IMO, if you break a pact, you lose your powers. From my perspective , it's the most reasonable consequence
Let's say, you let your friend borrow your lawnmower on the condition that he would mow your lawn once per week.
Now, let's assume your friend breaks that agreement. Wouldn't you take back your lawnmower?... (Your friend essentially loses his lawn cutting power that you gave him.)
Same with a Patron.
Being able to break an agreement without consequences is just unrealistic. (even in a fantasy game)
Now let me change it up on you a little. Let's say you give your friend the lawnmower... Or even sell it to them. One of the parts of that sale is mowing your yard once a week. which he eventually stops. Do you have any justification or ability to take it back? No not necessarily. You either gave or sold it to them. Them not paying doesn't actually just give you the lawn mower back. They still have it. They may have even moved away. or traded it in for some other lawnmower. Or done a bunch of repairs on it that you never paid for yourself which could conceivably be worth more than your claim to the lawnmower.
Just where do you draw the line?
Your looking at what is "realistic" through a very narrow viewpoint to reach your opinion. Your realistic is not necessarily what is happening or realistic. And what's going on and the powers that be may not actually agree with you or side with your interpretation of things.
They aren't just a mortal friend. They are immensely powerful beings that have the power to give and take away powers.
You can't escape a Patron by moving away. A warlock can't sell his/her powers, nor can they repair the powers given.
Warlocks, clerics and paladins are unique in that many of their abilities are not learned or intrinsic to them. They are granted by a god or godlike being.
Warlock patrons don't have the ability to take away powers. I've definitely come across this from multiple sources and linked one in the other post. Now that doesn't mean there won't be consequences. At level 12 you may think you're free and clear, but when a Pit Fiend comes looking for you, we can all agree you're screwed. But there isn't a loss of powers upon default.
What's the reasoning for this? If a Patron can grant powers, what prevents them from taking the granted powers away?
Did you watch the video? I don't know what to say outside of it's just the conditions of the world they created. It's Pandora's box, if you like, where once it's done, it's done. And maybe it's because Devil's and Demon's don't have god like power, outside of Asmodeus, who doesn't actively make deals with mortals.
I guess once it's given to you, it becomes a part of you, as opposed to an accessory.
You know what I really like about this topic? We can see ourselves as Otherworldly Patrons and have all the differing ways pacts are governed laid out. Some of us are more regimented in our patronage to those we take on as warlocks (i.e. what can be given can be taken away if you displease me), some are more lenient (i.e ok we had a deal which you didn't adhere to but go on about your business but do it again and I'll give you a stern talking to) and some are completely unbothered (i.e Who are you? did I give you power? oh well never mind). I do have to remind myself when thinking about this topic that not all patrons are evil aligned entities so they will (much like the d&d community) run the gamit of opinions.
As an aisde, for me pacts are something which can be ameneded, this is represented by the game mechanics in terms of being able to switch out spells and invocations during the level up process where the Warlock petitions their patron (maybe off camera so to speak) to change the powers they have been granted, so it would also be possible for a patron to switch or remove spells, invocations or abilities as a punitive measure to get a warlock to fall in line. In this way it would not be inconcivable to have a plot line where a Warlock actively wants to switch from Pact of Blade to Pact or Chain or Pact of Tome, losing the abilities one grants and gaining the abilities of another. Each time they do so their patron asks them to perform some other task or they have to pay a higher price. This would represent an ongoing relationship between Patron and Warlock. This can also provide a patron with a way to punish the warlock, maybe their pact of blade changes, they wake up one morning to find their pact weapon lying next to them with an Imp (or some other suitable familiar) sitting on it who chides and berates them and they find they've switched to pact of chain until they perform some task, the Imp serves as the eyes and ears of their patron and once they are satisfied the warlock is back in line the pact can revert back to the pact of blade or maybe the Warlock cherishes their familiar and they wake one morning to find a book lying next to them and they find the pact of chain has switched to a pact of tome and the book of shadows before them has a farewell letter from their familiar saying why they have been taken away and what needs to happen for them to return.
There are so many plot points and roleplay oppotuties with Warlocks that can really build a good story but ultimately what I say or think is irrelevant, you do your thing and if it is fun, then all good.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
* Need a character idea? Search for "Rob76's Unused" in the Story and Lore section.
Hm, I have seen several DM's fall on either side of this argument (whether the given power can or can't be taken away). I don't really have a problem with either option so long as it is established in session 0 so players are aware of what to expect when playing one of these classes (even if it is just a multiclass dip). Especially if in your world, losing your powers is a real possibility.
For my world Warlocks and Clerics can lose their powers if they do something that greatly upsets their Deity/Patron or if the break the agreement/tenets with said entity. The transaction of power isn't a one and done thing, the entity is gifting a small portion of its own power to you to serve it's purposes. Sure, you can use it for your own goals as well, so long as you are still forwarding the goals/beliefs of the entity that gave you said powers. If you fail to do so, the entity will take the powers back to gift to someone who will forward their goals.
That's not to say that all entities have to be created equal. Some will have very strict codes one must follow, others don't. Some are very impatient and others aren't. Some are very forgiving and some aren't. Some are much more hands on, and others aren't. So, some entities will allow for more freedom and more varied play while others will require a greater level of commitment to follow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
...personally, I don't like that treatment of the class. It seems to give the player a free pass on what should be a life-altering bargain. (And not just life-altering in the sense of gaining warlock abilities.) As I called it above, it feels like it's treating the pact like a gumball machine.
Obviously, it's perfectly acceptable to play and DM the warlock as Mearls said. But it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and even more, it seems to deliberately clear off some great opportunities for gameplay, role playing, and the like.
I'm not always a huge fan of Critical Role in terms of the drama the characters generate, but I thought Fjord's conflict with his patron was a spot on way to depict the possible ramifications of making a pact with an entity.
That free pass your saying it gives them. That's the fault of the DM. Not the fault of the Pact or the fault of the Class. He's not saying that they get a free pass and they just get to gumball powers. That's the inference your putting on it because you've decided you don't like it and things should be different.
Your DM is always free to send things after you or make your life hell in other ways if it really wants to. That's something that Fjord's Patron does to him several times. his patron also from the beginning made the play to basically give the impression that it had more power over Fjord than it really has multiple times. Which was half of the dynamic between Fjord. There was also Fjord's desire for more power playing into it that most people actually miss. Half of what the Patron pulled off with him was all about that underlying fact that Fjord wanted to buy into it despite the costs to some degree.
IMO, if you break a pact, you lose your powers. From my perspective , it's the most reasonable consequence
Let's say, you let your friend borrow your lawnmower on the condition that he would mow your lawn once per week.
Now, let's assume your friend breaks that agreement. Wouldn't you take back your lawnmower?... (Your friend essentially loses his lawn cutting power that you gave him.)
Same with a Patron.
Being able to break an agreement without consequences is just unrealistic. (even in a fantasy game)
Now let me change it up on you a little. Let's say you give your friend the lawnmower... Or even sell it to them. One of the parts of that sale is mowing your yard once a week. which he eventually stops. Do you have any justification or ability to take it back? No not necessarily. You either gave or sold it to them. Them not paying doesn't actually just give you the lawn mower back. They still have it. They may have even moved away. or traded it in for some other lawnmower. Or done a bunch of repairs on it that you never paid for yourself which could conceivably be worth more than your claim to the lawnmower.
Just where do you draw the line?
Your looking at what is "realistic" through a very narrow viewpoint to reach your opinion. Your realistic is not necessarily what is happening or realistic. And what's going on and the powers that be may not actually agree with you or side with your interpretation of things.
They aren't just a mortal friend. They are immensely powerful beings that have the power to give and take away powers.
You can't escape a Patron by moving away. A warlock can't sell his/her powers, nor can they repair the powers given.
Warlocks, clerics and paladins are unique in that many of their abilities are not learned or intrinsic to them. They are granted by a god or godlike being.
Warlock patrons don't have the ability to take away powers. I've definitely come across this from multiple sources and linked one in the other post. Now that doesn't mean there won't be consequences. At level 12 you may think you're free and clear, but when a Pit Fiend comes looking for you, we can all agree you're screwed. But there isn't a loss of powers upon default.
There's more to it than that when it comes to this. There is the claim that the Warlock can't sell their powers. Can't repair them. But we cannot say this is actually true. Nobody bothers to try to sell the powers. They don't understand them enough to even have an idea how but that doesn't mean they can't. deals can be made with beings without even knowing what you sold to those beings that make you a warlock in the first place. Some of the Examples of Fae Pacts show this more than any other but it's just as possible with elder beings, and devils, and other such things.
The Argument that you can't Sell them, Or repair them, or improve them has no real basis because We can't even say entirely how the Pact system works that they were able to buy them through a Pact in the first place. The big Unanswered Question is "How were you even able to buy them?" combined with Questions like "How were you able to sell your soul?" They are intangible things that somehow have substance and are objectified and codified as transferable by some beings and not by others. And many of those being that view them that way are not Gods or even close to it. And they can make these kinds of deals with creatures that do not share this same sense about these intangible things. But everybody is adamant in their belief that these things can't be done and the character has no power to do it. But realistically if that were true then the character had no ability to make most of these deals to become Warlocks to begin with, Yet they Have. They are Warlocks. The transactions have been made somehow.
Also in 5th Edition. Most Paladins are not Paladins because of Gods. That was falling apart even in 3.x/PF. The idea of them having to serve Gods was crumbling in Regards from Paladins even before the alignment restriction was being broken down. It was Technically even Possible but an outside Possibility even in Second Edition 30 years ago. In 5th Edition their powers come primarily from upholding and Serving Ideals and following Codified sets of moral rules. This is even stated in the PHB.
Many Patrons. They aren't even close to godlike beings. They may be powerful. But that doesn't mean they are godlike. There are many powerful things in D&D that aren't gods. Or even Close to Gods. And there are some things that Claim to Be Gods that aren't either. Just like there are some things that are actually Gods that do not refer to themselves or acknowledge themselves as being such unless they have to.
IMO, if you break a pact, you lose your powers. From my perspective , it's the most reasonable consequence
Let's say, you let your friend borrow your lawnmower on the condition that he would mow your lawn once per week.
Now, let's assume your friend breaks that agreement. Wouldn't you take back your lawnmower?... (Your friend essentially loses his lawn cutting power that you gave him.)
Same with a Patron.
Being able to break an agreement without consequences is just unrealistic. (even in a fantasy game)
Now let me change it up on you a little. Let's say you give your friend the lawnmower... Or even sell it to them. One of the parts of that sale is mowing your yard once a week. which he eventually stops. Do you have any justification or ability to take it back? No not necessarily. You either gave or sold it to them. Them not paying doesn't actually just give you the lawn mower back. They still have it. They may have even moved away. or traded it in for some other lawnmower. Or done a bunch of repairs on it that you never paid for yourself which could conceivably be worth more than your claim to the lawnmower.
Just where do you draw the line?
Your looking at what is "realistic" through a very narrow viewpoint to reach your opinion. Your realistic is not necessarily what is happening or realistic. And what's going on and the powers that be may not actually agree with you or side with your interpretation of things.
They aren't just a mortal friend. They are immensely powerful beings that have the power to give and take away powers.
You can't escape a Patron by moving away. A warlock can't sell his/her powers, nor can they repair the powers given.
Warlocks, clerics and paladins are unique in that many of their abilities are not learned or intrinsic to them. They are granted by a god or godlike being.
Warlock patrons don't have the ability to take away powers. I've definitely come across this from multiple sources and linked one in the other post. Now that doesn't mean there won't be consequences. At level 12 you may think you're free and clear, but when a Pit Fiend comes looking for you, we can all agree you're screwed. But there isn't a loss of powers upon default.
There's more to it than that when it comes to this. There is the claim that the Warlock can't sell their powers. Can't repair them. But we cannot say this is actually true. Nobody bothers to try to sell the powers. They don't understand them enough to even have an idea how but that doesn't mean they can't. deals can be made with beings without even knowing what you sold to those beings that make you a warlock in the first place. Some of the Examples of Fae Pacts show this more than any other but it's just as possible with elder beings, and devils, and other such things.
The Argument that you can't Sell them, Or repair them, or improve them has no real basis because We can't even say entirely how the Pact system works that they were able to buy them through a Pact in the first place. The big Unanswered Question is "How were you even able to buy them?" combined with Questions like "How were you able to sell your soul?" They are intangible things that somehow have substance and are objectified and codified as transferable by some beings and not by others. And many of those being that view them that way are not Gods or even close to it. And they can make these kinds of deals with creatures that do not share this same sense about these intangible things. But everybody is adamant in their belief that these things can't be done and the character has no power to do it. But realistically if that were true then the character had no ability to make most of these deals to become Warlocks to begin with, Yet they Have. They are Warlocks. The transactions have been made somehow.
Also in 5th Edition. Most Paladins are not Paladins because of Gods. That was falling apart even in 3.x/PF. The idea of them having to serve Gods was crumbling in Regards from Paladins even before the alignment restriction was being broken down. It was Technically even Possible but an outside Possibility even in Second Edition 30 years ago. In 5th Edition their powers come primarily from upholding and Serving Ideals and following Codified sets of moral rules. This is even stated in the PHB.
Many Patrons. They aren't even close to godlike beings. They may be powerful. But that doesn't mean they are godlike. There are many powerful things in D&D that aren't gods. Or even Close to Gods. And there are some things that Claim to Be Gods that aren't either. Just like there are some things that are actually Gods that do not refer to themselves or acknowledge themselves as being such unless they have to.
That's what I though but didn't want to divert the conversation, but Paladin's get their power from their vow/oath, not necessarily a god. I think Cleric's are technically the only class that gets their abilities definitely from a god
That free pass your saying it gives them. That's the fault of the DM. Not the fault of the Pact or the fault of the Class. He's not saying that they get a free pass and they just get to gumball powers. That's the inference your putting on it because you've decided you don't like it and things should be different.
Starting around the 2:20 mark, Mearls lays this out:
Canonically, warlock powers once given cannot be taken back
Canonically, it's assumed that whatever price was paid for the powers was paid BEFORE the character starts adventuring
Which means: the pact is merely a rules affectation, with no real impact on the character or role-playing them.
Now, Mearls does qualify this somewhat by saying the "prepayment model" (my phrase) can be made to be ongoing or something that is yet to come if the player wants. So there's an out. But he's clear that the class was written with the default assumption that the warlock has already paid whatever agreed-upon price for their powers, and are now free to act as they wish for the game, with no constraints, thoughts, or worries about the terms of the pact.
That free pass your saying it gives them. That's the fault of the DM. Not the fault of the Pact or the fault of the Class. He's not saying that they get a free pass and they just get to gumball powers. That's the inference your putting on it because you've decided you don't like it and things should be different.
Starting around the 2:20 mark, Mearls lays this out:
Canonically, warlock powers once given cannot be taken back
Canonically, it's assumed that whatever price was paid for the powers was paid BEFORE the character starts adventuring
Which means: the pact is merely a rules affectation, with no real impact on the character or role-playing them.
Now, Mearls does qualify this somewhat by saying the "prepayment model" (my phrase) can be made to be ongoing or something that is yet to come if the player wants. So there's an out. But he's clear that the class was written with the default assumption that the warlock has already paid whatever agreed-upon price for their powers, and are now free to act as they wish for the game, with no constraints, thoughts, or worries about the terms of the pact.
it does not mean there is no impact on the character or role play to them. That's again your interpretation because you've decided to hate on it and you bias is to read everything as negatively as possible about it to support that bias.
He says the powers cannot be taken away. He does not in any way say that does not affect your RP or that there won't be other consequences for being at odds with your Patron like you claim. No matter how many times you try to claim it. He's even one to bring up other ways that character and Patron can be in conflict without loss of powers.
You realize that I'm not angry or "hating" on anything? This is meant to be a friendly discussion on how the class works, how it was intended to work, etc.
My post does say Mearls qualified his remarks! And of course, ultimately, how these things work in the game is up to the DM and players, regardless of what the rulebooks say.
And of course you can RP and bring into different consequences of a warlock defying their patron. But all of that is discretionary. The way the class is written, and per what Mearls says in that video (and what Jeremy Crawford confirmed via tweet) is that the RAW and RAI both clearly assume the price of the pact has been paid before any gaming begins, and that the warlock never has to worry about the patron again unless the DM and player choose to introduce those factors.
So it's perfectly accurate to say the mechanics of the game treat the pact as something that's happened in the past. If it never comes up again and/or if the player decides to forget about the patron, by the rules, they can reasonably expect zero consequences or results. Any such consequences are, essentially, house rules or add-ons by the local group.
As I've made clear, I'm not a huge fan of that. To me, it does feel like a "gumball machine" for extraordinary powers. But as I've also made clear, I love the class (my favorite 5E PC is a warlock). I'm not saying the class is broken or awful or worthless. I'm critiquing a specific aspect of the class.
IMO, if you break a pact, you lose your powers. From my perspective , it's the most reasonable consequence
Let's say, you let your friend borrow your lawnmower on the condition that he would mow your lawn once per week.
Now, let's assume your friend breaks that agreement. Wouldn't you take back your lawnmower?... (Your friend essentially loses his lawn cutting power that you gave him.)
Same with a Patron.
Being able to break an agreement without consequences is just unrealistic. (even in a fantasy game)
Now let me change it up on you a little. Let's say you give your friend the lawnmower... Or even sell it to them. One of the parts of that sale is mowing your yard once a week. which he eventually stops. Do you have any justification or ability to take it back? No not necessarily. You either gave or sold it to them. Them not paying doesn't actually just give you the lawn mower back. They still have it. They may have even moved away. or traded it in for some other lawnmower. Or done a bunch of repairs on it that you never paid for yourself which could conceivably be worth more than your claim to the lawnmower.
Just where do you draw the line?
Your looking at what is "realistic" through a very narrow viewpoint to reach your opinion. Your realistic is not necessarily what is happening or realistic. And what's going on and the powers that be may not actually agree with you or side with your interpretation of things.
They aren't just a mortal friend. They are immensely powerful beings that have the power to give and take away powers.
You can't escape a Patron by moving away. A warlock can't sell his/her powers, nor can they repair the powers given.
Warlocks, clerics and paladins are unique in that many of their abilities are not learned or intrinsic to them. They are granted by a god or godlike being.
Warlock patrons don't have the ability to take away powers. I've definitely come across this from multiple sources and linked one in the other post. Now that doesn't mean there won't be consequences. At level 12 you may think you're free and clear, but when a Pit Fiend comes looking for you, we can all agree you're screwed. But there isn't a loss of powers upon default.
There's more to it than that when it comes to this. There is the claim that the Warlock can't sell their powers. Can't repair them. But we cannot say this is actually true. Nobody bothers to try to sell the powers. They don't understand them enough to even have an idea how but that doesn't mean they can't. deals can be made with beings without even knowing what you sold to those beings that make you a warlock in the first place. Some of the Examples of Fae Pacts show this more than any other but it's just as possible with elder beings, and devils, and other such things.
The Argument that you can't Sell them, Or repair them, or improve them has no real basis because We can't even say entirely how the Pact system works that they were able to buy them through a Pact in the first place. The big Unanswered Question is "How were you even able to buy them?" combined with Questions like "How were you able to sell your soul?" They are intangible things that somehow have substance and are objectified and codified as transferable by some beings and not by others. And many of those being that view them that way are not Gods or even close to it. And they can make these kinds of deals with creatures that do not share this same sense about these intangible things. But everybody is adamant in their belief that these things can't be done and the character has no power to do it. But realistically if that were true then the character had no ability to make most of these deals to become Warlocks to begin with, Yet they Have. They are Warlocks. The transactions have been made somehow.
Also in 5th Edition. Most Paladins are not Paladins because of Gods. That was falling apart even in 3.x/PF. The idea of them having to serve Gods was crumbling in Regards from Paladins even before the alignment restriction was being broken down. It was Technically even Possible but an outside Possibility even in Second Edition 30 years ago. In 5th Edition their powers come primarily from upholding and Serving Ideals and following Codified sets of moral rules. This is even stated in the PHB.
Many Patrons. They aren't even close to godlike beings. They may be powerful. But that doesn't mean they are godlike. There are many powerful things in D&D that aren't gods. Or even Close to Gods. And there are some things that Claim to Be Gods that aren't either. Just like there are some things that are actually Gods that do not refer to themselves or acknowledge themselves as being such unless they have to.
That's what I though but didn't want to divert the conversation, but Paladin's get their power from their vow/oath, not necessarily a god. I think Cleric's are technically the only class that gets their abilities definitely from a god
I know that's in the rules, but don't you think it's too easy, essentially a handwave, as well as a bit ridiculous?
Swearing an oath to rules written on paper by mortals somehow allows those rules to give you powers.
IMO, D&D class requirements have really become too easy.
IMO, if you break a pact, you lose your powers. From my perspective , it's the most reasonable consequence
Let's say, you let your friend borrow your lawnmower on the condition that he would mow your lawn once per week.
Now, let's assume your friend breaks that agreement. Wouldn't you take back your lawnmower?... (Your friend essentially loses his lawn cutting power that you gave him.)
Same with a Patron.
Being able to break an agreement without consequences is just unrealistic. (even in a fantasy game)
Now let me change it up on you a little. Let's say you give your friend the lawnmower... Or even sell it to them. One of the parts of that sale is mowing your yard once a week. which he eventually stops. Do you have any justification or ability to take it back? No not necessarily. You either gave or sold it to them. Them not paying doesn't actually just give you the lawn mower back. They still have it. They may have even moved away. or traded it in for some other lawnmower. Or done a bunch of repairs on it that you never paid for yourself which could conceivably be worth more than your claim to the lawnmower.
Just where do you draw the line?
Your looking at what is "realistic" through a very narrow viewpoint to reach your opinion. Your realistic is not necessarily what is happening or realistic. And what's going on and the powers that be may not actually agree with you or side with your interpretation of things.
They aren't just a mortal friend. They are immensely powerful beings that have the power to give and take away powers.
You can't escape a Patron by moving away. A warlock can't sell his/her powers, nor can they repair the powers given.
Warlocks, clerics and paladins are unique in that many of their abilities are not learned or intrinsic to them. They are granted by a god or godlike being.
Warlock patrons don't have the ability to take away powers. I've definitely come across this from multiple sources and linked one in the other post. Now that doesn't mean there won't be consequences. At level 12 you may think you're free and clear, but when a Pit Fiend comes looking for you, we can all agree you're screwed. But there isn't a loss of powers upon default.
There's more to it than that when it comes to this. There is the claim that the Warlock can't sell their powers. Can't repair them. But we cannot say this is actually true. Nobody bothers to try to sell the powers. They don't understand them enough to even have an idea how but that doesn't mean they can't. deals can be made with beings without even knowing what you sold to those beings that make you a warlock in the first place. Some of the Examples of Fae Pacts show this more than any other but it's just as possible with elder beings, and devils, and other such things.
The Argument that you can't Sell them, Or repair them, or improve them has no real basis because We can't even say entirely how the Pact system works that they were able to buy them through a Pact in the first place. The big Unanswered Question is "How were you even able to buy them?" combined with Questions like "How were you able to sell your soul?" They are intangible things that somehow have substance and are objectified and codified as transferable by some beings and not by others. And many of those being that view them that way are not Gods or even close to it. And they can make these kinds of deals with creatures that do not share this same sense about these intangible things. But everybody is adamant in their belief that these things can't be done and the character has no power to do it. But realistically if that were true then the character had no ability to make most of these deals to become Warlocks to begin with, Yet they Have. They are Warlocks. The transactions have been made somehow.
Also in 5th Edition. Most Paladins are not Paladins because of Gods. That was falling apart even in 3.x/PF. The idea of them having to serve Gods was crumbling in Regards from Paladins even before the alignment restriction was being broken down. It was Technically even Possible but an outside Possibility even in Second Edition 30 years ago. In 5th Edition their powers come primarily from upholding and Serving Ideals and following Codified sets of moral rules. This is even stated in the PHB.
Many Patrons. They aren't even close to godlike beings. They may be powerful. But that doesn't mean they are godlike. There are many powerful things in D&D that aren't gods. Or even Close to Gods. And there are some things that Claim to Be Gods that aren't either. Just like there are some things that are actually Gods that do not refer to themselves or acknowledge themselves as being such unless they have to.
That's what I though but didn't want to divert the conversation, but Paladin's get their power from their vow/oath, not necessarily a god. I think Cleric's are technically the only class that gets their abilities definitely from a god
I know that's in the rules, but don't you think it's too easy, essentially a handwave, as well as a bit ridiculous?
Swearing an oath to rules written on paper by mortals somehow allows those rules to give you powers.
IMO, D&D class requirements have really become too easy.
Only if you let it be. And it sounds like your inclined to let it be instead of getting creative in other ways with dealing with the issue.
In one of my more enjoyable games we've had things like Demon's or Fey just outright ambush the party because of Warlocks ignoring their patrons or even actively working against them. That have then gone on to turn into whole side stories or increased dynamics in our same story.
And your Complaining because rules and Oaths give powers. In a World of Magic. Where studying a dusty old tome with enough diligence can lead to wielding fireballs and blasts of ice as weapons. Where Music can be used to shape powerful illusions and charm people. Where an Entire class is built around getting powers because of their belief in and connection with Nature. But you have issues with power being drawn from Oath's sworn and Moral Codes followed because that's just somehow so bizarre.
IMO, if you break a pact, you lose your powers. From my perspective , it's the most reasonable consequence
Let's say, you let your friend borrow your lawnmower on the condition that he would mow your lawn once per week.
Now, let's assume your friend breaks that agreement. Wouldn't you take back your lawnmower?... (Your friend essentially loses his lawn cutting power that you gave him.)
Same with a Patron.
Being able to break an agreement without consequences is just unrealistic. (even in a fantasy game)
Now let me change it up on you a little. Let's say you give your friend the lawnmower... Or even sell it to them. One of the parts of that sale is mowing your yard once a week. which he eventually stops. Do you have any justification or ability to take it back? No not necessarily. You either gave or sold it to them. Them not paying doesn't actually just give you the lawn mower back. They still have it. They may have even moved away. or traded it in for some other lawnmower. Or done a bunch of repairs on it that you never paid for yourself which could conceivably be worth more than your claim to the lawnmower.
Just where do you draw the line?
Your looking at what is "realistic" through a very narrow viewpoint to reach your opinion. Your realistic is not necessarily what is happening or realistic. And what's going on and the powers that be may not actually agree with you or side with your interpretation of things.
They aren't just a mortal friend. They are immensely powerful beings that have the power to give and take away powers.
You can't escape a Patron by moving away. A warlock can't sell his/her powers, nor can they repair the powers given.
Warlocks, clerics and paladins are unique in that many of their abilities are not learned or intrinsic to them. They are granted by a god or godlike being.
Warlock patrons don't have the ability to take away powers. I've definitely come across this from multiple sources and linked one in the other post. Now that doesn't mean there won't be consequences. At level 12 you may think you're free and clear, but when a Pit Fiend comes looking for you, we can all agree you're screwed. But there isn't a loss of powers upon default.
There's more to it than that when it comes to this. There is the claim that the Warlock can't sell their powers. Can't repair them. But we cannot say this is actually true. Nobody bothers to try to sell the powers. They don't understand them enough to even have an idea how but that doesn't mean they can't. deals can be made with beings without even knowing what you sold to those beings that make you a warlock in the first place. Some of the Examples of Fae Pacts show this more than any other but it's just as possible with elder beings, and devils, and other such things.
The Argument that you can't Sell them, Or repair them, or improve them has no real basis because We can't even say entirely how the Pact system works that they were able to buy them through a Pact in the first place. The big Unanswered Question is "How were you even able to buy them?" combined with Questions like "How were you able to sell your soul?" They are intangible things that somehow have substance and are objectified and codified as transferable by some beings and not by others. And many of those being that view them that way are not Gods or even close to it. And they can make these kinds of deals with creatures that do not share this same sense about these intangible things. But everybody is adamant in their belief that these things can't be done and the character has no power to do it. But realistically if that were true then the character had no ability to make most of these deals to become Warlocks to begin with, Yet they Have. They are Warlocks. The transactions have been made somehow.
Also in 5th Edition. Most Paladins are not Paladins because of Gods. That was falling apart even in 3.x/PF. The idea of them having to serve Gods was crumbling in Regards from Paladins even before the alignment restriction was being broken down. It was Technically even Possible but an outside Possibility even in Second Edition 30 years ago. In 5th Edition their powers come primarily from upholding and Serving Ideals and following Codified sets of moral rules. This is even stated in the PHB.
Many Patrons. They aren't even close to godlike beings. They may be powerful. But that doesn't mean they are godlike. There are many powerful things in D&D that aren't gods. Or even Close to Gods. And there are some things that Claim to Be Gods that aren't either. Just like there are some things that are actually Gods that do not refer to themselves or acknowledge themselves as being such unless they have to.
That's what I though but didn't want to divert the conversation, but Paladin's get their power from their vow/oath, not necessarily a god. I think Cleric's are technically the only class that gets their abilities definitely from a god
I know that's in the rules, but don't you think it's too easy, essentially a handwave, as well as a bit ridiculous?
Swearing an oath to rules written on paper by mortals somehow allows those rules to give you powers.
IMO, D&D class requirements have really become too easy.
Only if you let it be. And it sounds like your inclined to let it be instead of getting creative in other ways with dealing with the issue.
In one of my more enjoyable games we've had things like Demon's or Fey just outright ambush the party because of Warlocks ignoring their patrons or even actively working against them. That have then gone on to turn into whole side stories or increased dynamics in our same story.
And your Complaining because rules and Oaths give powers. In a World of Magic. Where studying a dusty old tome with enough diligence can lead to wielding fireballs and blasts of ice as weapons. Where Music can be used to shape powerful illusions and charm people. Where an Entire class is built around getting powers because of their belief in and connection with Nature. But you have issues with power being drawn from Oath's sworn and Moral Codes followed because that's just somehow so bizarre.
I didn't say it was bizarre...
There is a difference between a tome written by a magic being or a powerful wizard, than a bunch of rules written by a politician or a lawyer.
IMO, if you break a pact, you lose your powers. From my perspective , it's the most reasonable consequence
Let's say, you let your friend borrow your lawnmower on the condition that he would mow your lawn once per week.
Now, let's assume your friend breaks that agreement. Wouldn't you take back your lawnmower?... (Your friend essentially loses his lawn cutting power that you gave him.)
Same with a Patron.
Being able to break an agreement without consequences is just unrealistic. (even in a fantasy game)
Now let me change it up on you a little. Let's say you give your friend the lawnmower... Or even sell it to them. One of the parts of that sale is mowing your yard once a week. which he eventually stops. Do you have any justification or ability to take it back? No not necessarily. You either gave or sold it to them. Them not paying doesn't actually just give you the lawn mower back. They still have it. They may have even moved away. or traded it in for some other lawnmower. Or done a bunch of repairs on it that you never paid for yourself which could conceivably be worth more than your claim to the lawnmower.
Just where do you draw the line?
Your looking at what is "realistic" through a very narrow viewpoint to reach your opinion. Your realistic is not necessarily what is happening or realistic. And what's going on and the powers that be may not actually agree with you or side with your interpretation of things.
They aren't just a mortal friend. They are immensely powerful beings that have the power to give and take away powers.
You can't escape a Patron by moving away. A warlock can't sell his/her powers, nor can they repair the powers given.
Warlocks, clerics and paladins are unique in that many of their abilities are not learned or intrinsic to them. They are granted by a god or godlike being.
Warlock patrons don't have the ability to take away powers. I've definitely come across this from multiple sources and linked one in the other post. Now that doesn't mean there won't be consequences. At level 12 you may think you're free and clear, but when a Pit Fiend comes looking for you, we can all agree you're screwed. But there isn't a loss of powers upon default.
There's more to it than that when it comes to this. There is the claim that the Warlock can't sell their powers. Can't repair them. But we cannot say this is actually true. Nobody bothers to try to sell the powers. They don't understand them enough to even have an idea how but that doesn't mean they can't. deals can be made with beings without even knowing what you sold to those beings that make you a warlock in the first place. Some of the Examples of Fae Pacts show this more than any other but it's just as possible with elder beings, and devils, and other such things.
The Argument that you can't Sell them, Or repair them, or improve them has no real basis because We can't even say entirely how the Pact system works that they were able to buy them through a Pact in the first place. The big Unanswered Question is "How were you even able to buy them?" combined with Questions like "How were you able to sell your soul?" They are intangible things that somehow have substance and are objectified and codified as transferable by some beings and not by others. And many of those being that view them that way are not Gods or even close to it. And they can make these kinds of deals with creatures that do not share this same sense about these intangible things. But everybody is adamant in their belief that these things can't be done and the character has no power to do it. But realistically if that were true then the character had no ability to make most of these deals to become Warlocks to begin with, Yet they Have. They are Warlocks. The transactions have been made somehow.
Also in 5th Edition. Most Paladins are not Paladins because of Gods. That was falling apart even in 3.x/PF. The idea of them having to serve Gods was crumbling in Regards from Paladins even before the alignment restriction was being broken down. It was Technically even Possible but an outside Possibility even in Second Edition 30 years ago. In 5th Edition their powers come primarily from upholding and Serving Ideals and following Codified sets of moral rules. This is even stated in the PHB.
Many Patrons. They aren't even close to godlike beings. They may be powerful. But that doesn't mean they are godlike. There are many powerful things in D&D that aren't gods. Or even Close to Gods. And there are some things that Claim to Be Gods that aren't either. Just like there are some things that are actually Gods that do not refer to themselves or acknowledge themselves as being such unless they have to.
That's what I though but didn't want to divert the conversation, but Paladin's get their power from their vow/oath, not necessarily a god. I think Cleric's are technically the only class that gets their abilities definitely from a god
I know that's in the rules, but don't you think it's too easy, essentially a handwave, as well as a bit ridiculous?
Swearing an oath to rules written on paper by mortals somehow allows those rules to give you powers.
IMO, D&D class requirements have really become too easy.
Only if you let it be. And it sounds like your inclined to let it be instead of getting creative in other ways with dealing with the issue.
In one of my more enjoyable games we've had things like Demon's or Fey just outright ambush the party because of Warlocks ignoring their patrons or even actively working against them. That have then gone on to turn into whole side stories or increased dynamics in our same story.
And your Complaining because rules and Oaths give powers. In a World of Magic. Where studying a dusty old tome with enough diligence can lead to wielding fireballs and blasts of ice as weapons. Where Music can be used to shape powerful illusions and charm people. Where an Entire class is built around getting powers because of their belief in and connection with Nature. But you have issues with power being drawn from Oath's sworn and Moral Codes followed because that's just somehow so bizarre.
I didn't say it was bizarre...
There is a difference between a tome written by a magic being or a powerful wizard, than a bunch of rules written by a politician or a lawyer.
And yet. No class actually works off of the rules written by a Politician or Lawyer. Not sure where your getting that from but that's not how Paladin Oath's work. Warlock Pacts are closer to that than Paladins if you want to get that way since Devil's are known for working through magically binding contracts.
I know that's in the rules, but don't you think it's too easy, essentially a handwave, as well as a bit ridiculous?
Swearing an oath to rules written on paper by mortals somehow allows those rules to give you powers.
IMO, D&D class requirements have really become too easy.
Why do you want to add extra burdens on these classes. Even stealing a wizards spellbooks is less profound than just cancelling all the warlocks magic. And I'd say most DMs don't feel the need to steal spellbooks. Its not like paladins and warlocks are some top tier class looking down on wizards that need balancing through this. You don't need a mechanic to stomp your warlock into the ground for "roleplaying" anymore than you need to steal the wizards spell books including the backups every 5 levels. You can roleplay with the pact without the hammer of stealing the class.
I had no idea that was possible but I’d say if they broke the pact they would be cursed or afflicted by some sort of (divine) punishment from the patron they supported.
It may not be impossible to make a pact with a different patron as instead, after breaking it with the original one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The solution, of course, is to take a level or two in every class so you can gain all of the class features ;>)
Did you watch the video? I don't know what to say outside of it's just the conditions of the world they created. It's Pandora's box, if you like, where once it's done, it's done. And maybe it's because Devil's and Demon's don't have god like power, outside of Asmodeus, who doesn't actively make deals with mortals.
I guess once it's given to you, it becomes a part of you, as opposed to an accessory.
Make a Deal with a Devil in 'Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus' | D&D Beyond - YouTube
Also another good video
You know what I really like about this topic? We can see ourselves as Otherworldly Patrons and have all the differing ways pacts are governed laid out. Some of us are more regimented in our patronage to those we take on as warlocks (i.e. what can be given can be taken away if you displease me), some are more lenient (i.e ok we had a deal which you didn't adhere to but go on about your business but do it again and I'll give you a stern talking to) and some are completely unbothered (i.e Who are you? did I give you power? oh well never mind). I do have to remind myself when thinking about this topic that not all patrons are evil aligned entities so they will (much like the d&d community) run the gamit of opinions.
As an aisde, for me pacts are something which can be ameneded, this is represented by the game mechanics in terms of being able to switch out spells and invocations during the level up process where the Warlock petitions their patron (maybe off camera so to speak) to change the powers they have been granted, so it would also be possible for a patron to switch or remove spells, invocations or abilities as a punitive measure to get a warlock to fall in line. In this way it would not be inconcivable to have a plot line where a Warlock actively wants to switch from Pact of Blade to Pact or Chain or Pact of Tome, losing the abilities one grants and gaining the abilities of another. Each time they do so their patron asks them to perform some other task or they have to pay a higher price. This would represent an ongoing relationship between Patron and Warlock. This can also provide a patron with a way to punish the warlock, maybe their pact of blade changes, they wake up one morning to find their pact weapon lying next to them with an Imp (or some other suitable familiar) sitting on it who chides and berates them and they find they've switched to pact of chain until they perform some task, the Imp serves as the eyes and ears of their patron and once they are satisfied the warlock is back in line the pact can revert back to the pact of blade or maybe the Warlock cherishes their familiar and they wake one morning to find a book lying next to them and they find the pact of chain has switched to a pact of tome and the book of shadows before them has a farewell letter from their familiar saying why they have been taken away and what needs to happen for them to return.
There are so many plot points and roleplay oppotuties with Warlocks that can really build a good story but ultimately what I say or think is irrelevant, you do your thing and if it is fun, then all good.
Hm, I have seen several DM's fall on either side of this argument (whether the given power can or can't be taken away). I don't really have a problem with either option so long as it is established in session 0 so players are aware of what to expect when playing one of these classes (even if it is just a multiclass dip). Especially if in your world, losing your powers is a real possibility.
For my world Warlocks and Clerics can lose their powers if they do something that greatly upsets their Deity/Patron or if the break the agreement/tenets with said entity. The transaction of power isn't a one and done thing, the entity is gifting a small portion of its own power to you to serve it's purposes. Sure, you can use it for your own goals as well, so long as you are still forwarding the goals/beliefs of the entity that gave you said powers. If you fail to do so, the entity will take the powers back to gift to someone who will forward their goals.
That's not to say that all entities have to be created equal. Some will have very strict codes one must follow, others don't. Some are very impatient and others aren't. Some are very forgiving and some aren't. Some are much more hands on, and others aren't. So, some entities will allow for more freedom and more varied play while others will require a greater level of commitment to follow.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
That free pass your saying it gives them. That's the fault of the DM. Not the fault of the Pact or the fault of the Class. He's not saying that they get a free pass and they just get to gumball powers. That's the inference your putting on it because you've decided you don't like it and things should be different.
Your DM is always free to send things after you or make your life hell in other ways if it really wants to. That's something that Fjord's Patron does to him several times. his patron also from the beginning made the play to basically give the impression that it had more power over Fjord than it really has multiple times. Which was half of the dynamic between Fjord. There was also Fjord's desire for more power playing into it that most people actually miss. Half of what the Patron pulled off with him was all about that underlying fact that Fjord wanted to buy into it despite the costs to some degree.
There's more to it than that when it comes to this. There is the claim that the Warlock can't sell their powers. Can't repair them. But we cannot say this is actually true. Nobody bothers to try to sell the powers. They don't understand them enough to even have an idea how but that doesn't mean they can't. deals can be made with beings without even knowing what you sold to those beings that make you a warlock in the first place. Some of the Examples of Fae Pacts show this more than any other but it's just as possible with elder beings, and devils, and other such things.
The Argument that you can't Sell them, Or repair them, or improve them has no real basis because We can't even say entirely how the Pact system works that they were able to buy them through a Pact in the first place. The big Unanswered Question is "How were you even able to buy them?" combined with Questions like "How were you able to sell your soul?" They are intangible things that somehow have substance and are objectified and codified as transferable by some beings and not by others. And many of those being that view them that way are not Gods or even close to it. And they can make these kinds of deals with creatures that do not share this same sense about these intangible things. But everybody is adamant in their belief that these things can't be done and the character has no power to do it. But realistically if that were true then the character had no ability to make most of these deals to become Warlocks to begin with, Yet they Have. They are Warlocks. The transactions have been made somehow.
Also in 5th Edition. Most Paladins are not Paladins because of Gods. That was falling apart even in 3.x/PF. The idea of them having to serve Gods was crumbling in Regards from Paladins even before the alignment restriction was being broken down. It was Technically even Possible but an outside Possibility even in Second Edition 30 years ago. In 5th Edition their powers come primarily from upholding and Serving Ideals and following Codified sets of moral rules. This is even stated in the PHB.
Many Patrons. They aren't even close to godlike beings. They may be powerful. But that doesn't mean they are godlike. There are many powerful things in D&D that aren't gods. Or even Close to Gods. And there are some things that Claim to Be Gods that aren't either. Just like there are some things that are actually Gods that do not refer to themselves or acknowledge themselves as being such unless they have to.
That's what I though but didn't want to divert the conversation, but Paladin's get their power from their vow/oath, not necessarily a god. I think Cleric's are technically the only class that gets their abilities definitely from a god
Think of all the role playing opportunities if you take the fighters arms.
Technically, Mearls does pretty much say this in the video linked.
Starting around the 2:20 mark, Mearls lays this out:
Which means: the pact is merely a rules affectation, with no real impact on the character or role-playing them.
Now, Mearls does qualify this somewhat by saying the "prepayment model" (my phrase) can be made to be ongoing or something that is yet to come if the player wants. So there's an out. But he's clear that the class was written with the default assumption that the warlock has already paid whatever agreed-upon price for their powers, and are now free to act as they wish for the game, with no constraints, thoughts, or worries about the terms of the pact.
it does not mean there is no impact on the character or role play to them. That's again your interpretation because you've decided to hate on it and you bias is to read everything as negatively as possible about it to support that bias.
He says the powers cannot be taken away. He does not in any way say that does not affect your RP or that there won't be other consequences for being at odds with your Patron like you claim. No matter how many times you try to claim it. He's even one to bring up other ways that character and Patron can be in conflict without loss of powers.
You realize that I'm not angry or "hating" on anything? This is meant to be a friendly discussion on how the class works, how it was intended to work, etc.
My post does say Mearls qualified his remarks! And of course, ultimately, how these things work in the game is up to the DM and players, regardless of what the rulebooks say.
And of course you can RP and bring into different consequences of a warlock defying their patron. But all of that is discretionary. The way the class is written, and per what Mearls says in that video (and what Jeremy Crawford confirmed via tweet) is that the RAW and RAI both clearly assume the price of the pact has been paid before any gaming begins, and that the warlock never has to worry about the patron again unless the DM and player choose to introduce those factors.
So it's perfectly accurate to say the mechanics of the game treat the pact as something that's happened in the past. If it never comes up again and/or if the player decides to forget about the patron, by the rules, they can reasonably expect zero consequences or results. Any such consequences are, essentially, house rules or add-ons by the local group.
As I've made clear, I'm not a huge fan of that. To me, it does feel like a "gumball machine" for extraordinary powers. But as I've also made clear, I love the class (my favorite 5E PC is a warlock). I'm not saying the class is broken or awful or worthless. I'm critiquing a specific aspect of the class.
I know that's in the rules, but don't you think it's too easy, essentially a handwave, as well as a bit ridiculous?
Swearing an oath to rules written on paper by mortals somehow allows those rules to give you powers.
IMO, D&D class requirements have really become too easy.
Disagreeing doesn't equal hate...
Only if you let it be. And it sounds like your inclined to let it be instead of getting creative in other ways with dealing with the issue.
In one of my more enjoyable games we've had things like Demon's or Fey just outright ambush the party because of Warlocks ignoring their patrons or even actively working against them. That have then gone on to turn into whole side stories or increased dynamics in our same story.
And your Complaining because rules and Oaths give powers. In a World of Magic. Where studying a dusty old tome with enough diligence can lead to wielding fireballs and blasts of ice as weapons. Where Music can be used to shape powerful illusions and charm people. Where an Entire class is built around getting powers because of their belief in and connection with Nature. But you have issues with power being drawn from Oath's sworn and Moral Codes followed because that's just somehow so bizarre.
I didn't say it was bizarre...
There is a difference between a tome written by a magic being or a powerful wizard, than a bunch of rules written by a politician or a lawyer.
And yet. No class actually works off of the rules written by a Politician or Lawyer. Not sure where your getting that from but that's not how Paladin Oath's work. Warlock Pacts are closer to that than Paladins if you want to get that way since Devil's are known for working through magically binding contracts.
Why do you want to add extra burdens on these classes. Even stealing a wizards spellbooks is less profound than just cancelling all the warlocks magic. And I'd say most DMs don't feel the need to steal spellbooks. Its not like paladins and warlocks are some top tier class looking down on wizards that need balancing through this. You don't need a mechanic to stomp your warlock into the ground for "roleplaying" anymore than you need to steal the wizards spell books including the backups every 5 levels. You can roleplay with the pact without the hammer of stealing the class.
This is a really great solution.
I had no idea that was possible but I’d say if they broke the pact they would be cursed or afflicted by some sort of (divine) punishment from the patron they supported.
It may not be impossible to make a pact with a different patron as instead, after breaking it with the original one.