I know this sounds preposterous at first, but your patron isn't the source of your magic per the established lore. The patron is merely the teacher of the ancient secrets which fuel a Warlocks magic, while the Warlock is the apprentice. The relationship is closer to that of a journeyman electrician and a master electrician than anything else, meaning that if the warlock decides to ignore their patron, they will continue to have the same knowledge they gained before making that choice. This very clearly means that the Patron itself isn't how you perform you magic, but rather what taught you your magic. The whole reason for bringing this up is because I continue to see individuals seeming to see the relationship as being similar to that of a Paladin with their oath or a Cleric and their God. The big confusion comes from the fact that it is pretty clearly laid out in the lore on Warlocks that the relationship is that of a Mentor and student as in these examples.
"Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse. Through pacts made with mysterious beings of supernatural power, warlocks unlock magical effects both subtle and spectacular. Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as fey nobles, demons, devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power."
Along with,
"More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf."
I do realize that it is more than ok to RP the relationship as something similar to the previously mentioned Cleric or Paladin which is also mentioned in the lore, but I am really curious as to why people automatically default to thinking that is how one should RP Warlocks even going as far as to think that without the Patron Warlocks lose their magic entirely, as it heavily limits the sort of narratives you can construct about your character. Not only that but it also creates the confusion we see with the Hexblade in thinking that your powers are coming directly from some magical weapon, rather than being something taught by the Hexblade and depending on the circumstances of the agreement might never be spoken to again.
So now that the rambling and clickbait title is out of the way, what are your thoughts on why people tend to RP their Warlocks more like Clerics rather than individuals who learned secret ways to tap into their patron's plane of existence (or even just using secret powerful utterances) to do the kinds of things Patrons are capable of?
This whole issue would go away if the authors of D&D 5E would clarify the issue. The quoted passages above are subject to interpretation simply won't convince everyone, particularly those who are stuck in the old paradigm of Clerics and Paladins. For them, "behave yourself or lose your powers" is simply the way things have always been done.
A simple sidebar or box-out in the PHB would suffice. "Warlocks aren't clerics and that's not how it works for them."
I think the interesting paradigm here is that even in older editions, if you could lose your class abilities it was established as something written as an actual rule rather than just being lore filler. So basically there isn't even a precedent that exists for thinking that the relationship behaves like that for Warlocks. Plus a deeper examination of things would make it pretty apparent that things that aren't god's don't have the power to actually grant magic abilities in the first place, especially magic beyond what your patron itself is capable of using. So in the end it comes down to what logically makes sense for the world, but more often than not gods are going to have the power to bestow magical gifts to their followers without the followers needing to understand them at all, while some random fiend isn't going to have the ability to let you use magic just because but can teach you how to tap into the same kind of energies it uses.
Yeah, it would have been nice to phrase it as "magic, magic, magic," as well as "oh, also a pact."
I wrote mine up as she (Hexblade) was whisked off the the Shadowfell, met her Patron (or did she...?) and was given a non-Legendary, non-sentient, non-magical sword. As a condition of the Pact, if her patron wanted her to kill something, the handle would grow cold. If she was in combat with something that her Patron didn't want her to kill, the handle would get hot.
So far, once when she killed an enemy guided by her sword, her sword has gained magical status, since it's now +1. She assumes that it will continue to gain power, as long as she pleases her patron.
The magic is separate, and since she's mainly melee based, she can separate the two in her mind. The sword isn't her Patron, and doesn't grant her magic. She knows when she combines her magic with her weapon attacks, she has more skill, does more damage, and that makes it more satisfying for her. If her Patron is satisfied, then she may gain extra abilities and spells.
Great points, especially about the all-to-common Hexblade patron misunderstanding. I agree with JackofAllTirades. There are plenty of inconsistencies that could easily lead a player to mistakenly believe that the Patron is the source of power. For example:
Eldritch Master - At 20th level, you can spend 1 minute entreating your patron for aid to regain all your expended spell slots from your Pact Magic feature. Once you regain spell slots with this feature, you must finish a long rest before you can do so again.
That sounds a lot like a cleric too me! Please, please, please give me back my spells slots Mr. Hexblade!
This capstone feature has always made me feel that a warlock can never be a true master and be free of Patron w/o a significant or total loss or power. How could a Warlock ever gain Eldritch Master status w/o remaining a servant to his patron? Wouldn’t that lead you to believe that the Patron is the source of power after all? Thoughts?
Yeah, it would have been nice to phrase it as "magic, magic, magic," as well as "oh, also a pact."
I wrote mine up as she (Hexblade) was whisked off the the Shadowfell, met her Patron (or did she...?) and was given a non-Legendary, non-sentient, non-magical sword. As a condition of the Pact, if her patron wanted her to kill something, the handle would grow cold. If she was in combat with something that her Patron didn't want her to kill, the handle would get hot.
So far, once when she killed an enemy guided by her sword, her sword has gained magical status, since it's now +1. She assumes that it will continue to gain power, as long as she pleases her patron.
The magic is separate, and since she's mainly melee based, she can separate the two in her mind. The sword isn't her Patron, and doesn't grant her magic. She knows when she combines her magic with her weapon attacks, she has more skill, does more damage, and that makes it more satisfying for her. If her Patron is satisfied, then she may gain extra abilities and spells.
This still sort of falls into the "have to please patron" mentality...arguably this is gonna vary based on the DM, but it is another one of those things where the rules don't actually enforce having to follow the whims of your patron at all. Either way it is a cool way to incorporate following your patron.
My thoughts on the matter are actually pretty simple: The patron teaches you the magical secrets from the onset, and as you level you begin to master the use of those magical secrets which otherwise you are unable to wield. That said the Eldritch Master capstone is the real outlier, as it does make Warlocks basically seem like Clerics with more focus on spells, yet with less spell slots and an alleged disconnect between patron and warlock...but it really boils down to whether the entreating your patron bit is supposed to describe the mechanics or was just fluff added since it was the easiest way to describe the feature...but as I said I find it to be the real outlier...but then again it could just be that the warlock is basically free of their patron unless they want some serious help, at which point lets hope you were keeping your patron happy.
My big beef with that last bit though is that it basically makes it impossible to not play a neutral or evil Fiend Patron Warlock from a narrative standpoint, even if it makes perfect sense that in a moment of weakness a good individual might make a pact with evil forces in a moment of weakness, and then use those powers in a positive way after they realize their decision was evil...so it shoehorns the narratives driving those characters to follow some common tropes.
Yes, I wish Eldritch Master was more akin to the Wizard's arcane recovery or Sorcerous Restoration. Otherwise, it is questionable whether the Warlock has really gained mastery over his Eldritch Power or simply just a powerful acolyte. I would hope by Level 20 (if I ever there get there) my Warlock would not be “one who kneels” to anyone.
I guess this bring up 2 fundamental questions of the Warlock class:
Is a warlock's eldritch power really his own? RAI, I’d say yes. But, RAW I’m not so sure….
My interpretation is that the warlock's patron teaches him secrets every time the warlock levels up. So the warlock needs to stay on the patron's good side in order to learn new powers. But if the warlock abandons the patron the warlock doesn't lose what has already been learned.
My interpretation is that the warlock's patron teaches him secrets every time the warlock levels up. So the warlock needs to stay on the patron's good side in order to learn new powers. But if the warlock abandons the patron the warlock doesn't lose what has already been learned.
See, normally I would agree but Crawford has been very clear that unless game mechanics are explicitly laid out, then such restrictions don't occur. So basically it comes down to lore, not actual mechanics, that really becomes the deciding factor on that subject...and the lore on Warlocks isn't very definitive on the matter. Basically in 5e the only class that definitively has rules on breaking their oath are Paladins, meaning that by RAW even a Cleric can go against the God that gives them power...and is actually a plot point for the guest character Kashaw in campaign 1 of Critical Role...it is one of those things that ends up being DM arbitrated on case by case, while Paladins are the only class that has penalties for going against what they originally promised to do.
So basically if trying to fill in the lore gaps from an established RAW context, it would imply that the magical secrets that are taught are granted all at once since the rules as written provide no mechanical downside for going against the whims of your patron after the pact is made. Whether this is the intention or not is open to debate, and part of why I made this thread cause I definitely think that this should be a discussion for the community to think on.
Yes, I wish Eldritch Master was more akin to the Wizard's arcane recovery or Sorcerous Restoration. Otherwise, it is questionable whether the Warlock has really gained mastery over his Eldritch Power or simply just a powerful acolyte. I would hope by Level 20 (if I ever there get there) my Warlock would not be “one who kneels” to anyone.
I guess this bring up 2 fundamental questions of the Warlock class:
Is a warlock's eldritch power really his own? RAI, I’d say yes. But, RAW I’m not so sure….
And
Can a warlock ever be free of his chains (pact)?
Ya know, it might be something that could be gathered by looking at the intent for Warlocks in 4e and comparing them to 5e and seeing if the overlap is enough to justify the lore from 4e setting the precedent in 5e.
EDIT: Yeah, gonna have to look into the 4e lore a bit more...4e Warlocks definitely appear to not be bound to a patron but then again, I know nothing of 4e warlocks or 4th editions weird rules lol. If anything so far it more or less shows that the two have some overlapping lore, but a lot of stuff that is distinct between both.
My PC Ash's patron, the Raven Queen, is fairly inscrutable and standoffish, which is how my GM and I are playing it, anyway. I feel like there are consequences and rewards to her behavior, but... sometimes, her patron will do something for no discernible reason.
One of my favorite Warlocks is taking the approach of "Accidental, stolen power" So the patron is a literal source of power; and it can't be undone. In fact the patron only started manifesting its awareness later in the adventure as the "draw" become noticeable. The horror of what she has gotten herself into is part of the story I want to tell.
At the end of the day, how exactly a warlock manifests their power isn't terribly important mechanically because the rules for spells are already laid down. It's more interesting storywise of course. The fact that a warlock's power cannot be taken away based on Sage Advice, is basically that; advice. The DM can always homerule something else, or prevent a player from leveling farther without paying lip service to the patron. The DM could just as easily add consequences for a cleric as well, which would work for a Forgotten Realms campaign, but wouldn't work for an Eberron one. Is it RAW? No. But the DM does have the final say.
Ultimately it's about the story you want to tell; the Rules are a changeable framework to tell the story.
One of my favorite Warlocks is taking the approach of "Accidental, stolen power" So the patron is a literal source of power; and it can't be undone. In fact the patron only started manifesting its awareness later in the adventure as the "draw" become noticeable. The horror of what she has gotten herself into is part of the story I want to tell.
At the end of the day, how exactly a warlock manifests their power isn't terribly important mechanically because the rules for spells are already laid down. It's more interesting storywise of course. The fact that a warlock's power cannot be taken away based on Sage Advice, is basically that; advice. The DM can always homerule something else, or prevent a player from leveling farther without paying lip service to the patron. The DM could just as easily add consequences for a cleric as well, which would work for a Forgotten Realms campaign, but wouldn't work for an Eberron one. Is it RAW? No. But the DM does have the final say.
Ultimately it's about the story you want to tell; the Rules are a changeable framework to tell the story.
Oh I agree with basically everything you said as well...I am more or less curious as to why the default for most people seems to be to treat the relationship as if it were that of a Paladin and their oath. If it were something you saw or read about here and there I wouldn't have made the post..but it seems to be quite a common theme for what the class is as written to not be the default which I find abnormal.
Quote from AtlaStar>> Oh I agree with basically everything you said as well...I am more or less curious as to why the default for most people seems to be to treat the relationship as if it were that of a Paladin and their oath. If it were something you saw or read about here and there I wouldn't have made the post..but it seems to be quite a common theme for what the class is as written to not be the default which I find abnormal.
Probably because in a lot of people's mind the term "Oath" and "Pact" are close to being synonymous (in language, not in game mechanics sense). But in the case of a pact it sounds more intimate, and the PHB does imply an active relationship. So despite there being no rules on it, there is opportunity to make assumptions and turn it a particular way.
The other aspect is that we don't exactly have a lot of concrete example to start with either to point to. We have our Gandalfs, and Elimisters. We have Aragorn and Drizt. We can probably name a handful of icons for every class, but my gut tells me that warlocks (especially good aligned ones) are rare (The Sith do come to mind though). So we grasp on a basic idea; master and servant.
So if we look at the PHB text as a guideline to get started, there is nothing wrong with that starting point. It may not be interesting or satisfying for others, which is while it's more of a guideline and less of a rule. So, if folks want a blackguard/oathbreaker/anti-paladin that is a caster...it does smell like a warlock.
I worry about it less, and worry about if the story makes sense to me and my peers, and hope they have the same concerns.
I seem to recall Mike Mearls talking about how some Patrons very much do serve as a Warlock's power source. As in, if you had a lich granting you magic, you would literally be taking the lich's spell slots away fuel your own spells. So, I'm going to have to disagree with the assessment the Patron is merely a teacher and nothing else for every warlock.
The simple fact of the matter is that the exact details of how the warlock works / interacts with their Patron? Its entirely up to the DM and player to decide that. There's nothing to clarify, because its deliberately left open ended, so you can run your story however you want. Is your Patron just a teacher? That's one possible method. It is not, however, the only method. Its like I always tell my players, "it depends on the details your individual pact." Is your pact with your patron the result of accidentally touching the mind of a slumbering abolith and learning eldritch lore from the inadvertent contact and mutating you? Awesome, that's totally a thing. Does your warlock draw their power directly from Glasya, and you'll lose your magic if you fail your mission? Also a totally awesome story that's completely viable.
Its not a mistake to assume that the Patron is the source of the magic, because the game does support that style of play if you want to. Its just a teacher if you want to.
Now, why would people assume that you could be cut off from your power? If I had to guess, I'd say that its one part pop culture deal-with-devils working that way, and another part just being more dramatic. Having consequences simply makes for a more compelling story. Walking away is possible, but costs you everything.
Also, because it helps make warlocks a bit more distinct from wizards. If its just studying lore and twisting energies... that's exactly the same thing that wizards do. When the survey went out, way back during the playtest, there was an overwhelming amount of people that didn't like the idea of a warlock that relied on just their brains and teaching. They wanted the Patron and the pact itself to be more important than the brain. There was real push back against this kind of view of the warlock.
Also, because it helps make warlocks a bit more distinct from wizards. If its just studying lore and twisting energies... that's exactly the same thing that wizards do. When the survey went out, way back during the playtest, there was an overwhelming amount of people that didn't like the idea of a warlock that relied on just their brains and teaching. They wanted the Patron and the pact itself to be more important than the brain. There was real push back against this kind of view of the warlock.
Clearly I never got that survey ;)
But this is an interesting point. But it appears that they didn't actually create the consequences, and to be honest I can see why. While in D&D paladin's have had the risk of falling, the only class that had that risk was a samurai from the 1st edition when they lost enough honor as I recall. Clerics would be denied spells beyond 2nd level if they didn't follow their ethos. But much of those consequences dropped away. The risk of falling as the Paladin was real, and its iconic part of the class history. The Warlock's isn't as extensive.
Now, remembering some other bad DM's who with perverse glee put challenges up that would teeter the poor Paladin on the edge of loosing everything, and sometimes succeeding wasn't very fun. So I can totally get where they didn't want to create that line in a base class again. I could totally see it in terms in gameplay where if you do things for your patron you get rewarded as part of play and there the choices matter on the other hand.
So if the sentiment of the survey sample is correct, then people like the idea of a Warlock falling. Not sure how many would actually like it to happen to them, as it puts a lot of power in the DM's hand. (Ooo you have a warlock...now I can railroad the adventure, muhahahah) From a mechanics/social aspect its tricky though and I would rather homebrew it than a hard rule like paladins.
But this is an interesting point. But it appears that they didn't actually create the consequences, and to be honest I can see why. While in D&D paladin's have had the risk of falling, the only class that had that risk was a samurai from the 1st edition when they lost enough honor as I recall. Clerics would be denied spells beyond 2nd level if they didn't follow their ethos. But much of those consequences dropped away. The risk of falling as the Paladin was real, and its iconic part of the class history. The Warlock's isn't as extensive.
Now, remembering some other bad DM's who with perverse glee put challenges up that would teeter the poor Paladin on the edge of loosing everything, and sometimes succeeding wasn't very fun. So I can totally get where they didn't want to create that line in a base class again. I could totally see it in terms in gameplay where if you do things for your patron you get rewarded as part of play and there the choices matter on the other hand.
So if the sentiment of the survey sample is correct, then people like the idea of a Warlock falling. Not sure how many would actually like it to happen to them, as it puts a lot of power in the DM's hand. (Ooo you have a warlock...now I can railroad the adventure, muhahahah) From a mechanics/social aspect its tricky though and I would rather homebrew it than a hard rule like paladins.
It was during the NEXT playtesting, when all the different classes were being tested, about a year and half before 5e's official release. This was when the warlock originally was tested using INT instead of CHA as their casting stat, and man, was there a massive, massive amount of people who did not like that. Shocked the devs when they got the feedback, as I recall.
Going a bit more into depth, the writers were thinking about the warlock through the lens of "arcane caster" types, where your magic couldn't be taken away by doing something a higher power disliked. It was something you practiced. As time went out, however, they found more and more people that weren't interested in labeling the classes as arcane/divine, and wanted things like Favored Soul and Celestial warlocks who were divinely granted their power (or, at least angelically). People wanted that intimiate connection. So, as time went on, the stance of the warlock as an "arcane caster" got weaker and weaker, so now it occupies a bit of a no-man's land of whatever the DM says. If you follow any of the pod casts or tweets and stuff, you can see a gradual shift in tone as the writers got more feed back from players, and the different stories they tell.
The actual sentiment of the surveys is that people generally did not like the idea of INT-based alternate wizard archetype. I suppose the reason that this was a surprise, was that the arcane student was actually how 4e warlock was meant to be ran, with infernal warlocks diving into ancient ruins to dig up ancient pacts. Granted, I don't know anyone even ran things that way in 4e, and there were even changes in later books to the warlock. The survey was more of a sign wanted a wide variety of warlocks, rather than a single archetype.
Things default to a standard "divine caster" model, I suspect mostly because that's more common in pop culture and people are more familiar with it than anything else, so its easier to run and come up with ideas for.
Lots of fair points, and as I tried to clarify in later comments, it is more of a curiosity why people choose to limit their character ideas to the common tropes when the Player's Handbook itself doesn't really do anything to enforce the idea that that is what you have to do. But once again, some fair points since the whole deal with the devil trope is pretty prevalent. That said though, typically those sorts of contracts are one and done deals (I sold my soul for power) sort of things, so I am still curious where the default thought that on has to continue to serve some master comes from.
This is actually something I feel that 4e fleshed out a bit better (and damn does it pain me to say that) after reading up on its lore, since the type of pact was implied to be based on who you made it with in the first place, and the relationship itself therefore was dependent on the kind of pact. Essentially everyone is following the 4e's explanation of how a pact with an Archfey would work and applying it to all patrons. I also feel that the lore did a better job of explaining that Warlocks are truly seekers of secret knowledge, and that their focus is based more around those sorts of secrets rather than the mundane kinds of spellcasting Wizards use. 5e appears to attempt to make this explanation clear, but falls a little flat, which could explain why people were upset about the idea of Warlock's being INT casters, even though the two would have a very different field of study imo.
EDIT: To further explain what I mean, imagine that Wizards were architects. Some might specialize in making homes in like a post-modern style, others might focus on making office-buildings, etc. Warlocks would also be a type of architect, but they'd be the ones that hyper-specialized in something more artistic like Victorian, Contemporary, Richardsonian Romanesque, or even something as crazy as Cube houses (trust me, they are weird)
From the Player’s Handbook, “The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf.” That states that the warlock’s pact requires going back to their patrons regularly.
My fully fleshed out thoughts are that every class has an implied ongoing training. Fighters don’t magically learn their archetype, they’re training when not adventuring. Wizards are constantly studying magic, and they have a stated cost in raw materials to scribe spells into their spell books. Sorcerers are practicing and learning how to use their inborn power on their own. Warlocks are taught more secrets by their patrons in exchange for serving their patrons.
None of this is,or should be a straight jacket. Instead it’s an opportunity for role playing if the player and DM want it to be. If the player and DM don’t want to role play that, then they don’t have to. But done properly that can give the DM different plot hooks to advance the campaign and for everyone to have fun with. The wizard needs to find a rare flower which happens to be in the middle of a module. The fighter needs to practice a technique and the master who can teach that technique lives in a town that needs the help from adventurers. The warlock’s patron wants to see a Phoenix through the warlock’s eyes. Etc..
I know this sounds preposterous at first, but your patron isn't the source of your magic per the established lore. The patron is merely the teacher of the ancient secrets which fuel a Warlocks magic, while the Warlock is the apprentice. The relationship is closer to that of a journeyman electrician and a master electrician than anything else, meaning that if the warlock decides to ignore their patron, they will continue to have the same knowledge they gained before making that choice. This very clearly means that the Patron itself isn't how you perform you magic, but rather what taught you your magic. The whole reason for bringing this up is because I continue to see individuals seeming to see the relationship as being similar to that of a Paladin with their oath or a Cleric and their God. The big confusion comes from the fact that it is pretty clearly laid out in the lore on Warlocks that the relationship is that of a Mentor and student as in these examples.
"Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse. Through pacts made with mysterious beings of supernatural power, warlocks unlock magical effects both subtle and spectacular. Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as fey nobles, demons, devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power."
Along with,
"More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf."
I do realize that it is more than ok to RP the relationship as something similar to the previously mentioned Cleric or Paladin which is also mentioned in the lore, but I am really curious as to why people automatically default to thinking that is how one should RP Warlocks even going as far as to think that without the Patron Warlocks lose their magic entirely, as it heavily limits the sort of narratives you can construct about your character. Not only that but it also creates the confusion we see with the Hexblade in thinking that your powers are coming directly from some magical weapon, rather than being something taught by the Hexblade and depending on the circumstances of the agreement might never be spoken to again.
So now that the rambling and clickbait title is out of the way, what are your thoughts on why people tend to RP their Warlocks more like Clerics rather than individuals who learned secret ways to tap into their patron's plane of existence (or even just using secret powerful utterances) to do the kinds of things Patrons are capable of?
This whole issue would go away if the authors of D&D 5E would clarify the issue. The quoted passages above are subject to interpretation simply won't convince everyone, particularly those who are stuck in the old paradigm of Clerics and Paladins. For them, "behave yourself or lose your powers" is simply the way things have always been done.
A simple sidebar or box-out in the PHB would suffice. "Warlocks aren't clerics and that's not how it works for them."
Done.
DICE FALL, EVERYONE ROCKS!
I think the interesting paradigm here is that even in older editions, if you could lose your class abilities it was established as something written as an actual rule rather than just being lore filler. So basically there isn't even a precedent that exists for thinking that the relationship behaves like that for Warlocks. Plus a deeper examination of things would make it pretty apparent that things that aren't god's don't have the power to actually grant magic abilities in the first place, especially magic beyond what your patron itself is capable of using. So in the end it comes down to what logically makes sense for the world, but more often than not gods are going to have the power to bestow magical gifts to their followers without the followers needing to understand them at all, while some random fiend isn't going to have the ability to let you use magic just because but can teach you how to tap into the same kind of energies it uses.
Yeah, it would have been nice to phrase it as "magic, magic, magic," as well as "oh, also a pact."
I wrote mine up as she (Hexblade) was whisked off the the Shadowfell, met her Patron (or did she...?) and was given a non-Legendary, non-sentient, non-magical sword. As a condition of the Pact, if her patron wanted her to kill something, the handle would grow cold. If she was in combat with something that her Patron didn't want her to kill, the handle would get hot.
So far, once when she killed an enemy guided by her sword, her sword has gained magical status, since it's now +1. She assumes that it will continue to gain power, as long as she pleases her patron.
The magic is separate, and since she's mainly melee based, she can separate the two in her mind. The sword isn't her Patron, and doesn't grant her magic. She knows when she combines her magic with her weapon attacks, she has more skill, does more damage, and that makes it more satisfying for her. If her Patron is satisfied, then she may gain extra abilities and spells.
Great points, especially about the all-to-common Hexblade patron misunderstanding. I agree with JackofAllTirades. There are plenty of inconsistencies that could easily lead a player to mistakenly believe that the Patron is the source of power. For example:
Eldritch Master - At 20th level, you can spend 1 minute entreating your patron for aid to regain all your expended spell slots from your Pact Magic feature. Once you regain spell slots with this feature, you must finish a long rest before you can do so again.
That sounds a lot like a cleric too me! Please, please, please give me back my spells slots Mr. Hexblade!
This capstone feature has always made me feel that a warlock can never be a true master and be free of Patron w/o a significant or total loss or power. How could a Warlock ever gain Eldritch Master status w/o remaining a servant to his patron? Wouldn’t that lead you to believe that the Patron is the source of power after all? Thoughts?
This still sort of falls into the "have to please patron" mentality...arguably this is gonna vary based on the DM, but it is another one of those things where the rules don't actually enforce having to follow the whims of your patron at all. Either way it is a cool way to incorporate following your patron.
My thoughts on the matter are actually pretty simple: The patron teaches you the magical secrets from the onset, and as you level you begin to master the use of those magical secrets which otherwise you are unable to wield. That said the Eldritch Master capstone is the real outlier, as it does make Warlocks basically seem like Clerics with more focus on spells, yet with less spell slots and an alleged disconnect between patron and warlock...but it really boils down to whether the entreating your patron bit is supposed to describe the mechanics or was just fluff added since it was the easiest way to describe the feature...but as I said I find it to be the real outlier...but then again it could just be that the warlock is basically free of their patron unless they want some serious help, at which point lets hope you were keeping your patron happy.
My big beef with that last bit though is that it basically makes it impossible to not play a neutral or evil Fiend Patron Warlock from a narrative standpoint, even if it makes perfect sense that in a moment of weakness a good individual might make a pact with evil forces in a moment of weakness, and then use those powers in a positive way after they realize their decision was evil...so it shoehorns the narratives driving those characters to follow some common tropes.
Yes, I wish Eldritch Master was more akin to the Wizard's arcane recovery or Sorcerous Restoration. Otherwise, it is questionable whether the Warlock has really gained mastery over his Eldritch Power or simply just a powerful acolyte. I would hope by Level 20 (if I ever there get there) my Warlock would not be “one who kneels” to anyone.
I guess this bring up 2 fundamental questions of the Warlock class:
Is a warlock's eldritch power really his own? RAI, I’d say yes. But, RAW I’m not so sure….
And
Can a warlock ever be free of his chains (pact)?
My interpretation is that the warlock's patron teaches him secrets every time the warlock levels up. So the warlock needs to stay on the patron's good side in order to learn new powers. But if the warlock abandons the patron the warlock doesn't lose what has already been learned.
Professional computer geek
See, normally I would agree but Crawford has been very clear that unless game mechanics are explicitly laid out, then such restrictions don't occur. So basically it comes down to lore, not actual mechanics, that really becomes the deciding factor on that subject...and the lore on Warlocks isn't very definitive on the matter. Basically in 5e the only class that definitively has rules on breaking their oath are Paladins, meaning that by RAW even a Cleric can go against the God that gives them power...and is actually a plot point for the guest character Kashaw in campaign 1 of Critical Role...it is one of those things that ends up being DM arbitrated on case by case, while Paladins are the only class that has penalties for going against what they originally promised to do.
So basically if trying to fill in the lore gaps from an established RAW context, it would imply that the magical secrets that are taught are granted all at once since the rules as written provide no mechanical downside for going against the whims of your patron after the pact is made. Whether this is the intention or not is open to debate, and part of why I made this thread cause I definitely think that this should be a discussion for the community to think on.
Ya know, it might be something that could be gathered by looking at the intent for Warlocks in 4e and comparing them to 5e and seeing if the overlap is enough to justify the lore from 4e setting the precedent in 5e.
EDIT: Yeah, gonna have to look into the 4e lore a bit more...4e Warlocks definitely appear to not be bound to a patron but then again, I know nothing of 4e warlocks or 4th editions weird rules lol. If anything so far it more or less shows that the two have some overlapping lore, but a lot of stuff that is distinct between both.
My PC Ash's patron, the Raven Queen, is fairly inscrutable and standoffish, which is how my GM and I are playing it, anyway. I feel like there are consequences and rewards to her behavior, but... sometimes, her patron will do something for no discernible reason.
And that's ok.
One of my favorite Warlocks is taking the approach of "Accidental, stolen power" So the patron is a literal source of power; and it can't be undone. In fact the patron only started manifesting its awareness later in the adventure as the "draw" become noticeable. The horror of what she has gotten herself into is part of the story I want to tell.
At the end of the day, how exactly a warlock manifests their power isn't terribly important mechanically because the rules for spells are already laid down. It's more interesting storywise of course. The fact that a warlock's power cannot be taken away based on Sage Advice, is basically that; advice. The DM can always homerule something else, or prevent a player from leveling farther without paying lip service to the patron. The DM could just as easily add consequences for a cleric as well, which would work for a Forgotten Realms campaign, but wouldn't work for an Eberron one. Is it RAW? No. But the DM does have the final say.
Ultimately it's about the story you want to tell; the Rules are a changeable framework to tell the story.
Oh I agree with basically everything you said as well...I am more or less curious as to why the default for most people seems to be to treat the relationship as if it were that of a Paladin and their oath. If it were something you saw or read about here and there I wouldn't have made the post..but it seems to be quite a common theme for what the class is as written to not be the default which I find abnormal.
Probably because in a lot of people's mind the term "Oath" and "Pact" are close to being synonymous (in language, not in game mechanics sense). But in the case of a pact it sounds more intimate, and the PHB does imply an active relationship. So despite there being no rules on it, there is opportunity to make assumptions and turn it a particular way.
The other aspect is that we don't exactly have a lot of concrete example to start with either to point to. We have our Gandalfs, and Elimisters. We have Aragorn and Drizt. We can probably name a handful of icons for every class, but my gut tells me that warlocks (especially good aligned ones) are rare (The Sith do come to mind though). So we grasp on a basic idea; master and servant.
So if we look at the PHB text as a guideline to get started, there is nothing wrong with that starting point. It may not be interesting or satisfying for others, which is while it's more of a guideline and less of a rule. So, if folks want a blackguard/oathbreaker/anti-paladin that is a caster...it does smell like a warlock.
I worry about it less, and worry about if the story makes sense to me and my peers, and hope they have the same concerns.
GLHF
I seem to recall Mike Mearls talking about how some Patrons very much do serve as a Warlock's power source. As in, if you had a lich granting you magic, you would literally be taking the lich's spell slots away fuel your own spells. So, I'm going to have to disagree with the assessment the Patron is merely a teacher and nothing else for every warlock.
The simple fact of the matter is that the exact details of how the warlock works / interacts with their Patron? Its entirely up to the DM and player to decide that. There's nothing to clarify, because its deliberately left open ended, so you can run your story however you want. Is your Patron just a teacher? That's one possible method. It is not, however, the only method. Its like I always tell my players, "it depends on the details your individual pact." Is your pact with your patron the result of accidentally touching the mind of a slumbering abolith and learning eldritch lore from the inadvertent contact and mutating you? Awesome, that's totally a thing. Does your warlock draw their power directly from Glasya, and you'll lose your magic if you fail your mission? Also a totally awesome story that's completely viable.
Its not a mistake to assume that the Patron is the source of the magic, because the game does support that style of play if you want to. Its just a teacher if you want to.
Now, why would people assume that you could be cut off from your power? If I had to guess, I'd say that its one part pop culture deal-with-devils working that way, and another part just being more dramatic. Having consequences simply makes for a more compelling story. Walking away is possible, but costs you everything.
Also, because it helps make warlocks a bit more distinct from wizards. If its just studying lore and twisting energies... that's exactly the same thing that wizards do. When the survey went out, way back during the playtest, there was an overwhelming amount of people that didn't like the idea of a warlock that relied on just their brains and teaching. They wanted the Patron and the pact itself to be more important than the brain. There was real push back against this kind of view of the warlock.
Clearly I never got that survey ;)
But this is an interesting point. But it appears that they didn't actually create the consequences, and to be honest I can see why. While in D&D paladin's have had the risk of falling, the only class that had that risk was a samurai from the 1st edition when they lost enough honor as I recall. Clerics would be denied spells beyond 2nd level if they didn't follow their ethos. But much of those consequences dropped away. The risk of falling as the Paladin was real, and its iconic part of the class history. The Warlock's isn't as extensive.
Now, remembering some other bad DM's who with perverse glee put challenges up that would teeter the poor Paladin on the edge of loosing everything, and sometimes succeeding wasn't very fun. So I can totally get where they didn't want to create that line in a base class again. I could totally see it in terms in gameplay where if you do things for your patron you get rewarded as part of play and there the choices matter on the other hand.
So if the sentiment of the survey sample is correct, then people like the idea of a Warlock falling. Not sure how many would actually like it to happen to them, as it puts a lot of power in the DM's hand. (Ooo you have a warlock...now I can railroad the adventure, muhahahah) From a mechanics/social aspect its tricky though and I would rather homebrew it than a hard rule like paladins.
It was during the NEXT playtesting, when all the different classes were being tested, about a year and half before 5e's official release. This was when the warlock originally was tested using INT instead of CHA as their casting stat, and man, was there a massive, massive amount of people who did not like that. Shocked the devs when they got the feedback, as I recall.
Going a bit more into depth, the writers were thinking about the warlock through the lens of "arcane caster" types, where your magic couldn't be taken away by doing something a higher power disliked. It was something you practiced. As time went out, however, they found more and more people that weren't interested in labeling the classes as arcane/divine, and wanted things like Favored Soul and Celestial warlocks who were divinely granted their power (or, at least angelically). People wanted that intimiate connection. So, as time went on, the stance of the warlock as an "arcane caster" got weaker and weaker, so now it occupies a bit of a no-man's land of whatever the DM says. If you follow any of the pod casts or tweets and stuff, you can see a gradual shift in tone as the writers got more feed back from players, and the different stories they tell.
The actual sentiment of the surveys is that people generally did not like the idea of INT-based alternate wizard archetype. I suppose the reason that this was a surprise, was that the arcane student was actually how 4e warlock was meant to be ran, with infernal warlocks diving into ancient ruins to dig up ancient pacts. Granted, I don't know anyone even ran things that way in 4e, and there were even changes in later books to the warlock. The survey was more of a sign wanted a wide variety of warlocks, rather than a single archetype.
Things default to a standard "divine caster" model, I suspect mostly because that's more common in pop culture and people are more familiar with it than anything else, so its easier to run and come up with ideas for.
Lots of fair points, and as I tried to clarify in later comments, it is more of a curiosity why people choose to limit their character ideas to the common tropes when the Player's Handbook itself doesn't really do anything to enforce the idea that that is what you have to do. But once again, some fair points since the whole deal with the devil trope is pretty prevalent. That said though, typically those sorts of contracts are one and done deals (I sold my soul for power) sort of things, so I am still curious where the default thought that on has to continue to serve some master comes from.
This is actually something I feel that 4e fleshed out a bit better (and damn does it pain me to say that) after reading up on its lore, since the type of pact was implied to be based on who you made it with in the first place, and the relationship itself therefore was dependent on the kind of pact. Essentially everyone is following the 4e's explanation of how a pact with an Archfey would work and applying it to all patrons. I also feel that the lore did a better job of explaining that Warlocks are truly seekers of secret knowledge, and that their focus is based more around those sorts of secrets rather than the mundane kinds of spellcasting Wizards use. 5e appears to attempt to make this explanation clear, but falls a little flat, which could explain why people were upset about the idea of Warlock's being INT casters, even though the two would have a very different field of study imo.
EDIT: To further explain what I mean, imagine that Wizards were architects. Some might specialize in making homes in like a post-modern style, others might focus on making office-buildings, etc. Warlocks would also be a type of architect, but they'd be the ones that hyper-specialized in something more artistic like Victorian, Contemporary, Richardsonian Romanesque, or even something as crazy as Cube houses (trust me, they are weird)
From the Player’s Handbook, “The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf.” That states that the warlock’s pact requires going back to their patrons regularly.
My fully fleshed out thoughts are that every class has an implied ongoing training. Fighters don’t magically learn their archetype, they’re training when not adventuring. Wizards are constantly studying magic, and they have a stated cost in raw materials to scribe spells into their spell books. Sorcerers are practicing and learning how to use their inborn power on their own. Warlocks are taught more secrets by their patrons in exchange for serving their patrons.
None of this is,or should be a straight jacket. Instead it’s an opportunity for role playing if the player and DM want it to be. If the player and DM don’t want to role play that, then they don’t have to. But done properly that can give the DM different plot hooks to advance the campaign and for everyone to have fun with. The wizard needs to find a rare flower which happens to be in the middle of a module. The fighter needs to practice a technique and the master who can teach that technique lives in a town that needs the help from adventurers. The warlock’s patron wants to see a Phoenix through the warlock’s eyes. Etc..
Professional computer geek