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

[Neonchameleon]

Strangely, the rules were instead written to assume the players will be jerks who min-max and meta-game every last possible advantage if allowed to do so.

Not only were they expected to be - but they were wargamers and that was considered part of skilled play. It was a goal of play.

 

[Maxperson]

The rules isn’t the world. They are just an abstraction to deal with how the PCs interact with it. It’s nonsense that a fighter with the soldier background is so much weaker than a n NPC with the veteran stat block, so it makes perfect sense that they have never been level 1.

The order of things in the fiction is that the warlock made a pact with some unknown entity and only found out later who it was. The rules are just made to match that fiction as it should. The rules and fiction have to match or there is inherent disruption to gameplay.

It doesn't matter if you start at 1st or 3rd, the above is how it went down unless the DM changes the rules AND the fiction.

 

[Maxperson]

It's pretty simple but I can fill in a what for that bold bit. Don't think too hard on it, there probably wasn't too much thinking involved. Back before this call for a survey brigade killed the long rest warlock one of the 5.24 goals was to normalize class/subclass level contributions so subclass was always at 3 and you could just make a level X feature and know what kinda thing it was swapping out regardless of class.

Among those discussions there was a common exchange that went something like "what would that look like" -> "probably a lot like a drug dealer where the first hit's free". Sometimes that was a question about fluff with a bad answer about fluff and often it was question about fluff or mechanics with answer about mechanics. Crawford even mentioned something along that first taste is free in one of the many 5.24 warlock videos. That exchange spotlights a solution for your "what were they thinking" question that makes it easily answered with something dismissive like "context of the retort is irrelevant and there's no meaningful distinction between discussion of mechanics and fluff and talk about mechanics is totally 1:1 transferrable to fluff because rulings not rules & flavor is free". .

I don't have a problem with the first hit, or in this case two hits(1st and 2nd level) being free. They could have done that while still having the warlock know that it was an archfey, devil or genie giving him those hits. Deciding to make it some unknown entity turns every warlock into an idiot.

 

[Maxperson]

That’s pretty much the opposite of what actually happened. The Stanford Prison Experiment showed that pretty much everyone becomes a jerk when given power over others.

The DM has no power over others, though. If I tell one of my players to pick his nose, he's just going to stare at me and tell me where I can go. The only power I have is over the game world, not the players.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The order of things in the fiction is that the warlock made a pact with some unknown entity and only found out later who it was.

Which is directly contradicted by stuff elsewhere in the fiction, even down to the idea that the pact is with a single entity at all.

But it doesn’t matter because the fiction is not rules and was not written to be rules.

 

[Maxperson]

Which is directly contradicted by stuff elsewhere in the fiction, even down to the idea that the pact is with a single entity at all.

But it doesn’t matter because the fiction is not rules and was not written to be rules.

What fiction? The three paragraph fiction written in the PHB only mentions single entities.

And it does matter, because you are suggesting that the rules and fiction be in conflict. That's bad. They have to match when rules are connected to the fiction like levels are.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The rules isn’t the world. They are just an abstraction to deal with how the PCs interact with it. It’s nonsense that a fighter with the soldier background is so much weaker than a n NPC with the veteran stat block, so it makes perfect sense that they have never been level 1.

This is a distinction I don't think is appreciated enough; the one between rules as physics engine and rules as user interface to a fictional character in a fictional world. I prefer the latter but both are common.

 

[TwoSix]

What fiction? The three paragraph fiction written in the PHB only mentions single entities.

And it does matter, because you are suggesting that the rules and fiction be in conflict. That's bad. They have to match when rules are connected to the fiction like levels are.

Are you asserting things like levels and classes actually exist in the fiction outside of a LitRPG style of play?

 

[Remathilis]

Not only were they expected to be - but they were wargamers and that was considered part of skilled play. It was a goal of play.

So much of this game was built on DMs and players engaging in "good natured antagonism" that it really paints the Hickman Revolution as a truly remarkable turning point. The idea that DM and player were supposed to cooperate for the shared goal of creating a narrative is so radically opposed to Gary's "battle of wits" style it's amazing how both could be done with the same rules!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Are you asserting things like levels and classes actually exist in the fiction outside of a LitRPG style of play?

They represent things that exist in the fiction. Why would we have rules for them otherwise?