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..
That was actually not what I was originally referring to, but the conversation since evolved to be about that. In fact I actually included the same quote you just gave lol. More or less I originally was discussing the fact that spells aren't borrowed from the Patron but something you learn and can do on your own. The original intent was also to bring forth discussion on why I think that it is perfectly fine to have characters that are directly opposed to their Patrons, but somewhere along the line my own personal opinions crept in and shifted the discussion a bit and I guess I didn't quite notice lol.
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.
The Arcane and Divine concepts are pretty well mixed up now to the point of being uninteresting as a defining quality. Healing used to be sole province of divine casters...and now Bards, Warlock and Sorcerers have/can access them. As a source of power its kind of interesting for RP reasons, but not mechanical.
So I agree that this is something that people like as a concept; I just find the concept limiting. But to each their own.
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.
4e warlock pacts, in general, worked on the principle of having the Pact serve as a kind of conduit for planar energies. You make a deal with an imp or cambion, lets say. The deal creates a channel for you to get access to the energies of Hell, the Feywild, the Far Realm, the Shadowfell, etc. If you break the pact (in a way that doesn't cost your soul) then you'd lose access to the channel of power.
5th edition warlocks are actually based, in no small part, on a novel series from the 4th edition novel, called the Brimstone Angel series, following the adventures of Farideh the tiefling warlock. The Patron idea is actually based on Lorcan, the cambion in charge of Farideh's pact, and how he interacted with her. You can not only see the influences in the writing and mechanics, but also the pictures and quotes from the core book. By the end of the series (which happens after 5e's release), Farideh has chosen to give up her pact and had lost all her warlock magics. I think that this story has influenced the writers as time went on, and how they're doing warlock things now as well.
The Arcane and Divine concepts are pretty well mixed up now to the point of being uninteresting as a defining quality. Healing used to be sole province of divine casters...and now Bards, Warlock and Sorcerers have/can access them. As a source of power its kind of interesting for RP reasons, but not mechanical.
So I agree that this is something that people like as a concept; I just find the concept limiting. But to each their own.
The writers have mentioned that its quite alive as a social construct within lore / story, with the main difference between the two being not access to healing, but rather if your magic is granted by an outside power, or if its something internal. Bards, sorcerers and wizards are all definitively arcane casters, because all three rely on their own knowledge and inborn talents to perform magic, and not anyone else. Even a Divine Soul sorcerer is considered an arcane caster, because their magic comes from a divine ancestor - its entirely genetics. Clerics and druids gain their abilities from gods and nature spirits (fey?), either directly channeling a higher power, or asking those spirits present to do something; as a result, they are considered divine casters.
The warlock has traditionally been considered an arcane caster - it started off as a wizard kit, then we got a class for the first time in 3.5 in Complete Arcane as an alternative to the wizard, and then a full core class in 4e with the Arcane power source (though arcane/divine classes in 4e were defined primarily by abilities than story). That said, 4e's warlock lore (drawing energy of a different plane, possible via Pact) actually fits the 5th edition definition of "divine caster" rather than "arcane caster."
So, when I talk about warlocks leaning towards "divine caster", that's what I meant. Warlock stories in pop culture very much do lend themselves to the idea of their magic coming from an outside source, as well as the potential to lose access to said outside source, even if the default warlock stories in D&D are somewhat different.
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.
4e warlock pacts, in general, worked on the principle of having the Pact serve as a kind of conduit for planar energies. You make a deal with an imp or cambion, lets say. The deal creates a channel for you to get access to the energies of Hell, the Feywild, the Far Realm, the Shadowfell, etc. If you break the pact (in a way that doesn't cost your soul) then you'd lose access to the channel of power.
5th edition warlocks are actually based, in no small part, on a novel series from the 4th edition novel, called the Brimstone Angel series, following the adventures of Farideh the tiefling warlock. The Patron idea is actually based on Lorcan, the cambion in charge of Farideh's pact, and how he interacted with her. You can not only see the influences in the writing and mechanics, but also the pictures and quotes from the core book. By the end of the series (which happens after 5e's release), Farideh has chosen to give up her pact and had lost all her warlock magics. I think that this story has influenced the writers as time went on, and how they're doing warlock things now as well.
See, my original interpretation, discounting 4e lore since it was something I was not familiar with at the time, was that pacts were basically planar in nature. So more or less the secrets gained were methods to tap into planar powers that allowed you to cast your spells. More or less I came to that conclusion due to the lack of strong mechanics suggesting your powers disappear if you break a pact, because the only way to justify still having your powers would be if it was something taught that requires a presence of will to conjure. So following that logic it would also make sense that having the base knowledge allowing one to tap into the raw primal powers of an entire plane would then grant you the ability to manifest more powers as you as an individual grow. Now needing to still be taught by a Patron definitely fits as well, but the original point I was making had more to do with the idea that losing your powers entirely didn't make sense, nor does it make sense that your actual spell slots are something tied to the patron rather than ones own ability. The later discussions on whether or not you would lose the ability to gain more powers on breaking a pact were more or less my own personal opinion that seeped into the original discussion.
That all said, does getting ones powers from a different plane really classify as being divine in nature, or does needing to also have a strong pact backing your magic be the main qualifier? I am also interested in the narrative ramifications of Pact magic being directly tied to the planes, since learning how to directly access that power could be interpreted as casting magic that doesn't use The Weave but rather tapping into the raw magic that exists in the planes of existence itself. One ramification could be used to explain the trope that Wizards and Warlocks don't get along, cause one can posit that the goal of Wizards is to learn how to tap into the powers of raw magic without needing to interact with The Weave, and having some entity grant you that power without giving you the understanding of how would be a good explanation on top of the general dislike that would come from using what one can describe as cheating to gain magical abilities in the first place.
Now needing to still be taught by a Patron definitely fits as well, but the original point I was making had more to do with the idea that losing your powers entirely didn't make sense, nor does it make sense that your actual spell slots are something tied to the patron rather than ones own ability. The later discussions on whether or not you would lose the ability to gain more powers on breaking a pact were more or less my own personal opinion that seeped into the original discussion.
Well, that is definitely a very good interpretation of the rules. Certainly, it does resonate well with the overall feel of the class.
I personally posted because I saw several posts that seemed geared towards suggesting that there's only one way of running things, and I felt like there should be multiple viable interpretations of the class, depending on individuals DMs/players. After that was mostly me rambling about what I remember of the class, because warlock is my favorite class in any edition, and I freely admit that I enjoy geeking out over it.
That all said, does getting ones powers from a different plane really classify as being divine in nature, or does needing to also have a strong pact backing your magic be the main qualifier? I am also interested in the narrative ramifications of Pact magic being directly tied to the planes, since learning how to directly access that power could be interpreted as casting magic that doesn't use The Weave but rather tapping into the raw magic that exists in the planes of existence itself. One ramification could be used to explain the trope that Wizards and Warlocks don't get along, cause one can posit that the goal of Wizards is to learn how to tap into the powers of raw magic without needing to interact with The Weave, and having some entity grant you that power without giving you the understanding of how would be a good explanation on top of the general dislike that would come from using what one can describe as cheating to gain magical abilities in the first place.
Well, I don't think that drawing your power from a different plane classifies as being divine in nature - early Mage/Wizards drew their magic from the Elemental Planes - but rather because you have a sapient intermediary that provides said channel (assuming you're not getting possessed by a vestige and working magic that way, or some other explanation). That has a lot of similarities to how a cleric gains a god's power, or druids get spirits' power.
As for the story ramifications of drawing on planar energy (assuming that's the story you're going with for your warlock, and assuming we're in the FR where there's actually a Weave).... the Weave actually affects all spellcasters, no matter if you're a wizard, a cleric, a ranger, and yes, a warlock. The whole point of the Weave is that it takes all these different sources of energy - planar or otherwise - and orders them. In 4e, when the Weave was torn asunder, there was a more notable effect, since you could use magic more directly, but with Mystra restored in 5e, we're back to using it as a medium for all spellcasters again. I suppose you could argue for differences, but then you'd be using the same argument for clerics and druids and how they tap into magic, so i'd have to ask if you'd all these divine caster types from the Weave issues.
Wizards have always looked down on warlocks and sorcerers as hacks and cheaters, without any true understanding of magic. So, that's kind of already a thing, no matter how you explain warlock magic. Wizards think of themselves as on the path to godhood usually, the arrogant SoBs.
This could all be cleared up with 1 small change to the capstone feature:
Eldritch Master – Congratulations! You are now at 20th level and the master of your own Eldritch Power! You can spend 1 minute meditating or otherwise mastering your own domain 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.
Your DM is now free to unleash the full fury of your Patron upon your charcter. Good luck!
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.
But if warlocks draw their power from a deity like a cleric, what is the difference of a Raven Queen Warlock to a Raven Queen Cleric?
Warlocks as a outsider apprentices are already extremely different than wizards. Learn electronics and how to code in a engineering course or learn it from SCI-FI aliens would result in completely different understanding of both things. Same for magic in fantasy settings. Demons, Fey, Aberrations have completely are completely aliens. This not talking mechanically.
I've always thought of the Warlock more as the kid who joins a company as a naive, wet-behind-the-ears geek with a degree in whateverology, thinking that the company is a path to prestige, knowledge, money, whatever. Little do they know that the company doesn't just want their hard work, they want a piece of their soul. The more the warlock grows with the company, aka their patron -who may have multiple warlocks on the payroll- the more the warlock gains power, but also, the more they owe the patron, a set of golden, or perhaps brimstone, handcuffs. Sure, the warlock can bail with what they've learned, but are they willing to?
Power, like money or certain substances, is a drug to which one can become addicted. So, a Warlock can maintain both their will and soul, and grow more powerful, perhaps. But I suggest that that's a tough road to hoe. That's the drawback of any pact: it's a two sided arrangement. Maybe they can leave... But can they ever? And if they do leave, will they make an immortal enemy? The patron, particularly at very high levels, has invested a great deal in the warlock, bestowing powers, gaining arcane knowledge, becoming presumptively more powerful in the process. It's not like the patron would invest such without thought of return on the investment. Unlike the cleric, who's a worshipper, or a wizard who studies, a pact is a unique and individual bond, a promise. "Sworn and Beholden," I believe is the term they use. To that end, a good PC/DM relationship explores not just the magic results, but the bond of the pact that creates the power arrangement that leads to the spells, the knowledge found, and the power increase that both should have.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
May the gentle moonlinght guide you to greater wisdom
One more thing about WLK. The most notorious warlock on forgotten realms is Ammon Jerro. And he was faithless. But, IMO there are a easy way to please both sides. If they had created two sub classes, one "apprentice" warlock based on INT(as the class was in pre test) to cast spells and one a "devote" warlock that is a "arcane cleric"(don't ask me how it makes any sense), they would be pleased everyone.
The primary stat of a warlock in 5e is CHA, not INT.
Therefore, a warlock's powers come from the patron.
If a warlock's powers came from his/her own abilities or studies, it would violate the INT requirements of the wizard class for casting spells. (since the warlock can have any INT score)
The primary stat of a warlock in 5e is CHA, not INT.
Therefore, a warlock's powers come from the patron.
If a warlock's powers came from his/her own abilities or studies, it would violate the INT requirements of the wizard class for casting spells. (since the warlock can have any INT score)
So, the power must come directly from the patron.
During playtesting, was INT and only got changed by player pressure
And on 3.5e complete arcane, was CHA but there was no Patron.
Sorcerers use CHA and can draw their power from a bloodline
Ex "
Your innate magic comes from draconic magic that was mingled with your blood or that of your ancestors. Most often, sorcerers with this origin trace their descent back to a mighty sorcerer of ancient times who made a bargain with a dragon or who might even have claimed a dragon parent. Some of these bloodlines are well established in the world, but most are obscure. Any given sorcerer could be the first of a new bloodline, as a result of a pact or some other exceptional circumstance." https://www.5esrd.com/classes/sorcerer/sorcerous-origins/draconic-bloodline/
So, having draconic parents or making a deal can infuse your soul with spell casting abilities. Sorcerers are mostly the first case and Warlocks the second case.
But if warlocks draw their power from a deity like a cleric, what is the difference of a Raven Queen Warlock to a Raven Queen Cleric?
I kind of view it as Clerics just tapping into an enormous pool of power (via their faith) that's sitting somewhere, and using the energies within the confines of a strict set of rules. They can learn how better to use their access, and how to draw on more power, but anyone willing to follow the rules can access the pool, so it's almost as if they're just making use of a community resource that's open to the public, despite being owned by someone in particular.
But with Warlocks, there's individual involvement required; not just anyone can use Warlock powers, the patron has to say "yes," and actually make a pact. The patron then bestows power to the warlock piecemeal, so there's no deep access to a large pool, but once the power is in the warlock's hands, it's his. Advantages: Access to a variety of customizable "extras" (Eldritch Invocations,) ability to keep using the powers apart from the patron, and close patron oversight over your activity. Disadvantages: not as much power (fewer spell slots, and a limited spell selection) and close patron oversight over your activity.
But if warlocks draw their power from a deity like a cleric, what is the difference of a Raven Queen Warlock to a Raven Queen Cleric?
I kind of view it as Clerics just tapping into an enormous pool of power (via their faith) that's sitting somewhere, and using the energies within the confines of a strict set of rules. They can learn how better to use their access, and how to draw on more power, but anyone willing to follow the rules can access the pool, so it's almost as if they're just making use of a community resource that's open to the public, despite being owned by someone in particular.
But with Warlocks, there's individual involvement required; not just anyone can use Warlock powers, the patron has to say "yes," and actually make a pact. The patron then bestows power to the warlock piecemeal, so there's no deep access to a large pool, but once the power is in the warlock's hands, it's his. Advantages: Access to a variety of customizable "extras" (Eldritch Invocations,) ability to keep using the powers apart from the patron, and close patron oversight over your activity. Disadvantages: not as much power (fewer spell slots, and a limited spell selection) and close patron oversight over your activity.
The question is. AFTER the pact was made. The Warlock soul is infused with the outsiderish essence and it can't be revoked like clerics. Hence the description of "apprentice", this doesn't means that break a pact have no consequences. Have a archfey, might demon overlord, angry at you and him being capable to teaching a lot of warlocks is not a good idea. Keep in mind that warlocks can make pacts with weapons and contrary to Witch on Pathfinder(similar to 5e warlock), there are no hard rule describing warlocks losing their power.
"RAW, there isn't any explicit text that covers a warlock's powers being stripped. Also, there is no class that has rules text covering a loss of powers, save the Paladin whose powers change form when he becomes an Oathbreaker. (DMG p. 97)"
Making a analogy with firearms IRL, a guy who purchases a illegal weapon from a criminal and enters in his "syndicate", learning in details how to assemble, disassemble, maintain, etc the firearms that you own and that you promised to join his criminal organization but broke the promises and leaved the organization. Your don't lose your weapon and forget everything "bestowed" upon you, you just because he pissed off the "weapon dealer", but the weapon dealer can use his influence to put you in a "list" and it can give a lot of troubles. and of course, he can decide to not sell any other weapon to you. Think of the "firearm dealer" as a interdenominational arcane dealer and you have the warlock relationship with his patron.
I play my Raven Queen warlock as a tortured conduit of the Queen's hatred. Her power comes at the expense of excruciating pain every time she casts a spell, an overwhelming hatred for intelligent undead and constant exhaustion. There is also the implication that she gains some sort of sick pleasure from the process. Each spell is wildly embellished in gory detail. It's pretty disappointing missing your target after describing ravens epically clawing their way out of her mouth for every Eldritch Blast.
I would expect her to be ripped to shreds if she attempted to disconnect from her patron.
I based this on an obscure passage describing the Queen rewarding her Warlocks by rolling a critical hit Against them once per battle. I did not inform my DM of that. LoL.
That was actually not what I was originally referring to, but the conversation since evolved to be about that. In fact I actually included the same quote you just gave lol. More or less I originally was discussing the fact that spells aren't borrowed from the Patron but something you learn and can do on your own. The original intent was also to bring forth discussion on why I think that it is perfectly fine to have characters that are directly opposed to their Patrons, but somewhere along the line my own personal opinions crept in and shifted the discussion a bit and I guess I didn't quite notice lol.
The Arcane and Divine concepts are pretty well mixed up now to the point of being uninteresting as a defining quality. Healing used to be sole province of divine casters...and now Bards, Warlock and Sorcerers have/can access them. As a source of power its kind of interesting for RP reasons, but not mechanical.
So I agree that this is something that people like as a concept; I just find the concept limiting. But to each their own.
4e warlock pacts, in general, worked on the principle of having the Pact serve as a kind of conduit for planar energies. You make a deal with an imp or cambion, lets say. The deal creates a channel for you to get access to the energies of Hell, the Feywild, the Far Realm, the Shadowfell, etc. If you break the pact (in a way that doesn't cost your soul) then you'd lose access to the channel of power.
5th edition warlocks are actually based, in no small part, on a novel series from the 4th edition novel, called the Brimstone Angel series, following the adventures of Farideh the tiefling warlock. The Patron idea is actually based on Lorcan, the cambion in charge of Farideh's pact, and how he interacted with her. You can not only see the influences in the writing and mechanics, but also the pictures and quotes from the core book. By the end of the series (which happens after 5e's release), Farideh has chosen to give up her pact and had lost all her warlock magics. I think that this story has influenced the writers as time went on, and how they're doing warlock things now as well.
The writers have mentioned that its quite alive as a social construct within lore / story, with the main difference between the two being not access to healing, but rather if your magic is granted by an outside power, or if its something internal. Bards, sorcerers and wizards are all definitively arcane casters, because all three rely on their own knowledge and inborn talents to perform magic, and not anyone else. Even a Divine Soul sorcerer is considered an arcane caster, because their magic comes from a divine ancestor - its entirely genetics. Clerics and druids gain their abilities from gods and nature spirits (fey?), either directly channeling a higher power, or asking those spirits present to do something; as a result, they are considered divine casters.
The warlock has traditionally been considered an arcane caster - it started off as a wizard kit, then we got a class for the first time in 3.5 in Complete Arcane as an alternative to the wizard, and then a full core class in 4e with the Arcane power source (though arcane/divine classes in 4e were defined primarily by abilities than story). That said, 4e's warlock lore (drawing energy of a different plane, possible via Pact) actually fits the 5th edition definition of "divine caster" rather than "arcane caster."
So, when I talk about warlocks leaning towards "divine caster", that's what I meant. Warlock stories in pop culture very much do lend themselves to the idea of their magic coming from an outside source, as well as the potential to lose access to said outside source, even if the default warlock stories in D&D are somewhat different.
See, my original interpretation, discounting 4e lore since it was something I was not familiar with at the time, was that pacts were basically planar in nature. So more or less the secrets gained were methods to tap into planar powers that allowed you to cast your spells. More or less I came to that conclusion due to the lack of strong mechanics suggesting your powers disappear if you break a pact, because the only way to justify still having your powers would be if it was something taught that requires a presence of will to conjure. So following that logic it would also make sense that having the base knowledge allowing one to tap into the raw primal powers of an entire plane would then grant you the ability to manifest more powers as you as an individual grow. Now needing to still be taught by a Patron definitely fits as well, but the original point I was making had more to do with the idea that losing your powers entirely didn't make sense, nor does it make sense that your actual spell slots are something tied to the patron rather than ones own ability. The later discussions on whether or not you would lose the ability to gain more powers on breaking a pact were more or less my own personal opinion that seeped into the original discussion.
That all said, does getting ones powers from a different plane really classify as being divine in nature, or does needing to also have a strong pact backing your magic be the main qualifier? I am also interested in the narrative ramifications of Pact magic being directly tied to the planes, since learning how to directly access that power could be interpreted as casting magic that doesn't use The Weave but rather tapping into the raw magic that exists in the planes of existence itself. One ramification could be used to explain the trope that Wizards and Warlocks don't get along, cause one can posit that the goal of Wizards is to learn how to tap into the powers of raw magic without needing to interact with The Weave, and having some entity grant you that power without giving you the understanding of how would be a good explanation on top of the general dislike that would come from using what one can describe as cheating to gain magical abilities in the first place.
Well, that is definitely a very good interpretation of the rules. Certainly, it does resonate well with the overall feel of the class.
I personally posted because I saw several posts that seemed geared towards suggesting that there's only one way of running things, and I felt like there should be multiple viable interpretations of the class, depending on individuals DMs/players. After that was mostly me rambling about what I remember of the class, because warlock is my favorite class in any edition, and I freely admit that I enjoy geeking out over it.
Well, I don't think that drawing your power from a different plane classifies as being divine in nature - early Mage/Wizards drew their magic from the Elemental Planes - but rather because you have a sapient intermediary that provides said channel (assuming you're not getting possessed by a vestige and working magic that way, or some other explanation). That has a lot of similarities to how a cleric gains a god's power, or druids get spirits' power.
As for the story ramifications of drawing on planar energy (assuming that's the story you're going with for your warlock, and assuming we're in the FR where there's actually a Weave).... the Weave actually affects all spellcasters, no matter if you're a wizard, a cleric, a ranger, and yes, a warlock. The whole point of the Weave is that it takes all these different sources of energy - planar or otherwise - and orders them. In 4e, when the Weave was torn asunder, there was a more notable effect, since you could use magic more directly, but with Mystra restored in 5e, we're back to using it as a medium for all spellcasters again. I suppose you could argue for differences, but then you'd be using the same argument for clerics and druids and how they tap into magic, so i'd have to ask if you'd all these divine caster types from the Weave issues.
Wizards have always looked down on warlocks and sorcerers as hacks and cheaters, without any true understanding of magic. So, that's kind of already a thing, no matter how you explain warlock magic. Wizards think of themselves as on the path to godhood usually, the arrogant SoBs.
This could all be cleared up with 1 small change to the capstone feature:
Eldritch Master – Congratulations! You are now at 20th level and the master of your own Eldritch Power! You can spend 1 minute meditating or otherwise mastering your own domain 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.
Your DM is now free to unleash the full fury of your Patron upon your charcter. Good luck!
But if warlocks draw their power from a deity like a cleric, what is the difference of a Raven Queen Warlock to a Raven Queen Cleric?
Warlocks as a outsider apprentices are already extremely different than wizards. Learn electronics and how to code in a engineering course or learn it from SCI-FI aliens would result in completely different understanding of both things. Same for magic in fantasy settings. Demons, Fey, Aberrations have completely are completely aliens. This not talking mechanically.
I've always thought of the Warlock more as the kid who joins a company as a naive, wet-behind-the-ears geek with a degree in whateverology, thinking that the company is a path to prestige, knowledge, money, whatever. Little do they know that the company doesn't just want their hard work, they want a piece of their soul. The more the warlock grows with the company, aka their patron -who may have multiple warlocks on the payroll- the more the warlock gains power, but also, the more they owe the patron, a set of golden, or perhaps brimstone, handcuffs. Sure, the warlock can bail with what they've learned, but are they willing to?
Power, like money or certain substances, is a drug to which one can become addicted. So, a Warlock can maintain both their will and soul, and grow more powerful, perhaps. But I suggest that that's a tough road to hoe. That's the drawback of any pact: it's a two sided arrangement. Maybe they can leave... But can they ever? And if they do leave, will they make an immortal enemy? The patron, particularly at very high levels, has invested a great deal in the warlock, bestowing powers, gaining arcane knowledge, becoming presumptively more powerful in the process. It's not like the patron would invest such without thought of return on the investment. Unlike the cleric, who's a worshipper, or a wizard who studies, a pact is a unique and individual bond, a promise. "Sworn and Beholden," I believe is the term they use. To that end, a good PC/DM relationship explores not just the magic results, but the bond of the pact that creates the power arrangement that leads to the spells, the knowledge found, and the power increase that both should have.
May the gentle moonlinght guide you to greater wisdom
One more thing about WLK. The most notorious warlock on forgotten realms is Ammon Jerro. And he was faithless. But, IMO there are a easy way to please both sides. If they had created two sub classes, one "apprentice" warlock based on INT(as the class was in pre test) to cast spells and one a "devote" warlock that is a "arcane cleric"(don't ask me how it makes any sense), they would be pleased everyone.
The primary stat of a warlock in 5e is CHA, not INT.
Therefore, a warlock's powers come from the patron.
If a warlock's powers came from his/her own abilities or studies, it would violate the INT requirements of the wizard class for casting spells. (since the warlock can have any INT score)
So, the power must come directly from the patron.
And on 3.5e complete arcane, was CHA but there was no Patron.
Sorcerers use CHA and can draw their power from a bloodline
Ex "
Your innate magic comes from draconic magic that was mingled with your blood or that of your ancestors. Most often, sorcerers with this origin trace their descent back to a mighty sorcerer of ancient times who made a bargain with a dragon or who might even have claimed a dragon parent. Some of these bloodlines are well established in the world, but most are obscure. Any given sorcerer could be the first of a new bloodline, as a result of a pact or some other exceptional circumstance." https://www.5esrd.com/classes/sorcerer/sorcerous-origins/draconic-bloodline/
So, having draconic parents or making a deal can infuse your soul with spell casting abilities. Sorcerers are mostly the first case and Warlocks the second case.
I kind of view it as Clerics just tapping into an enormous pool of power (via their faith) that's sitting somewhere, and using the energies within the confines of a strict set of rules. They can learn how better to use their access, and how to draw on more power, but anyone willing to follow the rules can access the pool, so it's almost as if they're just making use of a community resource that's open to the public, despite being owned by someone in particular.
But with Warlocks, there's individual involvement required; not just anyone can use Warlock powers, the patron has to say "yes," and actually make a pact. The patron then bestows power to the warlock piecemeal, so there's no deep access to a large pool, but once the power is in the warlock's hands, it's his. Advantages: Access to a variety of customizable "extras" (Eldritch Invocations,) ability to keep using the powers apart from the patron, and close patron oversight over your activity. Disadvantages: not as much power (fewer spell slots, and a limited spell selection) and close patron oversight over your activity.
Whistler
Titus - V. Human Battle Master Fighter 3 - [Pic] - [Pic2] - [Traits] - in Shadowglass
Locke - V. Human Shadow Monk 3 / Undead Warlock 2 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in FOW - DMless West Marches
Flèche - V. Human Swords Bard 10 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in The Scarlet Mist
Sterling - V. Human Bard 1 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
The question is. AFTER the pact was made. The Warlock soul is infused with the outsiderish essence and it can't be revoked like clerics. Hence the description of "apprentice", this doesn't means that break a pact have no consequences. Have a archfey, might demon overlord, angry at you and him being capable to teaching a lot of warlocks is not a good idea. Keep in mind that warlocks can make pacts with weapons and contrary to Witch on Pathfinder(similar to 5e warlock), there are no hard rule describing warlocks losing their power.
"RAW, there isn't any explicit text that covers a warlock's powers being stripped. Also, there is no class that has rules text covering a loss of powers, save the Paladin whose powers change form when he becomes an Oathbreaker. (DMG p. 97)"
Making a analogy with firearms IRL, a guy who purchases a illegal weapon from a criminal and enters in his "syndicate", learning in details how to assemble, disassemble, maintain, etc the firearms that you own and that you promised to join his criminal organization but broke the promises and leaved the organization. Your don't lose your weapon and forget everything "bestowed" upon you, you just because he pissed off the "weapon dealer", but the weapon dealer can use his influence to put you in a "list" and it can give a lot of troubles. and of course, he can decide to not sell any other weapon to you. Think of the "firearm dealer" as a interdenominational arcane dealer and you have the warlock relationship with his patron.
I play my Raven Queen warlock as a tortured conduit of the Queen's hatred. Her power comes at the expense of excruciating pain every time she casts a spell, an overwhelming hatred for intelligent undead and constant exhaustion. There is also the implication that she gains some sort of sick pleasure from the process. Each spell is wildly embellished in gory detail. It's pretty disappointing missing your target after describing ravens epically clawing their way out of her mouth for every Eldritch Blast.
I would expect her to be ripped to shreds if she attempted to disconnect from her patron.
I based this on an obscure passage describing the Queen rewarding her Warlocks by rolling a critical hit Against them once per battle. I did not inform my DM of that. LoL.
Gwyllen Øyvund - Level 4 / Human Variant / Warlock, Fey Touched Archanist of the Raven Queen - Death Inspectors
Torment Malichar - Level 8 / Tiefling / Druid of the Underdark, Cleric of Mielikki - Knights of the Hanging Chicken (Team 3)
Master Shovel of the Sandbox - Bane of Kerakys