I would ask the player what they want. Do they just like the mechanics of the warlock class? Then just let them MC into it. Most other classes don’t have ongoing narrative requirements. If someone wants to MC into monk, do you make them meditate at a remote monastery for a year?
If they are interested in a patron relationship, then discuss what kind of patron they want and set up an encounter where the patron makes themself known and offers the pact.
In my game, if a char starts as some class, no problem. That is covered in their original backstory. But if they later want to MC into another class, at least one with a powerful entity associated with it (Clerics and many Paladin's), the player better have a damn good reason and it will take some work to get the opportunity to gain the exposure to MC. And Warlocks are even more difficult.
If there is another char in the group that can show them the path of enlightenment (clerics and paladin's), that makes sense. Same if there is a Warlock in the group and this char wants to cut a deal with the same patron. Otherwise, it utterly breaks immersion, unless the char in question has the opportunity to interact with an NPC or organization that represents that new class and its entity.
Let's see...who again has the power to bring in an NPC or organization for the character to interact with? Oh yeah! You! The DM! ;)
I think you misunderstand. Yes, the DM must provide the required circumstances for a char to MC into any class, once a game is well underway, if one cares about immersion. But see my original post. It is easy enough for a player to say when a group hits some town to say "Guys, see you in a bit, heading to Temple of X", or "Wizard School of Y". One does not find Warlock schools in town, or anywhere else. It requires far more immersion and effort by both the DM and player.
I don't really understand your objection.
"I head to temple X", "I visit wizard school Y"
"I go to an arcane library, read an odd tome and start having weird dreams" GOO warlock
"I found a funny lamp in an antique store" Genie warlock
"I wandered into an evil temple and some dude I met there let me leave if I agreed to do them some favors" Fiend warlock
"I was walking through the woods and this woman just stepped out of a tree!" Fey warlock
These are ALL just as much narrative fictions as "I walk into temple X" ... "I visit wizard school Y". Having a warlock patron is no more narratively difficult than any other multiclass. The player just describes how the events happened consistent with any overall world building constraints the DM wants to impose ("oh my world doesn't have genies" for example). There is no more narrative effort required to multiclass into a warlock than anything else. Just because finding such a patron might not happen to everyone in the world doesn't mean that it can't easily happen for this PC. If the DM makes a player jump through hoops to multiclass into one particular class even though the DM allows multiclassing in general and makes it easy for other classes then it is just the DM being difficult because absolutely every multiclass possibility is extremely easy to justify narratively (unless that type of character simply does not exist in the game world in which case the DM should make it clear to start with).
Being a PC is unique and special. Commoners have 4 hit points, stats of 10, and don't increase in levels. They might have trouble finding a warlock patron or having a warlock patron find them - they also likley wouldn't even be allowed to enter a wizard school - but PCs are NOT commoners. They are the exceptions so why a DM feels it necessary to make it narratively difficult to multiclass into a warlock but narratively easy to multiclass into a wizard - I don't understand. The PC is exceptional - any patron should be glad to have them - why would a DM make it easy for a character to study magic but difficult to pick up a patron?
I don't particularly see how gaining a Patron is particularly more tricky than a cleric their god, nor the druid their spirits. Heck.... they're often the same thing. Fiend patron? Pray to Asmodeus. Fey pact? The fey are amongst the nature spirits the druids rely on for magic, and they're often CG Celestial spirits that answer to the CG alignment gods as well. GOO and Fathomless? Trickier, but there's a definite link to certain Mad Gods and their followers you can exploit. Celestial pact? How many people outright pray to celestial gods and their angels again? Just need an answer. Hexblade? The Raven Queen was considered a god in 4e, and might still in 5e.
Genie pact is the only one I don't really know any easy answer to, but that's mostly because I'm not really sure on how Elementals do their thing.
I think there's a presumption herein that Warlocks perpetually "serve" their patron akin to Clerics. I don't think that's correct. A cleric's relationship with a deity is one of faith and service to that faith, akin to the Palladin oaths which are made to ideals.
Warlocks are much more cynical and transactional in orientation. A pact isn't necessarily a "life in service." It's an arrangement made where the mortal receives boon in exchange for service, soul, favor, something. It's also entirely possible that the warlock came to its boons without any knowledge from their patron. The warlock lifted some supernatural veil, took what they took, and yes their life has forever changed and likely will have consequences down the line but the warlocks way isn't necessarily about advancing the patron.
Think about what clerics do in RL: faith and worship and what those words mean. Now think about the real world use of the word patron. These days most often used in the arts.
Other factor not really addressed in the game, but goes to the old Warlock template found in John Constantine. Warlocks can be wheeler dealers. Maybe you make a pact with the fiend. What goes on in Hell and the Abyss is much bigger than you so who or what specifically your fiend patron is could change pending the politics within the lower plane as well as your own politics with that plane. Makes for game hooks if you want to.
As for immersion in a multi class dip, it's the same for every character, not just warlocks. I'm fine with multiclassing if it makes sense to the game (i.e. one can't simply take a level in Barbarian if there's been no stimuli in the game to bring out barbarian traits). That said, I think a lot of warlock entry can be gained from downtime spent in libraries, sitting in dark corners of taverns with literally shady figures, a night at a Opera with a wealthy benefactor who asks if you've ever heard the Tragedy of Darth Plagueus. What I'm saying is that sure the multi classing has to be earned, but only earned insofar that the player and maybe table have made some effort to have it make sense. Some tables its handwavium and zap "power set", others are more story invested.
I think there's a presumption herein that Warlocks perpetually "serve" their patron akin to Clerics.
It depends on the initial pact, but very many of them do, in fact, have that very service requirement. At the very least, the Patron is the one that provides the spells they learn, the Investments, and the Sword/Book/Chain/Relic Pact. The difference between a warlock and a cleric or druid is that the latter two can be cut off from their powers if they displease their god/spirits, while a warlock keeps their old stuff and can't progress in their class and get new stuff without a patron.
The default assumption behind the class is very much that the Patron demands favors on the part of the warlock in exchange for granting powers, much like a cleric's god often assigns holy quests to their clergy. In this case, the Patron serves as a kind of teacher who demands payment in the form of service. And why wouldn't they? They're granting magical powers for a reason, after all.
Of course, just as you have a warlock that has a non-standard pact, you can also have a cleric who gets their power from the concept of Lawful Good (re: Planescape) and serves no god, or a druid that isn't tied to nature spirits/gods.
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.
To quote the PHB. Emphasis mine.
So, the idea that you can just stumble onto magic by lifting some "supernatural veil" and wander off without the Patron's knowledge is kind of weird. Patrons are meant to be teachers that interact frequently with their warlock students. Its an on going thing for learning new magics and getting new transformations as time goes on.
And, yeah, I know that the blurb also says Patrons aren't gods, but then at least four of the subclasses directly list gods as potential Patrons, so that's a bit of a contradiction. (specifically, the Fiend, GOO, Celestial and Hexblade). So, I imagine that praying would very much work for those warlocks. Their relationship with their Patron-god would be fundamentally different than a cleric or druid, but it'd work for purposes of gaining the class during play.
I think there's a presumption herein that Warlocks perpetually "serve" their patron akin to Clerics.
It depends on the initial pact, but very many of them do, in fact, have that very service requirement. At the very least, the Patron is the one that provides the spells they learn, the Investments, and the Sword/Book/Chain/Relic Pact. The difference between a warlock and a cleric or druid is that the latter two can be cut off from their powers if they displease their god/spirits, while a warlock keeps their old stuff and can't progress in their class and get new stuff without a patron.
The default assumption behind the class is very much that the Patron demands favors on the part of the warlock in exchange for granting powers, much like a cleric's god often assigns holy quests to their clergy. In this case, the Patron serves as a kind of teacher who demands payment in the form of service. And why wouldn't they? They're granting magical powers for a reason, after all.
Of course, just as you have a warlock that has a non-standard pact, you can also have a cleric who gets their power from the concept of Lawful Good (re: Planescape) and serves no god, or a druid that isn't tied to nature spirits/gods.
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.
To quote the PHB. Emphasis mine.
So, the idea that you can just stumble onto magic by lifting some "supernatural veil" and wander off without the Patron's knowledge is kind of weird. Patrons are meant to be teachers that interact frequently with their warlock students. Its an on going thing for learning new magics and getting new transformations as time goes on.
And, yeah, I know that the blurb also says Patrons aren't gods, but then at least four of the subclasses directly list gods as potential Patrons, so that's a bit of a contradiction. (specifically, the Fiend, GOO, Celestial and Hexblade). So, I imagine that praying would very much work for those warlocks. Their relationship with their Patron-god would be fundamentally different than a cleric or druid, but it'd work for purposes of gaining the class during play.
I think you're unintentionally further validating rather than challenging my point. My concern was the assumption that the pact presumes perpetual service to the patron, and the quote you provided as I guess a counter point explicitly reads "occasional services" (emphasis yours). I don't know if there's much ground we can advance on this matter if you can't recognize the difference between perpetual and occasional. But to elaborate or reiterate, Clerics are designed as (and are archetypal reflections of) adventurers who venture in the name of what they serve (deity, alignment, wherever Clerics come from). Serving that power is their life. While Warlocks can become cult leaders and flavor clerically, the explanation in the PHB says that's a minority performance as more often you have the master and apprentice. The subsequent sentences still speak to the dynamic I'm asserting. Apprentices while introduced into an art/craft and receives mentorship and guidance from the master, the path of the Warlock seems more self-directed with occasional service.
Again, do a deeper think on what the word patron really means, as well as how master and apprentice dynamic works. Let's not forget in that dynamic of master and apprentice it is an assumed that the apprentice would themself become a master if not supersede their own master. It's a loaded concept, rife for game hooks of a very different sort than the worshipful devotion associated with clerics. (That is not to say clerics can't have their own backbone in relationship with the powers they serve. I'm thinking of the Jesuits in The Exorcist and such).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
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.
To quote the PHB. Emphasis mine.
So, the idea that you can just stumble onto magic by lifting some "supernatural veil" and wander off without the Patron's knowledge is kind of weird. Patrons are meant to be teachers that interact frequently with their warlock students. Its an on going thing for learning new magics and getting new transformations as time goes on.
And, yeah, I know that the blurb also says Patrons aren't gods, but then at least four of the subclasses directly list gods as potential Patrons, so that's a bit of a contradiction. (specifically, the Fiend, GOO, Celestial and Hexblade). So, I imagine that praying would very much work for those warlocks. Their relationship with their Patron-god would be fundamentally different than a cleric or druid, but it'd work for purposes of gaining the class during play.
I think the idea of that section in the warlock class is that there’s a spectrum of warlocks. Those two examples aren’t necessarily the extremes of that spectrum. One one extreme is the warlock doing a one-time favor for the patron and receiving power which the warlock can expand independently. On the other extreme (one you’d never want for a PC) is the patron controlling the warlock like a puppet.
Generally I have no problems with facilitating players' wishes unless they spring this on me suddenly without any prior indication.
If at the end of a session I say "okay guys, you level up, congratulations" and then before the next session one guy texts me whether he can MC to a warlock because he read somewhere that it's a good combo, I won't allow him to start the session just like that. I will probably give him a choice to either delay the current level up for at least one or two sessions so that we can work it into the narrative or tell him that NOW that I know he wants to MC, we can work something out for next level up.
MC is an optional rule anyway so there should be no problems with imposing some restrictions to preserve verisimilitude.
Thanks for the comments. Bottom line, I remain convinced that Warlocks, at least when it comes to MC'ing, are a different breed, based on the overall nebulousness of the class' origins. I think that if and when any player comes to me about MC'ing into a Warlock, it will not be immediate, and won't be a simple handwave. The player, and me, will have to work for it.
Thanks for the comments. Bottom line, I remain convinced that Warlocks, at least when it comes to MC'ing, are a different breed, based on the overall nebulousness of the class' origins. I think that if and when any player comes to me about MC'ing into a Warlock, it will not be immediate, and won't be a simple handwave. The player, and me, will have to work for it.
The same amount of work as a PC mc-ing into a cleric? Gaining a god's attention and showing enough devotion to be granted powers by that god?
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.
To quote the PHB. Emphasis mine.
So, the idea that you can just stumble onto magic by lifting some "supernatural veil" and wander off without the Patron's knowledge is kind of weird. Patrons are meant to be teachers that interact frequently with their warlock students. Its an on going thing for learning new magics and getting new transformations as time goes on.
And, yeah, I know that the blurb also says Patrons aren't gods, but then at least four of the subclasses directly list gods as potential Patrons, so that's a bit of a contradiction. (specifically, the Fiend, GOO, Celestial and Hexblade). So, I imagine that praying would very much work for those warlocks. Their relationship with their Patron-god would be fundamentally different than a cleric or druid, but it'd work for purposes of gaining the class during play.
You should probably quote all of the warlock patron text in this case since the extent of involvement of patrons is entirely up to the DM.
"Your patron's demands might drive you into adventures, or they might consist entirely of small favors you can do between adventures."
FEY: "This being's motivations are often inscrutable, and sometimes whimsical, and might involve a striving for greater magical power or the settling of age-old grudges."
FIEND: "You have made a pact with a fiend from the lower planes of existence, a being whose aims are evil, even if you strive against those aims. Such beings desire the corruption or destruction of all things, ultimately including you."
GOO: "The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it."
CELESTIAL: "Your patron is a powerful being of the Upper Planes. Being connected to such power can cause changes in your behavior and beliefs. You might find yourself driven to annihilate the undead, to defeat fiends, and to protect the innocent." - the Celestial pact is worded more in terms of changes to the character attitude rather than services performed as part of a quid pro quo pact though it could be run that way if the player/DM agree.
HEXBLADE: "You have made your pact with a mysterious entity from the Shadowfell" "The shadowy force behind these weapons can offer power to warlocks who form pacts with it." "Because the Raven Queen is known to have forged the first of these weapons, many sages speculate that she and the force are one and that the weapons, along with hexblade warlocks, are tools she uses to manipulate events on the Material Plane to her inscrutable ends." ... Hexblade patrons could be the Raven Queen but don't have to be - it is some mysterious entity from the Shadowfell. Their goals are again inscrutable.
So just looking at these " the idea that you can just stumble onto magic by lifting some "supernatural veil" and wander off without the Patron's knowledge is kind of weird. Patrons are meant to be teachers that interact frequently with their warlock students. Its an on going thing for learning new magics and getting new transformations as time goes on." is a narrow interpretation that is unsupported by the text.
In particular, the GOO patron explicitly states that they may be completely unaware of the warlock or completely indifferent. The only patron description above that fits the bound pact concept entirely is the fiend warlock ... all the rest can have as little or as much involvement from the patron as the player and DM decide is appropriate.
All of the patrons are worded this way in order to give the player control over their character. They are not puppets to their patrons whims. Some patrons might be closely involved with the character's development while others don't care. Some patrons might feel that sharing knowledge and power more broadly will only lead to greater conflict and chaos as more powerful forces collide in the world - that could be their only goal and they are happy to feed the warlock more and more knowledge in the hope that they will self destruct or at least take others down with them. There are an infinite number of motivations for why a patron might be involved with a warlock and "Patrons are meant to be teachers that interact frequently with their warlock students." is just one very narrow interpretation.
In general, I ask my players in session zero how they think their character might progress in their class (or if they will multi-class). I don't necessarily hold them to it, but it's good to get that info out early so you can prepare (if preparation is needed). I play a lot of warlock and warlock multiclass and I've run several campaigns as DM with warlocks, and here are some of the ways I've worked out with my DMs (or players)
The player found an ancient tome that upon reading it opened their mind to the aberrant thoughts of a Great Old One. They then kept the tome as a way to gain more insight (grow levels) and it eventually became their book of ancient secrets
The player caught a faerie dragon who negotiated the transfer of powers from its fey master to the character as a condition of its release (we worked it as they character, a wild magic sorcerer up to that point, being watched over time by the archfey who was amused by their abilities, so the event was "staged" by the archfey to allow them to intervene in the character's life. The archfey granted the player a pact boon of a psuedodragon with special abilities (basically those of the other 4 "special" familiars)
The player, at a low point, was tempted in a dream by asmodeus and accepted the pact in dreamstate, which involved a contract requiring 100 souls from the character (the character in this case was already neutral, this forced them into a lawful evil alignment
Thanks for the comments. Bottom line, I remain convinced that Warlocks, at least when it comes to MC'ing, are a different breed, based on the overall nebulousness of the class' origins. I think that if and when any player comes to me about MC'ing into a Warlock, it will not be immediate, and won't be a simple handwave. The player, and me, will have to work for it.
Oh absolutely. Once the game is afoot PCs need to take options that make sense in the game. A Warlock needs to unlock their secrets, make their pacts etc in a way that makes sense within the story being told. By the same logic I flat out say "no" to a PC who wants to "dip" a few levels of Barbarian ... in a game that's been entirely set in a cosmopolitan city. That said, if a Warlock is viable ... I wouldn't make the player jump through any further hoops than anyone else multi classing in your group ... and ideally make those choices part of the story.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Thanks for the comments. Bottom line, I remain convinced that Warlocks, at least when it comes to MC'ing, are a different breed, based on the overall nebulousness of the class' origins. I think that if and when any player comes to me about MC'ing into a Warlock, it will not be immediate, and won't be a simple handwave. The player, and me, will have to work for it.
Oh absolutely. Once the game is afoot PCs need to take options that make sense in the game. A Warlock needs to unlock their secrets, make their pacts etc in a way that makes sense within the story being told. By the same logic I flat out say "no" to a PC who wants to "dip" a few levels of Barbarian ... in a game that's been entirely set in a cosmopolitan city. That said, if a Warlock is viable ... I wouldn't make the player jump through any further hoops than anyone else multi classing in your group ... and ideally make those choices part of the story.
Yeah, MCing into Barbarian seems way harder to explain than MCing into warlock to me. Like, how do you learn to rage? I guess I would imagine it like an Avatar kind of situation where you would have to go live among a primitive society and learn their ways as a child would. You'd have to go through their coming-of-age trials. The hazing would piss you off to the point of rage, I guess. Barbarian always seemed more like a race or background than a class to me.
Thanks for the comments. Bottom line, I remain convinced that Warlocks, at least when it comes to MC'ing, are a different breed, based on the overall nebulousness of the class' origins. I think that if and when any player comes to me about MC'ing into a Warlock, it will not be immediate, and won't be a simple handwave. The player, and me, will have to work for it.
Oh absolutely. Once the game is afoot PCs need to take options that make sense in the game. A Warlock needs to unlock their secrets, make their pacts etc in a way that makes sense within the story being told. By the same logic I flat out say "no" to a PC who wants to "dip" a few levels of Barbarian ... in a game that's been entirely set in a cosmopolitan city. That said, if a Warlock is viable ... I wouldn't make the player jump through any further hoops than anyone else multi classing in your group ... and ideally make those choices part of the story.
Yeah, MCing into Barbarian seems way harder to explain than MCing into warlock to me. Like, how do you learn to rage? I guess I would imagine it like an Avatar kind of situation where you would have to go live among a primitive society and learn their ways as a child would. You'd have to go through their coming-of-age trials. The hazing would piss you off to the point of rage, I guess. Barbarian always seemed more like a race or background than a class to me.
I treat the Barbarian class as a class that rises from a Barbarian culture _but_ not all members of that society are necessarily Barbarians. But yes, if PC wanted to MC into Barbarian we're talking substantial time investment in game spent among a Barbarian people and then gaining acceptance and being granted access to the rites of passage that reveal the Barbarian pathways to the outsider. This sort of narrative is actually almost cliche in some Western tropes. You mention Avatar. Dances with Wolves comes most readily to mind and Dune too. Both those stories have the problematic outsider as savior of the Other, even though it's the other who really saved them in the first place.
In some ways I see the Barbarian paths as akin to the Ki based martial arts of the Monk (especially with the Wild Magic Barbarian path entering the classes' superhuman portfolio). I have this Hobgolbin Wizard I made for another player but kept a copy of for my own use. He adventures to find magical tactical advantages for his people (so sort of an Indiana Jones who actually recovers the Ark so the military can warehouse it for possible use some day). I could see this character going Barbarian or Monk to learn their secrets to bring back to his people (and looks like he can do this whenever the story might allow it ability score wise). Monks, not sure how I'd pull it off, but I could see the PCs opting to stay with the Barbarians instead of the Ten Towns people in Icewind Dale as one possibility.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Honestly, I think you are thinking it through too much.
1) It is very easy to have back story hooks that naturally lead to having a warlock patron of one sort or another. I have several characters who have done that.
- human lore bard character who read some forbidden books stored in his master's library. This eventually lead to a hexblade multiclass. (human level 14 lore bard/2 hexblade warlock)
- human rogue sailor who liked to explore - heard of a beautiful forest to explore one day when his ship was in port - met a fey, fell in love, stayed with her for over a century until she needed him to travel into the world to end a mysterious death curse - (human level 12 arcane trickster rogue / 5 fey warlock)
- unusual yuan-ti pureblood fighter - age 12 or so - worked as a hunter to feed the colony - touched by a GOO that had been trapped in the colony to be sacrificed to Dendar - freed the GOO from the runes holding part of it on this plane - avoided the search for the perpetrator who had freed the GOO. GOO opened their mind to other ways of living and to their own power within - (yuan-ti pureblood - 1 fighter/2 GOO warlock/8 draconic sorcerer).
2) However, if the idea wasn't in the character concept then all the player needs to do is talk to the DM and see what back story elements can be inserted into the sroryline. If the character decides that they wish to be a warlock then it becomes a part of the campaign for the character to find a patron. The DM can make this as easy or as hard as they like but personally, I don't see much point in trying to make it difficult for a player to develop a character they want to play.
Essentially, any multiclass can be justified with fluff and back story combined with the cooperation of the DM. If the DM wants some sort of in character explanation it is ridiculously easy to come up with some sort of fluff for it. If the DM says no because that type of character or patron doesn't exist in their game world fine - if the DM says no because they don't allow multiclassing then fine - if the DM says no because the resulting character just wouldn't fit in with the other characters in the campaign then fine - however, if the DM says no just because they arbitrarily decide it doesn't make sense because they can't see the character that the player has in mind - then chat to the DM about it and if they still insist on saying no then find a new DM.
(e.g. There are ways to make a devotion paladin with a fiend warlock patron work from a role play and back story perspective but some DMs will just say no).
Dendar is a GOO, so you could just make the pureblood have a pact with him.
Thanks for the comments. Bottom line, I remain convinced that Warlocks, at least when it comes to MC'ing, are a different breed, based on the overall nebulousness of the class' origins. I think that if and when any player comes to me about MC'ing into a Warlock, it will not be immediate, and won't be a simple handwave. The player, and me, will have to work for it.
Oh absolutely. Once the game is afoot PCs need to take options that make sense in the game. A Warlock needs to unlock their secrets, make their pacts etc in a way that makes sense within the story being told. By the same logic I flat out say "no" to a PC who wants to "dip" a few levels of Barbarian ... in a game that's been entirely set in a cosmopolitan city. That said, if a Warlock is viable ... I wouldn't make the player jump through any further hoops than anyone else multi classing in your group ... and ideally make those choices part of the story.
Yeah, MCing into Barbarian seems way harder to explain than MCing into warlock to me. Like, how do you learn to rage? I guess I would imagine it like an Avatar kind of situation where you would have to go live among a primitive society and learn their ways as a child would. You'd have to go through their coming-of-age trials. The hazing would piss you off to the point of rage, I guess. Barbarian always seemed more like a race or background than a class to me.
I treat the Barbarian class as a class that rises from a Barbarian culture _but_ not all members of that society are necessarily Barbarians. But yes, if PC wanted to MC into Barbarian we're talking substantial time investment in game spent among a Barbarian people and then gaining acceptance and being granted access to the rites of passage that reveal the Barbarian pathways to the outsider. This sort of narrative is actually almost cliche in some Western tropes. You mention Avatar. Dances with Wolves comes most readily to mind and Dune too. Both those stories have the problematic outsider as savior of the Other, even though it's the other who really saved them in the first place.
In some ways I see the Barbarian paths as akin to the Ki based martial arts of the Monk (especially with the Wild Magic Barbarian path entering the classes' superhuman portfolio). I have this Hobgolbin Wizard I made for another player but kept a copy of for my own use. He adventures to find magical tactical advantages for his people (so sort of an Indiana Jones who actually recovers the Ark so the military can warehouse it for possible use some day). I could see this character going Barbarian or Monk to learn their secrets to bring back to his people (and looks like he can do this whenever the story might allow it ability score wise). Monks, not sure how I'd pull it off, but I could see the PCs opting to stay with the Barbarians instead of the Ten Towns people in Icewind Dale as one possibility.
I agree. I had not considered how awkward it is for a char to MC into Barbarian, for the very reasons you describe. There is no such thing as "Barbarian School".
So the ultimate plausibility hat track, stats allowing, would be a wizard or druid (because of when they MC) MCing into Barbarian or Warlock and then picking up the other. I want that story, and I want to make it make sense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Druid wouldn't be that difficult to justify. MC'ing to Barbarian would tie into their primal roots and wanting to be more like the a specific animal, going to the Path of the Totem Warrior. From there at some point a dip into Warlock, as their bestial nature attracted a Archfey patron that is guiding on a path towards being the sworn protector of a specific animal. So, I could see a Druid with an affinity for let's say, wolves. Their Animal Shape and nature is often that if a wolf, protecting their territory. They then take up the Path of the Totem Warrior, becoming more in tune with wolves to the point where they develop a pack mentality. The Archfey patron seeks to provide them with the gifts of the ancient hunters, almost channeling their spirit like a Native American shaman.
Not the most efficient build, but it could be plausible.
Wizard to Barb, I'm envisioning a Green Arrow origin story, where the wizard is lost in the wilderness and has to exercise these primal skills to survive.
If our hypothetical character stays with barb long enough to get a primal path, Zealot and Warlock seem easy to stitch together.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't really understand your objection.
"I head to temple X", "I visit wizard school Y"
"I go to an arcane library, read an odd tome and start having weird dreams" GOO warlock
"I found a funny lamp in an antique store" Genie warlock
"I wandered into an evil temple and some dude I met there let me leave if I agreed to do them some favors" Fiend warlock
"I was walking through the woods and this woman just stepped out of a tree!" Fey warlock
These are ALL just as much narrative fictions as "I walk into temple X" ... "I visit wizard school Y". Having a warlock patron is no more narratively difficult than any other multiclass. The player just describes how the events happened consistent with any overall world building constraints the DM wants to impose ("oh my world doesn't have genies" for example). There is no more narrative effort required to multiclass into a warlock than anything else. Just because finding such a patron might not happen to everyone in the world doesn't mean that it can't easily happen for this PC. If the DM makes a player jump through hoops to multiclass into one particular class even though the DM allows multiclassing in general and makes it easy for other classes then it is just the DM being difficult because absolutely every multiclass possibility is extremely easy to justify narratively (unless that type of character simply does not exist in the game world in which case the DM should make it clear to start with).
Being a PC is unique and special. Commoners have 4 hit points, stats of 10, and don't increase in levels. They might have trouble finding a warlock patron or having a warlock patron find them - they also likley wouldn't even be allowed to enter a wizard school - but PCs are NOT commoners. They are the exceptions so why a DM feels it necessary to make it narratively difficult to multiclass into a warlock but narratively easy to multiclass into a wizard - I don't understand. The PC is exceptional - any patron should be glad to have them - why would a DM make it easy for a character to study magic but difficult to pick up a patron?
I don't particularly see how gaining a Patron is particularly more tricky than a cleric their god, nor the druid their spirits. Heck.... they're often the same thing. Fiend patron? Pray to Asmodeus. Fey pact? The fey are amongst the nature spirits the druids rely on for magic, and they're often CG Celestial spirits that answer to the CG alignment gods as well. GOO and Fathomless? Trickier, but there's a definite link to certain Mad Gods and their followers you can exploit. Celestial pact? How many people outright pray to celestial gods and their angels again? Just need an answer. Hexblade? The Raven Queen was considered a god in 4e, and might still in 5e.
Genie pact is the only one I don't really know any easy answer to, but that's mostly because I'm not really sure on how Elementals do their thing.
I think there's a presumption herein that Warlocks perpetually "serve" their patron akin to Clerics. I don't think that's correct. A cleric's relationship with a deity is one of faith and service to that faith, akin to the Palladin oaths which are made to ideals.
Warlocks are much more cynical and transactional in orientation. A pact isn't necessarily a "life in service." It's an arrangement made where the mortal receives boon in exchange for service, soul, favor, something. It's also entirely possible that the warlock came to its boons without any knowledge from their patron. The warlock lifted some supernatural veil, took what they took, and yes their life has forever changed and likely will have consequences down the line but the warlocks way isn't necessarily about advancing the patron.
Think about what clerics do in RL: faith and worship and what those words mean. Now think about the real world use of the word patron. These days most often used in the arts.
Other factor not really addressed in the game, but goes to the old Warlock template found in John Constantine. Warlocks can be wheeler dealers. Maybe you make a pact with the fiend. What goes on in Hell and the Abyss is much bigger than you so who or what specifically your fiend patron is could change pending the politics within the lower plane as well as your own politics with that plane. Makes for game hooks if you want to.
As for immersion in a multi class dip, it's the same for every character, not just warlocks. I'm fine with multiclassing if it makes sense to the game (i.e. one can't simply take a level in Barbarian if there's been no stimuli in the game to bring out barbarian traits). That said, I think a lot of warlock entry can be gained from downtime spent in libraries, sitting in dark corners of taverns with literally shady figures, a night at a Opera with a wealthy benefactor who asks if you've ever heard the Tragedy of Darth Plagueus. What I'm saying is that sure the multi classing has to be earned, but only earned insofar that the player and maybe table have made some effort to have it make sense. Some tables its handwavium and zap "power set", others are more story invested.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It depends on the initial pact, but very many of them do, in fact, have that very service requirement. At the very least, the Patron is the one that provides the spells they learn, the Investments, and the Sword/Book/Chain/Relic Pact. The difference between a warlock and a cleric or druid is that the latter two can be cut off from their powers if they displease their god/spirits, while a warlock keeps their old stuff and can't progress in their class and get new stuff without a patron.
The default assumption behind the class is very much that the Patron demands favors on the part of the warlock in exchange for granting powers, much like a cleric's god often assigns holy quests to their clergy. In this case, the Patron serves as a kind of teacher who demands payment in the form of service. And why wouldn't they? They're granting magical powers for a reason, after all.
Of course, just as you have a warlock that has a non-standard pact, you can also have a cleric who gets their power from the concept of Lawful Good (re: Planescape) and serves no god, or a druid that isn't tied to nature spirits/gods.
To quote the PHB. Emphasis mine.
So, the idea that you can just stumble onto magic by lifting some "supernatural veil" and wander off without the Patron's knowledge is kind of weird. Patrons are meant to be teachers that interact frequently with their warlock students. Its an on going thing for learning new magics and getting new transformations as time goes on.
And, yeah, I know that the blurb also says Patrons aren't gods, but then at least four of the subclasses directly list gods as potential Patrons, so that's a bit of a contradiction. (specifically, the Fiend, GOO, Celestial and Hexblade). So, I imagine that praying would very much work for those warlocks. Their relationship with their Patron-god would be fundamentally different than a cleric or druid, but it'd work for purposes of gaining the class during play.
I think you're unintentionally further validating rather than challenging my point. My concern was the assumption that the pact presumes perpetual service to the patron, and the quote you provided as I guess a counter point explicitly reads "occasional services" (emphasis yours). I don't know if there's much ground we can advance on this matter if you can't recognize the difference between perpetual and occasional. But to elaborate or reiterate, Clerics are designed as (and are archetypal reflections of) adventurers who venture in the name of what they serve (deity, alignment, wherever Clerics come from). Serving that power is their life. While Warlocks can become cult leaders and flavor clerically, the explanation in the PHB says that's a minority performance as more often you have the master and apprentice. The subsequent sentences still speak to the dynamic I'm asserting. Apprentices while introduced into an art/craft and receives mentorship and guidance from the master, the path of the Warlock seems more self-directed with occasional service.
Again, do a deeper think on what the word patron really means, as well as how master and apprentice dynamic works. Let's not forget in that dynamic of master and apprentice it is an assumed that the apprentice would themself become a master if not supersede their own master. It's a loaded concept, rife for game hooks of a very different sort than the worshipful devotion associated with clerics. (That is not to say clerics can't have their own backbone in relationship with the powers they serve. I'm thinking of the Jesuits in The Exorcist and such).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I think the idea of that section in the warlock class is that there’s a spectrum of warlocks. Those two examples aren’t necessarily the extremes of that spectrum. One one extreme is the warlock doing a one-time favor for the patron and receiving power which the warlock can expand independently. On the other extreme (one you’d never want for a PC) is the patron controlling the warlock like a puppet.
Generally I have no problems with facilitating players' wishes unless they spring this on me suddenly without any prior indication.
If at the end of a session I say "okay guys, you level up, congratulations" and then before the next session one guy texts me whether he can MC to a warlock because he read somewhere that it's a good combo, I won't allow him to start the session just like that. I will probably give him a choice to either delay the current level up for at least one or two sessions so that we can work it into the narrative or tell him that NOW that I know he wants to MC, we can work something out for next level up.
MC is an optional rule anyway so there should be no problems with imposing some restrictions to preserve verisimilitude.
Thanks for the comments. Bottom line, I remain convinced that Warlocks, at least when it comes to MC'ing, are a different breed, based on the overall nebulousness of the class' origins. I think that if and when any player comes to me about MC'ing into a Warlock, it will not be immediate, and won't be a simple handwave. The player, and me, will have to work for it.
The same amount of work as a PC mc-ing into a cleric? Gaining a god's attention and showing enough devotion to be granted powers by that god?
You should probably quote all of the warlock patron text in this case since the extent of involvement of patrons is entirely up to the DM.
"Your patron's demands might drive you into adventures, or they might consist entirely of small favors you can do between adventures."
FEY: "This being's motivations are often inscrutable, and sometimes whimsical, and might involve a striving for greater magical power or the settling of age-old grudges."
FIEND: "You have made a pact with a fiend from the lower planes of existence, a being whose aims are evil, even if you strive against those aims. Such beings desire the corruption or destruction of all things, ultimately including you."
GOO: "The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it."
CELESTIAL: "Your patron is a powerful being of the Upper Planes. Being connected to such power can cause changes in your behavior and beliefs. You might find yourself driven to annihilate the undead, to defeat fiends, and to protect the innocent." - the Celestial pact is worded more in terms of changes to the character attitude rather than services performed as part of a quid pro quo pact though it could be run that way if the player/DM agree.
HEXBLADE: "You have made your pact with a mysterious entity from the Shadowfell" "The shadowy force behind these weapons can offer power to warlocks who form pacts with it." "Because the Raven Queen is known to have forged the first of these weapons, many sages speculate that she and the force are one and that the weapons, along with hexblade warlocks, are tools she uses to manipulate events on the Material Plane to her inscrutable ends." ... Hexblade patrons could be the Raven Queen but don't have to be - it is some mysterious entity from the Shadowfell. Their goals are again inscrutable.
So just looking at these " the idea that you can just stumble onto magic by lifting some "supernatural veil" and wander off without the Patron's knowledge is kind of weird. Patrons are meant to be teachers that interact frequently with their warlock students. Its an on going thing for learning new magics and getting new transformations as time goes on." is a narrow interpretation that is unsupported by the text.
In particular, the GOO patron explicitly states that they may be completely unaware of the warlock or completely indifferent. The only patron description above that fits the bound pact concept entirely is the fiend warlock ... all the rest can have as little or as much involvement from the patron as the player and DM decide is appropriate.
All of the patrons are worded this way in order to give the player control over their character. They are not puppets to their patrons whims. Some patrons might be closely involved with the character's development while others don't care. Some patrons might feel that sharing knowledge and power more broadly will only lead to greater conflict and chaos as more powerful forces collide in the world - that could be their only goal and they are happy to feed the warlock more and more knowledge in the hope that they will self destruct or at least take others down with them. There are an infinite number of motivations for why a patron might be involved with a warlock and "Patrons are meant to be teachers that interact frequently with their warlock students." is just one very narrow interpretation.
In general, I ask my players in session zero how they think their character might progress in their class (or if they will multi-class). I don't necessarily hold them to it, but it's good to get that info out early so you can prepare (if preparation is needed). I play a lot of warlock and warlock multiclass and I've run several campaigns as DM with warlocks, and here are some of the ways I've worked out with my DMs (or players)
Oh absolutely. Once the game is afoot PCs need to take options that make sense in the game. A Warlock needs to unlock their secrets, make their pacts etc in a way that makes sense within the story being told. By the same logic I flat out say "no" to a PC who wants to "dip" a few levels of Barbarian ... in a game that's been entirely set in a cosmopolitan city. That said, if a Warlock is viable ... I wouldn't make the player jump through any further hoops than anyone else multi classing in your group ... and ideally make those choices part of the story.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Yeah, MCing into Barbarian seems way harder to explain than MCing into warlock to me. Like, how do you learn to rage? I guess I would imagine it like an Avatar kind of situation where you would have to go live among a primitive society and learn their ways as a child would. You'd have to go through their coming-of-age trials. The hazing would piss you off to the point of rage, I guess. Barbarian always seemed more like a race or background than a class to me.
I treat the Barbarian class as a class that rises from a Barbarian culture _but_ not all members of that society are necessarily Barbarians. But yes, if PC wanted to MC into Barbarian we're talking substantial time investment in game spent among a Barbarian people and then gaining acceptance and being granted access to the rites of passage that reveal the Barbarian pathways to the outsider. This sort of narrative is actually almost cliche in some Western tropes. You mention Avatar. Dances with Wolves comes most readily to mind and Dune too. Both those stories have the problematic outsider as savior of the Other, even though it's the other who really saved them in the first place.
In some ways I see the Barbarian paths as akin to the Ki based martial arts of the Monk (especially with the Wild Magic Barbarian path entering the classes' superhuman portfolio). I have this Hobgolbin Wizard I made for another player but kept a copy of for my own use. He adventures to find magical tactical advantages for his people (so sort of an Indiana Jones who actually recovers the Ark so the military can warehouse it for possible use some day). I could see this character going Barbarian or Monk to learn their secrets to bring back to his people (and looks like he can do this whenever the story might allow it ability score wise). Monks, not sure how I'd pull it off, but I could see the PCs opting to stay with the Barbarians instead of the Ten Towns people in Icewind Dale as one possibility.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Dendar is a GOO, so you could just make the pureblood have a pact with him.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
I agree. I had not considered how awkward it is for a char to MC into Barbarian, for the very reasons you describe. There is no such thing as "Barbarian School".
So the ultimate plausibility hat track, stats allowing, would be a wizard or druid (because of when they MC) MCing into Barbarian or Warlock and then picking up the other. I want that story, and I want to make it make sense.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Druid wouldn't be that difficult to justify. MC'ing to Barbarian would tie into their primal roots and wanting to be more like the a specific animal, going to the Path of the Totem Warrior. From there at some point a dip into Warlock, as their bestial nature attracted a Archfey patron that is guiding on a path towards being the sworn protector of a specific animal. So, I could see a Druid with an affinity for let's say, wolves. Their Animal Shape and nature is often that if a wolf, protecting their territory. They then take up the Path of the Totem Warrior, becoming more in tune with wolves to the point where they develop a pack mentality. The Archfey patron seeks to provide them with the gifts of the ancient hunters, almost channeling their spirit like a Native American shaman.
Not the most efficient build, but it could be plausible.
Wizard to Barb, I'm envisioning a Green Arrow origin story, where the wizard is lost in the wilderness and has to exercise these primal skills to survive.
If our hypothetical character stays with barb long enough to get a primal path, Zealot and Warlock seem easy to stitch together.