Maybe you are little more like a cleric, in that the patron is just showing to you the way to the power. A powerful devil gets his or her power from the nine hells, so you could maintain that connection even if you lost that archdevil.
Nothing states that you lose your Warlock levels or abilities if you lose your patron.
Nothing states that you keep them *wink*
except the lead designer's statement of intent...
*wink*
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.
Ultimately patrons are a story device and the fallout from breaking the patron bond should not be the same across all campaigns and characters. It should be handled so that it makes sense within the world and in a way that the player is on board with. Denying a player all their spells and features because they didn't do what you wanted or because you decided the story had to go a certain way is not within the spirit of the game and is kind of a d*ck move besides.
This kind of thing just doesn't work unless the player and DM work together to decide consequences and figure out what comes next. There's no default answer because it has to be tailored to the needs of the people involved.
But I will say that player autonomy is crucial for the game to function, and that means a character should never permanently lose their class features or abilities unless the player chooses it and is aware of the consequences of that choice. Otherwise your players are just puppets in your DM fantasy story and that's not D&D.
This depends on the player's background. I'm assuming the ideal situation would be scenario 3, so just say that the patron "blessed" you with a growing power that gives you more powers and abilities as you gain experience and knowledge.
the player's handbook and xanatar's guide to everything seems to very much insist that the warlock is some kind of int-caster and eldrich scholar, with an intense lust for knowledge that outdoes even what an wizard wants, the way i have interpreted the features is as follows:
most of your subclass features are powers given directly by your patron and would be lost, this does not apply to your expanded spell list as they are something the patron must have taught you
your spells are still cast normally, you are an arcane caster after all and the spells section only talks about it as "your arcane research and the magic bestowed to you by your patron has given you facillity with spells", it is a mix of your nerdy book studies, things your patron told you and magic rituals / soul infusions
you would not be able to get an replacement book of shadows, as your patron gives you that
you would not be able to use your eldrich master feature, as it is the one warlock abillity that requires simping
mystic arcanums are explicitly taught to you by your patron, and so while you would be able to cast them just fine you would be unable to learn new ones
eldrich invocations do not seem to have anything to do with your patron at all, you learned those on your own, so you should be able to keep them "In your study of eldrich lore, you have unearthed eldrich invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical abillity" it says
generally, just assume that you cannot gain new levels in warlock as you level up unless a new patron is found, you are not nearly as dependent on your patron as an cleric is to their god when it comes to accumulating more and more power but your patron is still an wise tutor who would be relied on for aid,
take all of this with a grain of salt, as only a fraction of players and DM's ever play warlocks in the way they are described in the books, many people do pretend that the warlock is just like a cleric who can get by simply by having a sugar demon do all the hard work of spellcasting and in that case you should be going with that and stripping them of all their spells just like you would for a cleric, generally wizards of the coast do not want you to have your patron die on you, rules for swapping subclass (finding a new patron in this case) is in tasha's cauldron if you are interested
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Yeah I don't think a warlock would lose any of their abilities with the death of their patron. Power given, is not taken back. If you want to rule that until a new patron is selected, they cannot gain ore power, that's great. But unless its part of a story arc you are planning that the player is on board with, I don't see the benefit.
the player's handbook and xanatar's guide to everything seems to very much insist that the warlock is some kind of int-caster and eldrich scholar, with an intense lust for knowledge that outdoes even what an wizard wants, the way i have interpreted the features is as follows:
most of your subclass features are powers given directly by your patron and would be lost, this does not apply to your expanded spell list as they are something the patron must have taught you
your spells are still cast normally, you are an arcane caster after all and the spells section only talks about it as "your arcane research and the magic bestowed to you by your patron has given you facillity with spells", it is a mix of your nerdy book studies, things your patron told you and magic rituals / soul infusions
you would not be able to get an replacement book of shadows, as your patron gives you that
you would not be able to use your eldrich master feature, as it is the one warlock abillity that requires simping
mystic arcanums are explicitly taught to you by your patron, and so while you would be able to cast them just fine you would be unable to learn new ones
eldrich invocations do not seem to have anything to do with your patron at all, you learned those on your own, so you should be able to keep them "In your study of eldrich lore, you have unearthed eldrich invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical abillity" it says
generally, just assume that you cannot gain new levels in warlock as you level up unless a new patron is found, you are not nearly as dependent on your patron as an cleric is to their god when it comes to accumulating more and more power but your patron is still an wise tutor who would be relied on for aid,
take all of this with a grain of salt, as only a fraction of players and DM's ever play warlocks in the way they are described in the books, many people do pretend that the warlock is just like a cleric who can get by simply by having a sugar demon do all the hard work of spellcasting and in that case you should be going with that and stripping them of all their spells just like you would for a cleric, generally wizards of the coast do not want you to have your patron die on you, rules for swapping subclass (finding a new patron in this case) is in tasha's cauldron if you are interested
It's a reasonable theme, given that Warlocks were originally written in 5e to be Int-casters, and only changed to Cha based on feedback (i.e., because that was counter to how players from previous editions expected them to be played, and 5e is nothing if not pandering to the nostalgia demographic).
the player's handbook and xanatar's guide to everything seems to very much insist that the warlock is some kind of int-caster and eldrich scholar, with an intense lust for knowledge that outdoes even what an wizard wants, the way i have interpreted the features is as follows:
most of your subclass features are powers given directly by your patron and would be lost, this does not apply to your expanded spell list as they are something the patron must have taught you
your spells are still cast normally, you are an arcane caster after all and the spells section only talks about it as "your arcane research and the magic bestowed to you by your patron has given you facillity with spells", it is a mix of your nerdy book studies, things your patron told you and magic rituals / soul infusions
you would not be able to get an replacement book of shadows, as your patron gives you that
you would not be able to use your eldrich master feature, as it is the one warlock abillity that requires simping
mystic arcanums are explicitly taught to you by your patron, and so while you would be able to cast them just fine you would be unable to learn new ones
eldrich invocations do not seem to have anything to do with your patron at all, you learned those on your own, so you should be able to keep them "In your study of eldrich lore, you have unearthed eldrich invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical abillity" it says
generally, just assume that you cannot gain new levels in warlock as you level up unless a new patron is found, you are not nearly as dependent on your patron as an cleric is to their god when it comes to accumulating more and more power but your patron is still an wise tutor who would be relied on for aid,
take all of this with a grain of salt, as only a fraction of players and DM's ever play warlocks in the way they are described in the books, many people do pretend that the warlock is just like a cleric who can get by simply by having a sugar demon do all the hard work of spellcasting and in that case you should be going with that and stripping them of all their spells just like you would for a cleric, generally wizards of the coast do not want you to have your patron die on you, rules for swapping subclass (finding a new patron in this case) is in tasha's cauldron if you are interested
It's a reasonable theme, given that Warlocks were originally written in 5e to be Int-casters, and only changed to Cha based on feedback (i.e., because that was counter to how players from previous editions expected them to be played, and 5e is nothing if not pandering to the nostalgia demographic).
the old playtest packet warlock was so ******* cool, a bit overwritten since the fluff is so damm long but man was it so cool and also specific, uttering the true name of a moonless night to create darkness, being warped and molded both by your patron and the eldrich invocations you know, the renegade collector of secrets
(albeit those did explicitly require "patrons favor" to use their "eldrich invocations" so those warlocks would be even more reliant on their patron than the more modern warlock)
(also 4e warlocks did use int alongside cha (and con) and did in fact still have some of this fluff in them)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
There actually was a direct answer, maybe in a Sage Advice. The official word is that at the point of character creation, the pact is complete. Whatever was traded, has been traded, and the knowledge and magic is now the Warlock's. This was in direct reference to how much influence a DM has over the PC, by playing the role of the Patron, including the threat of revoking the pact.
I think this falls into the same consideration as Clerics and Paladins, in that there seems to be a lot of story built into the character. Somehow, DMs and other players seem to think that they get to control that story.
But, ask yourself... Would you feel justified telling the Fighter that he forgot how to wield his weapons or wear armor? Would you feel justified telling the Rogue that he forgot his skills? Of course not. That would be effectively taking away the player's character.
Messing with Warlocks, Clerics and Paladins (against the players' wishes) is no different. That is THEIR character. The pact/oath/domain is THEIR story. Yes, it's true that a DM can toss all of that out the window and do whatever they want. But what you're discussing is precisely taking away a player's character, against his/her will. That's a pretty big violation of trust, and definitely puts the DM in an adversarial role. I would not expect to keep that table intact for long, as none of the other players will trust you after that either.
Once a DM takes away a character, the game becomes DM vs Players forever after.
I would go for letting the character keep their magic and class-abilities, but have them constantly harassed by their old patron until they either kill the patron or perform some sort of massive favor for the same, to let them off the hook. In addition they would have to either a) find a new patron to advance in levels as a warlock or b) multi-class out.
There actually was a direct answer, maybe in a Sage Advice. The official word is that at the point of character creation, the pact is complete. Whatever was traded, has been traded, and the knowledge and magic is now the Warlock's. This was in direct reference to how much influence a DM has over the PC, by playing the role of the Patron, including the threat of revoking the pact.
I think this falls into the same consideration as Clerics and Paladins, in that there seems to be a lot of story built into the character. Somehow, DMs and other players seem to think that they get to control that story.
But, ask yourself... Would you feel justified telling the Fighter that he forgot how to wield his weapons or wear armor? Would you feel justified telling the Rogue that he forgot his skills? Of course not. That would be effectively taking away the player's character.
Messing with Warlocks, Clerics and Paladins (against the players' wishes) is no different. That is THEIR character. The pact/oath/domain is THEIR story. Yes, it's true that a DM can toss all of that out the window and do whatever they want. But what you're discussing is precisely taking away a player's character, against his/her will. That's a pretty big violation of trust, and definitely puts the DM in an adversarial role. I would not expect to keep that table intact for long, as none of the other players will trust you after that either.
Once a DM takes away a character, the game becomes DM vs Players forever after.
Even if done to a NPC as a story point it will make players wonder if they should ever play a class like that with this DM. Though I guess wizards and their spellbook have a similar issue to some degree. Losing all your non prepared spells due to a fire or a thief or whatever would suck. Though I have not seen that happen since 1e and its been a option in all the editions except maybe 4e, DMs just never did it in my circles.
This is the sort of thing that drives me nuts in some campaigns. Some DMs gleefully will strip your character of powers.. "your cleric didn't do X, now their god is angry and you lose all your spells... your druid killed an animal so loses all their nature powers... your warlock's patron was killed by a party of adventurers so you're now a level 1 commoner.."
This was especially egregious in older versions of D&D where there were mechanical rules, but of course there was always enough wiggle room so depending on the DM you may or may not have to worry about trivial things. I learned to play classes that were entirely self-reliant.
This is the sort of thing that drives me nuts in some campaigns. Some DMs gleefully will strip your character of powers.. "your cleric didn't do X, now their god is angry and you lose all your spells... your druid killed an animal so loses all their nature powers... your warlock's patron was killed by a party of adventurers so you're now a level 1 commoner.."
This was especially egregious in older versions of D&D where there were mechanical rules, but of course there was always enough wiggle room so depending on the DM you may or may not have to worry about trivial things. I learned to play classes that were entirely self-reliant.
We call these 'bad DMs'. The only thing you can do is bail on the campaign and leave them scratching their heads as to why you didn't think getting gutted was fun.
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.
This is the sort of thing that drives me nuts in some campaigns. Some DMs gleefully will strip your character of powers.. "your cleric didn't do X, now their god is angry and you lose all your spells... your druid killed an animal so loses all their nature powers... your warlock's patron was killed by a party of adventurers so you're now a level 1 commoner.."
This was especially egregious in older versions of D&D where there were mechanical rules, but of course there was always enough wiggle room so depending on the DM you may or may not have to worry about trivial things. I learned to play classes that were entirely self-reliant.
we have 13 classes in the game. Of these, the ones where the DM can bullshit a reason for why a character should temporarily or permanently loose their powers are: clerics, druids, paladins, warlocks (although i still insist that by RAW warlock flavor you still keep almost every warlock feature), wizards (can at a minimum have their spellbooks stolen from them, but that of course still leaves them with all the spells they currently have prepared, that they get to keep indefinitely). And then if you want to stretch it a little, since a sorcerer's powers are not really a skill or talent they have practiced but rather something they are born with, an sufficiently obnoxious DM could potentially have a sorcerer's powers taken away, an ranger could have their spellcasting taken away if it's interpreted to be druid-y enough (which given such a DM's disposition towards RAW and the spirit of fun would be likely). Lastly depending on how one fluffs an artificer, if you flavor it as physical inventions your artificer made ahead of time they might get some of their prepared spells stolen.
That means that if you want to never play a character with a risk of having their class features revoked, you'd be restricting yourself to only playing barbarians, bards, fighters, monks and rogues, maybe including artificers and sorcerers if you are feeling a bit more daring. By trying to limit oneself to only self reliant classes, one is restricting oneself to about 5-7 classes, about half the available ones.
At that point, is it really worth it to change one's own behaviour? Is it not better to either ask the DM to change their ways or simply leave and join a new group that won't arbitrarily punish you for playing about half the classes in the game?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Officially, I believe the answer is closer to number 3, where you are granted the power and are able to continue leveling up in the class and growing in power without your patron's help. I'm not sure which book that's in, so unfortunately I can't really cite my answer here. I personally think that stalling subclass features is an alright option, but not great unless the player is okay with it. I'd probably encourage the Warlock to see out a new patron (and if I stalled any sort of their features, give them a power boost back up to the level of the party).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Food for thought:
Maybe you are little more like a cleric, in that the patron is just showing to you the way to the power. A powerful devil gets his or her power from the nine hells, so you could maintain that connection even if you lost that archdevil.
When the DM smiles, it is already to late.
Nothing states that you keep them *wink*
except the lead designer's statement of intent...
*wink*
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
Ultimately patrons are a story device and the fallout from breaking the patron bond should not be the same across all campaigns and characters. It should be handled so that it makes sense within the world and in a way that the player is on board with. Denying a player all their spells and features because they didn't do what you wanted or because you decided the story had to go a certain way is not within the spirit of the game and is kind of a d*ck move besides.
This kind of thing just doesn't work unless the player and DM work together to decide consequences and figure out what comes next. There's no default answer because it has to be tailored to the needs of the people involved.
But I will say that player autonomy is crucial for the game to function, and that means a character should never permanently lose their class features or abilities unless the player chooses it and is aware of the consequences of that choice. Otherwise your players are just puppets in your DM fantasy story and that's not D&D.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
This depends on the player's background. I'm assuming the ideal situation would be scenario 3, so just say that the patron "blessed" you with a growing power that gives you more powers and abilities as you gain experience and knowledge.
the player's handbook and xanatar's guide to everything seems to very much insist that the warlock is some kind of int-caster and eldrich scholar, with an intense lust for knowledge that outdoes even what an wizard wants, the way i have interpreted the features is as follows:
take all of this with a grain of salt, as only a fraction of players and DM's ever play warlocks in the way they are described in the books, many people do pretend that the warlock is just like a cleric who can get by simply by having a sugar demon do all the hard work of spellcasting and in that case you should be going with that and stripping them of all their spells just like you would for a cleric, generally wizards of the coast do not want you to have your patron die on you, rules for swapping subclass (finding a new patron in this case) is in tasha's cauldron if you are interested
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I make them a sorcerer (new subclass based on their old subclass) from the magical energy they have absorbed.
Yeah I don't think a warlock would lose any of their abilities with the death of their patron. Power given, is not taken back. If you want to rule that until a new patron is selected, they cannot gain ore power, that's great. But unless its part of a story arc you are planning that the player is on board with, I don't see the benefit.
It's a reasonable theme, given that Warlocks were originally written in 5e to be Int-casters, and only changed to Cha based on feedback (i.e., because that was counter to how players from previous editions expected them to be played, and 5e is nothing if not pandering to the nostalgia demographic).
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
the old playtest packet warlock was so ******* cool, a bit overwritten since the fluff is so damm long but man was it so cool and also specific, uttering the true name of a moonless night to create darkness, being warped and molded both by your patron and the eldrich invocations you know, the renegade collector of secrets
(albeit those did explicitly require "patrons favor" to use their "eldrich invocations" so those warlocks would be even more reliant on their patron than the more modern warlock)
(also 4e warlocks did use int alongside cha (and con) and did in fact still have some of this fluff in them)
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1221978854119460866?s=19
There actually was a direct answer, maybe in a Sage Advice. The official word is that at the point of character creation, the pact is complete. Whatever was traded, has been traded, and the knowledge and magic is now the Warlock's. This was in direct reference to how much influence a DM has over the PC, by playing the role of the Patron, including the threat of revoking the pact.
I think this falls into the same consideration as Clerics and Paladins, in that there seems to be a lot of story built into the character. Somehow, DMs and other players seem to think that they get to control that story.
But, ask yourself... Would you feel justified telling the Fighter that he forgot how to wield his weapons or wear armor? Would you feel justified telling the Rogue that he forgot his skills? Of course not. That would be effectively taking away the player's character.
Messing with Warlocks, Clerics and Paladins (against the players' wishes) is no different. That is THEIR character. The pact/oath/domain is THEIR story. Yes, it's true that a DM can toss all of that out the window and do whatever they want. But what you're discussing is precisely taking away a player's character, against his/her will. That's a pretty big violation of trust, and definitely puts the DM in an adversarial role. I would not expect to keep that table intact for long, as none of the other players will trust you after that either.
Once a DM takes away a character, the game becomes DM vs Players forever after.
I would go for letting the character keep their magic and class-abilities, but have them constantly harassed by their old patron until they either kill the patron or perform some sort of massive favor for the same, to let them off the hook. In addition they would have to either a) find a new patron to advance in levels as a warlock or b) multi-class out.
Even if done to a NPC as a story point it will make players wonder if they should ever play a class like that with this DM. Though I guess wizards and their spellbook have a similar issue to some degree. Losing all your non prepared spells due to a fire or a thief or whatever would suck. Though I have not seen that happen since 1e and its been a option in all the editions except maybe 4e, DMs just never did it in my circles.
This is the sort of thing that drives me nuts in some campaigns. Some DMs gleefully will strip your character of powers.. "your cleric didn't do X, now their god is angry and you lose all your spells... your druid killed an animal so loses all their nature powers... your warlock's patron was killed by a party of adventurers so you're now a level 1 commoner.."
This was especially egregious in older versions of D&D where there were mechanical rules, but of course there was always enough wiggle room so depending on the DM you may or may not have to worry about trivial things. I learned to play classes that were entirely self-reliant.
We call these 'bad DMs'. The only thing you can do is bail on the campaign and leave them scratching their heads as to why you didn't think getting gutted was fun.
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
we have 13 classes in the game. Of these, the ones where the DM can bullshit a reason for why a character should temporarily or permanently loose their powers are: clerics, druids, paladins, warlocks (although i still insist that by RAW warlock flavor you still keep almost every warlock feature), wizards (can at a minimum have their spellbooks stolen from them, but that of course still leaves them with all the spells they currently have prepared, that they get to keep indefinitely). And then if you want to stretch it a little, since a sorcerer's powers are not really a skill or talent they have practiced but rather something they are born with, an sufficiently obnoxious DM could potentially have a sorcerer's powers taken away, an ranger could have their spellcasting taken away if it's interpreted to be druid-y enough (which given such a DM's disposition towards RAW and the spirit of fun would be likely). Lastly depending on how one fluffs an artificer, if you flavor it as physical inventions your artificer made ahead of time they might get some of their prepared spells stolen.
That means that if you want to never play a character with a risk of having their class features revoked, you'd be restricting yourself to only playing barbarians, bards, fighters, monks and rogues, maybe including artificers and sorcerers if you are feeling a bit more daring. By trying to limit oneself to only self reliant classes, one is restricting oneself to about 5-7 classes, about half the available ones.
At that point, is it really worth it to change one's own behaviour? Is it not better to either ask the DM to change their ways or simply leave and join a new group that won't arbitrarily punish you for playing about half the classes in the game?
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Officially, I believe the answer is closer to number 3, where you are granted the power and are able to continue leveling up in the class and growing in power without your patron's help. I'm not sure which book that's in, so unfortunately I can't really cite my answer here. I personally think that stalling subclass features is an alright option, but not great unless the player is okay with it. I'd probably encourage the Warlock to see out a new patron (and if I stalled any sort of their features, give them a power boost back up to the level of the party).