Depends on how you and your player would like to see the matter resolved. I had a player once that had a "break" of sorts with their patron, but used the opportunity for a new power to sweep in and form a new pact, enabling them to become a different type of Warlock. Failing that, just trading out class features for a martial class that they are most alike it probably also fine, like a rogue or fighter. Or you can go with the idea that the power they bargained for, they technically "purchased" and they keep, regardless of how their patron feels, but there are ramifications moving forward as a Warlock class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
I once played a warlock who told his patron to "go F herself" and she responded by ripping him in half. This was something the DM and I discussed beforehand, but everything seemed reasonable for each character to do.
You could have the player change their class as well, to something that makes sense without the warlock. Maybe instead of their dark and evil patron, they follow a path of religion and become a cleric.
To me, it all comes down to why the warlock is breaking their pact.
Maybe the patron, having already given the warlock his abilities, tacks on some new "abilities" and the warlock has to roll on the wild magic table (or similar) whenever he casts spells, as his patron's way of sending the message he's not happy.
Basically, per RAW there's no recriminations on your present class features if you break your pact. Granted, despite what people assume/meme, Paladins don't instantly become Oathbreakers if they go against their oaths either, and in fact the entire oath tenet structure is optional. 5e opted not to codify the loss of class features in response to player actions as a default mechanic; while I think there were some merits to the system in terms of promoting responsive roleplay, it requires the players to buy more thoroughly into "this is how the setting works, and you just have to work within it", and D&D has been moving away from that model (with mixed results, imo, though I'm not particularly upset with this decision).
Now, as people have already said, that doesn't mean there's going to be no consequences to such a thing in your campaign. The classic instance is of course your patron at least attempting to kill or otherwise greatly distress the character in retribution for their defaulting on the pact. Fey and Fiends in particular are big on magically binding deals/penalty clauses. Really, if you want to roleplay this, you first need to define the terms of the pact and the relationship with the patron. If you got empowered on a whim or in return for a favor, then the patron might well be indifferent to you going forwards, whereas the classic bargains with Fey and Fiends tend to be quite difficult to extricate yourself from and quite punishing if you try, ranging from attacks by your patron to immediate magical harm to mind control forcing you to keep to the pact. It's quite the field of possibilities, and something that can't really be sorted out between anyone but the DM and the player.
I like the idea that those type of classes do gain some if not most of their powers from a patron or deity. And if they are given they can thus be taken away.
It makes breaking that oath quite perilous. It makes characters actually think about why they want to make such a deal. It also makes the DM actually think about who the deal is made with and why.
That does not mean some new patron or deity will not sweep in right away and make their own offer to the character. And more than likely give them back most if not all of their powers. Or even new ones. At this point the character might not get much choice in their new patron and powers. But thats the risk.
I know that when a paladin breaks his oath he became an Outbreaker, but what about the Warlock that breaks his pact?
Im hoping some of you can help me with some tips fore the role play for those moments and the mechanical implications in-game.
It's entirely up to the DM for both Paladin and Warlock cases (the thing where Paladins automatically become Oathbreakers is a Baldur's Gate III creation, not actual DnD rules).
In the Warlock case I've typically seen it played as a Warlock with no patron keeps all their abilities/spells/etc, but cannot level up until they find a new patron (or multiclass into another class). That's not Rules As Written but I think it makes sense
There are so many options. You can make the warlock powers temporarily unavailable until there is compliance like with one warlock in Critical Role. You can nerf the powers like what happened in BG3. In my game with a warlock, there were threats of consequences and for a while that was enough. When the warlock at my table pushed the envelope too much, the patron started to favor other warlock servants, who were competing with the PC for power and favor. I didn't restrict the warlock powers but I did gift the competing warlock NPCs things like magic items or small bonus powers. There is also the option to have the patron send assassin or thugs to collect the warlock for punishment. Or maybe the warlock finds that whenever he puts something in his bag, it simply is made an offering to the patron as penance. All kinds of crazy stuff is possible.
As always, make sure any of these that might appeal to you are cool with the player. Consequences for the PC does not have to mean consequences for the player.
Thanks for your replies and insight on the topic. I’ll keep in mind all of your advices and try to role play around the idea of the player multi-classing.
I would as a DM rule that the warlock looses all the powers given by his patron but he keeps his spells, his knowledge of those spells.
If a different patron picks him up he will have totally different gifts. Why should the player get the opportunity to scam the system and keep all their abilities from both patrons? Or even three patrons?
Your patron is your boss. If he drops in and tells you to let your fellow party member die you do it. Or else.
I know that when a paladin breaks his oath he became an Outbreaker, but what about the Warlock that breaks his pact?
Im hoping some of you can help me with some tips fore the role play for those moments and the mechanical implications in-game.
Baldur's Gate 3 gave us a hint when Wyl broke his pact with his Devil half breed
There are so many instances where BG3 goes directly against 5e rules I would not rely on it. A lot depends on the nature of the pact, the nature of the patron and how the pact was broken.
The player describes there actions and the dm decides the consequences. The player should be aware of those consequences. I think a likely consequence with a PC ignoring an evil patron is PC death, maybe a devil will claim the PCs soul when they die (no ressurrection). A lot of players however want to dip for a level or two Into warlock they could be given a short term task to perform and once completed the PCis free of the contract. They might have to defeat the patron (wouldneed to be avery high level). The player and dm need to agree how it will work.
I only played a fiend warlock who was de eived by his patron, he thought it was a celestial (devil posing as an angel of light). He got to level 9 before he was convinced the nature of his patron and was horrified of it and refused to cast any magic that came from hell. He left the campaign to look for a way out of his contract while I took on a new PC.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I know that when a paladin breaks his oath he became an Outbreaker, but what about the Warlock that breaks his pact?
Im hoping some of you can help me with some tips fore the role play for those moments and the mechanical implications in-game.
Depends on how you and your player would like to see the matter resolved. I had a player once that had a "break" of sorts with their patron, but used the opportunity for a new power to sweep in and form a new pact, enabling them to become a different type of Warlock. Failing that, just trading out class features for a martial class that they are most alike it probably also fine, like a rogue or fighter. Or you can go with the idea that the power they bargained for, they technically "purchased" and they keep, regardless of how their patron feels, but there are ramifications moving forward as a Warlock class.
There are probably dozens of ways to handle this.
I once played a warlock who told his patron to "go F herself" and she responded by ripping him in half. This was something the DM and I discussed beforehand, but everything seemed reasonable for each character to do.
You could have the player change their class as well, to something that makes sense without the warlock. Maybe instead of their dark and evil patron, they follow a path of religion and become a cleric.
To me, it all comes down to why the warlock is breaking their pact.
Maybe the patron, having already given the warlock his abilities, tacks on some new "abilities" and the warlock has to roll on the wild magic table (or similar) whenever he casts spells, as his patron's way of sending the message he's not happy.
Basically, per RAW there's no recriminations on your present class features if you break your pact. Granted, despite what people assume/meme, Paladins don't instantly become Oathbreakers if they go against their oaths either, and in fact the entire oath tenet structure is optional. 5e opted not to codify the loss of class features in response to player actions as a default mechanic; while I think there were some merits to the system in terms of promoting responsive roleplay, it requires the players to buy more thoroughly into "this is how the setting works, and you just have to work within it", and D&D has been moving away from that model (with mixed results, imo, though I'm not particularly upset with this decision).
Now, as people have already said, that doesn't mean there's going to be no consequences to such a thing in your campaign. The classic instance is of course your patron at least attempting to kill or otherwise greatly distress the character in retribution for their defaulting on the pact. Fey and Fiends in particular are big on magically binding deals/penalty clauses. Really, if you want to roleplay this, you first need to define the terms of the pact and the relationship with the patron. If you got empowered on a whim or in return for a favor, then the patron might well be indifferent to you going forwards, whereas the classic bargains with Fey and Fiends tend to be quite difficult to extricate yourself from and quite punishing if you try, ranging from attacks by your patron to immediate magical harm to mind control forcing you to keep to the pact. It's quite the field of possibilities, and something that can't really be sorted out between anyone but the DM and the player.
I like the idea that those type of classes do gain some if not most of their powers from a patron or deity. And if they are given they can thus be taken away.
It makes breaking that oath quite perilous. It makes characters actually think about why they want to make such a deal.
It also makes the DM actually think about who the deal is made with and why.
That does not mean some new patron or deity will not sweep in right away and make their own offer to the character. And more than likely give them back most if not all of their powers. Or even new ones.
At this point the character might not get much choice in their new patron and powers. But thats the risk.
It's entirely up to the DM for both Paladin and Warlock cases (the thing where Paladins automatically become Oathbreakers is a Baldur's Gate III creation, not actual DnD rules).
In the Warlock case I've typically seen it played as a Warlock with no patron keeps all their abilities/spells/etc, but cannot level up until they find a new patron (or multiclass into another class). That's not Rules As Written but I think it makes sense
There are so many options. You can make the warlock powers temporarily unavailable until there is compliance like with one warlock in Critical Role. You can nerf the powers like what happened in BG3. In my game with a warlock, there were threats of consequences and for a while that was enough. When the warlock at my table pushed the envelope too much, the patron started to favor other warlock servants, who were competing with the PC for power and favor. I didn't restrict the warlock powers but I did gift the competing warlock NPCs things like magic items or small bonus powers. There is also the option to have the patron send assassin or thugs to collect the warlock for punishment. Or maybe the warlock finds that whenever he puts something in his bag, it simply is made an offering to the patron as penance. All kinds of crazy stuff is possible.
As always, make sure any of these that might appeal to you are cool with the player. Consequences for the PC does not have to mean consequences for the player.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Thanks for your replies and insight on the topic. I’ll keep in mind all of your advices and try to role play around the idea of the player multi-classing.
"I taught you everything you know about magic, but did you think I taught you everything I know about magic?"
I would as a DM rule that the warlock looses all the powers given by his patron but he keeps his spells, his knowledge of those spells.
If a different patron picks him up he will have totally different gifts. Why should the player get the opportunity to scam the system and keep all their abilities from both patrons? Or even three patrons?
Your patron is your boss. If he drops in and tells you to let your fellow party member die you do it. Or else.
Baldur's Gate 3 gave us a hint when Wyl broke his pact with his Devil half breed
There are so many instances where BG3 goes directly against 5e rules I would not rely on it. A lot depends on the nature of the pact, the nature of the patron and how the pact was broken.
The player describes there actions and the dm decides the consequences. The player should be aware of those consequences. I think a likely consequence with a PC ignoring an evil patron is PC death, maybe a devil will claim the PCs soul when they die (no ressurrection). A lot of players however want to dip for a level or two Into warlock they could be given a short term task to perform and once completed the PCis free of the contract. They might have to defeat the patron (wouldneed to be avery high level). The player and dm need to agree how it will work.
I only played a fiend warlock who was de eived by his patron, he thought it was a celestial (devil posing as an angel of light). He got to level 9 before he was convinced the nature of his patron and was horrified of it and refused to cast any magic that came from hell. He left the campaign to look for a way out of his contract while I took on a new PC.