Pacts are not deals. They can be in some cases, but they also don't have to be.
Umm, yes they are. That is literally the definition of a pact. From the Oxford dictionary:
pact: noun; a formal agreement between individuals or parties
So when you pact with a Great Old One who doesn't know you exist, that's not a pact in your eyes, despite the game telling you it is one?
A GOO might not have the awareness to be actively cognizant of the exchange, but there is still some form of exchange. If you just had one encounter and suddenly gained magic, you’d be a sorcerer. The line from the PHB that a Warlock is defined by their pact has been cited repeatedly. If the lines for Clerics and Druids you previously cited carry as much weight as you asserted, then surely the Warlock line must carry just as much weight.
So when you pact with a Great Old One who doesn't know you exist, that's not a pact in your eyes, despite the game telling you it is one?
Apparently great old ones are able to be simultaneously aware and unaware of a creature; it's not possible to have a pact without two parties capable of agreement.
A GOO might not have the awareness to be actively cognizant of the exchange, but there is still some form of exchange
Nope, put back those goalposts. The dictionary definition you attempted to wave around was a formal agreement, not "some form of exchange." So by your definition, an unaware pact doesn't qualify, therefore your definition is incorrect for D&D.
So when you pact with a Great Old One who doesn't know you exist, that's not a pact in your eyes, despite the game telling you it is one?
Apparently great old ones are able to be simultaneously aware and unaware of a creature; it's not possible to have a pact without two parties capable of agreement.
I mean, that’s kinda the point of the whole “inscrutable alien consciousness” bit. Or, to put it another way, what’s a deliberate act for a humanoid could be an autonomic process to some eldritch horror from beyond the stars. Do you have to think about it to digest food, release neurotransmitters, or fight off an infection?
And exactly how many Druid or Cleric features reference the concept of Wisdom? You keep moving the goalposts and cherry picking a handful of quotes while ignoring the very explicitly spelled out larger picture; a Warlock can be very smart, that's fine. But Warlocks did not learn magic by being very smart, they learned it by building a relationship with another being. That's the archetype, that's what 4 of their five class features explicitly state, it's what the majority of the description states to anyone who hasn't already decided that they can only accept the INT stat.
You're joking right?
Cleric: "Harnessing divine magic doesn’t rely on study or training. A cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites, but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes." That's Wisdom.
Druid: "Whether calling on the elemental forces of nature or emulating the creatures of the animal world, druids are an embodiment of nature’s resilience, cunning, and fury. They claim no mastery over nature. Instead, they see themselves as extensions of nature’s indomitable will." That's Wisdom.
And yes, the bulk of a Warlock's power comes from an explicit entity - but they don't necessarily have to build an explicit relationship with that entity. You can explicitly stumble into pacts without your awareness, or be granted powers by the entity without their awareness. All that is needed for either is for you to make contact in some way. Pacts are not deals. They can be in some cases, but they also don't have to be.
i wonder if instead of pact of blade or pact of tome if the first invocation the warlock received was "bargain/conduit/vassal/leverage" where you indicate the form of your pact, how would that better inform some of the discussion...
bargain - you've created a contract, each side is aware of the deal, although each side may have a different perception of the benefits. this might be a subscription service, a guarantee of future service, a one-time trade, a loan (with interest), etc with terms that can come due at a certain time or regularly or even be bought out early, perhaps. this 'bargain' might be made even if one side is at a disadvantage at the time of signing. it might be played out and negotiated at the table (with insight, persuasion, etc checks) or expressed as backstory. especially in this case the patron would likely entertain being called up frequently for good faith gestures, further deals, or even renegotiation. but don't mistake this for a friendship or them taking an apprentice. no, this is business. don't lose your shirt... or worse.
conduit - in reaching out to draw power from some source, you've in effect caused it to touch you as well. there's a back and forth that will effect you from here on out in ways that could be of benefit (eg Radiant Soul, Elemental Gift, Gift of the Sea) or it could cause you to stand out (eg Undying Nature, clammy wet skin, or perhaps your eyes and mouth burn with a light of hell, etc). while it might be true that the power you siphon away makes no difference to the one from whom it emanated, don't be too sure. this pact could be the keyhole through which a forgotten elder god peeps at the things it most wishes to crush.
vassal - you have been made a lowly lord. how wonderful for you! this Power is as royalty in Their very distant plane and as such Their pacts must only be with those of sufficient rank. and so! you, outlander, you stranger to the lands of the courts which cede you a modicum of Their strength, which lend you the power of Their great Name, have given you a title as well. you may deal as you see fit and represent the court well in your alien lands. and, of course, in addition to taxes and fees, if you are called upon to do your patron a small favor now and again, why, you'd only be too willing, wouldn't you? you certainly wouldn't want to be more closely overseen, would you? it wouldn't do to seem weak to the natives if you were, perish the though, found to be a failure. no, surely you'll grow to be a boon to this court if We allow you the space and freedom to blossom. make Us proud. this court does not suffer regret lightly. (you could also look at this from a apprenticeship or mafia syndicate or even corporation's perspective).
leverage - some people know a guy, but you know a thing. is that thing dangerous? maybe, but tools are unique valuable. and that thing agrees. either you or your patron have something that the other wants. it could be goods or blackmail or access to loved ones, but whatever it is: there's leverage being applied to catalyze this trade. though you might be separated by great distances, likely across the vast planes themselves, there are methods and ways to make trade. this might be a scheduled drop, a chance of the stars, or only after a battlefield is soaked in blood. this isn't about a contract so much as mutual understanding. backstabbing, bounties, and work-arounds by other agents are only too likely. however, the benefits have outweighed the consequences so far, haven't they? and, although one day you'll have enough power to be at risk of turning the tables on your partner, you know their hunger for power can be strung out just as they have done to you.
((edit: which is not to say pact of blade/tome/chain/etc goes away, but just isn't the first invocation))
A GOO might not have the awareness to be actively cognizant of the exchange, but there is still some form of exchange
Nope, put back those goalposts. The dictionary definition you attempted to wave around was a formal agreement, not "some form of exchange." So by your definition, an unaware pact doesn't qualify, therefore your definition is incorrect for D&D.
Look, you can argue the semantics of what your headcanon of a pact with a GOO does or does not entail, but outright saying that a pact is not a form of deal or arrangement is simply and provably false.
Look, you can argue the semantics of what your headcanon of a pact with a GOO does or does not entail, but outright saying that a pact is not a form of deal or arrangement is simply and provably false.
Your definition is simply and provably false, because Warlock pacts that are not "formal agreements" are possible in Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition. That's not my headcanon, that's the rulebook. Your houserules may vary.
Look, you can argue the semantics of what your headcanon of a pact with a GOO does or does not entail, but outright saying that a pact is not a form of deal or arrangement is simply and provably false.
Your definition is simply and provably false, because Warlock pacts that are not "formal agreements" are possible in Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition. That's not my headcanon, that's the rulebook. Your houserules may vary.
Anyone arguing in good faith would recognize that the operative word there is “agreement”, not “formal”. “Pact”, “agreement”, and “deal” are all synonymous, and the specific use of “pact” as opposed to a synonymous word in this instance was an aesthetic decision by the creative team. If you are a Warlock, you did something and in response an outside force gave you power. That is the exact function of a deal, pact, or arrangement.
Look, you can argue the semantics of what your headcanon of a pact with a GOO does or does not entail, but outright saying that a pact is not a form of deal or arrangement is simply and provably false.
Your definition is simply and provably false, because Warlock pacts that are not "formal agreements" are possible in Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition. That's not my headcanon, that's the rulebook. Your houserules may vary.
if we require the glossary to be updated to say "a pact is this..." in such a way that made 'pacts' with great old ones plausible, then okay we'll ask for that. until such time, you are correct that a pact is a formal deal with requires both parties participate willingly. however, cthulhu was doing it first by driving men mad without their concent, cooperation, or awareness in many cases. a fairly one-sided pact. so really it's the GOOs you need to be annoyed at.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Anyone arguing in good faith would recognize that the operative word there is “agreement”, not “formal”. “Pact”, “agreement”, and “deal” are all synonymous, and the specific use of “pact” as opposed to a synonymous word in this instance was an aesthetic decision by the creative team. If you are a Warlock, you did something and in response an outside force gave you power. That is the exact function of a deal, pact, or arrangement.
You're the one who dived for a flawed definition and are now trying your hardest to walk it back. If now you're saying it can be as vague as "you did something and in response an outside force gave you power" that means Charismatic negotiation skills are not a prerequisite and your entire Cha-only stance falls apart.
Look, you can argue the semantics of what your headcanon of a pact with a GOO does or does not entail, but outright saying that a pact is not a form of deal or arrangement is simply and provably false.
Your definition is simply and provably false, because Warlock pacts that are not "formal agreements" are possible in Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition. That's not my headcanon, that's the rulebook. Your houserules may vary.
Anyone arguing in good faith would recognize that the operative word there is “agreement”, not “formal”. “Pact”, “agreement”, and “deal” are all synonymous, and the specific use of “pact” as opposed to a synonymous word in this instance was an aesthetic decision by the creative team. If you are a Warlock, you did something and in response an outside force gave you power. That is the exact function of a deal, pact, or arrangement.
it's okay to disagree, but at least trust that psyren is good at quoting the rules and you did give a definition which was presented as simple language (not requiring a follow-up decryption of active or operative words). it's like AEDorsay said, "the moment they use that power, they agree to terms and conditions." everybody's right and the game's verbiage just needs to catch up.
Look, you can argue the semantics of what your headcanon of a pact with a GOO does or does not entail, but outright saying that a pact is not a form of deal or arrangement is simply and provably false.
Your definition is simply and provably false, because Warlock pacts that are not "formal agreements" are possible in Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition. That's not my headcanon, that's the rulebook. Your houserules may vary.
Anyone arguing in good faith would recognize that the operative word there is “agreement”, not “formal”. “Pact”, “agreement”, and “deal” are all synonymous, and the specific use of “pact” as opposed to a synonymous word in this instance was an aesthetic decision by the creative team. If you are a Warlock, you did something and in response an outside force gave you power. That is the exact function of a deal, pact, or arrangement.
it's okay to disagree, but at least trust that psyren is good at quoting the rules and you did give a definition which was presented as simple language (not requiring a follow-up decryption of active or operative words). it's like AEDorsay said, "the moment they use that power, they agree to terms and conditions." everybody's right and the game's verbiage just needs to catch up.
The game’s verbiage was written based on the assumption people wouldn’t try to nitpick individual words to invalidate the intent clearly spelled out at the start of the description.
Anyone arguing in good faith would recognize that the operative word there is “agreement”, not “formal”. “Pact”, “agreement”, and “deal” are all synonymous, and the specific use of “pact” as opposed to a synonymous word in this instance was an aesthetic decision by the creative team. If you are a Warlock, you did something and in response an outside force gave you power. That is the exact function of a deal, pact, or arrangement.
You're the one who dived for a flawed definition and are now trying your hardest to walk it back. If now you're saying it can be as vague as "you did something and in response an outside force gave you power" that means Charismatic negotiation skills are not a prerequisite and your entire Cha-only stance falls apart.
And the INT argument is that much more supported by your ability to perform the magical equivalent of ordering from a vending machine? As has been repeatedly said, CHA reflects inner strength of personality alongside interpersonal skills. Or are you going to tell me that a target makes a CHA save against spells like Bane, Banishment, and Magic Jar by arguing against the spell?
it's okay to disagree, but at least trust that psyren is good at quoting the rules and you did give a definition which was presented as simple language (not requiring a follow-up decryption of active or operative words). it's like AEDorsay said, "the moment they use that power, they agree to terms and conditions." everybody's right and the game's verbiage just needs to catch up.
If everybody's right, that means Charisma and Intelligence are equally valid casting stats for the Warlock, if not Wisdom too, which is exactly the conclusion WotC themselves landed on for UA5. I've never said Charisma is invalid the way Ace is attempting to do for Intelligence.
And the INT argument is that much more supported by your ability to perform the magical equivalent of ordering from a vending machine? As has been repeatedly said, CHA reflects inner strength of personality alongside interpersonal skills. Or are you going to tell me that a target makes a CHA save against spells like Bane, Banishment, and Magic Jar by arguing against the spell?
Again, I'm not denying that Charisma is a viable source of Warlock powers. It is. I'm being inclusive, and you're being exclusionary. Allowing Int Warlocks is not going to take Cha Warlocks away from you, so why are you digging in your heels in this way?
Honestly, the background for GoO needs cleaning up; GoO is awkwardly crammed in there, because, separate from 'pact', there's also references to the patron 'bestowing' magic, and having 'demands', and neither of those make sense without some sort of awareness.
Honestly, the background for GoO needs cleaning up; GoO is awkwardly crammed in there, because, separate from 'pact', there's also references to the patron 'bestowing' magic, and having 'demands', and neither of those make sense without some sort of awareness.
like i said, "bargain/conduit/vassal/leverage" ...otherwise, what's the clarification? we don't want them specifying that fey pacts are only a bestowing type and devils are only ever contracts and deep ones only ever make demands, etc
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Honestly, the background for GoO needs cleaning up; GoO is awkwardly crammed in there, because, separate from 'pact', there's also references to the patron 'bestowing' magic, and having 'demands', and neither of those make sense without some sort of awareness.
Even putting Lovecraftian weirdness aside though, GOOs are not the only example; Archfey also can initiate pacts without a formal agreement, and that's purely in keeping with their fantasy archetype. (Insert the old fey "Hey, can I have your names??" joke here.) Can their pacts involve charismatic dealmaking and negotiation? Absolutely. Can their pacts instead be driven by seeking knowledge from the far corners of the cosmology or interpreting sigils in ancient tomes and ruins instead? YES! And we deserve Warlocks that can represent both archetypes, not just the narrow one we've been stuck with for a decade.
Hey, look here! These ancient carvings, do you know what they mean?!
um, no. Looks like a bunch of chisel marks to me.
They are the Lost Book of the Dead! Three thousand year old secrets! I have studied my whole life for this one moment!
uh, sure, ok. I'mma go kill the mimic before it eats our elf ranger.
Yes, yes, whatever! Such a trove. Let's see here. Ah, this looks like the start. This is the secret to the life, the universe, and everything. Yes! This it! At long last! Secret Powers undreamt of by mortals for centuries! Abanas mirkat elefant dominus. That's odd, that sounds like surrendering one' soul to the ancient gods, but why would they include that here?
AAAIIIEEEEE
pssst. I think Dundee over there just multiclassed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So when you pact with a Great Old One who doesn't know you exist, that's not a pact in your eyes, despite the game telling you it is one?
A GOO might not have the awareness to be actively cognizant of the exchange, but there is still some form of exchange. If you just had one encounter and suddenly gained magic, you’d be a sorcerer. The line from the PHB that a Warlock is defined by their pact has been cited repeatedly. If the lines for Clerics and Druids you previously cited carry as much weight as you asserted, then surely the Warlock line must carry just as much weight.
Apparently great old ones are able to be simultaneously aware and unaware of a creature; it's not possible to have a pact without two parties capable of agreement.
Nope, put back those goalposts. The dictionary definition you attempted to wave around was a formal agreement, not "some form of exchange." So by your definition, an unaware pact doesn't qualify, therefore your definition is incorrect for D&D.
I mean, that’s kinda the point of the whole “inscrutable alien consciousness” bit. Or, to put it another way, what’s a deliberate act for a humanoid could be an autonomic process to some eldritch horror from beyond the stars. Do you have to think about it to digest food, release neurotransmitters, or fight off an infection?
i wonder if instead of pact of blade or pact of tome if the first invocation the warlock received was "bargain/conduit/vassal/leverage" where you indicate the form of your pact, how would that better inform some of the discussion...
((edit: which is not to say pact of blade/tome/chain/etc goes away, but just isn't the first invocation))
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Look, you can argue the semantics of what your headcanon of a pact with a GOO does or does not entail, but outright saying that a pact is not a form of deal or arrangement is simply and provably false.
Your definition is simply and provably false, because Warlock pacts that are not "formal agreements" are possible in Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition. That's not my headcanon, that's the rulebook. Your houserules may vary.
Anyone arguing in good faith would recognize that the operative word there is “agreement”, not “formal”. “Pact”, “agreement”, and “deal” are all synonymous, and the specific use of “pact” as opposed to a synonymous word in this instance was an aesthetic decision by the creative team. If you are a Warlock, you did something and in response an outside force gave you power. That is the exact function of a deal, pact, or arrangement.
if we require the glossary to be updated to say "a pact is this..." in such a way that made 'pacts' with great old ones plausible, then okay we'll ask for that. until such time, you are correct that a pact is a formal deal with requires both parties participate willingly. however, cthulhu was doing it first by driving men mad without their concent, cooperation, or awareness in many cases. a fairly one-sided pact. so really it's the GOOs you need to be annoyed at.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
You're the one who dived for a flawed definition and are now trying your hardest to walk it back. If now you're saying it can be as vague as "you did something and in response an outside force gave you power" that means Charismatic negotiation skills are not a prerequisite and your entire Cha-only stance falls apart.
it's okay to disagree, but at least trust that psyren is good at quoting the rules and you did give a definition which was presented as simple language (not requiring a follow-up decryption of active or operative words). it's like AEDorsay said, "the moment they use that power, they agree to terms and conditions." everybody's right and the game's verbiage just needs to catch up.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
The game’s verbiage was written based on the assumption people wouldn’t try to nitpick individual words to invalidate the intent clearly spelled out at the start of the description.
And the INT argument is that much more supported by your ability to perform the magical equivalent of ordering from a vending machine? As has been repeatedly said, CHA reflects inner strength of personality alongside interpersonal skills. Or are you going to tell me that a target makes a CHA save against spells like Bane, Banishment, and Magic Jar by arguing against the spell?
If everybody's right, that means Charisma and Intelligence are equally valid casting stats for the Warlock, if not Wisdom too, which is exactly the conclusion WotC themselves landed on for UA5. I've never said Charisma is invalid the way Ace is attempting to do for Intelligence.
Again, I'm not denying that Charisma is a viable source of Warlock powers. It is. I'm being inclusive, and you're being exclusionary. Allowing Int Warlocks is not going to take Cha Warlocks away from you, so why are you digging in your heels in this way?
Honestly, the background for GoO needs cleaning up; GoO is awkwardly crammed in there, because, separate from 'pact', there's also references to the patron 'bestowing' magic, and having 'demands', and neither of those make sense without some sort of awareness.
like i said, "bargain/conduit/vassal/leverage" ...otherwise, what's the clarification? we don't want them specifying that fey pacts are only a bestowing type and devils are only ever contracts and deep ones only ever make demands, etc
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Even putting Lovecraftian weirdness aside though, GOOs are not the only example; Archfey also can initiate pacts without a formal agreement, and that's purely in keeping with their fantasy archetype. (Insert the old fey "Hey, can I have your names??" joke here.) Can their pacts involve charismatic dealmaking and negotiation? Absolutely. Can their pacts instead be driven by seeking knowledge from the far corners of the cosmology or interpreting sigils in ancient tomes and ruins instead? YES! And we deserve Warlocks that can represent both archetypes, not just the narrow one we've been stuck with for a decade.
Hey, look here! These ancient carvings, do you know what they mean?!
um, no. Looks like a bunch of chisel marks to me.
They are the Lost Book of the Dead! Three thousand year old secrets! I have studied my whole life for this one moment!
uh, sure, ok. I'mma go kill the mimic before it eats our elf ranger.
Yes, yes, whatever! Such a trove. Let's see here. Ah, this looks like the start. This is the secret to the life, the universe, and everything. Yes! This it! At long last! Secret Powers undreamt of by mortals for centuries! Abanas mirkat elefant dominus. That's odd, that sounds like surrendering one' soul to the ancient gods, but why would they include that here?
AAAIIIEEEEE
pssst. I think Dundee over there just multiclassed.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds