Which Warlocks Want We?

[Kingreaper]

That would be the catch. In order for the player to make informed decisions, the player needs to know (or at least have some kind of idea) what the consequences of the PC's actions will be.

I think the best place to put that information is in the class itself.

Yes, but as a storyline aspect, it shouldn't be built into the mechanics.

Someone sending monster after you, granting boons to your enemies, etc. aren't the sort of things that have mechanics in D&D.
A paragraph mentioning that all the pact-based classes (primal, divine and warlock) may find themselves under threat if they choose to betray their patron, and that their patron may occasionally make requests, is all it really takes.

Note that with Warlocks, if done 4e style, I would expect betrayals to include such things as: Failing to kill cursed opponents regularly (the pactgranters seem to have a taste for souls or something )

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You know, I had somehow obtained the impression that (at least for the orginal 4e PH warlock) some portion of the life energy of those who died under his curse went to his patron, and that is what the patron gets out of the pact.

Most warlocks probably don't think too much about what devils, archfey, star entities or dark powers do with all that life energy.

The answer to THAT pops up about 3:20 or so:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSYqqnvP0ac&feature=youtube_gdata_player]The Twilight Zone: I of Newton - YouTube[/ame]

 

[LostSoul]

Yes, but as a storyline aspect, it shouldn't be built into the mechanics.

I think that, if you're going to include the warlock - a guy who makes a pact for power - you're already building storyline aspects in the mechanics.

A paragraph mentioning that all the pact-based classes (primal, divine and warlock) may find themselves under threat if they choose to betray their patron, and that their patron may occasionally make requests, is all it really takes.

A paragraph that says you might find yourself under threat means nothing to me as a player. It's not going to inform any decisions I make because there's not enough information. What kinds of threats? If I don't have some idea of the consequences I can't judge if it's worth it to break my pact or not.

 

[Kingreaper]

A paragraph that says you might find yourself under threat means nothing to me as a player. It's not going to inform any decisions I make because there's not enough information. What kinds of threats? If I don't have some idea of the consequences I can't judge if it's worth it to break my pact or not.

If you made a deal (in-character) with a powerful NPC would you want the GM to go meta and say "Here's a precise list of the units that NPC controls, here are the ways they'll react to your disobedience, here are the limits of their patience, and here are all the ways they may choose to aid your enemies if you betray them"?

A pactgranter is an NPC you've made a deal with. It's no different from making a deal with a noble lord to borrow his horse. If you betray that deal they will react in character.

Do you really need rules for how an NPC will react to you betraying them?

 

[LostSoul]

If you made a deal (in-character) with a powerful NPC would you want the GM to go meta and say "Here's a precise list of the units that NPC controls, here are the ways they'll react to your disobedience, here are the limits of their patience, and here are all the ways they may choose to aid your enemies if you betray them"?

A pactgranter is an NPC you've made a deal with. It's no different from making a deal with a noble lord to borrow his horse. If you betray that deal they will react in character.

Do you really need rules for how an NPC will react to you betraying them?

If part of the warlock class said "The last step in character creation is playing through, in-character, the creation of the pact: the specific obligations you have, the penalties for breaking the pact, and the relationship between you and your patron" I'd be happy.

 

[Kingreaper]

If part of the warlock class said "The last step in character creation is playing through, in-character, the creation of the pact: the specific obligations you have, the penalties for breaking the pact, and the relationship between you and your patron" I'd be happy.

That works for me. By roleplaying the patronage, you ensure both GM and player know what it entails.

Yeah, I think that would be the best way to go about it.

 

[Dausuul]

If part of the warlock class said "The last step in character creation is playing through, in-character, the creation of the pact: the specific obligations you have, the penalties for breaking the pact, and the relationship between you and your patron" I'd be happy.

As a DM, if I were presented with that, lacking any examples or guidance, I would consider it unbelievably lazy class design. When I buy a game book, that money is to pay for the time, effort, and expertise of the designers who wrote it. If a central part of the warlock class is the specific terms of the pact, then the designers ought to present me with some idea of how they envision all that working. Otherwise, what the heck am I paying them for?

That doesn't mean their vision will perfectly match mine. If it doesn't, I'll tweak accordingly. I've been gaming for twenty-five years, I'm not scared of house rules. But if they haven't got a vision, or haven't put in the effort to articulate and describe it, they aren't doing their jobs.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm not trying to be snarky, but I don't want them at all. They have always seemed a bit too gish-y for my tastes...I'd rather see fighter/clerics or fighter/wizards, if only because it is more honest.

 

[Kingreaper]

As a DM, if I were presented with that, lacking any examples or guidance, I would consider it unbelievably lazy class design. When I buy a game book, that money is to pay for the time, effort, and expertise of the designers who wrote it. If a central part of the warlock class is the specific terms of the pact, then the designers ought to present me with some idea of how they envision all that working. Otherwise, what the heck am I paying them for?

That doesn't mean their vision will perfectly match mine. If it doesn't, I'll tweak accordingly. I've been gaming for twenty-five years, I'm not scared of house rules. But if they haven't got a vision, or haven't put in the effort to articulate and describe it, they aren't doing their jobs.

Maybe have sample patrons along with the sample gods used for divine characters, listing what they generally want from their followers?

 

[Dausuul]

Maybe have sample patrons along with the sample gods used for divine characters, listing what they generally want from their followers?

Sure. If there's a set of sample patrons and pacts, including obligations for the warlock and well-defined penalties for pact-breaking, that's okay. Guidelines for "rolling my own" would be nice but not necessary.

But core class mechanics should not be heavily reliant on DM judgement--not because the DM can't be trusted, but because the DM has plenty to do already. DM judgement is a powerful but finite resource.