relationship is only allowed to be defined by the player, with no DM input allowed.

Don't get me wrong, I don't impose restrictions on warlocks as some others have suggested. If you tell me that you did your patron a solid in your background and they gave you powers in perpetuity, I'm cool with that. If you tell me that you still owe your patron 3 favors, I'll try to work that into the game in a fun way that doesn't screw your character (although it may inconvenience them a bit). But you don't get to dictate to me that because your patron thinks you're their keenest minion that they give you a 1 Wish a week allowance. Maybe I just say no. Maybe I say that I'll allow it but that the warlock owes their patron a major boon for each Wish.

The hex chicken is along the same lines. You can propose that your patron has that rite, but as the DM I run the patron and can say whether that is appropriate.

As I've stated before, I'd allow you to precast hex and I'd allow you to perform the rite. I just wouldn't let you perform the rite in order to precast hex. As far as I'm concerned, you're trying to use RP to justify gaming the system. And as far as I'm concerned, gaming the system ruins RP, so for the good of the game (and the enjoyment of everyone else involved, which does include myself) I don't condone that sort of thing.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

As I've stated before, I'd allow you to precast hex and I'd allow you to perform the rite. I just wouldn't let you perform the rite in order to precast hex. As far as I'm concerned, you're trying to use RP to justify gaming the system. And as far as I'm concerned, gaming the system ruins RP, so for the good of the game (and the enjoyment of everyone else involved, which does include myself) I don't condone that sort of thing.

I think that this is the key, right here.

If a player comes up with a great idea for their character, then I will move heaven and earth and work with them to reskin and/or homebrew to make that character come alive and still work effectively. There is nothing better than an invested player, and a cool character that they like to play.

On the other hand, there is little more disheartening than a player who builds up useless roleplaying traits as some sort of ex post justification for a mechanical advantage that they have found in the rules. "Yeah, I sacrifice a chicken every day! That's totally roleplaying, man!"

I have less respect for this type of backwards building (cart pulling the horse) than I do for straight-forward optimizers who dispense with the need for a fiction.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

That reads mostly as adversarial DMing.

Seems more "there are consequences to your actions" to me

 

[Dausuul]

Seems more "there are consequences to your actions" to me

What action did the "10-year contract" player (remember, the terms of these contracts are dictated by the DM) take? Deciding to play a warlock?

I mean, I'm all for folks doing what works for their tables. Many people enjoy gaming styles I would hate, and vice versa, and that's fine. But when people are avoiding playing warlocks, and people who do play them are unhappy with the experience, that doesn't sound like something that's working for the table.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

What action did the "10-year contract" player (remember, the terms of these contracts are dictated by the DM) take? Deciding to play a warlock?

Yep. You decided to play the class where you make a deal with something more powerful than you.

 

[Helldritch]

This comes across weird, although maybe I'm just not reading you right - if your goal with these rules is to make warlocks more fun to play, but the result is no one wants to play a warlock anymore - I'd say you did not achieve that goal.

The warlock is not popular at my table but he is far from not being present. The group that TPKed before the pandemic had one and we were having fun. He too had taken a fey patron and I was constantly, at his request, bickering with him (it was RP, don't worry) by the way of his familiar, a browny named Sir Pickaboo who instisted on having a miniature plate, a shield, a lance and an armored wardog. I want my armor and wardog or the Summer Queen will learn of it! We really had a lot fun as the browny was finding ways upon ways of protesting but yet, was quite useful to the party and the warlock. He was just very demanding (gold and attention wise). Just like a fey should be.

So, in general the warlock is not really popular for the follwing.

1) The patron of a warlock does not need nor care for the warlock in most cases. So the warlock is kinda stuck with a bargain of which the terms might seem fine at the start but that could become tiresome if not downright detrimental at a higher level.
This is just like some gods are not popular at my table. I have yet to see a cleric of Farlang, Istus or Rao in 30+ years in Greyhawk. (to name but three...)

2) The patron of a warlock will enforce the terms of the contract without any remorse. Again just like a cleric would be stripped of all power for acting against his/her ethos.

3) And this should have been in #1. Warlock have few spell slots. Powerful, but too few for the taste of many of my (most?) players. Why do you think that the "bag of rat" trick is a problem at some tables?

4) Spaming Eldritch blasts all day long is a lot less cool than firing arrows (for reasons I can't fathom). Other warlock options (like the hexblade) are not popular either.

5) This is also a matter of perception. In two "evil" game I played, almost everyone wanted to play a warlock! And I really mean almost everyone. Out of twelve players, 8 wanted to play a warlock (in one group, it was 100% of the players). That one baffled and still baffles me to no end. The evil campaign (played by both group) was a short one to have a change of pace and to explain some of the events that were happening in the main campaign(s). Yes, we do put some campaign on hold to play the other side of the story so that the players have a better understanding of what their main characters achieved or did. Try it! It can be enlightening.

 

[Arial Black]

I don't really have a problem with it, but it really is kind of gaming the system. You're expending the resource to cast it and then using the game rules on a warlock's spell recovery to regain the resource, while keeping the effect of the spell going, before "starting" the adventuring day. The fact that someone came up with an "offering" to justify it from an in-character role playing (despite the idea that such an offering may not really be in character for all warlocky patrons) doesn't negate the fact that exploiting the mechanics is the driver of the behavior.

Every living creature in the world 'games the system! In real life and in our fantasy worlds, creatures are in an environment where there are laws of nature/physics/magic.

Things work like they work. Creatures act within their environment, and in the interactions some behaviours are more likely to be disadvantageous and other behaviours are more likely to be advantageous. Creatures evolve both their behaviours and their phenotypes to take advantage of the laws of nature.

If hex works as written, then those who can cast it and who regain slots on a short rest will quickly evolve the behaviour of casting long duration spells, like hex or aid, in the morning and then waiting until those slots are refreshed before doing anything dangerous, and include such advice when they teach others. Just like they would teach them the best use of all their class abilities and spells.

So I'm a single class spellcaster with lots of high level slots which I regain on a long rest. Just before I go to sleep a cast lots of spells using all my slots, believing (perhaps wrongly) that since I'll have them all back when I wake up this is a net gain. Is this 'gaming the system' or just good sense?

Does the universe itself have an opinion on my behaviour? Will the universe cause increasingly vicious grudge monsters to randomly appear because someone knows how the world works and is making wise decisions to use those rules to benefit themselves? Do campfires fail to warm you because you lit the fire to take advantage of how burning things produce heat?

If you are a DM who has the laws of the universe change to punish creatures who take advantage of how things work then you are a terrible DM who either has no idea how reality works or does know but prioritises their own butt-hurt ego over being a fair and consistent referee.

 

[Fenris-77]

Player 1: I hex .... a chicken!

Player 2: Sorry, you hex a what?

Player 1: A ... chicken! Do not make me tell you a second time!

Player 2: That's 'orrible. What's that chicken ever done to you, eh?

Player 1: Well ...

Player 2: Oppression, that what this is.

Player 1: But I want to save...

Player 2: Look! Look at the Warlock! Oppressing poultry!

Player 1: Look, it's just..

Player 2: See the violence inherent in the system!

Player 1: Oh shut up.