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

[Voadam]

Funny how all those options mean the patron isn't important in actual play at the table and functionally mean they have no effect on the PC other than being the vague source of their super powers.

Not really coincidentally funny, that was the point I was explicitly making.

(Although most are not vague on the source of the power).

No thanks, personally.

Plenty of room for you or others to play warlocks who pacted to serve a patron if you want to play a PC who serves a patron.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not really coincidentally funny, that was the point I was explicitly making.

(Although most are not vague on the source of the power).

Plenty of room for you or others to play warlocks who pacted to serve a patron if you want to play a PC who serves a patron.

You mean, like a warlock?

 

[Bae'zel]

All of this should be discussed during character creation of course.

But I strongly feel that everyone is sorely missing out if they:

• make a warlock who has no direct, often tempestuous relationship with their patron
• make a Cleric who isn’t deeply religious or spiritual
• make a Paladin who hand waves or ignores their Oath
• make a Druid who doesn’t really existentially associate much with nature, flora and fauna
• make a Monk who doesn’t study and train hard, following a Path or discipline

To each their own, but I wouldn’t play D&D with people who don’t want to engage AT ALL with the core concepts of their characters. That’s utterly boring to me. Again, to each their own if you find this thematic stuff problematic for some reason (I certainly hope not!)

 

[Tonguez]

Yeah I'm of the opinion that Warlock pact should always come with a Dark gift of some kind (borrowing Ravenlofts term), there should at the very least be a rp ribbon attached to a Pact patron, even if it is something mild like a persistent watcher or annoying voices.

The Pact is also explicit permission for the DM to use the patron as an NPC with a direct bond/leash tied to the warlock

 

[Reynard]

Funny how all those options mean the patron isn't important in actual play at the table and functionally mean they have no effect on the PC other than being the vague source of their super powers.

No thanks, personally.

Why. Clerics gods don't get directly involved.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah I'm of the opinion that Warlock pact should always come with a Dark gift of some kind (borrowing Ravenlofts term), there should at the very least be a rp ribbon attached to a Pact patron, even if it is something mild like a persistent watcher or annoying voices.

The Pact is also explicit permission for the DM to use the patron as an NPC with a direct bond/leash tied to the warlock

Again, why? It isn't supported by the mechanics or even the inspirational fiction. "Historical" witches and warlocks got their powers from consorting with the Devil for no greater cost than their soul, because the Devil loves to sew chaos.

This whole argument smacks of the old Paladin arguments in Dragon Forum about how DMs should strip them of their powers etc.

 

[Bae'zel]

Again, why? It isn't supported by the mechanics or even the inspirational fiction. "Historical" witches and warlocks got their powers from consorting with the Devil for no greater cost than their soul, because the Devil loves to sew chaos.

That actually varies in fiction. In some tales, sure, no problem. In others, the witches or warlocks are “marked” in some way.

Faustian bargains where the cost is paid longterm mat have negligible effects during a campaign.

RAW you can flat out ignore ALL fluff for any class. Depending on the campaign mood or theme, it would be a pity to not play into those “costs” in some immediate sense.

Caveat: I’m much more of a fan of magic systems that have SOME risk, from full on mutations and corruption (Dungeon Crawl Classics, WFRP, Dark Heresy) to thematic temptations for more power (Star Wars’ the Force). Even the X-Men had SOME kind of flaw or drawback about their powers.

It’s compelling fiction, that’s for sure.

Again: if your table couldn’t care less about these things, all the best.

But I don’t see the point in a Warlock without ANY special ties or consequences for their powers. Like a Paladin without any kind of code of honor or oath, or a Cleric without devotion to any Faith.

 

[Reynard]

That actually varies in fiction. In some tales, sure, no problem. In others, the witches or warlocks are “marked” in some way.

Faustian bargains where the cost is paid longterm mat have negligible effects during a campaign.

RAW you can flat out ignore ALL fluff for any class. Depending on the campaign mood or theme, it would be a pity to not play into those “costs” in some immediate sense.

Caveat: I’m much more of a fan of magic systems that have SOME risk, from full on mutations and corruption (Dungeon Crawl Classics, WFRP, Dark Heresy) to thematic temptations for more power (Star Wars’ the Force). Even the X-Men had SOME kind of flaw or drawback about their powers.

It’s compelling fiction, that’s for sure.

Again: if your table couldn’t care less about these things, all the best.

But I don’t see the point in a Warlock without ANY special ties or consequences for their powers. Like a Paladin without any kind of code of honor or oath, or a Cleric without devotion to any Faith.

Right but people are advocating for here is the idea that anyone who chose to play a Warlock signed up for an intrusive boss, which is more of a problem (and more work for the GM) that a Paladin's Oath or a clerics extremely nebulous "devotion" -- for a class that by the fiction should have LESS intrusive requirements than those who supposedly 100% dedicated themselves to a religion or code.

 

[Tonguez]

Again, why? It isn't supported by the mechanics or even the inspirational fiction. "Historical" witches and warlocks got their powers from consorting with the Devil for no greater cost than their soul, because the Devil loves to sew chaos.

Yes historic witches and warlocks got their powers from CONSORTING with devils, they involved themselves in elaborate rituals - dancing with beasts and fey in the forest, sacrificing chickens, doing morning libations to the four corners etc etc. The Witches greymalkin is a great model for a persistent watcher.

Magic is far too easy in DnD, at least wizards are required to study their Books, Warlocks should acknowledge their Patrons

 

[Voadam]

But I don’t see the point in a Warlock without ANY special ties or consequences for their powers.

Eh, barbarians, bards, fighters (meaning the magic subclasses) monks, rangers, rogues (magic subclasses), sorcerers, and wizards, etc. do not have any special ties or consequences to their magic powers. I don't see them as pointless classes to play.

Any of them can, and that can be fun to play, but it is certainly not the only way to enjoy playing a character.

I had a lot of fun playing a 3.5 warlock who got his powers being descended from the archdevil Fierna but being a good guy who did not work for her (in contrast to his father, my prior character who was a tiefling soulknife who did work for her, which was also great fun to play).