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

[TorgoTheWhite]

Not at all, hence me linking to 'Reductio ad absurdum'. The situation you're responding to is/was much more likely to happen than the scenarios you're offering up in comparison.

Meh, its a wash on likelihood maybe. I suppose if the a class-defining pact involved right at character creation.. the likelihood increases for obligatory circumstances to arise

Though my Warlock player shows none of that resistive adversarial nonsense just a weariness of the patron's intent, very fair.

Actually, our fighter is the one dealing with the most class baggage. The trained killer nature (player and PC interest aligned) has gotten him wielding a cursed weapon.. which he never investigated the cues enough to avoid. Only the wizard passed the secret roll to see the illusion, the player is choosing to wait and see

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Meh, its a wash on likelihood maybe. I suppose if the a class-defining pact involved right at character creation.. the likelihood increases for obligatory circumstances to arise

Though my Warlock player shows none of that resistive adversarial nonsense just a weariness of the patron's intent, very fair.

Actually, our fighter is the one dealing with the most class baggage. The trained killer nature (player and PC interest aligned) has gotten him wielding a cursed weapon.. which he never investigated the cues enough to avoid. Only the wizard passed the secret roll to see the illusion, the player is choosing to wait and see

I appreciate your response, but it seems to have been formed deep in the cold waters of your stream of consciousness If you could rephrase that in a form that is understandable to those not inside your head?

I'll respond to the bit that I could make out. Whether it's a wash or not is anecdotal for sure. Back when I played D&D in the 80s, wizards losing their spellbooks was not really a thing outside of set scenarios like ' you wake up naked in a cell', which victimised every character (e.g. fighters losing their weapons and armour), not just wizards. Paladinhood (or more generically, behaviour of a character being challenged by a DM based on the character's alignment) being put at risk over disagreement between DM and player, was something I witnessed more than once.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not at all, hence me linking to 'Reductio ad absurdum'. The situation you're responding to is/was much more likely to happen than the scenarios you're offering up in comparison.

How so? Animal companions die and spellbooks get destroyed at least as often as warlock decides to thumb nose at source of their power. It's a rough world out there.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Meh, its a wash on likelihood maybe. I suppose if the a class-defining pact involved right at character creation.. the likelihood increases for obligatory circumstances to arise

Though my Warlock player shows none of that resistive adversarial nonsense just a weariness of the patron's intent, very fair.

Actually, our fighter is the one dealing with the most class baggage. The trained killer nature (player and PC interest aligned) has gotten him wielding a cursed weapon.. which he never investigated the cues enough to avoid. Only the wizard passed the secret roll to see the illusion, the player is choosing to wait and see

Cursed items are another good example. Where do those stand on the "player has final say" scale?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'll respond to the bit that I could make out. Whether it's a wash or not is anecdotal for sure. Back when I played D&D in the 80s, wizards losing their spellbooks was not really a thing outside of set scenarios like ' you wake up naked in a cell', which victimised every character (e.g. fighters losing their weapons and armour), not just wizards.

Although ironically not the warlock (or sorcerer).

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

I appreciate your response, but it seems to have been formed deep in the cold waters of your stream of consciousness If you could rephrase that in a form that is understandable to those not inside your head?

I'll respond to the bit that I could make out. Whether it's a wash or not is anecdotal for sure. Back when I played D&D in the 80s, wizards losing their spellbooks was not really a thing outside of set scenarios like ' you wake up naked in a cell', which victimised every character (e.g. fighters losing their weapons and armour), not just wizards. Paladinhood (or more generically, behaviour of a character being challenged by a DM based on the character's alignment) being put at risk over disagreement between DM and player, was something I witnessed more than once.

I'm more likely to interrupt my own Def-slam poetry drum/beatnik stream of consciousness by shouting out: "boner!!" .. 22 Jump Street style... Cynthia, you're dead!

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

How so? Animal companions die and spellbooks get destroyed at least as often as warlock decides to thumb nose at source of their power. It's a rough world out there.

Refer to my post immediately above this one. These things don't happen on an equal basis (IME at least).

In any case, the larger discussion is about character abilities being in the hands of the DM. In my opinion, classes designed this way (or individual groups deciding that class abilities should be arbitrated this way) benefit no one. Hinging a class on the verisimilitude of a setting, or any other arbitrary reason... big fail in my view. Focus on the players and GM enjoying this pastime instead of throwing obstacles in that path. You can have both a realistic and believable game world AND classes that aren't traps or otherwise suffer from unnecessary fun-sucking attributes.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I'm more likely to interrupt my own Def-slam poetry drum/beatnik stream of consciousness by shouting out: "boner!!" .. 22 Jump Street style... Cynthia, you're dead!

Welcome to my list of favourite posters. In honour of this post, I'll shout out 'boner!' at my next team stand up*.

* This may or may not actually happen.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I was going o write something up a while back but…laziness hit.

If your read all 5e lore about warlocks, you will find much contradiction or more accurately proof of different perspectives on the reality of powers.

1. You can get warlock powers via feats, no patron required

2. There is a lot said about the character studying and unlocking secrets. Research and study…

3. A magic fairy waving at hand at you and granting power is not that interesting. A patron giving hints and clues to gain power is more compelling to me. Ymmv

4. The whole agency thing…your soul is forfeit and you did not want the pact to begin with?

5. The patron is just flavor. It is not a balance issue. Warlocks in 5e are not more powerful than wizards. Where else is flavor so mandatory?

I played a lot of warlocks in the past 10 years…I make cool patrons, role play around it and have fun. The DMs roll with it.

The point I think is all of the above but how they are interpreted varies. Some DMs are rigid and like to make extra annoying problem for warlocks. There is a lot of play space between a controlling no fun patron and disavowing any patron’s presence.

People enjoy being stripped of powers and having forced unpleasant patron dilemmas about as much as I like pineapple on pizza.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Refer to my post immediately above this one. These things don't happen on an equal basis (IME at least).

In any case, the larger discussion is about character abilities being in the hands of the DM. In my opinion, classes designed this way (or individual groups deciding that class abilities should be arbitrated this way) benefit no one. Hinging a class on the verisimilitude of a setting, or any other arbitrary reason... big fail in my view. Focus on the players and GM enjoying this pastime instead of throwing obstacles in that path. You can have both a realistic and believable game world AND classes that aren't traps or otherwise suffer from unnecessary fun-sucking attributes.

Explain to me how you do that with classes fundamentally based on getting their power from an outside source. If you have a patron, or a God, or an oath, how do you create a believable game world in which those things don't matter if the player doesn't want them to?