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

[Maxperson]

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.

It doesn't matter if it's bound by law or just an agreement by both sides. It's still going to be expected or depending on the patron, enforced.

The whole it's not legalese, it's just an agreement is semantics.

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.

See, I take words at what they mean. It's PACT magic, so it takes a pact. The contradictory fluff doesn't change that. And if you are going to stick to the fluff, well it says this...

"In no time, each Warlock is drawn into a binding pact with a powerful patron."

There are no exceptions. EACH warlock is drawn into a BINDING pact. Agreement or legalese.

 

[Maxperson]

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

So what. Oh, and the text merely says that you make a pact with a patron. It doesn't prevent it from being a patron in a weapon. It doesn't prevent the DM from making the weapon specials. There's nothing in the warlock language that prevents the patron from being in the weapon.

 

[Maxperson]

What about gods? Are they NPCs?

Yes, of course they are.

Even when they may or may not exist, as in Eberron?

100%. If they exist, they are NPCs. If they don't exist, they can't be a patron. Warlocks don't work on faith like clerics do.

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.

They are still an NPC. Just because the NPC has not been used, doesn't mean that the being does not exist in the fiction. If it exists in the fiction, it's an NPC.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Where is it? In the 5.5e warlock is says that each and every warlock makes a binding pact with a patron. I see no exceptions to that. It's not under pact magic, which repeats that it's a pact with an entity to gain powers. It's not under warlock subclass which just lists various patrons.

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.

If that's what it is, it has utterly failed. Abusive DMs will ignore it, and the rest of us didn't need it. There is no guardrail, only worthless words that fail prevent abusive behavior.

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.

The DM controls whether the patron does anything or not.

"CREATURE
Any being in the game, including a player's character, is a creature. See also "Creature Type."

It doesn't require being used or statted up to be a creature.

"MONSTER
A monster is a creature controlled by the DM, even if the creature is benevolent. See also "Creature" and "NPC.""

Creatures are monsters or NPCs and controlled by the DM.

NONPLAYER CHARACTER
A nonplayer character (NPC) is a monster that has a personal name and a distinct personality. See also "Monster.""

The creature/monster patron will have a name and personality, and is therefore an NPC.

The player cannot create a patron that doesn't start that chain. Any being in the game is a creature/monster/NPC controlled by the DM. Except PCs.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

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.

Then this destroys the entire class and makes it utterly pointless and worthless. It's like how removing need for Clerics to worship gods made Clerics ten times more boring, but even worse since Clerics are far more useful and versatile.

Also, I made a meme just for this argument because I am tired of having to repeat this every time. Should be below.

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.

The irony of your post being followed by a post claiming that not only do 2024 rules say that but were saying it since 2014 and everyone who played Warlock's patron like an NPC and not just meaningless source of big number go up, was doing it wrong.

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.

There are more settings with active gods than without them, so they defenitely exist in most of settings. And yes, gods are NPCs, there is a common joke that if there is some Overgod above the gods of a setting - Ao on TOril, High God on Krynn, Old Ones on Mystara - then the one that Overgod directly answers to is The DM.

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.

Please tell me where have I advocated for these emchanics to be used for DM to take away PC's powers. I'll wait.

And I think the "fighter" is way too broad archetype to cover all of that and could use some narrowing and reconfigurating, hence why my idea of replacing it with more defined Knight. And Knight still allows huge versitality and variety.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Then this destroys the entire class and makes it utterly pointless and worthless.

Lets tune down the hyperbole and melodrama and stick to reality please?

The only DMs to whom not being able to force a patron onto a player "makes the class worthless" are the ones who want to force a patron onto a player who doesn't want one.
Hopefully that kind of messed-up dynamic is vanishingly rare.

It's like how removing need for Clerics to worship gods made Clerics ten times more boring, but even worse since Clerics are far more useful and versatile.

I think that it opens up more options for clerics. To all the players who would have their cleric worship a god, they will anyway. But for those who have more unusual concepts, it works for them as well.

 

[BenjaminPey]

The irony of your post being followed by a post claiming that not only do 2024 rules say that but were saying it since 2014 and everyone who played Warlock's patron like an NPC and not just meaningless source of big number go up, was doing it wrong.

It... is not? It is followed by a post claiming that the DM can't force a Patron on the players. Which, yes, true. Also unrelated to my post, which claimed that RAW totally leaves open the possibility of a Patron and a PC having a close relationship.

Suddenly I'm afraid. Is what it's all about? You're not angry because Patrons can't be fun NPCs anymore, but because DMs can't force their players?

Because, as much as I understood and sympathize to a degree with the previous framing ("I like Patrons and like when they play a role in my games"), I'm afraid I've really nothing good to say about this one ("there is one and only one true way of being a Warlock and I will enforce it on players, even against their will, provided the rules help me, because if they don't, if they don't explicitly say that I am entitled to coerce my players into this relationship they don't want, all of this would be meaningless").

 

[Not a Decepticon]

It... is not? It is followed by a post claiming that the DM can't force a Patron on the players. Which, yes, true. Also unrelated to my post, which claimed that RAW totally leaves open the possibility of a Patron and a PC having a close relationship.

Suddenly I'm afraid. Is what it's all about? You're not angry because Patrons can't be fun NPCs anymore, but because DMs can't force their players?

Because, as much as I understood and sympathize to a degree with the previous framing ("I like Patrons and like when they play a role in my games"), I'm afraid I've really nothing good to say about this one ("there is one and only one true way of being a Warlock and I will enforce it on players, even against their will, provided the rules help me, because if they don't, if they don't explicitly say that I am entitled to coerce my players into this relationship they don't want, all of this would be meaningless").

The post I referenced franed having oatron as an npc as one WRONG way of playing the Warlock and claimed 2024 clarified rules to make people stop doing it

 

[BenjaminPey]

The post I referenced franed having oatron as an npc as one WRONG way of playing the Warlock and claimed 2024 clarified rules to make people stop doing it

The post following mine is #165, which says:

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.

It doesn't say that having a patron as an NPC is wrong. Again, you're conflating two things:

1. RAW, can a Patron be an active NPC in the game?
The answer is yes. As it was in 2014.

2. RAW, can the DM force a very active NPC patron on the player without their input.
The answer is no. It was muddier in 2014.

I reckon you have a problem with #2.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

The post following mine is #165, which says:


It doesn't say that having a patron as an NPC is wrong. Again, you're conflating two things:

1. RAW, can a Patron be an active NPC in the game?
The answer is yes. As it was in 2014.

2. RAW, can the DM force a very active NPC patron on the player without their input.
The answer is no. It was muddier in 2014.

I reckon you have a problem with #2.

I have problem with the fact tyhat RAW the answer to #1 is "yes but actually a hard no".