D&D General What Happens if a Cleric/Warlock/etc PC Gravely Offends Their Supernatural Patron?

[Jer]

Except when you look at Clerics and Warlocks, their powers are specifically (mechanically) tied to story elements (domains, gods, and patrons). So its okay to give out additional mechanical benefits because they're mechanical, but not have them tied to story? Why even bother with domains and gods and patrons then? Just have a bunch of options to pick from as a character. (Which, as I type this, I realize is exactly how a lot of people play DnD).

From a mechanical perspective yes. It's a game mechanic and trying to balance a mechanical benefit with a story punishment is a path that leads to terrible places.

Also from a mechanical perspective the cleric/warlock/paladin are not out of line in power level with the wizard/sorcerer/fighter. So from the perspective of mechanics they are not actually getting a "mechanical benefit" - they're getting abilities that are in line with what other characters of the same level have.

Now those abilities are expressed as superpowers with a specific story around them, and that story often (but does not have to) involve patronage. And so as a story hook that patronage should be expected to come into play during the course of their story, but it doesn't actually have to be conflict. The patron could be quite cool, or the patron could be an annoying figure who meddles but never rises to the level of conflict. There are all sorts of ways to play a patron but there is no requirement to use the patron as some kind of guardrail to prevent the character from being overpowered.

It always is interesting to me (and I'm not speaking about you Jer) when people play DnD from a strictly "mechanics" perspective. And I have a long standing friend/player who does exactly that. Of course, this all varies from table to table and player to player, but speaking for myself, if the world isn't immersive, if the relationships don't exist (gods, patrons, mentors, trainers), and its all a "table top wargame on hexes conga-line to gain advantage", then it (to me) really misses the actual fun and interest in an RPG.

Again though - those things are separatable to me. The rules are there to govern the things you need rules to govern - I'm not getting out swords to run a sword fight on the lawn, so I need combat rules. I have average charisma players playing high/low charisma characters, so I need rules to adjudicate those interactions. I don't need rules to govern the story that comes from a warlock and their patron's relationship - and in fact any rules that tried to enforce a specific vision of how that relationship has to emerge in game for "balance" reasons would tie our hands and make us less creative with our stories.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

I think most people generally think the wizard is the most "powerful" caster class, correct? Because they don't have any roleplaying restrictions on their actions, so it seems weird to me that clerics/warlocks need some sort of DM fiat to take away their powers for balance is an argument.

As has already been mentioned, the character's relationship to their deity/patron is something that offers roleplaying opportunities, and that I think is great. However, the least interesting thing you can do is make the character into a 1 attack d8 hit die chump with no other abilities.

Ultimately, it's a game meant for fun. Losing your character's abilities is almost never fun.

 

[S'mon]

You think you are still worshipping Tash, but really your powers now come from Aslan. Or vice versa.

 

[steeldragons]

So if the warlock isn't in a position to offend their patron, they're OP?

Well, they can "offend" them as much as they like...as long as it doesn't break some element of the Pact.

I don't think anyone is claiming a Warlock's Patron can just automatically remove powers for "offense." This is what I mean/was talking about about the, really, fundamental importance of the PACT to the Warlock class concept.

If the Warlock doesn't something to break their pact it's a BIG deal...which is why just "handwaving" it for whatever reason: the player doesn't want consequences, the DM can't be bothered, whatever; and then, the Patron can (and should, and in my games would) pull out all of the stops.

 

[Cruentus]

I think most people generally think the wizard is the most "powerful" caster class, correct? Because they don't have any roleplaying restrictions on their actions, so it seems weird to me that clerics/warlocks need some sort of DM fiat to take away their powers for balance is an argument.

As has already been mentioned, the character's relationship to their deity/patron is something that offers roleplaying opportunities, and that I think is great. However, the least interesting thing you can do is make the character into a 1 attack d8 hit die chump with no other abilities.

Ultimately, it's a game meant for fun. Losing your character's abilities is almost never fun.

So, if the deities punishment is to remove their Domain Spells and their Channel Divinity, is that okay? They still have their spellcasting, so they "haven't lost their character's abilities", at least, not all of them.

When I started playing back in the stone ages, Clerics had no spells at first level, started gaining spells at 2nd level, after 'proving their worth', and went from there. Its since, what, 3.0?, end of 2e? that the game started adding domains, extra abilities for clerics of particular deities, etc., etc. Mostly as a way to sell splat books. And it was often clear which ones were going to be used (the mechanically good ones), and which wouldn't (the mechanically bad ones, or suboptimal ones). So, way back when, a cleric was a d6 HD character who could cast a spell once a day, and backup a fighter in melee (later a d8 character with second tier combat ability and more spells in 1e? due to bonus WIS?)

5e has doubled down across the board on "you get an ability, and you get an ability, and you get an ability" to the point that the cleric can be that d8 HD superhero who can cast all day, stand toe to toe in melee, and get around your exploration and social pillars with certain spells. And now, those "abilities" have come to be expected as part and parcel to the "balance" of the class, which, I think, the number of threads on the powers of casters casts some doubt over how much actual "balance" there is. Particularly when you take into account all of the various ways the game is played at tables (heavy RP, heavy combat, strictly tabletop battle, magic lite, magic heavy, zero to hero, superhero, etc.).

Ultimately, its up to each table to figure out what is fun for the players AND THE DM.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Well, they can "offend" them as much as they like...as long as it doesn't break some element of the Pact.

I don't think anyone is claiming a Warlock's Patron can just automatically remove powers for "offense." This is what I mean/was talking about about the, really, fundamental importance of the PACT to the Warlock class concept.

If the Warlock doesn't something to break their pact it's a BIG deal...which is why just "handwaving" it for whatever reason: the player doesn't want consequences, the DM can't be bothered, whatever; and then, the Patron can (and should, and in my games would) pull out all of the stops.

That was in response to a comment that if the pact doesn't limit the warlock's actions, they're overpowered. So if the pc never offends, and the powers aren't taken away and the warlock will outshine other classes / negate the challenge of the game.

 

[Oofta]

For me taking away the powers is all about roleplaying, story telling and consistency. I want my world to more or less make sense within the parameters of the campaign world. If a warlock goes out of their way to reject a patron, or a cleric does something blatantly against the teachings of their deity, in world it would not make sense to me that their patron would continue to support them.

It's not about punishing players or judging them. Assume for the moment that your PCs have a real world patron, a baron. If the PCs start a rebellion and try to overthrow the baron the baron is going to withdraw their support. Maybe the PCs find a different patron, maybe they decide they never wanted a patron in the first place. In either case they're no longer going to get any benefits from having once had the baron as a patron.

I don't want to treat classes with an external power source handled any differently and would expect no less as a player.

 

[Wolfram stout]

So this has been a very good thread, and I have re-assessed my take. Frankly, the chances of me running into a “Gotcha” DM who is looking to mess over me playing a warlock is slim, as is the chances of me (as a DM) running into an abusive player of a Warlock. While I still lean toward Patrons who are not very involved, I am willing to play a Warlock or DM one now that is a lot more involved.

I think stripping powers is maybe the least fun option for both DM and Player, but I think having a more stringent code/pact can certainly add a lot to the table.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

So, if the deities punishment is to remove their Domain Spells and their Channel Divinity, is that okay? They still have their spellcasting, so they "haven't lost their character's abilities", at least, not all of them.

When I started playing back in the stone ages, Clerics had no spells at first level, started gaining spells at 2nd level, after 'proving their worth', and went from there. Its since, what, 3.0?, end of 2e? that the game started adding domains, extra abilities for clerics of particular deities, etc., etc. Mostly as a way to sell splat books. And it was often clear which ones were going to be used (the mechanically good ones), and which wouldn't (the mechanically bad ones, or suboptimal ones). So, way back when, a cleric was a d6 HD character who could cast a spell once a day, and backup a fighter in melee (later a d8 character with second tier combat ability and more spells in 1e? due to bonus WIS?)

5e has doubled down across the board on "you get an ability, and you get an ability, and you get an ability" to the point that the cleric can be that d8 HD superhero who can cast all day, stand toe to toe in melee, and get around your exploration and social pillars with certain spells. And now, those "abilities" have come to be expected as part and parcel to the "balance" of the class, which, I think, the number of threads on the powers of casters casts some doubt over how much actual "balance" there is. Particularly when you take into account all of the various ways the game is played at tables (heavy RP, heavy combat, strictly tabletop battle, magic lite, magic heavy, zero to hero, superhero, etc.).

Ultimately, its up to each table to figure out what is fun for the players AND THE DM.

Fun is definitely subjective, for sure. And ultimately, I think this discussion is more theoretical anyway to be honest. Most cleric players probably wanted to roleplay a character devoted to the god that they, the player chose anyway. The most likely reason this sort of situation would occur seems like one of the gotcha paladin, devil's choice things you occasionally hear about a DM doing, but I think most people agree that isn't really what a DM should be doing. And frankly, it doesn't matter because if a DM is out to get his players, he will. Cut off the fighter's hand to keep them from using 2 handed weapons for example.

Ultimately, my opinion on this is twofold. I know my players wouldn't have fun losing their abilities. Maybe for an encounter I could get them to play along, but any extended length of time would be frustrating for them. I also think that it works better, at least for my world, to make the base assumption be that abilities of the player classes are not so easily removed. I mentioned before, but I think the Warlock class should be a perfect fit for a Ghost Rider patiche, and for that we need him to be able to turn on Mephisto without being powerless with a snap of the finger. I also want to be able to have a evil heretical sect of Pelor trying to corrupt the church from within, because that could make for a fun campaign. That doesn't mean I won't mix it up in certain circumstances. An NPC, or even PC(if the player is down for it), who has made a pact with a specific clause that allows such a thing could make for a fun game.

 

[Oofta]

Fun is definitely subjective, for sure. And ultimately, I think this discussion is more theoretical anyway to be honest. Most cleric players probably wanted to roleplay a character devoted to the god that they, the player chose anyway. The most likely reason this sort of situation would occur seems like one of the gotcha paladin, devil's choice things you occasionally hear about a DM doing, but I think most people agree that isn't really what a DM should be doing. And frankly, it doesn't matter because if a DM is out to get his players, he will. Cut off the fighter's hand to keep them from using 2 handed weapons for example.

Ultimately, my opinion on this is twofold. I know my players wouldn't have fun losing their abilities. Maybe for an encounter I could get them to play along, but any extended length of time would be frustrating for them. I also think that it works better, at least for my world, to make the base assumption be that abilities of the player classes are not so easily removed. I mentioned before, but I think the Warlock class should be a perfect fit for a Ghost Rider patiche, and for that we need him to be able to turn on Mephisto without being powerless with a snap of the finger. I also want to be able to have a evil heretical sect of Pelor trying to corrupt the church from within, because that could make for a fun campaign. That doesn't mean I won't mix it up in certain circumstances. An NPC, or even PC(if the player is down for it), who has made a pact with a specific clause that allows such a thing could make for a fun game.

In my campaign world I have an evil heretical sect of the church of Tyr. But they just pretend to worship Tyr, they really worship Loki. Some are deluded/tricked into worshipping Loki who has them convinced that he is the "true" aspect of Tyr.

It hasn't ever come up but a warlock finding another patron probably would not be that difficult. Kind of depends why they're looking to switch. It shouldn't be something taken lightly, but I view patron relationship almost like an employer/employee relationship. People quit and seek employment elsewhere all the time. Probably wouldn't switch patrons more than once, but I don't think it would be unreasonable.