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

[cranberry]

The answer is None. So we are arbitrarily punishing some classes and not others.

You want to revamp the classes so that every fighter is a vassal for his Lord, every rogue gives a cut to the local thieves guild, or every bard is under contract from her manager, I'll buy the whole God micromanaging clerics and warlocks forced to serve their patron.

No, the answer is that different classes have different requirements.

Lords, thieves guilds, and managers are not the same as gods They are not equivalent.

And I have played games where rogues had obligations to the local thieves guild, and fighters to their Lords.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A lot has been said about this subject.

I won't add anything new other than to say that I'm in the camp of - if you're going to play a Warlock, Paladin or Cleric, you should accept the "obligations" that go with it.

Players should expect that if they ignore, or actively go against those obligations, there will likely be consequences - but that is not the GM screwing over the player. That's the player making a conscious choice to do so.

Of course, it's up to the GM to make the obligations, and the potential for consequences clear.

Nothing is free. And it blows my mind that there are players out there who think they should get powers and abilities for nothing

Also, GM's taking advantage of those obligations to screw players is a completely separate issue, and shouldn't be assumed that if you play one of those classes, then that's that's going to happen.

Personally, I'm pretty flexible in my games, and will only enact consequences if a player does a complete 180 with regard to those obligations. (E.g. if a paladin with a LG deity starts kicking babies and strangling puppies for kick and giggles)

If "nothing is free", why play the classes that will actively punish you in unexpected, frustrating ways when you could play classes which are in fact free?

Where's the "does a complete 180" for Artificers, Barbarians, Bards, Druids, Fighters, Monks, Rangers, Rogues, Sorcerers, and Wizards?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Okay.

Question: Doesn't that mean you are fundamentally rejecting the design principle behind á la carte multiclassing?

You are specifically saying that setting absolutely dominates over gameplay. No gameplay concern is ever of significance, doesn't matter if the game is the worst experience one could have, absolute fealty to a specific interpretation of the story is all that matters. So Warlocks should be stupidly, grossly overpowered, but pay for it by suffering terrible, awful costs for putting a toe out of line. Is that actually a game you think is fun to play? For anyone, not just the Warlock?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, the answer is that different classes have different requirements.

Lords, thieves guilds, and managers are not the same as gods They are not equivalent.

And I have played games where rogues had obligations to the local thieves guild, and fighters to their Lords.

So, just f@#k anyone who likes Warlocks, amirite? How dare they think a class would be fun to play and not want their every participation moment constantly at risk of being destroyed.

And folks tell me I'm being unfair when I say I fear this being a foot in the door!

 

[Micah Sweet]

If "nothing is free", why play the classes that will actively punish you in unexpected, frustrating ways when you could play classes which are in fact free?

Where's the "does a complete 180" for Artificers, Barbarians, Bards, Druids, Fighters, Monks, Rangers, Rogues, Sorcerers, and Wizards?

Because you want to play a character class with that narrative, and you trust your GM won't a be a jerk to you but rather, wants your choice of class to actually matter in the campaign?

Hard to accept, perhaps, but that's my answer, and I haven't been screwed over yet.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I actually go the other way around when I'm a player. I start with trust, and have an "Everybody gets 1" mentality.

I assume the GM only wants to add more richness to the experience, and any possible risk of power loss would only happen 1 time to make the experience better. I'll bite the plot hook and trust a seemingly fishy NPC 1 time. I'll endure the dungeon full of traps 1 time. You can Gotcha! me 1 time. Etc.

If it ever happens more than 1 time, that's when my trust starts to shatter. If power loss comes up twice, I start looking at the door. If I get betrayed by a major NPC twice, my playstyle changes to distrust everyone, and that's pretty unproductive. If I run into a second dungeon full of traps, I start looking at the door because my days of flour bags and 10 foot pole paranoia play are behind me.

The major problem for me is, I have had enough bad experiences that I no longer can afford to wait three to four weeks to find out "oh, this game sucks and I no longer want to be involved at all." Too too many failures. I need some concrete assurances in advance, or I'm not going to invest.

Assuming the system is 5e or some variation of 3e, anyway.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay.

Question: Doesn't that mean you are fundamentally rejecting the design principle behind á la carte multiclassing?

You are specifically saying that setting absolutely dominates over gameplay. No gameplay concern is ever of significance, doesn't matter if the game is the worst experience one could have, absolute fealty to a specific interpretation of the story is all that matters. So Warlocks should be stupidly, grossly overpowered, but pay for it by suffering terrible, awful costs for putting a toe out of line. Is that actually a game you think is fun to play? For anyone, not just the Warlock?

I said mechanics follow fiction. That's my ideal, but it's not a mad absolute ride or die like so many of your statements of other people's opinions read like.

And as I've said before, the only use I see for a la carte multiclassing is for A5e's synergy feat system, which requires 3 levels each of two classes. You want to limit multiclassing to that? Be my guest.

 

[cranberry]

So, just f@#k anyone who likes Warlocks, amirite? How dare they think a class would be fun to play and not want their every participation moment constantly at risk of being destroyed.

And folks tell me I'm being unfair when I say I fear this being a foot in the door!

If the GM is making the game miserable for you because of the class you chose to play, then the solution is to find a GM who isn't a jerk...

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, just f@#k anyone who likes Warlocks, amirite? How dare they think a class would be fun to play and not want their every participation moment constantly at risk of being destroyed.

And folks tell me I'm being unfair when I say I fear this being a foot in the door!

Thank goodness you're not being over the top hyperbolic about it. I'm sure that's exactly what they and I are talking about.

I can be sarcastic too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The major problem for me is, I have had enough bad experiences that I no longer can afford to wait three to four weeks to find out "oh, this game sucks and I no longer want to be involved at all." Too too many failures. I need some concrete assurances in advance, or I'm not going to invest.

Assuming the system is 5e or some variation of 3e, anyway.

This is why we're never going to agree regarding player-GM relations.