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

[EzekielRaiden]

Come on. You know the reason. I and others have explained it more than once. You just don't agree with it or like it, because you're coming at it strictly from a rules-based, mechanical perspective.

Nothing whatsoever to do with being "strictly" anything.

My specific complaint is that you are enforcing one and only one story in order to justify having special punishments only for certain archetypes. Punishments that wait there in the wings, ready to strike if the player does even the tiniest error.

Consider Cleric. Devotion is not transactional, it is a relationship, it should be loving. "Love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast" etc., etc. (1st Corinthians 13). A loving relationship between a deity and their mortal representatives should not be one where one side is abusive, controlling, threatening. (Well, maybe for an evil deity, but that is frowned upon by design.) It should be one of support, care, deep personal understanding. A Cleric acting outside of a deity's faith should be marked with deep concern from said deity: "My child, what troubles you?"

But of course this sort of thing always gets framed in what kind of terms? Your powers are dependent on you being a perfect golden child who never makes Sugar Daddy mad. There are a billion OTHER stories we can tell about Clerics, Paladins, and Warlocks. Why is this one so gorram important?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I mean I have yet to see a single thing indicating you aren't focused on the story of "person who trusted a powerful being got screwed by it".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't know. Maybe ask WoTC?

But you are 100% knowing what the things that affect the Warlock are, when WotC doesn't say?

Do you not see how this is a double standard?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nothing whatsoever to do with being "strictly" anything.

My specific complaint is that you are enforcing one and only one story in order to justify having special punishments only for certain archetypes. Punishments that wait there in the wings, ready to strike if the player does even the tiniest error.

Consider Cleric. Devotion is not transactional, it is a relationship, it should be loving. "Love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast" etc., etc. (1st Corinthians 13). A loving relationship between a deity and their mortal representatives should not be one where one side is abusive, controlling, threatening. (Well, maybe for an evil deity, but that is frowned upon by design.) It should be one of support, care, deep personal understanding. A Cleric acting outside of a deity's faith should be marked with deep concern from said deity: "My child, what troubles you?"

But of course this sort of thing always gets framed in what kind of terms? Your powers are dependent on you being a perfect golden child who never makes Sugar Daddy mad. There are a billion OTHER stories we can tell about Clerics, Paladins, and Warlocks. Why is this one so gorram important?

Who ever said the default relationship between a God and their faithful is one of love? That the Christian belief, according to Scripture, but hardly universal across time and space.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean I have yet to see a single thing indicating you aren't focused on the story of "person who trusted a powerful being got screwed by it".

There's your issue. Asauming lack of evidence is evidence of lack.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Then why are you hostile to the idea that if a class is designed to be balanced with other classes, it shouldn't have special extra penalties?

There's your issue. Asauming lack of evidence is evidence of lack.

Maybe then you should communicate what you actually want.

Rather than repeatedly talking about the bad things and never once bringing up anything else.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then why are you hostile to the idea that if a class is designed to be balanced with other classes, it shouldn't have special extra penalties?

Because mechanical balance is not my primary concern. Setting logic and verisimilitude are.

 

[Scribe]

Consider Cleric. Devotion is not transactional, it is a relationship, it should be loving. "Love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast" etc., etc. (1st Corinthians 13). A loving relationship between a deity and their mortal representatives should not be one where one side is abusive, controlling, threatening. (Well, maybe for an evil deity, but that is frowned upon by design.) It should be one of support, care, deep personal understanding. A Cleric acting outside of a deity's faith should be marked with deep concern from said deity: "My child, what troubles you?"

I mean this is ONE very narrow way to look at it yes. You even call out another option, Evil Deities. How about straight up Law? Chaos?

While you decry 'one way' for Warlock, you seem to be pushing 'one way' for Clerics.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

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.

Wait, wait, wait. So because every class doesn't have a built in storytelling tool, no class should? Do we all of a sudden feel like storytelling tools that allow DM and player interplay are negatives to a class? Are we that jaded with DMs that we just want them out of our lives?

This is a crazy idea, I know. But in a game about cooperative story telling, as 5e is advertised, story telling tools should be expected. DM involvement should be expected. Cooperation should be expected. Instead we seem to lament their inclusion, as if involving the DM is punishment. An adversarial relationship we are forced into by poor design. Silly WotC for putting story telling tools into their story telling game.

It all feels like a continuation of this idea that is mirrored in multiple threads currently. The idea that many around here are so jaded that they want rule-reciting robots for DMs, because it's a horrifying reality if we actually have to engage with other people at the table. It's a horrifying reality if we have to cooperate with those we choose to play with. It's a horrifying reality that we can't just bulldoze our way through the other players on mechanics alone.

But maybe I'm naive and an empty chair would be better than a human.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean this is ONE very narrow way to look at it yes. You even call out another option, Evil Deities. How about straight up Law? Chaos?

While you decry 'one way' for Warlock, you seem to be pushing 'one way' for Clerics.

Is it narrow?

For real. Is it?

The Cleric is a priest. Why would a priest be treated like garbage by the being they have devoted their life to?