D&D 5E (2024) Hexblade isn't coming, yet.

[Maxperson]

LITERALLY being an insignificant blip is part of the GOO Warlock patron write up and is a full possibility according to the flavour text.

"The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you."

I never really understood that. To be a warlock you have to actually make a pact with the patron, and a pact is a contract. A Great Old One that isn't aware of you are is entirely indifferent to you hasn't made a pact with you.

It may be that the great old one has its attention caught by certain specific rituals that if performed, cause it to grant power in exchange for some base help, and then doesn't bother to ever track you again due to indifference. At some point, though, it had to have been both aware of the warlock and less than entirely indifferent in order to make the pact.

 

[Maxperson]

If the player wants their character to be associated with an NPC, they can do that. I find it laughable that you think that isn’t possible unless it’s hard-coded into the class rules (ruling out any other possibilities.)

There's no such thing as a being in the fiction other than PCs that is not an NPC. That's what an NPC is, a being other than the PCs. If the patron exists, it is automatically an NPC.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You don't have to reply. I won't see it.

Mod Note:

Not only does your post get vey personal with your interlocutor, your closing strongly implies you’ve put them on your ignore list.

Using your ignore list is fine- it exists to be used. But announcing you’re using it- by statement or implication- is disruptive to ENWorld’s overall civility. And you’ve been here long enough to know we discourage that. Don’t do it again.

 

[BenjaminPey]

None of the ways your warlocks played are legal by 2024 RAW rules because in 2024 RAW the patron is not supposed to be an entity that you can get quests from or rebel against, just impotent, meaningless source of "big number go up" for the game's poorly-designed combat.

You keep saying that, but it's simply not true. RAW is full of usuallys and maybes and mays. 2024 RAW doesn't prevent your preferred version at all, it's just not the default anymore.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

2014 or 2024 text? because 2024 is the one we have problem with. I in particular have a HUGE beef with the fact RAW I cannot introduce patron before level 10 when majority of campaigns end at level 7.

The DM cannot force a patron on the player at all, at any level. That's the whole point. And it's a clarification on the 2014 rules, not a change. The point being to be a guardrail to try and limit abusive behaviour from DMs - a long standing problem for D&D. It's the same as clerics not needing to have a god unless the player chooses.

Of course, there is no reason why the DM can't introduce an NPC that a player can enter into an agreement with, but that's not forced on the player because of their choice of class.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think the idea is that the weapon is maybe a +0 magic weapon that has the power to impart warlock stuff after making the pact. Then as the PC levels up, the weapon grows in power. You can have it absorb other magic weapon properties like @Steampunkette did, or maybe have it grow like the 3e weapons of legacy that gained powers as the PC gained levels. The PC isn't starting with Stormbringer at level 3, but he's finishing with Stormbringer in his hands at level 20.

Again, that's not what the text actually says.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

pact is a contract

I guess that is where you are going wrong. Thing about the English language is that words can have more than one meaning. It’s inherently loosey-goosey. A pact is any sort of agreement, not necessarily a legalistic contract, which of course would make no sense for any patron who isn’t a devil or a particularly lawful celestial. Demons are not known for sticking to agreements.

But if you actually read the class text, it tells you that you don’t need to have a pact at all. It’s the same as bards not needing to go to college. Its just a title assigned to the subclasses so you know they belong with warlock.

2024 isn’t changing the rules, warlocks have never required a legalistic contract. Read the 3.5 class description.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There's no such thing as a being in the fiction other than PCs that is not an NPC. That's what an NPC is, a being other than the PCs. If the patron exists, it is automatically an NPC.

What about gods? Are they NPCs? Even when they may or may not exist, as in Eberron? Clearly, if a god turns up for some wise words or to throw lightning bolts, they are an NPC. But if a character is only named, and takes no active part in events? Then no, I would say they are not an NPC. They are just background scenery.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Who said that I want it only for Warlock? By all means there should be such things for all classes. Why shouldn't a Knight (which if I were to redesign D&D I would replace Fighter with) for example carry a family crest that obligates them to certain actions? Why shouldn't Rogue have connections to a criminal underground that require them to perform certain tasks? And if a Druid decides to help colonizers cut down ancient forest why shouldn't they get a visit from this guy?
View attachment 439774
(I once honestly saw a DM complaining about a Druid who did that and used this meme to argue against what the DM wanted to do - take away their powers).

I definitely think a fighter shouldn't always be a knight who's abilities are bound to remaining a knight and a rogue shouldn't always have connections to a criminal underground that requires them to perform certain tasks or lose their abilities because that limits roleplaying to an incredible degree. A character like Commander Vimes from Discworld becomes impossible to make - his abilities in the books look like a fighter/rogue, but just LOL at Vimes having a family crest or being beholden to the criminal underworld. We can't have a Bilbo or Frodo who's got rogue skills but no connection with the criminal underworld. We can't have a knight who discovers his liege is terrible and leads a revolt against him. We can't have a folk hero with no family name who fights in an emergency and discovers he's good at it.

I think D&D is much better as a game when classes are broad archetypes that can tell a huge variety of stories instead of forcing classes into extremely narrow niches, and where the PCs get to do stuff and deal with consequences but those consequences don't include 'your PC now becomes pretty much a commoner since their powers turn off'. I've also never seen 'DM takes away PC's powers' in a positive light.

And in my experience power-hungry DMs that will use connections to the world as form of railroading or a way to "gotcha' the players are extremly rare and the rules do not need to become DM hostile to counterbalance them. DMs are already doing a lot of heavy work, why are we making their lives harder?

As someone who DMs more often than plays, I consider your proposed rules significantly less attractive to DMs, and most people I talk to who also DM feel similarly. Most DMs I know get excited explaining how varied warlocks can be to a player who thinks they have to fit a super-narrow niche. I don't think it's reasonable at all to call rules you're personally not a fan of 'DM hostile' as though your preferences are those of all DMs.

So imposing a Patron who is impotent, powerless and never allowed to interfere or even speak out is somehow an improvement? How is this not as bad or worse, just in other direction?

I don't see how forbidding one of the options explicitly listed in the PHB (a warlock drawing power from a dead god) is an improvement, no. Since the rules don't impose such a patron but just allow one like that, I think it's great to have more interesting options for how to play the game.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I feel that most Warlock players will have a good idea of who their patron will be, and whether they want them involved in the story before they even start playing.
I also feel that this could be revealed through something that most DMs will have at least a basic concept of:

Talking to their players.

I think that a player who asks that their patron be included in the game and provides the DM guidance as to how, is unlikely to get upset at a DM who does so whilst staying in the spirit of that guidance. Likewise a DM who gets their player's agreement and request to include their patron isn't likely to passive-aggressively refuse just because "by my reading of RAW the rules don't let me."
Exceptions to this are likely to reveal social dynamic disfunctions beyond anything that the system mechanics can remedy.

Yes, this is the internet, and there is a culture of insincerity and mis-stating someone's position as an exaggerated extreme in order to score internet points. But how often is this likely to actually be an issue for real people in a real D&D group around a real table?