D&D 5E Starting to Hate Hexblades

[CleverNickName]

Honest question here: What kind of DM are you playing with where the DM is out to get you because you picked a class? I get limitations via lore, designed worlds, etc. But have not played with a DM in the last 25 years that would be out to get me had I picked an allowable class.

Same. If your DM doesn't want you playing a particular character class, they should just tell you so you can pick something else.

That said: it's also possible that the DM is trying to build a story arc involving your patron and your pact. Perhaps they are setting the scene for an internal struggle between your pact and events in the game, where you will ultimately have to choose between doing what is right and what is easy. Without trust and dialogue between the DM and the player, it's easy to feel like you are being "kicked in the jimmies."

 

[Vaalingrade]

Honest question here: What kind of DM are you playing with where the DM is out to get you because you picked a class? I get limitations via lore, designed worlds, etc. But have not played with a DM in the last 25 years that would be out to get me had I picked an allowable class.

The prosecution calls to the stand the section of the thread that wants to gate the warlock and paladin classes with their flavor text.

 

[Xetheral]

Very well stated. Thank you for explaining. Your take seems to be open minded and stems because you view the character through background and lore. Is that a fair statement?
I think most that limit multiclassing do so because they view the character through a game mechanics lens. Either way, both viewpoints are valid. But it is nice to have both viewpoints.

That seems a fair synopsis, yes. There's a slight caveat since I'm also actively seeking mechanical diversity at my table, but your description is still sound.

And I entirely agree that both viewpoints are valid. I know I'm pretty far down the path of being pro-multiclassing.

 

[TwoSix]

The prosecution calls to the stand the section of the thread that wants to gate the warlock and paladin classes with their flavor text.

 

[Dausuul]

Perhaps they are setting the scene for an internal struggle between your pact and events in the game, where you will ultimately have to choose between doing what is right and what is easy. Without trust and dialogue between the DM and the player, it's easy to feel like you are being "kicked in the jimmies."

See, that framework right there is the problem. Let's say you are presented with this choice, and you choose to do what is right. Then what? Are you suddenly stripped of all class powers? Or denied the ability to gain levels? I think "kicked in the jimmies" is a damn good description of those outcomes.

This is really the fault of the warlock flavor text, which suggests they are essentially edgelord clerics, with powers that can be withdrawn any time they get crosswise with the boss. But there is a key difference: Clerics are generally on the same page as their deity. If a cleric has to choose between "do what is easy" and "do what is right," their god is urging the latter. Taking the easy path is a temporary lapse, for which the cleric can atone. For the warlock, choosing the right path puts you in a state of permanent conflict with your patron.

And, to be clear, I don't have any objection to warlocks coming into conflict with their patrons! I think it has tons of potential for awesome games. But the conflict should be planned as a thing that will happen, and the player should not be deprived of the ability to play their character as a result. "Your patron wants you to murder a kitten! What do you do?" is not a good way to set up the conflict.

I much prefer to regard a warlock's pact as: You made the deal, got your powers, and now they are yours to use as you see fit, growing as you gain experience with them. That decision is now in the past. If there are elements of the price remaining to be paid, the patron will not ask when the bill comes due--they will simply show up and collect. If you can find a way to prevent them collecting, you get to keep your powers and cheat your patron... but that's easier said than done.

 

[CleverNickName]

See, that framework right there is the problem. Let's say you are presented with this choice, and you choose to do what is right. Then what? Are you suddenly stripped of all class powers? Or denied the ability to gain levels? I think "kicked in the jimmies" is a damn good description of those outcomes.

I concede that it can be a problem. If this loss of power is a short term inconvenience that was communicated to you in advance, and which you approved of, as a means to deepen your character's involvement in the story? No problem at all.

If it's a permanent change to your character that wasn't discussed beforehand and you didn't buy into? Big problem.

Communication (or rather, the lack thereof) is the problem, not the framework. This is supposed to be a cooperative storytelling game, not a game of "ha ha gotcha."

 

[Scott Christian]

That said: it's also possible that the DM is trying to build a story arc involving your patron and your pact. Perhaps they are setting the scene for an internal struggle between your pact and events in the game, where you will ultimately have to choose between doing what is right and what is easy. Without trust and dialogue between the DM and the player, it's easy to feel like you are being "kicked in the jimmies."

Great insight and something I didn't think of. But something that the implied statement from Vaalingrade seemed to lack. I could be wrong. (It has happened on a few thousand occasions in my life. )

 

[Scott Christian]

I concede that it can be a problem. If this loss of power is a short term inconvenience that was communicated to you in advance, and which you approved of, as a means to deepen your character's involvement in the story? No problem at all.

If it's a permanent change to your character that wasn't discussed beforehand and you didn't buy into? Big problem.

Communication (or rather, the lack thereof) is the problem, not the framework. This is supposed to be a cooperative storytelling game, not a game of "ha ha gotcha."

I would say trust in a DM here is vital. I know the past five DMs I've played with might do such a thing, and it wouldn't bother me. They would have a work-around - even if I were to be stripped of powers. A new patron would come in to save the day. A wand holding a part of my patron's soul that I could control would come into play. A god or nature might intervene. Being without your powers for a session or two is not that big of a deal, especially when you trust the DM.

 

[ECMO3]

I know it might seem like we've gotten far enough along that you can make a joke like this, but...we really haven't. That sort of stuff still hurts. Mostly because other people keep saying it seriously. I'm genuinely not mad at you. I just would rather not deal with that sort of comment.

I sincerely appologize and regret my statement.

 

[Zardnaar]

I wouldn't punish a player for picking a Warlock in 5E via withholding spellsor whatever. I'll either ban the class, ask the playerto retire the character of it's that big a problem or end game and next game removes the offending whatever from the game.