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

[Aldarc]

That would be cool too. How do you think that would work mechanically?

I will be honest here and say that I am not sure. Ideally it would be something like the Goetic from Invisible Sun, which is my ideal warlock:

How Goetics Use Magic​

The first step to the Goetics’ summoning magic is figuring out what you want out of deal. Summoned beings can offer one of thirteen different things: counsel, non-combat aid, guarding you from danger, spying, the answer to a query, some kind of theft, assailing one’s enemies, restoring the Goetic’s health, influencing another’s mind, creating things, glorifying the Goetic’s appearance, binding the entity into an item, or serving as a long-term ally. This means that Goetics can have armor with bound-demon strength, furnaces where fire-spirit allies live, an angel friend they can call for advice, and many other tricks up their sleeve. You start off with the first four available, then at the second degree you gain access to the next three, another three at the third degree, and then finally glorify, binding, and ally at the fourth degree.

Next up you take precautions you want to set up (protective circles, having bribes on hand, etc), then you pay Sorcery cost for the entity you want to summon. If you want a demon-general that’s going to take a lot more juice than calling up a little fire-imp. You can also call up specific entities if you know their name, which requires a Sorcery check. If you are just calling for whoever might answer or the specific entity you want is fine with answering then your summoning automatically works.

Once they show up, though, that’s only part of the story. You still have to convince them to help and that takes one of four different approaches. If your argument seems like a good deal or the entity might be happy to do it then you can try persuading them. If you don’t think it’ll be an easy sell then you can try bribery with something the same level as the summoned creature. A bribe could be a magic item or treasure, something to consume, a favor in return, or even a mortal’s soul (a good bribe for a demon). On the other hand you might be feeling gutsy and try coercion to threaten the entity. Lastly, there’s the roleplayer’s tried-and-true approach of using trickery to make it seem like something the entity would want to do, talk them into a wager, or some other underhanded means.

If your approach works and the entity is persuaded, bribed, coerced, or tricked then they do the thing! If not, though… well entities aren’t always happy to be pulled away from their own business. Their exact response depends on the desires and nature of the entity, as well as how brazen and demanding you were in your failed attempt to win them over. Summoned entities could attack, establish an unwanted influence over the Goetic’s mind, or just escapes into the area they were summoned to causing untold chaos. Needless to say, none of these is a great option for the poor mage doing the summoning.

However, I also recognize that this sort of playstyle is unfeasible for a game like 5e D&D, which utilizes more on-demand, instant gratification-based effects in the sense that spells just work. Stopping play for the warlock to do ritual summons and bargaining would be a no-go for legitimate gameplay reasons.

So what would it look like mechanically in 5e D&D? Again, I don't know. I think that part of the issue also involves the question of whether everything else stays the same. Are we adjusting the other spellcasters as well? Or do we want to mostly keep things the same for the sake of multiclassing harmonization? There are different ways to go, but it depends on a multitude of other factors.

 

[TwoSix]

I will be honest here and say that I am not sure. Ideally it would be something like the Goetic from Invisible Sun, which is my ideal warlock:

However, I also recognize that this sort of playstyle is unfeasible for a game like 5e D&D, which utilizes more on-demand, instant gratification-based effects in the sense that spells just work. Stopping play for the warlock to do ritual summons and bargaining would be a no-go for legitimate gameplay reasons.

So what would it look like mechanically in 5e D&D? Again, I don't know. I think that part of the issue also involves the question of whether everything else stays the same. Are we adjusting the other spellcasters as well? Or do we want to mostly keep things the same for the sake of multiclassing harmonization? There are different ways to go, but it depends on a multitude of other factors.

Yep. You could make an entire game system based around a gameplay loop of finding new demons or spirits to call and bind, using them to acheive their goals, and then dealing with the unavoidable fallout. That would be really fun.

But like you said, it just doesn't work for the D&D paradigm of "hop in loser, we're going questing!"

 

[Micah Sweet]

mechanics are to them better than sorcerer mechanics?

Fine for someone's game, but for me mechanics follow fiction. You want to make a class that uses similar mechanics to the warlock but has a different narrative? Great! Makes that class, or work with the GM to make it. IMO you shouldn't get to ignore the fiction of your class because you like the super powers it gives you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yep. You could make an entire game system based around a gameplay loop of finding new demons or spirits to call and bind, using them to acheive their goals, and then dealing with the unavoidable fallout. That would be really fun.

But like you said, it just doesn't work for the D&D paradigm of "hop in loser, we're going questing!"

I think there's room in D&D for a different paradigm.

 

[TiQuinn]

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?

I think this is a discussion between the DM and the player.

I can see it work in either way, depending on what both want to accomplish. The pact can be revoked and punishment can ensue that has a mechanical detriment, which is something the DM and the player are going to have to work out. Or the pact can be a one time perpetual gift of power, and if the Warlock does not obey the patron, any punishment is restricted simply to the story, as opposed to mechanical.

I'm not a fan of the former, personally, because it just gives me too many flashbacks to 1e and 2e Paladins where the DM sits in judgement of decisions I as a player make for my character. We often talk about "feel bad" game design. It's a bit of a sliding scale, and people "feel bad" about certain things and not others. Losing a turn because of a Hold Person spell doesn't faze me, but it bothers other players. Well, having someone say, you're no longer a Paladin because you didn't obey your tenets by my POV, feels bad to me.

The trend in design is that the class as written on the page is what the player can expect to have and that taking away power is not built into the class design, or the design of any other class. You don't lose your rogue abilities because you left the thieves' guild or assassin's guild, or whatever. You don't stop being a Wizard because you left the School of Arcane Wizardry, etc. I think if this existed across the board, you have the parity to make that possibly work, if your players are on board with it.

Again, if everyone at the table is copacetic with having class abilities changed or removed because the player wants to play out a redemption or rebellion arc, then no problem! If you want that as part of the actual text of the printed game, that's also no problem, however, I would suspect not every player is going to be down to play that game. That's not a bad thing: There are a lot of games that lean into certain genres or tropes, and the more precise and detailed you get with those, the harder it is to find players who vibe with that.

 

[Gimby]

Fine for someone's game, but for me mechanics follow fiction. You want to make a class that uses similar mechanics to the warlock but has a different narrative? Great! Makes that class, or work with the GM to make it. IMO you shouldn't get to ignore the fiction of your class because you like the super powers it gives you.

I'm interested - let's say I come up with a new class, in which I splice the Sorcerer's narrative (which is barely linked to it's mechanics, generally) to the Warlock's mechanics (which is barely linked to it's narrative, generally). Would this suffice for your needs? Is there anything particularly missing?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm interested - let's say I come up with a new class, in which I splice the Sorcerer's narrative (which is barely linked to it's mechanics, generally) to the Warlock's mechanics (which is barely linked to it's narrative, generally). Would this suffice for your needs? Is there anything particularly missing?

With what are you replacing the patron mechanics? I'm not against the idea.

 

[Voadam]

Just FYI the original 3.5 D&D warlock was narratively a fiendish bloodline sorcerer type with less spell mechanics and more hellfire powers than the spell focused magical dragon bloodline sorcerer.

"Warlock: A supernatural character whose sinister powers are inborn abilities, not spells."

"Born of a supernatural bloodline, a warlock seeks to master the perilous magic that suffuses his soul. Unlike sorcerers or wizards, who approach arcane magic through the medium of spells, a warlock invokes powerful magic through nothing more than an effort of will. By harnessing his innate magical gift through fearsome determination and force of will a warlock can perform feats of supernatural stealth, beguile the weak-minded, or scour his foes with blasts of eldritch power."

"Warlocks are born, not made. Some are the descendants of people who trafficked with demons and devils long ago. Some seek out the dark powers as youths, driven by ambition or the desire for power, but a few blameless individuals are simply marked out by the supernatural forces as conduits and tools. The exact nature of a warlock’s origin is up to the player to decide; just as a sorcerer is not beholden to the magic-wielding ancestor that bequeathed his bloodline with arcane power, a warlock is not bound to follow the source that gifted him with magic."

In 4e the pacts were already concluded.

"Warlocks channel arcane might wrested from primeval entities. They commune with infernal intelligences and fey spirits, scour enemies with potent blasts of eldritch power, and bedevil foes with hexing curses. Armed with esoteric secrets and dangerous lore, warlocks are clever and resourceful foes.
However you came to your arcane knowledge, you need not accept the poor reputation warlocks sometimes endure. You could be a libram-toting scholar captivated by ominous lore, a foot-loose wanderer searching for elusive ultimate truths, a devil-touched hunter using infernal spells to eliminate evil, or even a black-clad mercenary who uses sinister trappings to discourage prying strangers and unwanted attention. On the other hand, you could be a true diabolist using your gifts to tyrannize the weak—some warlocks unfortunately are exactly that.
The pacts are complete. The rites have concluded. The signs are drawn in blood, and the seals are broken. Your destiny beckons."

 

[Gimby]

With what are you replacing the patron mechanics? I'm not against the idea.

Which patron mechanics specifically?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which patron mechanics specifically?

The pacts and the invocations, many of which are associated with them. Would you just rename them so you can keep the mechanics the same? I don't think that would work for me. I said similar mechanics to the warlock, not identical.