D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Vaalingrade]

In the old days WOTC would have named the various pacts type and sold use a class or feat or race for each.

Warlock Pack- For Warlock Class
Hexblade Pact-For Hexblade Class
Eldritch- Pact- For Eldritch Initiate feat
Resurrection Pact- For Resurrection

Actual classes with full consideration and design space instead of being punched into the square hole of an existing class's strcuture?

How do I sign?

 

[TwoSix]

How do I sign?

For a warlock pact, I’d assume with your firstborn.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Then again, I don't like the "patron has the power to revoke the pact and screw the warlock" any more than I do for clerics, paladins and druids. I am WELL past the "play nice or the DM will remove your class" era of D&D...

Jerk GMs aside, I think it it is much of a bigger deal for a warlock than these other two classes if this can occur. For the cleric and the others the character presumably has joined the religious organisation because they broadly agree with its values, so doing their "god's will" etc really isn't a problem; that's what they signed up for in the first place. But warlock patrons are often portrayed as more antagonistic, and might ask for things the character really wouldn't want to do, so it matters a lot whether the patron actually has a leverage.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sound view point but I caught myself on this part.

I like the Warlock conceptually, one without a Patron/Pact...seems just so flawed, but I dont have a problem with some baked in assumptions when it comes to classes. Paladins and their Oath, Clerics and their Gods, Druids/Rangers being in some way related to or working with/against Nature...things like that just seem so much part of the class identity.

I know I know, 5e moved away from stuff like that, but it doesnt work for me at all.

A Warlock without a Patron...

I agree with you, but I think that idea of the 3% makes sense.

For example, I once played a Warlock who devoured their patron. Their patron was a fiend, formerly a great overlord, and the Warlock made a deal with them for power, but then ended up eating them. Their goal was to make a cult formed around a fiend that was actually themself, channeling the faith of the cult into an apotheosis of themselves as a Demon Prince [I needed an evil, morally dark character after my previous, long-running character was forced to leave the group for being too much of a good person]

They would be technically without a patron, because the power that made them is the power they took for themselves. And... they just didn't make sense as anything else to me. Usurping your patron is a classic Warlock story, he just did it earlier than most.

 

[Chaosmancer]

i think you can have joke characters BUT when all is said and done there needs to be more to them than JUST the joke or reference, you can have your ginger tabaxi rogue with a rapier and spanish accent but do more with them than just quoting puss in boots lines and making shrek references.

Yes, exactly.

Actually, Puss in Boots from Shrek is an amusingly great example of this. He is a joke character in a comedy show. He's the most feared assassin in the world... and he is literally just a tabby cat. His secret weapon is being cute. He drinks milk from a shot glass. He's not supposed to be taken seriously...

But Puss in Boots: The Last Wish is one of the best animated films ever, with a deeply meaningful set of messages and a truly heartfelt portrayal of the importance of life. It is serious and it is seriously great... and it came from a joke character meant to be silly.

 

[Minigiant]

Jerk GM's aside, I think it it is much of a bigger deal for a warlock than these other two classes if this can occur. For the cleric and the others the character presumably has joined the religious organisation because they broadly agree with its values, so doing their "god's will" etc really isn't a problem; that's what they signed up for in the first place. But warlock patrons are often portrayed as more antagonistic, and might ask for things the character really wouldn't want to do, so it matters a lot whether the patron actually has a leverage.

I think one of the parts that was inferred about patrons that many fans never got was that patrons were:

1. Epic Level or backed by an Epic level superior
2. Able to travel to the Material Plane or had loyal epic level agent able to get to the Material Plane

It's not Pact of the Fey or Pact of the Aberration.. It's Pact of ARCHFey and Pact of the GREAT Old One. Fiendish patrons control whole planes. Genie patrons control entire elemental kingdoms.

Anger them or disobey too much and they can really get you

A deity just takes your powers.
A patron has 4 of their other warlocks summon a CR 10 monster on your level 5 party. Killing you and scaring 4 other warlocks into submission.

 

[Remathilis]

Jerk GMs aside, I think it it is much of a bigger deal for a warlock than these other two classes if this can occur. For the cleric and the others the character presumably has joined the religious organisation because they broadly agree with its values, so doing their "god's will" etc really isn't a problem; that's what they signed up for in the first place. But warlock patrons are often portrayed as more antagonistic, and might ask for things the character really wouldn't want to do, so it matters a lot whether the patron actually has a leverage.

That IS assuming such pacts are antagonistic (something that celestial, genie, and archfey warlocks don't necessarily have to worry about) but I don't accept that a warlock's powers are given by their patron, but rather taught or gained but unrevokable by either party. If a patron could just turn off a warlock's power, then the warlock is powerless against them. There are dozens of examples of people who sell their soul and then turn on their patron (Ghost Rider being a good example). I find it far more interesting that warlocks can peace out on their patron and the patron can be antagonistic, but the deal was already made, and the patron can't takeback their gift.

I also am a fan of clerics not losing their powers when they betray their faith because it allows there to be hypocrites, false prophets, and other corruption in priesthoods. If Pelor knows when a cleric is thinking impure thoughts and strips him of his power for it, then you can never tell stories where you need to weed out bad actors in a church or deal with schisms in belief because the easy way to figure out who is acting on Pelor's behalf is to ask them to cast Cure Wounds.

And on a broader scale, I don't like the everwatching eye of Deities and Otherworldly beings always threatening to take character's powers. Mostly because it enables Jerk GM's and has for most of D&D's lifespan. I am fully content with never having Big Brother crippling my character because the DM and I don't agree completely on the tenants of a made-up faith, pact, or oath.

 

[Minigiant]

That IS assuming such pacts are antagonistic (something that celestial, genie, and archfey warlocks don't necessarily have to worry about) but I don't accept that a warlock's powers are given by their patron, but rather taught or gained but unrevokable by either party. If a patron could just turn off a warlock's power, then the warlock is powerless against them. There are dozens of examples of people who sell their soul and then turn on their patron (Ghost Rider being a good example). I find it far more interesting that warlocks can peace out on their patron and the patron can be antagonistic, but the deal was already made, and the patron can't takeback their gift.

I also am a fan of clerics not losing their powers when they betray their faith because it allows there to be hypocrites, false prophets, and other corruption in priesthoods. If Pelor knows when a cleric is thinking impure thoughts and strips him of his power for it, then you can never tell stories where you need to weed out bad actors in a church or deal with schisms in belief because the easy way to figure out who is acting on Pelor's behalf is to ask them to cast Cure Wounds.

And on a broader scale, I don't like the everwatching eye of Deities and Otherworldly beings always threatening to take character's powers. Mostly because it enables Jerk GM's and has for most of D&D's lifespan. I am fully content with never having Big Brother crippling my character because the DM and I don't agree completely on the tenants of a made-up faith, pact, or oath.

This is why I like the flavor that Warlock Patron are Powerful epic but not godly powers. A patron can't always see what you are doing. They are not omniscient. That's why some patrons make warlocks. You have ears and ears in places they cant see. And they have warlocks to punish other warlocks.

However I love the idea of deities being able to remove powers. However schisms within a church or cult can still happen over disagreement or different interpretation of their deity's portfolio or words. Though not every DM is a skilled enough theological scholar to do it. The Nature and Anti nature sides of the Goddess of Civilization . The Warming Hearth or Killing Inferno of the God of Fire. That's why the default should be Deity vs Deity and Deity vs Non Deity.

Sorcerer provide a state untethered to exhausting research, philosophic fanaticism, or the whims of a powerful master. You could just be born of a magical day and you are every human born that day has magic powers.

 

[Remathilis]

However I love the idea of deities being able to remove powers. However schisms within a church or cult can still happen over disagreement or different interpretation of their deity's portfolio or words. Though not every DM is a skilled enough theological scholar to do it. The Nature and Anti nature sides of the Goddess of Civilization . The Warming Hearth or Killing Inferno of the God of Fire. That's why the default should be Deity vs Deity and Deity vs Non Deity.

I prefer Eberron's model: the Gods are silent and Faith is the key to divine magic. It allows for false prophets, schisms, mystery cults, heretical priests, and other temple intrigue storylines.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Ngl I'd like to see wizard and sorcerer get merged into a single 'mage' class. With the subclasses being various arcane traditions such as bladesinging, wild magic, blood magic, dark magic, and anything like that.

While warlock scavenges the pieces of sorcerer related to magical creatures, such as draconic patron. Warlock and Sorcerer already have almost identically themed subclasses.