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

[Maxperson]

Well, let me give perhaps a slightly different spin here.

Does the Fighter have to worry about whoever paid for them to go to Fighter school coming along and demanding back all the money they paid?

Does the Druid get an avatar of Nature herself showing up one morning demanding service, or else she'll take away all the Druid's magic?

Does the Wizard have to sweat about the possibility that everything they've studied and worked for could just disappear, not just their notes, but literally magic itself just abandoning them, without explanation?

Warlocks, clerics and paladins have built in obligations. If you don't want those obligations to show up, play a different class. You are not required to choose a class that has such obligations built into them.

I understand why you want roleplay hooks. I think it's good to have them, and I think players should be open to this. That said, I also think that it's reasonable for the Warlock to ask, "Why should I be subject to worries that I'll get to keep playing my character, that nobody else has to deal with?" It's not like the Warlock is stronger than anyone else. (Arguably, it's weaker in many ways; that's why 5.5e buffed it.) Yes, it's cool to leverage the story of transactional power to create richer, more interesting experiences. That needs to happen in a way that doesn't make Warlock players feel singled out for special harsh treatment.

I agree that warlocks should not be singled out for harsh treatment. However, there's zero about most warlock patrons that indicates that the obligation will be harsh treatment. If you do go out of your way to make a pact with a demon or devil, then you've opted into the possibility of getting harsh treatment. I mean, it's a powerful demon or devil.

Fortunately, there are many different patrons, so you don't have to go with fiends.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

It's not up to the player whether or not the Great Old One will be indifferent. It's only a possibility and were I wanting that to be the case, I'd get the DM on board with it prior to making the character. And if I couldn't get him on board and it was a deal breaker, I'd make something other than a warlock.

This very much to me. If an external force is added into the story, I may let laziness take over and provide the sleepy benefactor and will do so if that is the character creation discussion.... But! You gotta believe that how I let power-players influence the world/story can trickle down to the player in a variety of ways. Maybe the pact doesn't impact the player a ton (a missed RP opportunity) but it is likely to be important to the story in some way. If anything I like adventures to have a coherent, specific motivation. The being that allows the adventurer to be more than a commoner should carry weight.

 

[Maxperson]

And the player can decide the power-tripping DM can go kick rocks and take half the group with him.

That statement is not accurate. The player can only decide to take himself away from the game. He can also decide to TRY and talk half the table into going with him, but that decision is up to them, not the player who wants them to go. It may very well be that the entire table agrees with the DM that this particular player isn't a good fit for whatever reason. Or the DM could be a power tripping asshat and they all make their own decisions to walk away from the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Explain to me what the sorcerer sacrifices for his cool superpowers? What does the monk sacrifice? The bard or the barbarian? Why does the ranger get a free pass, but the paladin doesn't?

I'm not explaining this again. You just don't value my reasons. Fair enough.

 

[Maxperson]

Explain to me what the sorcerer sacrifices for his cool superpowers? What does the monk sacrifice? The bard or the barbarian? Why does the ranger get a free pass, but the paladin doesn't?

Explain to me what arcane spells the paladin gets. Or what ki abilities the barbarian has. Why does the ranger get a favored enemy, but the wizard doesn't?

Every class is different. It has different abilities, and different fictional lore. If you want a favored enemy, don't pick a monk. If you don't want to be beholden to a patron, don't pick a warlock. If you want to smite things, you pick paladin.

 

[Maxperson]

Super compatible actually.

There is little conceptual daylight between a sorcerer and a warlock. The difference being that a sorcerer is exposed to a source of magic and a warlock seeks out someone to teach them. Yet one is bound to an entity and the other walks Scott free.

First, a warlock isn't seeking someone to teach them. They are seeking someone to give them part of its power to use. Second, duh! One is beholden because he needed to find an entity to give him power and the other didn't. If you don't want to be beholden, pick sorcerer.

As to the others, each had at one time alignment restrictions that stopped you from advancing if your alignment. You could not be a barbarian/monk in 3e without losing the features of one or the other, despite there being no mechanical reason to limit it.

And this is wrong. There's no balance reason for it, but there is in fact a mechanic reason for the limit. One class was required to be non-lawful and the other required to be lawful. You couldn't be both lawful and not lawful simultaneously, so that there is a mechanical reason for the limit.

You could argue that barbarians should be able to be lawful and monks non-lawful, but that's a different thing than there being no mechanical reason in 3e for the limit.

 

[Maxperson]

I cannot disagree more. One is magical to their bones, in their blood, the other is a hack being drip fed power by another being.

Yeah. There's more to the concepts than he mentioned.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, a lot of adventures say a way to get PCs involved is to have the Cleric's deity contact them.

Not just that. The 5e lore says under Divine Agent(big clue there)...

"When a cleric takes up an adventuring life, it is usually because his or her god demands it. Pursuing the goals of the gods often involves braving dangers beyond the walls of civilization, smiting evil or seeking holy relics in ancient tombs."

Because the god demands it. Pursuing the goals of the gods.

And it also says....

"...the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity's wishes."

The ability to keep casting spells relies on devotion and a sense of the deity's wishes.

So the god has both active and passive ways to make its will known to the cleric.

 

[Maxperson]

This very much to me. If an external force is added into the story, I may let laziness take over and provide the sleepy benefactor and will do so if that is the character creation discussion.... But! You gotta believe that how I let power-players influence the world/story can trickle down to the player in a variety of ways. Maybe the pact doesn't impact the player a ton (a missed RP opportunity) but it is likely to be important to the story in some way. If anything I like adventures to have a coherent, specific motivation. The being that allows the adventurer to be more than a commoner should carry weight.

I would love(but it is absolutely not required) for a warlock's player to sit down with me and the two of us come up with and write down a pact based on the PC and the specific patron. That would both rock and give the player something more solid to go on like the cleric's tenets of his god and the paladins oaths.

There could even be things in there like, "the patron has to surprise the PC with a party each year around the date of his birth." or "Once a year the patron has to break the warlock out of incarceration if the warlock is incarcerated." The pact doesn't just have to be the PC giving up things to the patron. It all depends on the patron and the negotiation involved.

 

[loverdrive]

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.

The main reason is that in the context of 5e, a warlock without power turns into a pumpkin. There's a drastic power curve, and falling behind even a couple levels (let alone full annihilation of your character powers) equals becoming a liability.

I don't think it's particularly surprising, to be honest.

Taking away warlocks (or clerics or paladins or whatever) powers is in many ways like breaking character's leg. In the fiction it's obviously better than death, but in the actual real world where the game is played the two are equivalent — you might as well put your character sheet trough a shredder and make a new one.

Regardless of how justified it is, it's miserable for everyone involved.