Warlocks got introduced as Witch on 2e(book : The Complete Wizard's Handbook) and male Witches got called warlocks. On page 65 is clear that warlocks learn from their patron. They don't draw power from their patron. 2e also had rules for other classes losing their power, but the worst thing that can happens to a Witch/Warlock is
"The Witch kit cannot be abandoned. If a Witch manages to sever all ties with the entities responsible for her instruction (usually requiring the power of a wish or its equivalent), she loses two experience levels. (...)
So yes, breaking a pact with a reality shaping spell only makes a witch/warlock lose two class levels. IS a penalty but nothing like a cleric that loses his power on 3.5e and 2e.
On 3.5e, Warlocks on complete arcane, is clear that warlocks are marked by outsider and can get a power from a heritage. 3.5e also doesn't has any rules covering any loss of power for warlocks. 5e in other hands combine invocations from 3.5e with spell slots from 2e in a unique way. And make the pact source affect the spells which a warlock can LEARN(not draw from a patron)
Quoting from D&D beyond
"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."(...) More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. (...) Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power
If warlocks are just "clerics", why have clerics and warlocks in the first place? What is the difference between being a cleric of Raven Queen and being a apprentice of Raven Queen?
Technically raven queen isn't a god. So you can't be a cleric of her. Warlocks can only make pacts with divine beings, not necessarily gods. Clerics get magic from gods.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
Warlocks are different from clerics in many ways. It's not that warlocks learn magic from their patrons; their pact gives them the ability to cast spells (hence the name "Pact Magic"). I would say the difference is more in the type of spells and the way that the patron grants them. For a cleric, they show piety to their god and prove their worthiness through their acts of good (or, in some cases, evil) throughout the world. The god that grants power to the cleric isn't necessarily gaining anything - it's more like the cleric acts in the name of their god, and completes tasks where the god cannot. The patron of a warlock definitely gets something out of their deal. Where clerics follow gods because they genuinely believe in what the god stands for, warlocks will make pacts purely for their own gain, not because they like/care about their patron.
The other major difference between warlocks and clerics is the spells that they cast. Clerics have spells that empower their allies, like cure wounds and bless. They also have spells that represent their god's nature (the spell list of each domain). Warlocks, on the other hand, have weird, otherworldly spells that usually damage creatures (hex, witch bolt). The difference between the spell lists is clearly seen in the cantrips, with clerics getting guidance and sacred flame - spells that channel divine power. Warlocks get, most iconically, eldritch blast - a weird, otherworldly damaging spell. The spells that warlocks get are weird and secret arcane spells, while clerics get spells that channel divine light.
Warlocks also get eldritch incovations and pact boons, features that channel weird arcane magic. They get Mystic Arcanums, also a weird feature not seen in any other class. Clerics get divine intervention and channel divinity, showing that their god watches over them at all times.
Technically raven queen isn't a god. So you can't be a cleric of her. Warlocks can only make pacts with divine beings, not necessarily gods. Clerics get magic from gods.
She is in some settings. I would also let clerics get their magic from other powerful divine beings, such as solars and empyreans.
I, for one, have never had anyone question the difference between a warlock and a cleric. Also, in 5e, no official feature makes clerics or warlocks lose levels by breaking their pact or disrespecting their god. That is purely the DM's discretion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew and give me feedback!
The two characters I am playing right now are a Variant Human Draconic Sorcerer 1 Tempest Cleric 4 Chaotic Evil follower of Talos, and a Half Elf Fighter 1 Celestial Pact of the Chain Warlock 5 Chaotic Good with a Ghaele Patron. I role play them very differently, and not just because one is good and one is evil.
The PHB says about the Cleric that "The power of your spells comes from your devotion to your deity," so my Cleric doesn't have any relationship with Talos. Her devotion to Talos is what gives her Cleric abilities power, not any action from Talos. She's just a street kid that was kicked out of her family because of her inherent magical abilities (which happened to include Tempesty cantrips like Ray of Frost, Shocking Grasp, and Booming Blade), and she took refuge with the Temple of Talos where they trained her to use some of her magic abilities, and as her reliance on her magical abilities increases, her devotion to Talos increases and her magical abilities get stronger. Talos does not even know of her existence, but as her devotion to Talos increases, her magical power gets stronger.
On the other hand, my Warlock has a strong connection with his patron. His patron is a Ghaele that I named Selanlar, and the patron communicates with him frequently and it is his patron's command (and not his own volition) that has caused him to join the adventuring party and to seek out and destroy giants (the campaign is Storm King's Thunder). His Sprite familiar is a gift from his patron, and also serves as a spy for his patron (anything he does while the familiar is around can be reported to the patron). He desires to be a master swordsman, and his patron is a master swordsman. As he gets experience in combat using his sword (or using his Shadow Blade), his patron grants him more abilities to make him a more powerful swordsman. His Warlock abilities are gifts from his patron, and they are given to him consciously and willingly by his patron. While he is devoted to his patron, his patron is not a deity, and the strength of his powers is not from his devotion to the patron, but are instead determined by how much his patron has given to him.
So even though I play a Chaotic Good Celestial Warlock (the most Cleric like of all the Pacts), and I play a Chaotic Evil Tempest Cleric follower of Talos (one of the most Warlock like ways to play a Cleric), there's still a very huge difference between my two characters.
Technically raven queen isn't a god. So you can't be a cleric of her. Warlocks can only make pacts with divine beings, not necessarily gods. Clerics get magic from gods.
Warlocks are different from clerics in many ways. It's not that warlocks learn magic from their patrons; their pact gives them the ability to cast spells (hence the name "Pact Magic"). I would say the difference is more in the type of spells and the way that the patron grants them. For a cleric, they show piety to their god and prove their worthiness through their acts of good (or, in some cases, evil) throughout the world. (...)
Source? Because all rules about warlocks on 2e, 3.5e and on 5e say that they learn from the patron. Not that they are "clerics that casts arcane spells"
Warlock are not a "arcane version of cleric", they are a "eldritch/outsider version of wizard"
Warlocks aren't divine casters in any D&D edition. And even on Pathfinder, where they exist as Wich, they channel force from a mysterious concept. The idea of warlocks as a "cleric like" is a relative new misconception.
People view them as something like the cleric because they don't understand the concept of a contract caster. I once played a divine sorcerer who referred to clerics as spell beggars. They go around and beg a deity for spells. You can make a far better argument for a deity "shutting off" the power than a warlock, although from reading the internet, many DMs feel pretty justified turning a warlock's power off if they don't do what the patron says.
It doesn't necessarily work that way. Warlocks have a contract. The contract spells out very clearly what the warlock must do to get their power, and the assumption is...that the debt has already been paid. As a player, I would /never/ agree with my DM that my contract stipulates that I turn into a long term employee who has to do as he's told or lose my magic. I lose too much of my own player agency. My warlocks generally have a pact where they were asked to do something, and that thing is done. They key is to work out the details of your pact with your DM before you start and avoid DM attempts at railroading your character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
People view them as something like the cleric because they don't understand the concept of a contract caster. I once played a divine sorcerer who referred to clerics as spell beggars. They go around and beg a deity for spells. You can make a far better argument for a deity "shutting off" the power than a warlock, although from reading the internet, many DMs feel pretty justified turning a warlock's power off if they don't do what the patron says.
It doesn't necessarily work that way. Warlocks have a contract. The contract spells out very clearly what the warlock must do to get their power, and the assumption is...that the debt has already been paid. As a player, I would /never/ agree with my DM that my contract stipulates that I turn into a long term employee who has to do as he's told or lose my magic. I lose too much of my own player agency. My warlocks generally have a pact where they were asked to do something, and that thing is done. They key is to work out the details of your pact with your DM before you start and avoid DM attempts at railroading your character.
Actually, I think it's the opposite. I think a Cleric's magical ability is from their devotion to the deity, and not actually granted by the deity. Especially with low level Clerics, I think the deity is unaware of the Cleric, and the Cleric's power comes without any action from the deity, so the deity doesn't have the ability to turn off a Cleric's powers. A Cleric could lose his or her faith in the deity, but the deity can't really take away the Cleric's powers. The Cleric is the source of the magic, not the deity.
On the other hand, a Warlock's powers are specifically granted by an action from the Patron, and as such, they could be removed from them by the Patron. The patron is the source of the magic, not the Warlock.
People view them as something like the cleric because they don't understand the concept of a contract caster. I once played a divine sorcerer who referred to clerics as spell beggars. They go around and beg a deity for spells. You can make a far better argument for a deity "shutting off" the power than a warlock, although from reading the internet, many DMs feel pretty justified turning a warlock's power off if they don't do what the patron says.
It doesn't necessarily work that way. Warlocks have a contract. The contract spells out very clearly what the warlock must do to get their power, and the assumption is...that the debt has already been paid. As a player, I would /never/ agree with my DM that my contract stipulates that I turn into a long term employee who has to do as he's told or lose my magic. I lose too much of my own player agency. My warlocks generally have a pact where they were asked to do something, and that thing is done. They key is to work out the details of your pact with your DM before you start and avoid DM attempts at railroading your character.
Actually, I think it's the opposite. I think a Cleric's magical ability is from their devotion to the deity, and not actually granted by the deity. Especially with low level Clerics, I think the deity is unaware of the Cleric, and the Cleric's power comes without any action from the deity, so the deity doesn't have the ability to turn off a Cleric's powers. A Cleric could lose his or her faith in the deity, but the deity can't really take away the Cleric's powers. The Cleric is the source of the magic, not the deity.
On the other hand, a Warlock's powers are specifically granted by an action from the Patron, and as such, they could be removed from them by the Patron. The patron is the source of the magic, not the Warlock.
It's also a contract. If the terms of the contract are met, the patron /cannot/ remove the power, particularly if the patron is a devils. Contracts are binding...in both directions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Warlocks do have good charisma, but a 20 in charisma doesn't mean that you are persuasive enough to swindle your patron.
Unless you're only doing a short dip in Warlock and you're done taking levels in Warlock, then your patron does have power over you.
Whatever deal you make with a patron, remember that the patron will get the better side of the bargain. Or as Hellbringer said, "the mortal usually comes out worse."
Warlocks are different from clerics in many ways. It's not that warlocks learn magic from their patrons; their pact gives them the ability to cast spells (hence the name "Pact Magic"). I would say the difference is more in the type of spells and the way that the patron grants them. For a cleric, they show piety to their god and prove their worthiness through their acts of good (or, in some cases, evil) throughout the world. (...)
Source? Because all rules about warlocks on 2e, 3.5e and on 5e say that they learn from the patron. Not that they are "clerics that casts arcane spells"
Sorry, I was mistaken.
I found this passage from the PHB/Basic Rules description of the Warlock very helpful in distinguishing the two:
Sworn and Beholden
A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being. Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods. A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entity—beings not typically served by clerics. 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.
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.
This explains why the warlocks are apprentices of their patrons, not clerics. At least more often.
And this is the reality not only on 5e, but also in 2e and 3.5e.
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.
This explains why the warlocks are apprentices of their patrons, not clerics. At least more often.
And this is the reality not only on 5e, but also in 2e and 3.5e.
Yes, I agree with you. At first, I was mistaken. That selection helped clarify my idea of the warlock, which was why I posted it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew and give me feedback!
Wildemount is special in the sense that Lesser Idols such as Sentient Magic Items and Angels, and Archfey can have clerics, and also warlocks. I don't know if any other setting allows this, but I found it interesting and unique about the setting. This also raises some questions along the lines of this thread, and opens a few weird questions.
Question 1: If an archfey can have clerics and warlocks, does the patron choose which their follower is?
I would say yes, the patron chooses if their follower is a warlock or cleric, but the follower also has to choose to become that. Warlocks make a deal with their patrons, while Clerics are granted magic through their faith.
Question 2: How can non-deities have clerics?
I don't know the exact answer to this, but I would say that the amount of people who worship or venerate any entity increases the power of that entity. Only entities with a certain amount of worshipers or devout followers can grant magic to their followers, while Warlocks are significantly easier to make as you give your magic to another than to grant spells for others.
(This video talks about this: How to destroy a Deity though I don't know the overall validity of the information contained)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
In terms of the original question, i.e. "why do people treat warlocks like clerics who're given power instead of wizards who're given knowledge?"
Answer: Because the patron teaching the warlock to do stuff any old schmuck could do if they only knew how doesn't make any sense.
All the 'Official' D&D settings are high magic, with scholars and entire universities of the arcane. If warlock powers didn't require any sort of gift of power, any sort of seed of Otherness from the patron, then wizards would've figured out how to do all of that Gud Warlock Shyte long, long ago. If the patron's only service in all these Dark and Eldritch Bargains is giving somebody a pamphlet titled "Eldritch Blast and You", then at some point a warlock/wizard multiclass would've committed that knowledge to the wider pool of wizardry. Or a wizard studying the warlock abilities of his test subject Adventuring Companion would've figured out the secret.
It just doesn't work. There needs to be something the patron gives the warlock that only the patron can give. That thing cannot be knowledge, because once the warlock has the knowledge then the warlock could make other warlocks just by passing on his patron's secrets. That's clearly and eminently not the case; a warlock has to strike a deal with a being of higher power to get that juice. Or at least that's my read on it.
Now, whether the patron can revoke that seed of Otherness and shut off the warlock's powers is up for debate. That's the marvelous thing about warlocks - the pact can be shaped in any way the player chooses. Crzyhawk says he would never play a warlock who still owed a debt on their power, and that the service owed for their warlock strength has already been paid. That's perfectly valid, and something the player should talk about with their DM. Other players love the idea of that otherworldly force being a continual presence in their lives. Those warlocks whose pacts were made against their will, or whose pacts were/are ambiguous due to duress or other factors and are on the hook for whatever the patron ends up wanting to get them to do.
After all, the fun thing about that sort of dynamic is that the patron is also investing time, power, and attention into their warlock, their agent. They can cut the warlock off, sure. Block their progression, maybe even deny them their powers, send other agents after them, but there's a reason that patron is investing in this warlock. The patron wants something they believe this warlock is their best chance - or only chance - of getting, and if they piss their warlock off enough that the warlock pulls a Fjord and severs the arrangement completely, the patron gets nothing for their investment.
So many delicious hooks you can give your DM to dangle in front of you to **** you over with. So damn good.
Warlocks got introduced as Witch on 2e(book : The Complete Wizard's Handbook) and male Witches got called warlocks. On page 65 is clear that warlocks learn from their patron. They don't draw power from their patron. 2e also had rules for other classes losing their power, but the worst thing that can happens to a Witch/Warlock is
So yes, breaking a pact with a reality shaping spell only makes a witch/warlock lose two class levels. IS a penalty but nothing like a cleric that loses his power on 3.5e and 2e.
On 3.5e, Warlocks on complete arcane, is clear that warlocks are marked by outsider and can get a power from a heritage. 3.5e also doesn't has any rules covering any loss of power for warlocks. 5e in other hands combine invocations from 3.5e with spell slots from 2e in a unique way. And make the pact source affect the spells which a warlock can LEARN(not draw from a patron)
Quoting from D&D beyond
If warlocks are just "clerics", why have clerics and warlocks in the first place? What is the difference between being a cleric of Raven Queen and being a apprentice of Raven Queen?
Technically raven queen isn't a god. So you can't be a cleric of her. Warlocks can only make pacts with divine beings, not necessarily gods. Clerics get magic from gods.
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
I'll worldbuild for your DnD games!
Just a D&D enjoyer, check out my fiverr page if you need any worldbuilding done for ya!
I am about to play a warlock who believes that he is a cleric of a god.
Hello! I am just a relatively new D&D player, who also likes SimplePlanes and War Thunder.
My characters are:
Warlocks are different from clerics in many ways. It's not that warlocks learn magic from their patrons; their pact gives them the ability to cast spells (hence the name "Pact Magic"). I would say the difference is more in the type of spells and the way that the patron grants them. For a cleric, they show piety to their god and prove their worthiness through their acts of good (or, in some cases, evil) throughout the world. The god that grants power to the cleric isn't necessarily gaining anything - it's more like the cleric acts in the name of their god, and completes tasks where the god cannot. The patron of a warlock definitely gets something out of their deal. Where clerics follow gods because they genuinely believe in what the god stands for, warlocks will make pacts purely for their own gain, not because they like/care about their patron.
The other major difference between warlocks and clerics is the spells that they cast. Clerics have spells that empower their allies, like cure wounds and bless. They also have spells that represent their god's nature (the spell list of each domain). Warlocks, on the other hand, have weird, otherworldly spells that usually damage creatures (hex, witch bolt). The difference between the spell lists is clearly seen in the cantrips, with clerics getting guidance and sacred flame - spells that channel divine power. Warlocks get, most iconically, eldritch blast - a weird, otherworldly damaging spell. The spells that warlocks get are weird and secret arcane spells, while clerics get spells that channel divine light.
Warlocks also get eldritch incovations and pact boons, features that channel weird arcane magic. They get Mystic Arcanums, also a weird feature not seen in any other class. Clerics get divine intervention and channel divinity, showing that their god watches over them at all times.
She is in some settings. I would also let clerics get their magic from other powerful divine beings, such as solars and empyreans.
I, for one, have never had anyone question the difference between a warlock and a cleric. Also, in 5e, no official feature makes clerics or warlocks lose levels by breaking their pact or disrespecting their god. That is purely the DM's discretion.
Please check out my homebrew and give me feedback!
Subclasses | Races | Spells | Magic Items | Monsters | Feats | Backgrounds
The two characters I am playing right now are a Variant Human Draconic Sorcerer 1 Tempest Cleric 4 Chaotic Evil follower of Talos, and a Half Elf Fighter 1 Celestial Pact of the Chain Warlock 5 Chaotic Good with a Ghaele Patron. I role play them very differently, and not just because one is good and one is evil.
The PHB says about the Cleric that "The power of your spells comes from your devotion to your deity," so my Cleric doesn't have any relationship with Talos. Her devotion to Talos is what gives her Cleric abilities power, not any action from Talos. She's just a street kid that was kicked out of her family because of her inherent magical abilities (which happened to include Tempesty cantrips like Ray of Frost, Shocking Grasp, and Booming Blade), and she took refuge with the Temple of Talos where they trained her to use some of her magic abilities, and as her reliance on her magical abilities increases, her devotion to Talos increases and her magical abilities get stronger. Talos does not even know of her existence, but as her devotion to Talos increases, her magical power gets stronger.
On the other hand, my Warlock has a strong connection with his patron. His patron is a Ghaele that I named Selanlar, and the patron communicates with him frequently and it is his patron's command (and not his own volition) that has caused him to join the adventuring party and to seek out and destroy giants (the campaign is Storm King's Thunder). His Sprite familiar is a gift from his patron, and also serves as a spy for his patron (anything he does while the familiar is around can be reported to the patron). He desires to be a master swordsman, and his patron is a master swordsman. As he gets experience in combat using his sword (or using his Shadow Blade), his patron grants him more abilities to make him a more powerful swordsman. His Warlock abilities are gifts from his patron, and they are given to him consciously and willingly by his patron. While he is devoted to his patron, his patron is not a deity, and the strength of his powers is not from his devotion to the patron, but are instead determined by how much his patron has given to him.
So even though I play a Chaotic Good Celestial Warlock (the most Cleric like of all the Pacts), and I play a Chaotic Evil Tempest Cleric follower of Talos (one of the most Warlock like ways to play a Cleric), there's still a very huge difference between my two characters.
No, she is a deity with Life and Death domains. According to forgottenrealms wiki https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Raven_Queen
Source? Because all rules about warlocks on 2e, 3.5e and on 5e say that they learn from the patron. Not that they are "clerics that casts arcane spells"
Warlock are not a "arcane version of cleric", they are a "eldritch/outsider version of wizard"
Warlocks aren't divine casters in any D&D edition. And even on Pathfinder, where they exist as Wich, they channel force from a mysterious concept. The idea of warlocks as a "cleric like" is a relative new misconception.
We were saying that warlocks aren't clerics. That's the whole idea of the post. And I stand corrected about the raven queen.
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
I'll worldbuild for your DnD games!
Just a D&D enjoyer, check out my fiverr page if you need any worldbuilding done for ya!
People view them as something like the cleric because they don't understand the concept of a contract caster. I once played a divine sorcerer who referred to clerics as spell beggars. They go around and beg a deity for spells. You can make a far better argument for a deity "shutting off" the power than a warlock, although from reading the internet, many DMs feel pretty justified turning a warlock's power off if they don't do what the patron says.
It doesn't necessarily work that way. Warlocks have a contract. The contract spells out very clearly what the warlock must do to get their power, and the assumption is...that the debt has already been paid. As a player, I would /never/ agree with my DM that my contract stipulates that I turn into a long term employee who has to do as he's told or lose my magic. I lose too much of my own player agency. My warlocks generally have a pact where they were asked to do something, and that thing is done. They key is to work out the details of your pact with your DM before you start and avoid DM attempts at railroading your character.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Actually, I think it's the opposite. I think a Cleric's magical ability is from their devotion to the deity, and not actually granted by the deity. Especially with low level Clerics, I think the deity is unaware of the Cleric, and the Cleric's power comes without any action from the deity, so the deity doesn't have the ability to turn off a Cleric's powers. A Cleric could lose his or her faith in the deity, but the deity can't really take away the Cleric's powers. The Cleric is the source of the magic, not the deity.
On the other hand, a Warlock's powers are specifically granted by an action from the Patron, and as such, they could be removed from them by the Patron. The patron is the source of the magic, not the Warlock.
What about a Warlock of Cthulu? I have heard that the Great Old Ones don't give a crap about people.
Hello! I am just a relatively new D&D player, who also likes SimplePlanes and War Thunder.
My characters are:
It's also a contract. If the terms of the contract are met, the patron /cannot/ remove the power, particularly if the patron is a devils. Contracts are binding...in both directions.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
But the mortal usually comes out worse.
Hello! I am just a relatively new D&D player, who also likes SimplePlanes and War Thunder.
My characters are:
Warlocks do have good charisma, but a 20 in charisma doesn't mean that you are persuasive enough to swindle your patron.
Unless you're only doing a short dip in Warlock and you're done taking levels in Warlock, then your patron does have power over you.
Whatever deal you make with a patron, remember that the patron will get the better side of the bargain. Or as Hellbringer said, "the mortal usually comes out worse."
Unless you are playing a Warlock who got their power by reading that one book...
Hello! I am just a relatively new D&D player, who also likes SimplePlanes and War Thunder.
My characters are:
Sorry, I was mistaken.
I found this passage from the PHB/Basic Rules description of the Warlock very helpful in distinguishing the two:
Please check out my homebrew and give me feedback!
Subclasses | Races | Spells | Magic Items | Monsters | Feats | Backgrounds
This explains why the warlocks are apprentices of their patrons, not clerics. At least more often.
And this is the reality not only on 5e, but also in 2e and 3.5e.
Yes, I agree with you. At first, I was mistaken. That selection helped clarify my idea of the warlock, which was why I posted it.
Please check out my homebrew and give me feedback!
Subclasses | Races | Spells | Magic Items | Monsters | Feats | Backgrounds
Wildemount is special in the sense that Lesser Idols such as Sentient Magic Items and Angels, and Archfey can have clerics, and also warlocks. I don't know if any other setting allows this, but I found it interesting and unique about the setting. This also raises some questions along the lines of this thread, and opens a few weird questions.
Question 1: If an archfey can have clerics and warlocks, does the patron choose which their follower is?
I would say yes, the patron chooses if their follower is a warlock or cleric, but the follower also has to choose to become that. Warlocks make a deal with their patrons, while Clerics are granted magic through their faith.
Question 2: How can non-deities have clerics?
I don't know the exact answer to this, but I would say that the amount of people who worship or venerate any entity increases the power of that entity. Only entities with a certain amount of worshipers or devout followers can grant magic to their followers, while Warlocks are significantly easier to make as you give your magic to another than to grant spells for others.
(This video talks about this: How to destroy a Deity though I don't know the overall validity of the information contained)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
In terms of the original question, i.e. "why do people treat warlocks like clerics who're given power instead of wizards who're given knowledge?"
Answer: Because the patron teaching the warlock to do stuff any old schmuck could do if they only knew how doesn't make any sense.
All the 'Official' D&D settings are high magic, with scholars and entire universities of the arcane. If warlock powers didn't require any sort of gift of power, any sort of seed of Otherness from the patron, then wizards would've figured out how to do all of that Gud Warlock Shyte long, long ago. If the patron's only service in all these Dark and Eldritch Bargains is giving somebody a pamphlet titled "Eldritch Blast and You", then at some point a warlock/wizard multiclass would've committed that knowledge to the wider pool of wizardry. Or a wizard studying the warlock abilities of his
test subjectAdventuring Companion would've figured out the secret.It just doesn't work. There needs to be something the patron gives the warlock that only the patron can give. That thing cannot be knowledge, because once the warlock has the knowledge then the warlock could make other warlocks just by passing on his patron's secrets. That's clearly and eminently not the case; a warlock has to strike a deal with a being of higher power to get that juice. Or at least that's my read on it.
Now, whether the patron can revoke that seed of Otherness and shut off the warlock's powers is up for debate. That's the marvelous thing about warlocks - the pact can be shaped in any way the player chooses. Crzyhawk says he would never play a warlock who still owed a debt on their power, and that the service owed for their warlock strength has already been paid. That's perfectly valid, and something the player should talk about with their DM. Other players love the idea of that otherworldly force being a continual presence in their lives. Those warlocks whose pacts were made against their will, or whose pacts were/are ambiguous due to duress or other factors and are on the hook for whatever the patron ends up wanting to get them to do.
After all, the fun thing about that sort of dynamic is that the patron is also investing time, power, and attention into their warlock, their agent. They can cut the warlock off, sure. Block their progression, maybe even deny them their powers, send other agents after them, but there's a reason that patron is investing in this warlock. The patron wants something they believe this warlock is their best chance - or only chance - of getting, and if they piss their warlock off enough that the warlock pulls a Fjord and severs the arrangement completely, the patron gets nothing for their investment.
So many delicious hooks you can give your DM to dangle in front of you to **** you over with. So damn good.
Please do not contact or message me.
I instantly got a double mental flash of the skill books in Fallout 3 coupled with the Starship Troopers “would you like to know more?”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting