D&D General The Player's Quantum Ogre: Warlock Pacts

[overgeeked]

So a spin-off question from another thread. This one about warlock pacts...

If the idea of making a pact with some supernatural power in exchange for power is a key part of the fantasy, why are so many warlock players vehemently against the notion of that pact ever being a part of the actual fiction of the game?

For example, if the patron makes a request or demand of the PC, the player can and will refuse. Or if the patron even threatens to undermine the PC's power, the player gets mad.

The pact is treated as entirely one-sided and permanent and anything suggesting otherwise is rebelled against or attacked.

So which is it? Is the pact the central theme to the character and should be included in the fiction of the game or is the pact simply a light coating of irrelevant story over the game mechanics that we should never really bring up?

 

[Reynard]

I think players are generally allergic to anything that smells of taking away their control of their character. It is that simple, I think.

I have a warlock PC who HATES his patron -- and his patron wants his soul. So my warlock got himself a ring that will absorb his soul on his death, just to deny the patron the end of the bargain. Because screw that demonic entity. I just want the power, baby. (Maggart Aimes is a self serving NE, btw.)

 

[Voadam]

5e has had options in the default fiction since the 14 PH for having the patron be an arcane battery who is not even aware of your existence or who is completely indifferent to you.

THE GREAT OLD ONE
Your patron is a mysterious entity whose nature is utterly foreign to the fabric of reality. It might come from the Far Realm, the space beyond reality, or it could be one of the elder gods known only in legends. Its motives are incomprehensible to mortals, and its knowledge so immense and ancient that even the greatest libraries pale in comparison to the vast secrets it holds. The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So a spin-off question from another thread. This one about warlock pacts...

If the idea of making a pact with some supernatural power in exchange for power is a key part of the fantasy, why are so many warlock players vehemently against the notion of that pact ever being a part of the actual fiction of the game?

For example, if the patron makes a request or demand of the PC, the player can and will refuse. Or if the patron even threatens to undermine the PC's power, the player gets mad.

The pact is treated as entirely one-sided and permanent and anything suggesting otherwise is rebelled against or attacked.

So which is it? Is the pact the central theme to the character and should be included in the fiction of the game or is the pact simply a light coating of irrelevant story over the game mechanics that we should never really bring up?

A lot of people seem to like the Warlock class mechanics a heck of a lot more than the class fantasy of actually playing a Warlock .

 

[Voadam]

I see a patron relationship as a possible story hook, something a player and DM can make important if they want.

I am not a fan of forcing it to be important if the player does not want that kind of story.

I also feel a patron works better as a story element the smaller the party, the same as having pets/NPCs as it draws spotlight time away from the group to a single PC's interactions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think players are generally allergic to anything that smells of taking away their control of their character. It is that simple, I think.

I have a warlock PC who HATES his patron -- and his patron wants his soul. So my warlock got himself a ring that will absorb his soul on his death, just to deny the patron the end of the bargain. Because screw that demonic entity. I just want the power, baby. (Maggart Aimes is a self serving NE, btw.)

Why did the PC enter the pact? And why did the patron? Do either of those questions matter in the campaign? Any warlock in a game I run is going to be affected by the answers.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Warlock: 'Pact of the Quantum' includes features such as
-being in a different location to where it was last thought you were at.
-ability to have taken a different action from the one you took last time.
-cannot be killed while until observed by a party member, if you were killed while unobserved you have a flat 50% chance of being alive when next found.
-possibility for other features to exist.

 

[overgeeked]

I am not a fan of forcing it to be important if the player does not want that kind of story.

The obvious response here is: If you didn't want a patron then you should not have picked a warlock.

That's kind of the point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

5e has had options in the default fiction since the 14 PH for having the patron be an arcane battery who is not even aware of your existence or who is completely indifferent to you.

THE GREAT OLD ONE
Your patron is a mysterious entity whose nature is utterly foreign to the fabric of reality. It might come from the Far Realm, the space beyond reality, or it could be one of the elder gods known only in legends. Its motives are incomprehensible to mortals, and its knowledge so immense and ancient that even the greatest libraries pale in comparison to the vast secrets it holds. The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it.

And if you want your patron to be Hastur the Unspeakable, I'd be fine with that. But most other patrons have an identifiable will and motivation.

 

[Voadam]

A lot of people seem to like the Warlock class mechanics a heck of a lot more than the class fantasy of actually playing a Warlock .

I think the warlock is one of the better designed 5e classes, I think it would be great if the cleric and druid mechanics were more like the warlock than the wizard and sorcerer (less spells and more themed powers).