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

[Micah Sweet]

So it's "how dare you play this balanced or even underpowered class, better like your drubbings"?

Because this is now creating roleplay costs for not getting any benefit. Which seems to be exactly as bad as balancing great power by only having roleplay costs, just in the opposite direction.

As stated above in several places, I think it is very good to consider this stuff and make patrons part of the story, to include hooks and ideas and such. I draw the line at being punitive, and the problem is, the really really obvious and likely choice, especially nowadays due to BG3's Wyll, is punitive and harmful results foisted on one and only one player solely because they chose spicy flavor, creating massive harmful consequences merely because "warlock" was written on the sheet, while rarely to never doing this to anyone else. Not even divine characters, since those don't have the manipulation implied by the pact.

Let me put that another way. Do you ever threaten Warlocks with loss of power? Do you do so for light and transient reasons? If so, do you threaten clerics for similar reasons, e.g. divine whim may be adequate for them to lose their class abilities? If yes to all, then I wouldn't play in that game but I would at least respect its consistency. If no, you have exactly what I was talking about: punishing Warlock characters solely because of their class, not because of any desire to enrich the experience.

I never played BG3, and it has no influence on my GMing. I just follow the fiction.

 

[Remathilis]

Let me put that another way. Do you ever threaten Warlocks with loss of power? Do you do so for light and transient reasons? If so, do you threaten clerics for similar reasons, e.g. divine whim may be adequate for them to lose their class abilities? If yes to all, then I wouldn't play in that game but I would at least respect its consistency. If no, you have exactly what I was talking about: punishing Warlock characters solely because of their class, not because of any desire to enrich the experience.

Honestly, I hate having certain classes having "mommy may I" mechanics and not others. If you had it where every class had some way to lose their powers, I'd be ok with it, but the fact Bobby Bard can heal almost as good as Cindy Cleric and she has to walk on eggshells or else sky daddy will take away her toys really feels like she should have skipped church and started practicing the lute.

 

[cranberry]

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)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Honestly, I hate having certain classes having "mommy may I" mechanics and not others. If you had it where every class had some way to lose their powers, I'd be ok with it, but the fact Bobby Bard can heal almost as good as Cindy Cleric and she has to walk on eggshells or else sky daddy will take away her toys really feels like she should have skipped church and started practicing the lute.

And if healing was all that matters, and the PC doesn't like getting their powers from a deity, maybe they should have.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Three reasons I can think of.

1) The game is focused on the campaign story, not individual character arcs, and the player (and often DM) don't want the patron to be a distraction from the primary arc.

2) The DM isn't great as presenting the warlock patron as an opportunity for growth, as opposed to a trap and a "penance" for picking an "evil" class.

3) Many players have "indulging in a power fantasy" as a major impetus of play; playing a character bound to certain constraints violates what they're seeking in the game.

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?

Like most of these contrasts, it's both, depending on the players involved and the tone of the individual campaign.

As per usual, the DM should be guided by what the player wants out of the character, not out of a sense of what "should be" happening from their nominal setting constraints.

 

[Horwath]

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?

Depends on how much player wants to make it.
It is possibly different with clerics, depending on settings.

But, Warlock can just be another variation of wizard/sorcerer, maybe not with better chassis, but sure more customizable.

As for patron, it can be equalized with sorcerer origins, might matter down the line, might just be inborn feature/genetics.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Three reasons I can think of.

1) The game is focused on the campaign story, not individual character arcs, and the player (and often DM) don't want the patron to be a distraction from the primary arc.

2) The DM isn't great as presenting the warlock patron as an opportunity for growth, as opposed to a trap and a "penance" for picking an "evil" class.

3) Many players have "indulging in a power fantasy" as a major impetus of play; playing a character bound to certain constraints violates what they're seeking in the game.


Like most of these contrasts, it's both, depending on the players involved and the tone of the individual campaign.

As per usual, the DM should be guided by what the player wants out of the character, not out of a sense of what "should be" happening from their nominal setting constraints.

They should also be guided by the choices the player makes in character creation, including the class they chose to play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Depends on how much player wants to make it.
It is possibly different with clerics, depending on settings.

But, Warlock can just be another variation of wizard/sorcerer, maybe not with better chassis, but sure more customizable.

As for patron, it can be equalized with sorcerer origins, might matter down the line, might just be inborn feature/genetics.

The character you're describing does not follow the warlock narrative, and thus is not a warlock. Why would they use the warlock mechanics instead of something that fits the narrative of their PC?

 

[Horwath]

The character you're describing does not follow the warlock narrative, and thus is not a warlock. Why would they use the warlock mechanics instead of something that fits the narrative of their PC?

mechanics are to them better than sorcerer mechanics?

 

[Bae'zel]

Honestly, I hate having certain classes having "mommy may I" mechanics and not others. If you had it where every class had some way to lose their powers, I'd be ok with it, but the fact Bobby Bard can heal almost as good as Cindy Cleric and she has to walk on eggshells or else sky daddy will take away her toys really feels like she should have skipped church and started practicing the lute.

I've occasionally explained to a player, prior to them making a decision that frankly "goes against" the established lore, that what they're about to do would be at some odds with their faction / deity / law / order etc...

"Hey Paladin, you took Oath of the Whatever, and normally that Oath would compel your kind to protect innocents against Daemons like this, do what you want, but it may have some consequences later on if the other Knights find out you didn't get involved"

"Hey Fighter, you are with the Harpers now, and they would have explained to you at initiation that needless torture and cruelty isn't their style; do what you want, but if this gets out, the other Harpers may take issue"

"Hey Druid, burning down the forest to defeat the bandits may be cool with some observed forces of Nature (destructive ones) but other Druids from your Circle may get upset if they find out that you were involved, do what you want though"

I don't PUNISH players for doing these things, but I establish during session zero that I do care about the "reality" of the setting, where factions, oaths, NPC organizations etc matter, for good or ill. They can definitely tell the Knights of the Oath of GoodyTwoShoes, the Harpers, or the Druid Circle of the OakFather to piss off and leave them alone but... they probably won't get any of the perks anymore from those factions. They can still use all of their powers and abilities, no issue, though. But their fellows probably won't help them out during downtime.