D&D General Warlocks' patrons vs. Paladin Oaths and Cleric Deities

[Maxperson]

Yes. It absolutely 100% was. So much so that someone on wotc's payroll would have featured making it clear if lonely Isle were shooting their video today

https://x.com/mikemearls/status/693243514423873536?s=20

This one from Crawford is especially telling given that he was so excited to get it out there when the question was an entirely unrelated one about changing patrons

https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1221978854119460866

I know that there was more than one interview with Crawford where he gushed about how cool the intended story of a warlock giving their patron a double fisted salute that the patron can't do anything about as a design intent

Crawfords BS rulings and lore statements can take a long walk off of a short pier. I'm not obligated to follow his ridiculous statements. The warlock has section that is literally called Sworn and Beholden that talks about his obligations to his patron. Paladins have Oathbreaker that is enacted at the DM's discretion.

It's not gone just because Crawford spouted some words in an interview somewhere.

 

[Maxperson]

No they don’t. The there is no game mechanics attached to the patron. If a warlock decides that they don’t have a patron and their powers are the result of magitech experimentation, as one of my players did, the effect is absolutely nothing.

Only because you allowed it as DM. The class lore requires a patron and pact, not some magical accident. That was your choice for your game, but don't mistake that as what is happening or should happen at tables other than your own.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Only because you allowed it as DM. The class lore requires a patron and pact,

No it doesn’t. What part of “there are no rules” do you find so difficult to understand?

The DM cannot take away player powers, they cannot prevent the player levelling up in a class. If a player says “my warlock has no patron” there is absolutely nothing in the rules the DM can do about it apart from refuse to play with that person.

 

[Maxperson]

No it doesn’t. What part of “there are no rules” do you find so difficult to understand?

The DM cannot take away player powers, they cannot prevent the player levelling up in a class. If a player says “my warlock has no patron” there is absolutely nothing in the rules the DM can do about it apart from refuse to play with that player.

Lore is every bit as strong as rules. Stronger sometimes. That's what you are finding hard to understand apparently. If you want to re-write the warlock, good for you. I'm sure it's fun for you guys. Don't project your preferences on how the game should be, onto other tables, though.

And yes there is something the DM can do about it. He can say, "There are no warlocks in my game that don't have patrons." The DM sets the setting and the setting limitations. The PHB says to discuss with the DM setting stuff before making your character, because it can impact what you can make.

It's also a bit of hyperbole there saying that there's nothing the DM can do short of refusing to play with the player. Just telling the player that warlocks require patrons is enough. The player can then decide to have a patron or play a different class. No need to stop playing with one another.

 

[tetrasodium]

Crawfords BS rulings and lore statements can take a long walk off of a short pier. I'm not obligated to follow his ridiculous statements. The warlock has section that is literally called Sworn and Beholden that talks about his obligations to his patron. Paladins have Oathbreaker that is enacted at the DM's discretion.

It's not gone just because Crawford spouted some words in an interview somewhere.

Only one of those tweets was from Crawford and you caught the post between noticing that the forum needs x changed to twitter to show the tweet. Normally Crawfords god awful hot takes are easily ignored yes, but in this case the rules and associated are written that way too.

Right. And by picking warlock the player decided to have a patron he is obligated to. That was his choice to make.

The Archfiend
The Great Old One
The Archfey
Etc
NONE of the warlock patrons are small fry, all of them are up there among those with high deific ranks in lore and description. The rogue equivalent would be if their subclasses were named things like Harper's Lord's Alliance House Deneith House Cannith and so forth.

 

[AnotherGuy]

It's a failure of design (IMO) with little to no input from the designers with regards to clerics, paladins and warlocks.

However, the DM is the master of the world, that much is explicit. You could determine there's an additional cost for that power as opposed to just say being a fighter.

Now you could be heavy handed or collaborative.
You could also cobble together ideas from Dungeon World and the like.