Hey all, so to put it into context, as a DM i do not want to have warlocks as PC's in my next campaign and whilst there are reasons which i will list below, I also don't want to take content away from my players.

The first reason for no warlocksis that I don't feel i do patrons "correctly" at my current stage of experience and because of this the PC may feel targetted or abandoned if they want the RP that i don't feel i can provide at an enjoyable and consistant level.

The second reason is that i find my group always does the same thing with warlocks? the last year 100% of warlocks at our groups tables have been hexblade warlocks with eldritch smite/agonising blast etc, because of this i'm rather burnt out on the group's warlocks? (i know it sounds bad but it's eyerolling at this point for me)

The third reason is I just don't think they fit in the campaign i'm wanting to run, which is for the most part a megadungeon crawl. It is worth noting this is a homebrew campaign and is deigned to be a drop in/drop out game for when people have work or commitments elsewhere they would run no risk of PC death while they are away or missing any major plot twists/reveals etc.

Am I in the wrong for wanting to ban warlocks or am I just not seeing things how they should be?

I think more DMs should feel free to edit and prune the options presented in the rulebooks for their games. Nothing at all wrong with not using every class, race, spell, monster, etc in your campaign.  If you have a campaign world where some of these just don't fit I salute you for your world building.

It is in many ways an old school traditional approach to the game.  When I started the default assumption was that the DM would create their own world in which to set the campaign. That meant that there would frequently be content from the rulebooks that was not used and also new things created by the DM.

I wouldn't really call it "world building".. More dungeon of "oh gods luke what are you putting us up against this week in your dungeon obsessions please no not more spiders".. or something like that. I guess my main concern was for any of my players that WANTED to play warlock and had a cool patron idea? and then I would be unable to satisfy myself and them with my.. patronism?

Thank you very much though!

If you don't want warlocks in your campaign, then don't allow them in.  

As far as playing the patron is concerned, you can have the patron's role be as much or as little as you want it to be.  One way to think of warlocks from a DM's point of view is they're a more personal servant of the patron than a cleric is a servant of their god.  Gods have hundreds, of even thousands, of clerics and they all more or less have the same high level tasks to perform.  Patrons have only a small number of warlocks though and they're used to perform specific tasks for the patrons when the patron needs them.  Sort of like the Ghost Rider comic book hero, he's a direct servant of the devil when the devil has tasks for him, but other than that he's free do to anything that he wants and to use his powers however he wants to and he usually uses them for good, which is the opposite of what the devil wants him to do.  So when you need a plot hook you can have the patron give the warlock orders, but when you don't need a plot hook you don't need to do anything with the warlock's patron and the warlock can set his own agenda.  And when the patron steps in and gives orders there will be conflict.

I personally dislike the Hexblade, it seems to me that it was designed to make warlocks into fighters and they give up everything that makes them unique to role play in order to be able to be fighters.  I can visualize why the rest of the patrons would want a warlock, but I can't visualize the Hexblade patron.  But that's my personal opinion and, obviously, thousands of people disagree with me.  :)

There is nothing wrong with not allowing a class or feature in your campaign. In my campaign, the starting city has been isolated for hundreds of years so until the players explore and "unlock" content, certain classes and races are unavailable.

You're the GM, do what you want. If your players demand an explanation, just tell them none of the patrons consider them worthy.

Quote from Wysperra >>

You're the GM, do what you want. If your players demand an explanation, just tell them none of the patrons consider them worthy.

 Awesome idea! Thank you very much! I'll keep it as a trump card!

Quote from Tim >>

If you don't want warlocks in your campaign, then don't allow them in.  

As far as playing the patron is concerned, you can have the patron's role be as much or as little as you want it to be.  One way to think of warlocks from a DM's point of view is they're a more personal servant of the patron than a cleric is a servant of their god.  Gods have hundreds, of even thousands, of clerics and they all more or less have the same high level tasks to perform.  Patrons have only a small number of warlocks though and they're used to perform specific tasks for the patrons when the patron needs them.  Sort of like the Ghost Rider comic book hero, he's a direct servant of the devil when the devil has tasks for him, but other than that he's free do to anything that he wants and to use his powers however he wants to and he usually uses them for good, which is the opposite of what the devil wants him to do.  So when you need a plot hook you can have the patron give the warlock orders, but when you don't need a plot hook you don't need to do anything with the warlock's patron and the warlock can set his own agenda.  And when the patron steps in and gives orders there will be conflict.

I personally dislike the Hexblade, it seems to me that it was designed to make warlocks into fighters and they give up everything that makes them unique to role play in order to be able to be fighters.  I can visualize why the rest of the patrons would want a warlock, but I can't visualize the Hexblade patron.  But that's my personal opinion and, obviously, thousands of people disagree with me.  :)

 I'm the same with hexblade. And I didn't think of warlocks like that .I'll put some more thought into what a patron would want and then go from there. Thank you for your help.

Edit: I did also think about steering people away from warlocks anyway by using a pdf I found of "evolving cantrips" which seemed to be about the understanding of magic so more of a wizard thing?

FWIW, I'm currently playing a Hexblade Pact of the Chain :) I liked the 'Raven Queen' flavor of the Hexblade, moreso than the 'strange maker of magic items' part. I didn't want a Fiend, but wanted something a bit sinister yet. Fey can sometimes not be sinister enough, and yet I didn't want 'crazy' with Great Old One. I wanted a mysterious, creepy and possibly sinister (but not overtly evil) patron that my own character doesn't quite understand. I told my DM that I'd like to actually not know what sort of being my familiar really is. The Raven Queen sent him to me to serve me...he takes various shapes, but...I'm not sure what he really is. I could have done most of that with the Fey, depending on how people want to view the Fey. But I went HB. I get your concerns, though. Hexblade/Blade is flavor of the month.

That said, you could also just not allow the Hexblade specifically. Combine that will telling your players what is frustrating you. "Guys, I'm kicking around not allowing warlocks, because every single one is the same thing, and it's affecting my enjoyment of the game." That may spur them to look into other patrons, other spells, etc. And you could still not allow the Hexblade :)

I'll admit I'm biased, I've been having fun homebrewing new patrons because I currently really like the notion of pact magic--the concept and the mechanics. And so I'm thinking about warlocks in pacts with sentient evil spellbooks, or fallen gods, that sort of thing. But if they can't get past "OMG Hexblade, pact of the blade, hack hack hack", feel free to ban them all.

One thing just to note is that it is very hard for a warlock to avoid Eldritch Blast. With only 2 or 3 other spells to use at a time, and no invocations tuned directly to other damage cantrips (there's no 'Agonizing Poison Spray' invocation). So that part of it is something warlocks are almost steered directly to. Not mandatory, but hard to avoid.

Quote from Brotherbock >>

FWIW, I'm currently playing a Hexblade Pact of the Chain :) I liked the 'Raven Queen' flavor of the Hexblade, moreso than the 'strange maker of magic items' part. I didn't want a Fiend, but wanted something a bit sinister yet. Fey can sometimes not be sinister enough, and yet I didn't want 'crazy' with Great Old One. I wanted a mysterious, creepy and possibly sinister (but not overtly evil) patron that my own character doesn't quite understand. I told my DM that I'd like to actually not know what sort of being my familiar really is. The Raven Queen sent him to me to serve me...he takes various shapes, but...I'm not sure what he really is. I could have done most of that with the Fey, depending on how people want to view the Fey. But I went HB. I get your concerns, though. Hexblade/Blade is flavor of the month.

That said, you could also just not allow the Hexblade specifically. Combine that will telling your players what is frustrating you. "Guys, I'm kicking around not allowing warlocks, because every single one is the same thing, and it's affecting my enjoyment of the game." That may spur them to look into other patrons, other spells, etc. And you could still not allow the Hexblade :)

 

I'll admit I'm biased, I've been having fun homebrewing new patrons because I currently really like the notion of pact magic--the concept and the mechanics. And so I'm thinking about warlocks in pacts with sentient evil spellbooks, or fallen gods, that sort of thing. But if they can't get past "OMG Hexblade, pact of the blade, hack hack hack", feel free to ban them all.

One thing just to note is that it is very hard for a warlock to avoid Eldritch Blast. With only 2 or 3 other spells to use at a time, and no invocations tuned directly to other damage cantrips (there's no 'Agonizing Poison Spray' invocation). So that part of it is something warlocks are almost steered directly to. Not mandatory, but hard to avoid.

 Yeah I can appreciate that, but none of the players thought of anything cool like that. It was just "I wanna be a hexblade because it's the best option" basically (that's how I interpreted it but I could be wrong) 

I'm personally not into the whole pact magic but different strokes for different folks I guess. 

I did toy with the idea of removing the Eldritch blast exclusiveness to those innvocations but I didn't do that because I realised I would be dealing with 300ft chill touches and knock backing firebolts. 

I will be talking to my group Sunday though. I'll bring this up. 

Quote from qpblazer >>

 Yeah I can appreciate that, but none of the players thought of anything cool like that. It was just "I wanna be a hexblade because it's the best option" basically (that's how I interpreted it but I could be wrong) 

I'm personally not into the whole pact magic but different strokes for different folks I guess. 

I did toy with the idea of removing the Eldritch blast exclusiveness to those innvocations but I didn't do that because I realised I would be dealing with 300ft chill touches and knock backing firebolts. 

I will be talking to my group Sunday though. I'll bring this up. 

I hear you. I'm generally opposed to min-maxing when there is no consideration for RP or theme at all. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Throw my homebrew patron options at em! (Shameless plug) I want to see how they play, and haven't playtested them yet, LOL.