Confessions of a warlock-hater

[HidesHisEyes]

Am I alone in having misgivings about the warlock in 5E? It's taken two years of DMing and playing for me to realise it but I find I have three major problems with the class.

First problem: eldritch blast. If you were to ask me two years ago just before I started playing the system, "which of these core classes sounds the most suited to a build focused on ranged combat" I would without a doubt say either the stealthy skirmish warrior (ranger) or the highly trained professional soldier (fighter). I might mention rogue or barbarian as well. Probably the furthest from my mind would be the eldritch lore-seeker who made a pact with an otherworldly being, because what the hell does that, on a conceptual level, have to do with ranged combat. And yet, mechanically, it's easily the best choice. At the small cost of one or two invocations you end up with a character who can, by level 17, make FOUR ranged attacks in one round for 1d10+5 damage each. In order to equal that, a fighter has to take a feat (Crossbow Expert, otherwise she can never make more than one attack per round with a d10-damage ranged weapon) and doesn't get all four attacks until level 20. The ranger never gets more than two attacks per round and so can never equal it. To my mind, this is an egregious dropping of the ball when it comes to making mechanics line up with class concepts - which I think is an important part of the design of games like D&D. It's a let-down for the ranger and fighter, whom we feel should be the best choices for a ranged combatant character, and also to the warlock, whom we feel should get mechanics that reflect his Faustian concept rather than inexplicably amounting to "dude with a big gun".

Second problem: warlocks are natural snowflakes. Now this is less flat-out horrible than my first problem; it's more of a niggling annoyance really, but I find it hard to ignore. Of all the classes, the warlock is the one who seems most inclined to hog the limelight and demand to be the main character of a campaign. The central conceit of the power-hungry lore-seeker who has made a pact with some mysterious and powerful being just automatically begs to be explored in the story of the game. Now that's fine, even ideal, for a solo game. But in the classic party-based D&D experience it gives the DM a choice of two very unsatisfactory courses: make the campaign's story all about the warlock and make all the other players feel like sidekicks, or ignore (or just give unsatisfying lip-service to) the warlock's concept, making the class feel to both the player and the DM like a bit of a non-entity. As I said, this is not such a major issue; the fact is you can forget about it and get on with playing and still have fun, but I still think it's an inherent problem with warlocks.

And my last problem: it's setting-wreckingly popular. The majority of games I've played in or DMd over the last two years have had at least one warlock PC. Obviously that's very anecdotal, but from these forums and other internet sources it seems to be fairly common. Now this is not something that any one warlock-fancying player can be blamed for and I would certainly never do so, and I would never outlaw the class when running a game either. But the overall effect of all these warlocks knocking around is that over time it builds a picture of the setting in which warlocks are more common than any other single class. It's as if there's a Mephistopheles or a Cthulhu on every street corner going "psst - you want some eldritch power?" And every fifth peasant who walks past is like "sure I'll sell my soul, what have I got to lose?" Now that's an amusing idea but it's not what I want for my D&D games which are, broadly-speaking, fairly serious in tone. All this when the essential class concept seems to suggest it should be, if anything, the LEAST common, the most exotic and obscure of all the classes. Again, this isn't really anyone's fault, but it can be annoying.

I guess what these three issues have in common is that they all involve disparities between what the warlock seems, conceptually, like it should be, and what it actually turns out to be when used in a game. Of course, the third point might indicate that I'm more or less alone in this and should probably lighten up - but does anyone else see where I'm coming from here?

[jaappleton]

I find it's only as much of a snowflake as you allow it to be.

I've had scenarios where it was "I'm a Fiend pact. I'm level 2. I doubt Mephistopholes is paying much attention to me. He likely makes 30 of us every day, and if one becomes powerful enough to actually garner his attention, great." where the DM didn't really play with the Patron.

I've had times where I was a direct agent of an Archfey and the DM played with the Patron aspect constantly.

I find nearly all the issues of 'I RAN OUT OF SPELLS AND WE CAN'T REST!' is solved by using Spell Points. Which isn't AL legal, but for your home table... Solves most things.

[Tanarii]

Am I alone in having misgivings about the warlock in 5E?I'm an unabashed warlock lover, both as a player and a DM ... but I just love the honesty in your thread title. :smallbiggrin:


First problem: eldritch blast.Without going down the numbers comparison rabbit-hole ... I both agree and disagree. I don't like that it's considered ridiculously optimal, so much so as to be required, that a Warlock be an EB w Agonizing Blast platform. I think it's marginally overpowered. But mainly, I just don't *like* that it's so easy to gain access to Agonizing Blast. That it's the default go-to option for Warlocks in the majority of cases.


And my last problem: it's setting-wreckingly popular.Agreed. I have a hard "no Evil alignments" requirement for PCs IMC, so I address this by pointing out to a player that wants to play a warlock they need to figure out a way to accommodate the fact that they've sworn a pact with a powerful Evil (Infernal) or Insane & Hostile to All Life & Reality (Great Old One) being. Players are basically free to make up their own reason they would do such a thing and not be Evil themselves. What they're not free to do is redefine what it means to swear a pact to such a creature, or redefine what a Warlock is. Those things are fixed. OTOH, I have no problem with the good old standby of 'I sold my soul to the Devil / Eldritch Powers and now I'm trying to cheat my Patron out of his reward before I die' canard. It's an old fashioned archetype, and I like strong archetypes in this campaign. I just have to put up with far too many dark & broody Warlocks as a result. It's amazing how willing so many people are to sell their souls! Especially since I run a highly lethal campaign, so they're almost certain to die before they can succeed. Not that the PCs themselves know this.

[gfishfunk]

I agree with the troubles for slightly different reasons.

1. Invocations that make Eldritch Blast are too easy up front. Also, they make taking any other invocations less ideal. Most Warlocks look and function identically even though there is so much inherent variety in the available options.

EDIT: and I want to point out that those other options are FUN and USEFUL. From a pure damage standpoint, they are less than ideal. The only warlock I played did not have an eldritch blast focus at all, and took no eldritch blast invocations. It was wonderful.

2. The Pacts ARE Story Inherent. I think you can trade this away if you are willing to change the idea of the pacts without changing the mechanics. Such as, the Warlock is leeching power out of something and MAYBE has something to do with a power much greater and remote.

I like that the character has a built in NPC to interact with, but I would prefer if we were able to choose something like a non-sentient patron, or a patron order or whatever that had less influence and on-screen time demand.

3. The prevalence doesn't bother me. Its a prevalence of PCs which are inherently sparser in the world.

4. If there were a Pact class, of which Warlock, Fey Knight, and Something Else were all subclasses, I think it would be the same mechanically and a different experience. They Feylock is not really a Warlock in the way pop-culture views it.

[Foxhound438]

Am I alone in having misgivings about the warlock in 5E? It's taken two years of DMing and playing for me to realise it but I find I have three major problems with the class.


No, I think that there's a decent number of people that hate the class for assorted reasons, and its mechanical... uniqueness is certainly a part of that.


First problem: eldritch blast.


Oh, absolutely EB is the overpowered cantrip of the game, but having a d10 damage die isn't that big of a deal. A fighter who takes the sharpshooter feat is going to out-damage eldritch blast all day, week, month, and year no problem. The issues with eldritch blast are thus not about the damage die: it's that all of the pieces are in the first 2- count them, two levels, of the warlock class, meaning after that you can take levels in whatever else after that and you're garunteed to still have maybe the third or fourth most ranged, at-will damage that any possible build can, so long as you do end up maxing out charisma. For fighters with bows, on the other hand, if you leave the fighter class at level 2 and start taking levels of druid or wizard or something, you never get the extra attacks- you literally need 20 levels in fighter to get 4 attacks from them, but you only need 2 in warlock to get 4 attacks with eldritch blast. That's something problematic about the class that really only can be fixed at this point by house ruling that cantrips only scale with levels in the class that you get them from


Second problem: warlocks are natural snowflakes.

Oh, absolutely, but who are you to tell someone else what they can or can't role play?


And my last problem: it's setting-wreckingly popular.

The popularity in theorycrafting is absolutely bonkers, but honestly it's not that overly common in play as far as I can see. That may just be a thing with your group.

[War_lord]

I don't quite get the whole "special snowflake" complaint. All D&D PC characters are "special snowflakes" mechanically. People should be able to bring whatever character they want to the table within the bounds of the rules, without having to worry about someone else at the table attacking them for wanting to play a certain character.

[Waazraath]

Don't recognize this in my games.

1) EB

Yes, it's good. But a fighter with hand crosbow will have 1 extra ranged attack for almost his entire carreer. A ranged ranger can have both horde breaker and swift quiver can have effectively 5 attacks as well. So I don't see this problem.

2) snowflakes

Player problem, not class problem. If you don't have a player that wants to be special, you won't have a problem with warlock. If you do have a player that wants to be the special one, he'll try it with an extravagant paladin or bard or anything.

3) too popular

I'm in my 3rd 5e campaign now; only 1 warlock so far.

That's my experience.

[Spellbreaker26]

Gonna have to agree with point 2. Even if the player is a really good roleplayer, either it looks like there aren't any consequences for selling your soul or the plot gets derailed. Either the patron never enters the story or if he does, either you feel like you're railroading or the patron loses mystique. It's similar to the problems many people have with paladin.

[jaappleton]

Gonna have to agree with point 2. Even if the player is a really good roleplayer, either it looks like there aren't any consequences for selling your soul or the plot gets derailed. Either the patron never enters the story or if he does, either you feel like you're railroading or the patron loses mystique. It's similar to the problems many people have with paladin.

How much of that is on the player? I put most of that on the DM.

[Steampunkette]

Aren't Paladins snowflakes out of the bottle? The Chosen One who is granted powers by the Gods because of his uniqueness in the world? Anyone can worship a God, but not many can turn that worship into Martial Prowess.

Aren't Barbarians snowflakes out of the bottle? I get angry, sure, but not angry enough to gain advantage on all strength checks. Why can't a fighter get that angry and gain advantage? And they're all tribal warriors who somehow shrug off spears and arrows from their mighty thews and powerful pecs 'cause nothing says "I'm Really Angry!" like a sword bouncing off your abs.

And Wizards, oh my gosh -those- are some special snowflakes. Can't they just pick up a sword like the rest of us instead of spending so much time in Wizard Towers and Schools that they endlessly "Give Up" different parts of their life in a super-brooding fashion?

Literally any class is, by design, a special snowflake.

Yes. The Warlock makes a deal with an evil entity, usually, and may or may not have to deal with that in roleplay. So does the Cleric or Paladin that swears themself to a deity. Or a Druid swearing themself to Nature.

But why is that a problem? People throw around "Special Snowflake" as if it had some kind of real meaning that defines it as objectively bad rather than simply "Different". Ultimately I think we're looking at a situation where it will slowly become something no one gives a second thought to. When the next thing becomes the "Special Snowflake".

As to EB being a great ranged attacker: I honestly feel it's about damned time there's a good magic-using consistent ranged damage dealer. In most previous editions this wasn't a -thing-. Your options for consistent ranged damage were Archery or maybe Throwing things. And that's it. Does it deal a tiny bit more damage of a more favorable type than a fighter shooting a longbow? Sure. But you can't use Sharpshooter on Eldritch Blast. You can't use a Magic bow and Magic Arrows and the Archery Fighting Style with Eldritch Blast.

So while it's a nice consistent damage at range, it's certainly not the end all and be all of fighting past the 10ft mark.

[Spellbreaker26]

How much of that is on the player? I put most of that on the DM.

Let me put it in perspective. We have a system of rotating GMs, and this player had been treating his patron as more of a pal (or piggybank, really) than a master, constantly asking for help and favours while none of the other GMs had the patron really give him tasks or really do anything at all. This state of affairs is obviously not brilliant, since it damages the mystique of the warlock patron (it was Archfey, BTW).

So when it got round to my turn, I decided to shake things up by having the patron give him a mysterious task; to help a man of dubious virtue who was also working for this patron. The reason was not revealed to the player, but he kept bugging the patron with psychic messages until he got a response and then demanded to know why the patron needed his help.

The session ended around that point, but I didn't know what to do when a Warlock literally backchatted his patron to his face. Do I turn off the Warlock powers or force a subclass change a la Paladin? Does the Warlock take psychic damage from the backlash? Either I felt like I was dropping lightning bolts on someone's head or I would be letting someone do something breathtakingly suicidal and get away with it.

I mean, I do think I screwed up along the way, but I also feel that Warlock carries baggage that even classes that are similar like Cleric and Paladin do not.

[Steampunkette]

And, hey, if you don't like the "Working with a Dark Power" angle, change it.

Make the Fiend pact also work with Avenging Angels so the fire still fits. Or Fire Elementals or Fire itself.

Make the Great Old One warlock into a Psychic character rather than one touching the mind of eldritch entities birthed before the stars.

Make the Fey pact not bound to Hags or the Unseelie fey, but the Fey Court of bright and joyous dancing faeries.

If that's what you're worried about, change it.

[JellyPooga]

Without going down the numbers comparison rabbit-hole ... I both agree and disagree. I don't like that it's considered ridiculously optimal, so much so as to be required, that a Warlock be an EB w Agonizing Blast platform. I think it's marginally overpowered. But mainly, I just don't *like* that it's so easy to gain access to Agonizing Blast. That it's the default go-to option for Warlocks in the majority of cases.

I'm with Tanarii on this one, on the whole. I totally agree with the OP that it seems odd that "sold your soul" apparantly means "became living artillery"; the ease with which a Warlock can "optimise" Eldritch Blast for a ranged attack that stays competetive for all 20 levels (regardless of what Class those levels are in) makes it an obvious conclusion to draw that all Warlocks are probably going to take that "easy" option. On the other hand, it's by no means necessary that a Warlock even take Eldritch Blast; it's a great option certainly, but as has been hashed out many times since the birth of 5ed, it's by no means necessary to play the "optimal" game in order to survive and if a player wants to be a Bladelock (or Hexblade if using the new UA), or a non-combat focused Warlock without it, then that's perfectly fine. The additional utility you gain, even from taking just a single different Cantrip and Invocation, could be the difference between being able to play the character concept you wanted (i.e. a Warlock that isn't a walking machine gun) and not.

[Honest Tiefling]

First problem: eldritch blast. If you were to ask me two years ago just before I started playing the system, "which of these core classes sounds the most suited to a build focused on ranged combat" I would without a doubt say either the stealthy skirmish warrior (ranger) or the highly trained professional soldier (fighter). I might mention rogue or barbarian as well. Probably the furthest from my mind would be the eldritch lore-seeker who made a pact with an otherworldly being, because what the hell does that, on a conceptual level, have to do with ranged combat.

Devil: You have summoned me, O puny mortal. I will grant you anything you desire--
Warlock: I wanna shoot fire from my nipples.
Devil: Wait, what? Are you serious?
Warlock: Oh yeah. I want to see what I can destroy with my chest.

A bit exaggerated, but I've viewed warlocks as very often (but not always) being the types to research forbidden lore to potentially destroy things. The sort that sees the world as a bunch of haystacks because they've got a match. Besides, if you live in an unstable world where might makes right, isn't it tempting to give in and give a little payback or to get the strength you need to protect your loved ones? And what good is it to get forbidden knowledge if someone stronger takes it away from you?

Not everyone has the resources or the ability to become a wizard or a sorcerer, after all. Warlocking just requires a pact, very democratic, really. Doesn't require wealth or a magical lineage, just a promise, and all of your problems will go away.

There is also the point that warlocks use CHARISMA, not intelligence or wisdom.

[Exentia]

Following on the OP's Warlock rant about how the DM has to focus on them since they RP the deity/being that the Warlock takes power from, Volo's presented a similar character type, the Aasimar has a Deva guide. In my last campaign (I was a player character,) I noticed that the Aasimar got some extra attention and hints since he had a Deva guide which was roleplayed by the DM. The campaign inadvertently led to use following the hints that the Aasimar got in order to go through the campaign, when the Aasimar died, it left a big hole in our campaign as our DM rushed to try and fix it and figure out how to continue to give us our campaign clues and hints.

[War_lord]

The session ended around that point, but I didn't know what to do when a Warlock literally backchatted his patron to his face. Do I turn off the Warlock powers or force a subclass change a la Paladin? Does the Warlock take psychic damage from the backlash? Either I felt like I was dropping lightning bolts on someone's head or I would be letting someone do something breathtakingly suicidal and get away with it/

Punish him. Either give him 1d4 psychic damage with an (in-character) warning that next time he's insubordinate, he'll find his brain leaking out of his nose. Or if that seems a little harsh, just have his spells start fizzling out at unfortunate moments. If he insists on giving guff to the literal source of his class powers, there should be consequence.

The whole theme of the Warlock is that they couldn't actually hack it as a Wizard, so they used their charm to take a huge and risky shortcut.

[Specter]

I'm more bothered with those disgusting 2-level dips for minicombos than a full-fledged warlock. But I see your point.

"Mortal, do you want to sell me your soul for nice rays coming out of your fingers and seeing in darkness?"
"Yes, milord, I'll do anything!"

Blech.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Am I alone in having misgivings about the warlock in 5E?

No, I hate them too. Mainly because of the fluff though... it just doesn't 'fit' into my mental picture of what 'should' be in D&D. And as a DM, it forces me to insert an NPC (the patron) into the game who might not have been planned for originally, which is a pain.

Also, yeah, the overwhelming popularity certainly offends my inner hipster. I will admit to being one of those terrible people who hates things purely because they're popular. :smallcool:

Edit: wow, I don't think I've ever been so ninja'd. I didn't even take long writing that one!

[Steampunkette]

Devil: You have summoned me, O puny mortal. I will grant you anything you desire--
Warlock: I wanna shoot fire from my nipples.
Devil: Wait, what? Are you serious?
Warlock: Oh yeah. I want to see what I can destroy with my chest.

A bit exaggerated, but I've viewed warlocks as very often (but not always) being the types to research forbidden lore to potentially destroy things. The sort that sees the world as a bunch of haystacks because they've got a match. Besides, if you live in an unstable world where might makes right, isn't it tempting to give in and give a little payback or to get the strength you need to protect your loved ones? And what good is it to get forbidden knowledge if someone stronger takes it away from you?

Not everyone has the resources or the ability to become a wizard or a sorcerer, after all. Warlocking just requires a pact, very democratic, really. Doesn't require wealth or a magical lineage, just a promise, and all of your problems will go away.

There is also the point that warlocks use CHARISMA, not intelligence or wisdom.

... This is fantastic.

[Honest Tiefling]

As for the fluff, I think it would be reasonably easy to make a patron that could fit many campaigns, even with less contact with magical powers such as fey or devils.

Why not ancestral spirits? That forms the basis of many religions DnD settings like to treat as a free idea bucket. It doesn't make the character special other then getting a few words from great-great grandma about what to do. (I also would find it amusing if the spirits kept trying to match make their descendants to keep the line strong and and had strong opinions about who would make the best babies).

Natural forces such as the elements would be harder, given the powers warlocks have, but many mythologies treat nature as an unpredictable, wrathful force. Probably isn't going to have much of an opinion on things, so other then tapping into that, the warlock isn't the chosen one or has a patron breathing down their neck.

If you also want to be mean to your player, you could also propose that the warlock was granted this power by bartering with the fates, and has become a part of prophecy. Now, how many prophecies actually work out well for the people involved? They might be a special snowflake, but not likely one with a stable marriage. May you live in interesting times indeed.

As for the dilemma of the character back-talking their patron, I'd talk to the player. Maybe they had a reason to do it, because they felt it was better for the party or the campaign. Maybe they were expecting some sort of retribution to use as character growth. Maybe they are inspired by the many, many, many tales of people making deals with evil figures and finding loopholes in folklore and thought it was appropriate. They're not clerics, so I'd say the issue is a bit fuzzier and it's better to work out a suitable compromise with the player then to seem like THAT DM.


... This is fantastic.

I challenge ANYONE to say they don't know of someone who wouldn't honestly consider trying to pull a fast one on a evil patron to get the power to shoot fire from inappropriate areas.

[Larpus]

First problem: [snip]

I'm inclined to agree.

Still haven't had the time and peace of mind to fully read the class and what it can and cannot do, but I can say that, due to how much EB is mentioned all over the place, it doesn't seem to be at all what I expected out of it, with my expectation being something of a mix of PF Alchemist and 5e Sorcerer.

But it remains that EB being so front-loaded is indeed a problem with the design.

At some point I have to homebrew me a 5e Alchemist with Warlock as a base...


Second problem: [snip]

To be fair, I'm also very used to see paladins and sorcerers dominate the play, with the other classes almost never being particularly front and center story-wise.

And while I can see that as a problem, it's mitigated by the whole "you're small fry, your patron doesn't really care about you" sort of deal, which is how I tend to act about paladins when I DM, except their deity cares a great deal about them, it's most churches that couldn't really be bothered.


And my last problem: [snip]

I can understand and share some of the irritation.

That said, from my part, what I think is the most irritating aspect is how often warlock is mentioned as being either part of a build or suggested as a 2 level dip, but that stems from EB being bonkers, so it's not really a problem with warlocks and it's more of a problem with EB itself.

As for the class being played.....honestly, in my table I'm the only one mildly interested and, even if I weren't, it's only really a problem if you happen to have 2+ in the same table, otherwise, as common as warlocks might be in this board or the internet at large, the game worlds aren't one and the same, so even if we have over a million warlocks being played in the world, in your particular campaign, the warlock is still the only one known and possibly the only one in existence, so it's not a thematic or in-game logic issue at all.

[Iamcreative]

As a warlock apologist, Ill say that there are some problems with EB, not that I think its op (although it is good certainly). But the fact it scales off character level is kind of strange when you multi-class or dip warlock "oh yeah that power i got from chatting up a fiend 8 levels back just got stronger!".

As far as 'snowflake-ness' goes I would say that theyre not any more than any other class, thats mostly a player issue. But it does set something powerful and solid in the game world that the DM has to work around (which can be annoying, but can be resolved if the DM gives them a list of powers in their world). And again any character with backstory will probably have something similiar the DM will have to work around.

And as for their popularity, I would agree. They are popular and maybe more so than any other class, but for a good reason Id say. They fill a niche that (at least for me) is hard to find in other classes. The idea of a character thats just always works and is flexible enough to be useful almost always. Like a rogue but without the fact that their damage is situational (even though it is easy to set up, the feeling like there has to be a special set of cercumstances you need to met is distastful). Additionally, they have a bunch of passive and at-will abilities both in at out of combat so you dont need to manage a spellbook or spellslots per day. So Ill never feel useless.

[Sir cryosin]

I disagree that warlock is a snowflake class. All PC's are snowflakes that why we like to play D&D.
OK so who's your character
Player 1: I'm John to cool to have a last name and big muscular dude who has a giant a sword yes scars all over his body and he don't give a s*** about what anybody says he does whatever he wants. He has two levels in barbarian and the rest fighter.
Player2: Louis Francois de valie the third. She's an ex Princess that her kingdom was taken away from her mother and father in a revolutionary revolt and now she's out to make all this money and gain power to win back her her country and to become the queen. And along the way she found out that she has a super rare blood coming from one of her a long long long long long long long long long long lost relative who was Dragon. Oh if you haven't been able to tell I'm a dragon sorcerer.
Player 3: he was chosen to be a vessel of a god to do his God's will and to bring judgment upon the wicked, and lead the Lost in The Holy Name of my God. And part of his devotion he has renounce all his worldly ties including his name. I'm playing a cleric.

The snowflake syndrome is not a class it is a role player thing. If you look at how a cleric and a warlock gain their powers it is exactly the same a higher being with more magical power then said player is granted power to become that higher beans personal vessel in the prime material planes. One makes a contract the other one devotes themself to worship.

Oh and im not really pro warlock I'm neutral on the class.

[Spellbreaker26]

Punish him. Either give him 1d4 psychic damage with an (in-character) warning that next time he's insubordinate, he'll find his brain leaking out of his nose. Or if that seems a little harsh, just have his spells start fizzling out at unfortunate moments. If he insists on giving guff to the literal source of his class powers, there should be consequence.

The whole theme of the Warlock is that they couldn't actually hack it as a Wizard, so they used their charm to take a huge and risky shortcut.

The problem with that is that if he does keep refusing (and judging by the way he works, it's not just going to be "I refuse to help you" it'll be "I'm going to actively hinder your plans") is that there's going to be a high possibility that he ticks off the patron to the point that the patron does cut off the source of his power or straight up tries to kill him; and it really would give me a not-quite-right feeling if that happened, almost as if I railroaded him into something (BTW, I did have plans for if he refused to help, with a gradual conflict building between him and the patron, just not for him to actively call out the patron right away) and then punished him for not doing it.

[Iamcreative]

As for the fluff, I think it would be reasonably easy to make a patron that could fit many campaigns, even with less contact with magical powers such as fey or devils.


Thats how I deal with it. Or at least re-fluff them so that maybe the ' older than time' tentacle monster isnt out to murder everything. Theyre just doing whatever it is they do.

[Honest Tiefling]

I disagree that warlock is a snowflake class. All PC's are snowflakes that why we like to play D&D.

Yeah...Haven't PCs been of above average ability scores for the last few editions? So the party is typically made of charismatic exceptional athletes who are either all extremely pretty, or extremely ugly.

Through I wonder how many players of warlocks wouldn't mind having their patron tied to the backstory of another PC. Such as getting warlock powers from a former devil turned holy servant of the same god as the paladin, for instance. Might cut down on a few issues, as focus on one would probably be focus on another.


Thats how I deal with it. Or at least re-fluff them so that maybe the ' older than time' tentacle monster isnt out to murder everything. Theyre just doing whatever it is they do.

Ah, good ol' eldritch horror. The solution to many a dilemma with world building and setting.

[Iamcreative]

Ah, good ol' eldritch horror. The solution to many a dilemma with world building and setting.

But this eldritch horror is hip! They wear sunglasses and know how to ollie!

[Steampunkette]

Thats how I deal with it. Or at least re-fluff them so that maybe the ' older than time' tentacle monster isnt out to murder everything. Theyre just doing whatever it is they do.

Bolothamogg.

In the Forgotten Realms, Bolothamogg is an elder evil of the Far Realm. A great and powerful entity who has the express goal of protecting the Far Realm from the TAINT of our Material Reality.

In my Storm King's Thunder game, one of the players is a follower of Bolothamogg who swore a pact with the entity to help protect the Far Realm from Mortal Incursions. Fighting Giants and saving Hekaton has nothing to do with any of that, of course, but who cares?

The Great Old One he chose as his Entity is neither interventionist nor in any way truly EVIL in a manner we would recognize. He'd destroy any mortal that invades his plan, sure. But he's not going to send Aberrations from the Far Realm to Faerun because they'd get corrupted.

[Spellbreaker26]

Through I wonder how many players of warlocks wouldn't mind having their patron tied to the backstory of another PC. Such as getting warlock powers from a former devil turned holy servant of the same god as the paladin, for instance. Might cut down on a few issues, as focus on one would probably be focus on another.


That could have potential, but it sounds like a recipe for disaster first and foremost. The two classes that are already going to have a lot of beef with each other now have a storyline reason to try and kill each other. You could have the Paladin not know that the warlock is so, but then that just means the warlock has an opportunity to sneak kill the paladin. Unless you really *really* trust your players I'd never go down that route.

[Honest Tiefling]

That could have potential, but it sounds like a recipe for disaster first and foremost. The two classes that are already going to have a lot of beef with each other now have a storyline reason to try and kill each other. You could have the Paladin not know that the warlock is so, but then that just means the warlock has an opportunity to sneak kill the paladin. Unless you really *really* trust your players I'd never go down that route.

...If the warlock and the paladin on the same side are trying to murder each other, I think the issue is less with the warlock class and more with your players.

[Spellbreaker26]

...If the warlock and the paladin on the same side are trying to murder each other, I think the issue is less with the warlock class and more with your players.

How are they supposed to roleplay that? Not just "I suspect you draw your power from a forbidden source, but I will trust you". This is "you are devoted to the archenemy of all that I stand for". Even with really good players I could see that coming to blows, and I wouldn't blame either participant.

[War_lord]

The problem with that is that if he does keep refusing (and judging by the way he works, it's not just going to be "I refuse to help you" it'll be "I'm going to actively hinder your plans") is that there's going to be a high possibility that he ticks off the patron to the point that the patron does cut off the source of his power or straight up tries to kill him; and it really would give me a not-quite-right feeling if that happened, almost as if I railroaded him into something (BTW, I did have plans for if he refused to help, with a gradual conflict building between him and the patron, just not for him to actively call out the patron right away) and then punished him for not doing it.

But he's doing something that can only have one ultimate outcome at this point. I mean, you haven't railroaded him in the slightest, he's just insisting on doing something really really stupid, in the belief that he won't suffer any consequences for meta reasons.


Thats how I deal with it. Or at least re-fluff them so that maybe the ' older than time' tentacle monster isnt out to murder everything. Theyre just doing whatever it is they do.

It's probably worth mentioning that the Mythos Great Old Ones that D&D's Great Old Ones are inspired by weren't out to murder everything, their alien nature just had that effect on any human who had too much knowledge of them. They just didn't notice or care about humanity.

[Steampunkette]

How are they supposed to roleplay that? Not just "I suspect you draw your power from a forbidden source, but I will trust you". This is "you are devoted to the archenemy of all that I stand for". Even with really good players I could see that coming to blows, and I wouldn't blame either participant.

"I draw my Power from Mestoricalees, Servant of Kord"
"I draw my Power from Kord"
"Neat! But I'm not your Squire."

And off on adventures they go.

[Iamcreative]

How are they supposed to roleplay that? Not just "I suspect you draw your power from a forbidden source, but I will trust you". This is "you are devoted to the archenemy of all that I stand for". Even with really good players I could see that coming to blows, and I wouldn't blame either participant.

I think he meant that the fiend had switched sides and now works for the paladins god. Making the warlock indirectly working for that god too.

[JellyPooga]

I disagree that warlock is a snowflake class. All PC's are snowflakes that why we like to play D&D.
OK so who's your character
Player 1: I'm John to cool to have a last name and big muscular dude who has a giant a sword yes scars all over his body and he don't give a s*** about what anybody says he does whatever he wants. He has two levels in barbarian and the rest fighter.
Player2: Louis Francois de valie the third. She's an ex Princess that her kingdom was taken away from her mother and father in a revolutionary revolt and now she's out to make all this money and gain power to win back her her country and to become the queen. And along the way she found out that she has a super rare blood coming from one of her a long long long long long long long long long long lost relative who was Dragon. Oh if you haven't been able to tell I'm a dragon sorcerer.
Player 3: he was chosen to be a vessel of a god to do his God's will and to bring judgment upon the wicked, and lead the Lost in The Holy Name of my God. And part of his devotion he has renounce all his worldly ties including his name. I'm playing a cleric.

The snowflake syndrome is not a class it is a role player thing. If you look at how a cleric and a warlock gain their powers it is exactly the same a higher being with more magical power then said player is granted power to become that higher beans personal vessel in the prime material planes. One makes a contract the other one devotes themself to worship.

Oh and im not really pro warlock I'm neutral on the class.

Player 4: I'm Frank the Rogue. You guys just hired me through a contact in the Thieves Guild. I ain't no-one special. Baator! I ain't even the best; I'm just good at what I do.

Not everyone wants to be a snowflake :smallwink:

Some Classes do tend to lend themselves towards "snowflakeness" though; Warlocks, Sorcerers, Clerics and Paladins top the list, with their powerful patrons and/or ancestors and their typically flashy powers. Rangers, Druids and Wizards snowflake to a lesser extent, because the training they've had doesn't necessarily involve some mighty patron, mentor or innately amazing talent (but it can). Bards, Fighters, Rogues and Barbarians, whilst they have the potential for being a snowflake, tend to have more of a solid grounding in the "Eh, adventuring's just a job" (aka: the "had to learn a trade, might as well be fightin'/thievin'/playin' around the world") category.

[Iamcreative]

It's probably worth mentioning that the Mythos Great Old Ones that D&D's Great Old Ones are inspired by weren't out to murder everything, their alien nature just had that effect on any human who had too much knowledge of them. They just didn't notice or care about humanity.

Neat! I didn't know that! Now I guess the patron I made that was just curious about the material plane makes more sense.

[Iamcreative]

Bolothamogg.

In the Forgotten Realms, Bolothamogg is an elder evil of the Far Realm. A great and powerful entity who has the express goal of protecting the Far Realm from the TAINT of our Material Reality.

In my Storm King's Thunder game, one of the players is a follower of Bolothamogg who swore a pact with the entity to help protect the Far Realm from Mortal Incursions. Fighting Giants and saving Hekaton has nothing to do with any of that, of course, but who cares?

The Great Old One he chose as his Entity is neither interventionist nor in any way truly EVIL in a manner we would recognize. He'd destroy any mortal that invades his plan, sure. But he's not going to send Aberrations from the Far Realm to Faerun because they'd get corrupted.

Oh thats good, Im probably going to steal that.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think he meant that the fiend had switched sides and now works for the paladins god. Making the warlock indirectly working for that god too.


"I draw my Power from Mestoricalees, Servant of Kord"
"I draw my Power from Kord"
"Neat! But I'm not your Squire."

And off on adventures they go.

Um...I see the communication issue. They got it on the nose, so both Warlock and Paladin are working (indirectly or not) for the same god.

Now, I HAVE seen plenty of parties where they would still kill each other, but I don't think that's what you meant.

Perhaps rules on NOT being nobility or great renown unless one doesn't have spell-casting ability (because it would be banned for royals, of course) might help everyone had a chance to shine. Heck, if arcane magic makes people infertile that's a pretty good reason to ban it for nobles since half of their job is to not get killed long enough to make the next generation.

[Spellbreaker26]

I think he meant that the fiend had switched sides and now works for the paladins god. Making the warlock indirectly working for that god too.

That's more plausible in a "why they aren't killing each other" way, but raises a whole new slew of questions.

Why the hell would a church (or whatever organisation handles the worship of the god in question) would even contemplate letting someone who had sold their soul help them? It seems like there would be some very severe trust issues, at the very least. I mean, if the situation was truly desperate, maaaybe, but it seems rather odd.

That said, it's the best idea I've ever heard for getting a party started without the Paladin and Warlock immediately having a reason to distrust each other.

[Honest Tiefling]

Can...Can you even sell your soul to a former devil? I assume if they are working for a good aligned god, it's heavily implied they'll hand it over to the god in question, which is what happens in a lot of afterlifes (afterlives?) anyway. I think if the devil was using the souls, they might not have really been all that 'former'...

Through the idea of the warlock making a pact with a celestial/former devil intrigues me for a religion based on rural regions. Why do they trust this guy? Because the person WAS in a desperate situation and swore themselves to this spirit to protect their remote village out of faith. A bit of a folk hero to the paladin's more traditional training. And then hilarity ensues.

[Dr.Samurai]

Am I alone in having misgivings about the warlock in 5E?
No. I know someone that loathes the warlock, though he pretends to simply have some... "concerns" with the class lol. I love it though.


First problem: eldritch blast. If you were to ask me two years ago just before I started playing the system, "which of these core classes sounds the most suited to a build focused on ranged combat" I would without a doubt say either the stealthy skirmish warrior (ranger) or the highly trained professional soldier (fighter). I might mention rogue or barbarian as well. Probably the furthest from my mind would be the eldritch lore-seeker who made a pact with an otherworldly being, because what the hell does that, on a conceptual level, have to do with ranged combat. And yet, mechanically, it's easily the best choice. At the small cost of one or two invocations you end up with a character who can, by level 17, make FOUR ranged attacks in one round for 1d10+5 damage each. In order to equal that, a fighter has to take a feat (Crossbow Expert, otherwise she can never make more than one attack per round with a d10-damage ranged weapon) and doesn't get all four attacks until level 20. The ranger never gets more than two attacks per round and so can never equal it. To my mind, this is an egregious dropping of the ball when it comes to making mechanics line up with class concepts - which I think is an important part of the design of games like D&D. It's a let-down for the ranger and fighter, whom we feel should be the best choices for a ranged combatant character, and also to the warlock, whom we feel should get mechanics that reflect his Faustian concept rather than inexplicably amounting to "dude with a big gun".
Well, you make pacts for knowledge and power, and Eldritch Blast is power.

I played a GOO Tome-lock in a short-lived Greyhawk game, and he had unwittingly made a pact with Tharizdun. He had a spiral on the palm of each hand, and was able to unleash some of the destructive power of the Chained God, who is a god of Entropy and Decay.

I don't know, I don't really see a need to restrict benefits gained from powerful patrons to knowledge or secrets. People crave power as well. People are ambitious for that.

Second problem: warlocks are natural snowflakes. Now this is less flat-out horrible than my first problem; it's more of a niggling annoyance really, but I find it hard to ignore. Of all the classes, the warlock is the one who seems most inclined to hog the limelight and demand to be the main character of a campaign. The central conceit of the power-hungry lore-seeker who has made a pact with some mysterious and powerful being just automatically begs to be explored in the story of the game. Now that's fine, even ideal, for a solo game. But in the classic party-based D&D experience it gives the DM a choice of two very unsatisfactory courses: make the campaign's story all about the warlock and make all the other players feel like sidekicks, or ignore (or just give unsatisfying lip-service to) the warlock's concept, making the class feel to both the player and the DM like a bit of a non-entity. As I said, this is not such a major issue; the fact is you can forget about it and get on with playing and still have fun, but I still think it's an inherent problem with warlocks.
I don't see how this is different from anyone else. It's a backstory. It's as relevant or irrelevant as you and the DM decide.

For that Greyhawk game, my character was a scholar and tutor, and received a distressing letter from his colleague, who went missing while on an expedition. He took a leave of absence to find his friend, and in so doing was captured by cultists and thrown into a spiraling labyrinth hidden in the mountains as a sacrifice. My character found his colleague's journal and, having spent some days desperately eluding the creatures of the maze, looked to the book for any hint, any clue that his friend may have found while exploring the structure. Barely able to translate the strange language, he unknowingly makes a pact with Tharizdun, and is awarded with the power to escape. Blah blah blah, now he's a PC and adventuring. None of this needs to come up later on.

Similarly, in my current Out of the Abyss game, I'm playing a GOO Tome-lock again since the other game died very quickly. This time, the character was captured by the Illithid, and because of his intelligence and charisma, is suited to be a spy for them. He is given an ultimatum, make a pact with the Elder Brain and return to the surface world as their pawn, or have his brain devoured. He chose the former, and while being brought to the surface world, is ambushed by the drow. His captors are killed and he ends up in the drow prison cell at the beginning of the game. Again, I'm not sure why the game would have to revolve around my character for that bit of backstory...


And my last problem: it's setting-wreckingly popular. The majority of games I've played in or DMd over the last two years have had at least one warlock PC. Obviously that's very anecdotal, but from these forums and other internet sources it seems to be fairly common. Now this is not something that any one warlock-fancying player can be blamed for and I would certainly never do so, and I would never outlaw the class when running a game either. But the overall effect of all these warlocks knocking around is that over time it builds a picture of the setting in which warlocks are more common than any other single class. It's as if there's a Mephistopheles or a Cthulhu on every street corner going "psst - you want some eldritch power?" And every fifth peasant who walks past is like "sure I'll sell my soul, what have I got to lose?" Now that's an amusing idea but it's not what I want for my D&D games which are, broadly-speaking, fairly serious in tone. All this when the essential class concept seems to suggest it should be, if anything, the LEAST common, the most exotic and obscure of all the classes. Again, this isn't really anyone's fault, but it can be annoying.
This I can understand. But I suppose it can depend on how you describe the nature of the warlock's abilities.

[MarcFrey]

Really I only dislike eldritch Blast due to how it was the superior warlock build flat out.. I think they just screwed the pooch a bit there and are looking into making it a bit more interesting with the Warlock/Wiz UA. Otherwise I don't think it breaks or makes the idea behind the class... they can use it.. or not (I did not.)


As for the snowflake issue, I think players and DM'S should work together when creating a character. For example, I shot my character idea to my DM, told hI'm my plans how I'd like to rp my character and what type of fiend I wanted.

Then I asked him what he could offer. I was originally thinking that some sort of lower-fiend would offer me power etc. But he chose to make it an actual powerful being as he found ways to integrate it into the story.

I think that as long as the player gives their DM a good backstory the DM should be able to make every player feel "special". My DM have always been big about incorporating player characters into their world's instead of players trying to fit the world. They always asks for a story, backgrounds, relationships etc. Then gives us a big story that'll include some of these characters.

[Steampunkette]

That's more plausible in a "why they aren't killing each other" way, but raises a whole new slew of questions.

Why the hell would a church (or whatever organisation handles the worship of the god in question) would even contemplate letting someone who had sold their soul help them? It seems like there would be some very severe trust issues, at the very least. I mean, if the situation was truly desperate, maaaybe, but it seems rather odd.

That said, it's the best idea I've ever heard for getting a party started without the Paladin and Warlock immediately having a reason to distrust each other.

A Pact doesn't require a Soul.

You could make a Pact with Mestoricalees to uphold justice, serve Kord, and provide Mestoricalees with weekly Juice Boxes in exchange for the power Mestoricalees can give you.

You could swear your service to the Seelie Court and become a knight-protector for the Fey Realms, guarding the forests, on penalty of death should you betray the Fae Queen.

You could swear service and fealty to Bolothamogg to slay aberrations on the Material Plane for they return to the Far Realm and bring the taint of Sanity with them in exchange for power.

A Soul doesn't have to be part of the bargain.

[Submortimer]

I'm certainly also a warlock apologist, as they are undoubtedly my favorite class in 5e. That said, I really liked them back in 3.5 too, and I was always puzzled by the fact that they changed them so much, specifically Eldritch Blast.

The way they functioned in 3.5, they were more like a purely magical rogue: one attack per turn, big bucket of damage dice, single target (unless you had a blast shape). There was some craziness with Eldritch Claw and Eldritch Glaive (because Hideous Blow...well...blew), and the insanity that was the 1 Incarnate or Binder/x warlock/5 Hellfire warlock build was way beyond OP, but it did what it was supposed to do and had a distinct place.

I always thought it was strange that the warlock of 5e got a repeating laser rifle instead of a bigger laser cannon as he leveled, and I think it was even stranger that Eldritch Blast was just a cantrip. In my mind, it should have ended up similar to the new Artificer's Thundercannon.

[ad_hoc]

Is it the Warlock you have trouble with or is it the problem player who tends to gravitate towards Warlocks?

If Warlock wasn't a thing, those players would still be doing the things you don't like just with a different class.

[Knaight]

I don't particularly mind Warlocks. They're a significant part of why I argue that the idea of D&D being a generic fantasy game and not a highly specialized one is ludicrous, they distort the setting dramatically by their presence, and I just don't like the mechanics. The same thing applies just as heavily* to Clerics, Paladins, Sorcerers, and Wizards; we're just all more used to them.

*At minimum.

[Iamcreative]

A Pact doesn't require a Soul.

You could make a Pact with Mestoricalees to uphold justice, serve Kord, and provide Mestoricalees with weekly Juice Boxes in exchange for the power Mestoricalees can give you.

You could swear your service to the Seelie Court and become a knight-protector for the Fey Realms, guarding the forests, on penalty of death should you betray the Fae Queen.

You could swear service and fealty to Bolothamogg to slay aberrations on the Material Plane for they return to the Far Realm and bring the taint of Sanity with them in exchange for power.

A Soul doesn't have to be part of the bargain.

People definitly hear warlock and think "they sold their sould to the devil". But in 5e both "soul" and "devil" are negotiable. Hell, you can even argue "sold" seeing as how at least one patron explicitly states the patron may not know the warlock exists.

[Iamcreative]

I'm certainly also a warlock apologist, as they are undoubtedly my favorite class in 5e. That said, I really liked them back in 3.5 too, and I was always puzzled by the fact that they changed them so much, specifically Eldritch Blast.

The way they functioned in 3.5, they were more like a purely magical rogue: one attack per turn, big bucket of damage dice, single target (unless you had a blast shape). There was some craziness with Eldritch Claw and Eldritch Glaive (because Hideous Blow...well...blew), and the insanity that was the 1 Incarnate or Binder/x warlock/5 Hellfire warlock build was way beyond OP, but it did what it was supposed to do and had a distinct place.

I always thought it was strange that the warlock of 5e got a repeating laser rifle instead of a bigger laser cannon as he leveled, and I think it was even stranger that Eldritch Blast was just a cantrip. In my mind, it should have ended up similar to the new Artificer's Thundercannon.

I totally agree. Id say they should have baked EB into the class like they did in 3.x, not it feels like you either contribute in combat or don't depending on if you take it or not. And it lets other classes take it (which isnt bad, just odd to me).

Also 3.x warlocks were just so much fun. Shatter at will <3

[BW022]

HidesHisEyes,

Eldritch blast is not that powerful. At 17th-level, sure you do 4x 1d10+5 (average 42). However, the ranger could easily have archery style, magical bow, and sharpshooter. That is 2x 1d8+10+8 (average 45 damage). The ranger's +2 to hit for archery and +3 for a bow gives the same chance of hitting -- even taking the sharpshooter penalty. This doesn't even include hunter extra damage (Colossus, Horde, or Giant killer), ammunition damage (flaming, frost, lightning arrows), hunter's mark vs. hex (since the warlock has limited slots and would be loathed to waste a 5th-level slots for a 1st-level spell while the ranger can have hunter's mark up virtually all combats at that level), sharpshooter's ability to ignore cover, fact the ranger can attack silently, etc. Sorry... your example doesn't really show the warlock being superior.

Snowflakes. If you mean glass cannons... they are better than a wizard or sorcerer, and equal to a bard, rogue, monk, etc. I don't see why a warlock would hog the limelight any more than any other class. I see no reason why your assuming they are power-hungry due to their pact or why you couldn't say this about clerics, dragon sorcerers, paladins, etc. This is an issue of the DM/campaign permitting evil alignments or insane backgrounds. No reason you can't have a warlock entering into a pact for selfless reasons (save your village, as a reward for saving a fey, helping a celestial, etc.). I've never seen the need to ban insane clerics or paladins... I just ban worshipping evil gods.

Setting-Wrecking. In most settings, all PCs classes would be rare. Yet, I've seen games with three clerics, others all elves/half-elves, and some where everyone worshipped a nature god. So? These in no way represent the general class, level, race, alignments, etc. of the general population. A dwarven wizard, a Halfling paladin worshipping the god of the seas, a half-orc noble bard are also what... one in a hundred thousand? I don't see the point in worrying about a warlock over any other character who could come along. PCs tend to be rare in the super extremes.

[Temperjoke]

One could make the case that what each Patron wants will vary depending on the Patron and the Warlock doing the negotiation. It's kinda lazy to stick with the "sell soul for power" trope though. It also depends on the DM. You don't have to use the Patron in your game. Maybe the Warlock did sell his soul for power, so why would the Patron keep bothering him for more stuff, since the Warlock likely doesn't have anything more valuable to offer?

In fact, the Patron can be a boon for the DM. Need a convenient way to get the party to move a certain way? The Patron could assist. I mean, sure the Patron already has the soul, but the value of the soul could be increased if the Warlock gains a reputation and grows stronger. That would only serve to make the Patron look better.

"Oh, so you tricked that level 2 human into giving you his soul? That's cool, I guess. Oh this soul? Yeah, it's the soul of the level 15 human, who defeated the ancient red dragon Bloodfang and, incidentally, has inspired hundreds of adventurers to seek me out for power too."

So, aside from players who focus on optimization, I kinda feel all your problems with warlocks are caused by how DMs handle them.

[Steampunkette]

My last Warlock was a child of evil people who sold their child to a devil in exchange for power. Through some quirk of fate she managed to recover control over herself after the Devil took control, and used his powers to fight against Devils and their machinations.

My current Warlock is a Hexblade. She'll be wearing an oath of Freedom and Use to a dagger made from a Sliver of the Blackrazor which she finds in Undermountain after being thrown down into the dungeon by a thieves guild angered by her stealing in their territory without paying guild dues. She'll take the dagger, gain the power it holds as warlock abilities, and go out into the world as an adventuress to sate the dagger's lust for battle and treachery.

I previously ran a "Vampire Warlock" by refluffing the Fiend's abilities to be necromantic in nature and having my betrayed and dying character swear her soul to any being able to give her vengeance against the one who wronged her. The undead-demigod who heard her cry raised her from the dead with Warlock powers and set her on her path to retribution not out of desire for violence but a sense of motherly love for the Warlock whose very soul was given over to her in a weird as heck campaign...

Warlocks are awesome for creative story design.

[Honest Tiefling]

One could make the case that what each Patron wants will vary depending on the Patron and the Warlock doing the negotiation. It's kinda lazy to stick with the "sell soul for power" trope though. It also depends on the DM. You don't have to use the Patron in your game. Maybe the Warlock did sell his soul for power, so why would the Patron keep bothering him for more stuff, since the Warlock likely doesn't have anything more valuable to offer?

One would think that devils would understand player characters and just cut them loose. I mean, most of them take very poorly to orders, so why not plan on them running around like the murderhobos they are? The devil COULD waste time trying to reign in this person, but...Wouldn't they have factored this in already? Even if they do nothing, they still get a soul in the end.

[Submortimer]

I totally agree. Id say they should have baked EB into the class like they did in 3.x, not it feels like you either contribute in combat or don't depending on if you take it or not. And it lets other classes take it (which isnt bad, just odd to me).

Also 3.x warlocks were just so much fun. Shatter at will <3

God, I forgot about that. I was always in the Vitrolic Hellfire Eldritch glaive camp: 18d6 burning acid damage as a melee toucheck attack with reach? Yes please.

[mr-mercer]

I've only played as the one warlock, so take my experiences with a grain of salt.

Point 1: I have to say I agree. Though he was my first character, young Naill did certainly rely on EB a lot. Then again, I would have been willing to use more interesting tactics if I could have figured any out: I don't have a strategic mind, I'm afraid.

Point 2: That certainly depends on the player, but I can see the class attracting that sort of player. In terms of non-evil warlocks mine had a justification that I was pretty happy with: as a literal child he was neither particularly intelligent or wise, so he didn't exactly comprehend the fact that his soul was bound to an unknowable eldritch horror. He spent his time being happy-go-lucky and thinking that Aunt Nightingale was his best friend, up until the point that she (possibly unwittingly) put him through a series of psychologically torturous trials. Our DM had to cancel the campaign after that session due to an increased workload, but I got to play this character as an adult in a one-shot later on, in which I was able to explore the long-term effects of this event. Fun times.

Point 3: Again, I'm not very experienced with roleplaying yet, but I've only run across one other person playing a warlock. I do believe you when you say it's so popular, though: as with point 2, it does feel like a class that would attract a certain type of person.

[Tanarii]

Huh. I find it interesting that so many feel that the Patron should have personal contact & direct communication with the PC, requiring an NPC-like presence. I treat them very much like minor Gods ... somewhat distant and mostly disinterested in their Warlocks, but not so much as a Greater God would be. Infernal tend to be the most willing to use direct contact, but always with an intermediary or underling, never with the Pact-holder himself. Great Old ones usually send stuff via Dreams, often not even aware that's what they are doing. And Fey tend to be ... capricious and distant, their warlocks an afterthought.

YMMV obviously.

[Iamcreative]

God, I forgot about that. I was always in the Vitrolic Hellfire Eldritch glaive camp: 18d6 burning acid damage as a melee toucheck attack with reach? Yes please.

Oh man I was tempted to go glaive lock, but my DM thought I was op as it was. And judging by the argument over the 'soul shirt' (oh I forget what that was called) not reducing CON damage to 0, I figured I was pushing my luck as it was xD.

Those were the days... (also the fact that i covered every battlefield in tentacles probably didnt help)

[Asmotherion]

The Warlock hates you back. :)

[DracoKnight]

The Warlock hates you back. :)

An army of Warlocks is marching on him right now, as we speak.

[Sigreid]

Some of the people in this thread view warlock and patrons a lot differently than I do.

First, the fluff I read in the book is the patron doesn't grant you any power, he teaches you magical secrets. If he could grant power, he would have real clerics. This means that if they break their contract they don't loose their current power but they might not be able to advance further in warlock.

Second, neither the patron nor the Asimar's guide are on call. They contact the warlock or Asimar when it suits their purpose i.e. when the DM wants to toss out an adventure hook.

Third, depending on the contract negotiated with the DM, the patron may not be able to boss you around at all. It could be you agreed to fulfill a particular task such as screwing with the servant of one of their rivals, A fiend may have made a chain pact with you just to get you to keep summoning their real minion into the world (it will be doing your patron's "good work" when you aren't paying attention to it), or a great old one may think you're just part of his dream.

So, in my view the patron/fluff plays exactly as much roll in the campaign as is useful to the DM.

[Iamcreative]

Some of the people in this thread view warlock and patrons a lot differently than I do.

First, the fluff I read in the book is the patron doesn't grant you any power, he teaches you magical secrets. If he could grant power, he would have real clerics. This means that if they break their contract they don't loose their current power but they might not be able to advance further in warlock.

Second, neither the patron nor the Asimar's guide are on call. They contact the warlock or Asimar when it suits their purpose i.e. when the DM wants to toss out an adventure hook.

Third, depending on the contract negotiated with the DM, the patron may not be able to boss you around at all. It could be you agreed to fulfill a particular task such as screwing with the servant of one of their rivals, A fiend may have made a chain pact with you just to get you to keep summoning their real minion into the world (it will be doing your patron's "good work" when you aren't paying attention to it), or a great old one may think you're just part of his dream.

So, in my view the patron/fluff plays exactly as much roll in the campaign as is useful to the DM.

Thats actually exactly how I view it to. Warlocks are more like wizards with a mentor then anything. And as far as the pact goes, it could be as innocent as "make a 'thats what she said' joke as often as is reasonable" or just nothing if the patron doesnt care/know that they exist.

[Squiddish]

People always seem to have some misconceptions about the GOOs. Just to clarify:
1. They aren't evil, just... weird
2. They aren't ordering their warlocks around, and they might not even know they have warlocks "serving" them.

[Submortimer]

Oh man I was tempted to go glaive lock, but my DM thought I was op as it was. And judging by the argument over the 'soul shirt' (oh I forget what that was called) not reducing CON damage to 0, I figured I was pushing my luck as it was xD.

Those were the days... (also the fact that i covered every battlefield in tentacles probably didnt help)

It was Strongheart vest.

There were two popular ways to mitigate the con damage from Hellfire Warlock:

1) Taking a level in binder and binding Naberious, who healed you one point of ability damage in EACH stat per turn. I liked this because Binders and Warlocks come from the same "forbidden magic" wheelhouse.

2) Taking a level of Incarnate and shaping the Strongheart Vest, which reduced ability score damage by 1. It specifically did not PREVENT the damage, which is why it worked. I always liked this one because it worked thematically, if you were okay being unrepentantly evil: incarnum is the base soul-stuff of the universe, and by using it in this fashion you are essentially burning it as fuel to create Hellfire.

Either way, cheesy as ****, but kinda needed for 3.5 warlocks, since they were pretty low on the overall power curve.

[Iamcreative]

It was Strongheart vest.

There were two popular ways to mitigate the con damage from Hellfire Warlock:

1) Taking a level in binder and binding Naberious, who healed you one point of ability damage in EACH stat per turn. I liked this because Binders and Warlocks come from the same "forbidden magic" wheelhouse.

2) Taking a level of Incarnate and shaping the Strongheart Vest, which reduced ability score damage by 1. It specifically did not PREVENT the damage, which is why it worked. I always liked this one because it worked thematically, if you were okay being unrepentantly evil: incarnum is the base soul-stuff of the universe, and by using it in this fashion you are essentially burning it as fuel to create Hellfire.

Either way, cheesy as ****, but kinda needed for 3.5 warlocks, since they were pretty low on the overall power curve.

Ah yeah, but then the binder couldnt throw out more than 1 without taking con damage.
And who doesnt love using baby souls to murder people!

Also, warlocks were pretty average or less compared to full casters was probably why my dm was cool with it.

[Millstone85]

they've sworn a pact with a powerful Evil (Infernal) or Insane & Hostile to All Life & Reality (Great Old One) being.
It's probably worth mentioning that the Mythos Great Old Ones that D&D's Great Old Ones are inspired by weren't out to murder everything, their alien nature just had that effect on any human who had too much knowledge of them. They just didn't notice or care about humanity.
People always seem to have some misconceptions about the GOOs. Just to clarify:
1. They aren't evil, just... weird
2. They aren't ordering their warlocks around, and they might not even know they have warlocks "serving" them.Yeah, the Fiend can be anything from infernal to abyssal, the latter being what I would associate with "Insane & Hostile to All Life & Reality".

To make the Far Realm feel different, one should emphasize how the things from that plane are maddening, without necessarily being mad themselves, and can trigger a ZK-class reality-failure scenario by their mere presence, whether they are hostile, trying to help or just poking around.

Now, my warlock does hear the voice of the Veiled Star with a Thousand Wards, sometimes in her head and sometimes through her familiar, and it is a motherly one. But it might be how her own mind processes the information.

[HidesHisEyes]

Well, I think this is the most popular thread I've ever made by a significant margin.

To those arguing I've overstated the power of eldritch blast: you may very well be right. I actually haven't yet either played or DMd beyond level 11 so I haven't seen how these options play out at higher levels, just read about it. So fair enough. However I do still think, as some others have pointed out here, that it's a strange choice to make "human(oid) gun platform" the most powerful and enticing build for the class. If I ever decide to play as a warlock I will go for nasty debuffing and mind**** magic, which is what the class concept suggests to me, over an EB build.

For the many suggestions that the issue of snowflakes and narrative hijackong is with players and/or DMs rather than the class, I must have not made my point clear. Other classes - most obviously paladins and Draconic sorcerers - lend themselves to "snowflake" characters, sure. I'm actually not opposed to this approach to making characters. I'm quite fond of characters who see themselves as very important, and also of the old taciturn brooding scar-covered super-badass warrior type character. With warlocks specifically, the class FEELS as if it demands to be a part of the story. Sure I can choose for it not to be - but that feels weird because of the very nature of the class. No other class has that level of suggested story relevance built right into its basic premise, IMO.

And for the version of the anthropic principle where adventurers already represent a very small proportion of the world's population and the party's warlock is likely 1 in 100000... yes, that makes perfect logical sense. But again my problem is with the way the class FEELS. I can remind myself that although in my experience of actually playing D&D warlocks pop up everywhere, in the fictional game world they are indeed very unusual... but I don't really want to have to do that. I want the class to be to me as a player/DM what it is to the characters. Again it's a question of making the fiction line up with the gameplay experience.

Having said all that, there are some good suggestions above for mitigating these problems, particularly from a DM's perspective, so thanks for the responses.

[MrStabby]

I think I tend to agree with your observations, but not your conclusions.





First problem: eldritch blast. If you were to ask me two years ago just before I started playing the system, "which of these core classes sounds the most suited to a build focused on ranged combat" I would without a doubt say either the stealthy skirmish warrior (ranger) or the highly trained professional soldier (fighter). I might mention rogue or barbarian as well. Probably the furthest from my mind would be the eldritch lore-seeker who made a pact with an otherworldly being, because what the hell does that, on a conceptual level, have to do with ranged combat. And yet, mechanically, it's easily the best choice. At the small cost of one or two invocations you end up with a character who can, by level 17, make FOUR ranged attacks in one round for 1d10+5 damage each. In order to equal that, a fighter has to take a feat (Crossbow Expert, otherwise she can never make more than one attack per round with a d10-damage ranged weapon) and doesn't get all four attacks until level 20. The ranger never gets more than two attacks per round and so can never equal it. To my mind, this is an egregious dropping of the ball when it comes to making mechanics line up with class concepts - which I think is an important part of the design of games like D&D. It's a let-down for the ranger and fighter, whom we feel should be the best choices for a ranged combatant character, and also to the warlock, whom we feel should get mechanics that reflect his Faustian concept rather than inexplicably amounting to "dude with a big gun".

For me this is a question of fluff. If the Warlock was framed as the Arcane Archer and those same attacks were coming from a bow, few people would worry so much (some would). There seems to be this expectation that there cannot be powerful damaging cantrips, simply because there is only one of them. Reliable, repeatable damage should be from weapons only to some people. I don't have a problem with reliable damage coming from spells as long as the class as a whole is balanced - and the warlock gives up enough over the other casters to compensate for this. The warlock is the edition's blaster - I don't have a problem with it blasting. Sure, the Faustian concept doesnt line up with "dude with a big gun" - but then I would argue no concept in the typical D&D setting does either.



Second problem: warlocks are natural snowflakes. Now this is less flat-out horrible than my first problem; it's more of a niggling annoyance really, but I find it hard to ignore. Of all the classes, the warlock is the one who seems most inclined to hog the limelight and demand to be the main character of a campaign. The central conceit of the power-hungry lore-seeker who has made a pact with some mysterious and powerful being just automatically begs to be explored in the story of the game. Now that's fine, even ideal, for a solo game. But in the classic party-based D&D experience it gives the DM a choice of two very unsatisfactory courses: make the campaign's story all about the warlock and make all the other players feel like sidekicks, or ignore (or just give unsatisfying lip-service to) the warlock's concept, making the class feel to both the player and the DM like a bit of a non-entity. As I said, this is not such a major issue; the fact is you can forget about it and get on with playing and still have fun, but I still think it's an inherent problem with warlocks.

Which way does causality run here? Do snowflakes play warlocks or does playing a warlock make a snowflake? Is it the DM that makes a snowflake out of the warlock? I don't have a big problem with this. Awesome potential for NPC connections and side quests are a good part of a character - bemoan other character backgrounds that don't bring this rather than the ones that do. Some PCs represent their history in their background and some in their class. Is this really any worse than a deity or a liege lord, a tribal elder or even an animal companion?



And my last problem: it's setting-wreckingly popular. The majority of games I've played in or DMd over the last two years have had at least one warlock PC. Obviously that's very anecdotal, but from these forums and other internet sources it seems to be fairly common. Now this is not something that any one warlock-fancying player can be blamed for and I would certainly never do so, and I would never outlaw the class when running a game either. But the overall effect of all these warlocks knocking around is that over time it builds a picture of the setting in which warlocks are more common than any other single class. It's as if there's a Mephistopheles or a Cthulhu on every street corner going "psst - you want some eldritch power?" And every fifth peasant who walks past is like "sure I'll sell my soul, what have I got to lose?" Now that's an amusing idea but it's not what I want for my D&D games which are, broadly-speaking, fairly serious in tone. All this when the essential class concept seems to suggest it should be, if anything, the LEAST common, the most exotic and obscure of all the classes. Again, this isn't really anyone's fault, but it can be annoying.
Warlock is terrible because people like it? Something is wrong with it because people enjoy playing with it? To be fair they are probably having the wrong type of fun so it should be frowned upon.




I guess what these three issues have in common is that they all involve disparities between what the warlock seems, conceptually, like it should be, and what it actually turns out to be when used in a game. Of course, the third point might indicate that I'm more or less alone in this and should probably lighten up - but does anyone else see where I'm coming from here?

The question is, what does the warlock seem like it should be? I would guess that you would get a lot of different answers to that. To me, the trappings of the warlock are closer to the wizard - intelligence (but low wisdom), a scholar, a magician, insidious rather than outright offensive...

On the other hand the PHB is pretty clear that the warlock is more than someone who makes a pact with a fiend. There is a patron, but the nature of the pact is open. There is an entity, but the entity is not frequently evil. Maybe it isn't the class but peoples preconceptions of what "Warlock" means that is the problem.

The bits of the concept that I can't fit is the relative low influence of the archetype. Of all the spells a warlock will cast only a handful are likely to be from their patron's list. For an entity so influential and the source of the warlocks power I would have expected almost separate spell lists.

As for my preconceptions, I have greater issues with other classes. I imagine a cleric to be less martial than D&D suggests, I don't see bards as spellcasters, I see rogues as having greater need for either Cha or Int than the base class requires and so on.

I see your points on Warlocks, and many of them are well made but overall I think they add to the game; they provide enjoyable options for many players whilst diminishing the enjoyment of relatively few others.

[War_lord]

For the many suggestions that the issue of snowflakes and narrative hijackong is with players and/or DMs rather than the class, I must have not made my point clear. Other classes - most obviously paladins and Draconic sorcerers - lend themselves to "snowflake" characters, sure. I'm actually not opposed to this approach to making characters. I'm quite fond of characters who see themselves as very important, and also of the old taciturn brooding scar-covered super-badass warrior type character. With warlocks specifically, the class FEELS as if it demands to be a part of the story. Sure I can choose for it not to be - but that feels weird because of the very nature of the class. No other class has that level of suggested story relevance built right into its basic premise, IMO.

I don't really understand your point. Clerics and Paladins are literally agents of the Gods, Clerics specifically are noted to have an intuitive understanding of what their God wants them to do. Yet there's no expectation among players that the Cleric or Paladin will be getting into debates with their deity or calling them up at level 5 like a College kid asking Mom and Dad for a loan. Ultimately it's up to the DM how much they want to use the whole "I am your patron, you must obey me!" angle.

If the player doesn't want to have that kind of restriction placed on them, or the DM doesn't want to have to enforce such a thing (and I understand it's a difficult situation to navigate) there's lots of other dynamics that could be inserted into the patron-Warlock relationship. It doesn't have to be the boring "I sold my soul, now I hang out with Darklings and listen to Thine Alchemical Romance"

Archfey


My patron is infatuated with me, I convinced them to share a small fragment of their power.
My patron appeared in a dream and offered me power, telling me that I was "interesting" and could do great things.


Great Old One


By reading a forbidden tome of Eldrich knowledge, I learned how to insert an image of myself into the dreams of an eternally sleeping Great Old One, granting me power, if only I could get the whispers to stop.


Fiend


My patron granted me these powers against my will, apparently as part of some "grand plan", I need to find out what before it's too late.



And for the version of the anthropic principle where adventurers already represent a very small proportion of the world's population and the party's warlock is likely 1 in 100000... yes, that makes perfect logical sense. But again my problem is with the way the class FEELS. I can remind myself that although in my experience of actually playing D&D warlocks pop up everywhere, in the fictional game world they are indeed very unusual... but I don't really want to have to do that. I want the class to be to me as a player/DM what it is to the characters. Again it's a question of making the fiction line up with the gameplay experience.

That doesn't seem like a problem with the class. I mean, I don't like the idea of the D&D Monk from a Lore prospective, because it's a very East Asian concept that's dropped into the middle of the very Germanic/Western fantasy setting of D&D. But that's not a problem with a Monk class, it's a problem with my preconceptions about the Monk and I know that has it's a core class, I need to factor it into the Lore of my setting.

[MaxWilson]

Am I alone in having misgivings about the warlock in 5E? It's taken two years of DMing and playing for me to realise it but I find I have three major problems with the class.

First problem: eldritch blast. If you were to ask me two years ago just before I started playing the system, "which of these core classes sounds the most suited to a build focused on ranged combat" I would without a doubt say either the stealthy skirmish warrior (ranger) or the highly trained professional soldier (fighter). I might mention rogue or barbarian as well. Probably the furthest from my mind would be the eldritch lore-seeker who made a pact with an otherworldly being, because what the hell does that, on a conceptual level, have to do with ranged combat. And yet, mechanically, it's easily the best choice. At the small cost of one or two invocations you end up with a character who can, by level 17, make FOUR ranged attacks in one round for 1d10+5 damage each. In order to equal that, a fighter has to take a feat (Crossbow Expert, otherwise she can never make more than one attack per round with a d10-damage ranged weapon) and doesn't get all four attacks until level 20. The ranger never gets more than two attacks per round and so can never equal it.

Nitpick:

How's that? A Crossbow Expert fighter has four attacks by level 11. A Crossbow Expert, Horde Breaker ranger has four attacks by level 5.

And of course, an Archery-based Sharpshooter gets more damage out of an attack than a warlock does, especially once he finishes leveraging magic weapon or the Magic Weapon spell.

Warlocks have excellent ranged damage, but a dedicated Eldritch Knight is even better.

[Anderlith]

Its no more snowflake than a divine class. Honestly, i dont keep a lot of strings on players with Codes of Conduct, Pacts, or Tennets of Faith. As long as the paladin behaves & doesnt murder people or act like a villian, & the Cleric pays lip service to his god thats fine. As you level up though... thats were the gods/pact holders start cashing in their chips. Demanding service, calling in favors etc.

Most media portray this kind of pact making too. Where they character made a deal several years ago & did whatever they wanted, but then a while later the Pact Holder shows up & demands payment.
Pirates of the Caribbean
John Wick 2
Supernatural
Constantine
A little bit of Devil's Advocate (Keanu keeps doing this apparently)
Ghost Rider
Faust
Anything attributing to anything like Faust

[Malifice]

How are they supposed to roleplay that? Not just "I suspect you draw your power from a forbidden source, but I will trust you". This is "you are devoted to the archenemy of all that I stand for". Even with really good players I could see that coming to blows, and I wouldn't blame either participant.

Indeed, I blame the DM.

But I also equally blame the players for a totally different reason. The players have a social contract. With one character play a daemon worshipping warlock in a party containing a good and holy paladin is going to cause problems. Either the social contract of that gaming group allows for interparty conflict and all is good. Or the social contract of that group does not allow for interparty conflict and at least one of those players is breaking that social contract.

You know I'm not bringing my evil necromancer into a group consisting entirely of good aligned you heroes and featuring a paladin or two, no matter how much I really really really want to play and necromancer.

Unless of course all of the players are down with that level of conflict and PVP (It's okay with the social contract of the playing group).

But I digress.

[Ninja-Radish]

Personally I don't see why a Warlock would be more of a Snowflake than the "I am master of the mystic arts!" Wizard or the "I took an oath and it gave me superpowers!" Paladin. All player characters have some snowflake in them.

Also, Eldritch Blast is not broken. It's almost the only good thing about the Warlock class. The rest of the class is a pile of crap for the most part. The recent UA article helps, but only if your DM allows UA stuff, which not all do. Without the options in that article, Warlock is quite possibly the worst class in 5e.

What the class needs is DMs who won't allow powergamers to dip 2 levels in Warlock. If they want to play a Warlock, then they should have to deal with the suck. How the hell do you sell your soul "just a little bit" anyway?

My next character is going to be a fiend pact bladelock. Why? Cause of flavor. It's cool. Mechanically, melee Warlocks are horrible (not including Hexblade), but I'm sticking with it for flavor and I'm going to embrace the suck instead of bouncing after 2 levels like everyone else does.

The munchkin dippers is why people are justified in hating Warlocks. But nobody should hate on players who embrace the suck and play a Warlock all the way through a campaign.

[User_Undefined]

Some of the people in this thread view warlock and patrons a lot differently than I do.

First, the fluff I read in the book is the patron doesn't grant you any power, he teaches you magical secrets. If he could grant power, he would have real clerics. This means that if they break their contract they don't loose their current power but they might not be able to advance further in warlock.

Second, neither the patron nor the Asimar's guide are on call. They contact the warlock or Asimar when it suits their purpose i.e. when the DM wants to toss out an adventure hook.

Third, depending on the contract negotiated with the DM, the patron may not be able to boss you around at all. It could be you agreed to fulfill a particular task such as screwing with the servant of one of their rivals, A fiend may have made a chain pact with you just to get you to keep summoning their real minion into the world (it will be doing your patron's "good work" when you aren't paying attention to it), or a great old one may think you're just part of his dream.

So, in my view the patron/fluff plays exactly as much roll in the campaign as is useful to the DM.

This is also how I see the Patron/Warlock relationship. Warlocks can't have their powers taken away because they belong to the character, unlike a Cleric.

To use a food analogy, a cleric is given food by their god each day. A warlock is slowly being taught how to cook by their patron. If the cleric does something to break all communication with their god, they get no more food. If the warlock does the same thing with their patron, they aren't going to learn any new recipes, but they already know what they've been taught.

[Stan]

People always seem to have some misconceptions about the GOOs. Just to clarify:
1. They aren't evil, just... weird
2. They aren't ordering their warlocks around, and they might not even know they have warlocks "serving" them.

I totally agree. It annoyed me that they got this wrong in SCAG, where most of them sound completely evil. It should be more like things so alien that they have no comprehension of human morality.

[Tanarii]

People always seem to have some misconceptions about the GOOs. Just to clarify:
1. They aren't evil, just... weird
2. They aren't ordering their warlocks around, and they might not even know they have warlocks "serving" them.
They're evil. Because they're insane (by in-reality standards), inimical to life, in an offhand careless manner, and behave in ways that fall into the Evil alignments as a result. That's not actively and intentionally evil, unlike fiends, but it still results in them being evil.

Mind Flayers, Aboleths, and Beholders are all spawn of the same realm as the patrons of Great Old One Warlocks. They're Alien, effectively insane by any prime material standard, and their overall behavior lines up with Evil alignments.

Edit: obviously that's a personal interpretation, but it lines up with the Cthulhu-like nature of the Far Realm and Abberations, I agree with your second point though. And despite the nature of the Great Old Ones, I don't think their warlocks need to be evil. Nor friendish warlocks, for that matter. They just need to be willing to sell something of themselves for power.

[Jerrykhor]

Hate is a strong word, maybe the wrong choice of word. Sounds like you're just nitpicking, or easily annoyed. Are you one of those that hates anything that is popular? If so, then arguing with you is pointless. Its a very hipster mentality, and it dilutes logical reasoning.

Would you rather see Murderhobo Fighter #749 with no background? Or Mr Edgy Ninja Rogue with face mask, hoodie, dual swords on back and a lousy backstory? Or Mr Munchkin Sorlock who only took 2 levels of warlock? If you want to hate something, hate the player, not the game. At least the warlock class forces some backstory and RP through class mechanics.

I could somewhat agree with the first point, but the 2nd and 3rd points rather weak. Though I could understand if you as DM end up being tired of always having to RP the patron of the warlock. They are the class that needs the most interaction from DM, and its just a lot less fun if the DM just ignores the warlock's bond with the patron. I'd probably not play a warlock if i knew the campaign was going to be very railroad-y, or the DM is going to ignore all the players' backstory.

My first ever character was a typical Tiefling warlock who made a pact with Asmodeus. The DM was a close IRL friend, so it was easy. Its great to delve into the lore of Forgotten Realms, and what better way to do that than have Big A as your sugar daddy?

[War_lord]

Forgotten Realms Elder evils are well... evil.

Great Cthulhu and other Mythos old ones aren't evil, they're True Neutral, in a way beyond our understanding of Good and Evil. Cthulhu doesn't want to drive man mad and lead to its downfall in an orgy of violence, that's just what happens if he wakes up.

[Cybren]

my objection to the warlock:
if these are spellcasters that sold their soul for greater arcane power, what is a "pactless" warlock supposed to look like? Why is it that my int 18 cha 8 wizard doesn't really gain much from selling his soul? Why make so much synergy between warlocks & paladins, wotc? That's just rude

[Sigreid]

I totally agree. It annoyed me that they got this wrong in SCAG, where most of them sound completely evil. It should be more like things so alien that they have no comprehension of human morality.

To be fair, if something has a completely alien morality it is very likely going to appear evil to those with the "common" moral compass.

[Desamir]

Question to those who play Warlocks regularly: does Pact Magic feel like enough spellcasting to you pre-11th level? I've always felt incredibly constricted with 2 spell slots, even if they recharge on a short rest. Most of the time I'm just spamming Eldritch Blast.

[Sigreid]

Question to those who play Warlocks regularly: does Pact Magic feel like enough spellcasting to you pre-11th level? I've always felt incredibly constricted with 2 spell slots, even if they recharge on a short rest. Most of the time I'm just spamming Eldritch Blast.

I've only played a warlock a few times, but when I have I play them in the style of an archer. What you're citing right there is the reason why so much advice about warlocks starts with the statement that they aren't full casters and you can't play them the way you would a wizard or a sorcerer.

Don't get me wrong, they have plenty of magic power, but unlike the normal casters their daily allotment of spells is not available to them at a moment's notice if needed. I mean, a sorc or wizard can dump a lot more magic in a single fight if they feel they need to hit the panic button.

[Anderlith]

They're evil. Because they're insane (by in-reality standards), inimical to life, in an offhand careless manner, and behave in ways that fall into the Evil alignments as a result. That's not actively and intentionally evil, unlike fiends, but it still results in them being evil.

Mind Flayers, Aboleths, and Beholders are all spawn of the same realm as the patrons of Great Old One Warlocks. They're Alien, effectively insane by any prime material standard, and their overall behavior lines up with Evil alignments.

Edit: obviously that's a personal interpretation, but it lines up with the Cthulhu-like nature of the Far Realm and Abberations, I agree with your second point though. And despite the nature of the Great Old Ones, I don't think their warlocks need to be evil. Nor friendish warlocks, for that matter. They just need to be willing to sell something of themselves for power.
What if you play a warlock who made a Pact with the King of the Flumphs? You dont always have to go to the highest tier of power when making a pact, nor do you have to sell your soul as so many people seem to think.

Perhaps a demon was killing your family, when it turned to your younger brother you begged it to stop, it told you it would spare your brother if you slew your mother... you can still hear the sound the knife made... afterwards it showed up again this time it told you it could teach you things, make you strong so that you could protect your brother, but learning would be messy, & it would cost in blood, but dont worry, the farms have a lot of cats, they wont miss a few.

You thought the tiny pixie queen had been joking, it was just unfair. Just because you acciedentally fell into the middle of her teaparty. She started getting mad. You said you'd do anything to make it up to her... should have just kept your mouth shut. Now you're her's to command, for a year for every tea cup broken... why'd you have to have such big feet? Atleast she didnt make you some servant, she gave you a rose that became a rapier when you willed it & had a centaur mentor you on how to use it, & now she's set you on the task of getting the greenskins out of her forest.

Who would have thought, just cause you knew how to read & brought your herbalism kit the locals called you a witch & burned you at the stake. Kind of ironic in the end. As the fire blazed you felt a fluttering of wings upon your shoulder, a bird of fire sat there looking hateful at those that bound you. The Phoenix Cult, a bunch of crazies that loved fire & hated people. The bird of smoke & fire on your shoulder seemed to want to help.You start to think it must not apprieciate them doing this in it's name.
"Get me free & Ill help you out!" You choke.
It nods.
The fire flares away from you now, & your bonds have been snapped. Fire flows from your hand & you give the cult the flaming death they had given so many others. When it is done you hear the trumpetting cry of the Phoenix in the air, you leave then, setting out to help & heal the ailing in the world, knowing that when you need it the fires of life will be there, you've been reborn.

All of these are great seeds for warlocks, while not fitting the "sell your soul" idea, or even always evil idea. Personally, im rolling up a new hexbladelock refluffed as an ancestor spirit/family sword

[xyianth]

Personally, I really think the whole 'snowflake' issue is solely due to player/dm preconceptions. The PHB does not specify any rules for punishing warlocks at all. By design. Not all warlocks have to be the 'sold my soul to X, now I do what X says or else' type. Fundamentally, they draw their power from an entity. How is that any different from a cleric drawing their power from a deity? Does the fact that clerics are beholden to the whims of $deity feature strongly in every campaign or otherwise railroad the story? Of course it doesn't. So why does the warlock's patron relationship do so?

As to eldritch blast, I sort of agree here. The class design does leave quite a bit to be desired when it comes to capable builds. Eldritch blast is too easily acquired to be as optimal as it is. The pact magic mechanics are too restrictive to really allow a warlock build as 'a wizard that took a shortcut to power.' The different pacts are wildly out of balance with each other mechanically. The invocations are also severely lacking in the balance department. All these factors work together to create a class that acquires most of its best features by level 2 and offers little to reward single classed warlocks beyond level 5 or so. Most classes fizzle out at some point, but warlocks do so the earliest by a rather large margin. I'm currently working on a different mechanical warlock class design that starts with far less casting power mechanically, eldritch blast as a class feature that scales by invocations and warlock class level, and a greatly increased number of invocation options to allow warlocks to strengthen different aspects as they desire.

As to the setting wreckingly popular issue, honestly this is just personal prejudice in action. No one ever complains that every party having a fighter or rogue is somehow setting wrecking. Are you limiting your campaigns to the 'magic is rare and special' trope? I personally don't. If your setting is so fragile that the presence of $class will upset it, then ban $class. If every setting you make has that problem with the same class, then just admit that you don't know how to include that class in your settings. It isn't the fault of $class.

[Matrix_Walker]

my objection to the warlock:
if these are spellcasters that sold their soul for greater arcane power, what is a "pactless" warlock supposed to look like? Why is it that my int 18 cha 8 wizard doesn't really gain much from selling his soul? Why make so much synergy between warlocks & paladins, wotc? That's just rude

Warlocks do not sell their souls. They generally are expected to barter services based on the description.
I guess a Pact Patron gives you power based on how much you can talk them into or based on how much they like you rather than what you know... which makes perfect sense based on their theme.

[Khutef]

My 2 cents on the OP.

EB is good and imho essential. Warlocks don't get to fling that many high damage spells, so some reliable dpr is good.

Snowflake -syndrome is more about the player than the class.
Personal anecdote: My Undying warlock was crippled and almost killed by a dragon and was brought back from the brink of death by a lich or a dracolich in exchange for services. Now he wants to kill every dragon he sees. Sounds like a snowflake perhaps? In reality, he gets to sit back in the group and lets others in the group to draw attention (combat and social). Others in the group get to shine and my warlock just helps around with high charisma and intelligence. No snowflake there because too much attention will get him brutally killed.

The last part sounds more of an issue with DM, not the class.

TL;DR
Warlocks are broken/snowflakey/too common only if the players and DMs make them be.

[HidesHisEyes]

Hate is a strong word, maybe the wrong choice of word. Sounds like you're just nitpicking, or easily annoyed. Are you one of those that hates anything that is popular? If so, then arguing with you is pointless. Its a very hipster mentality, and it dilutes logical reasoning.

Would you rather see Murderhobo Fighter #749 with no background? Or Mr Edgy Ninja Rogue with face mask, hoodie, dual swords on back and a lousy backstory? Or Mr Munchkin Sorlock who only took 2 levels of warlock? If you want to hate something, hate the player, not the game. At least the warlock class forces some backstory and RP through class mechanics.

I could somewhat agree with the first point, but the 2nd and 3rd points rather weak. Though I could understand if you as DM end up being tired of always having to RP the patron of the warlock. They are the class that needs the most interaction from DM, and its just a lot less fun if the DM just ignores the warlock's bond with the patron. I'd probably not play a warlock if i knew the campaign was going to be very railroad-y, or the DM is going to ignore all the players' backstory.

My first ever character was a typical Tiefling warlock who made a pact with Asmodeus. The DM was a close IRL friend, so it was easy. Its great to delve into the lore of Forgotten Realms, and what better way to do that than have Big A as your sugar daddy?

No it's not purely because they're popular. As I explained, it's that they're popular enough to make them feel like they are everywhere in my setting when conceptually they seem like they should be the most unusual of all the classes. It's a dissonance between the class concept and the reality of having one in your game.


Personally, I really think the whole 'snowflake' issue is solely due to player/dm preconceptions. The PHB does not specify any rules for punishing warlocks at all. By design. Not all warlocks have to be the 'sold my soul to X, now I do what X says or else' type. Fundamentally, they draw their power from an entity. How is that any different from a cleric drawing their power from a deity? Does the fact that clerics are beholden to the whims of $deity feature strongly in every campaign or otherwise railroad the story? Of course it doesn't. So why does the warlock's patron relationship do so?

As to eldritch blast, I sort of agree here. The class design does leave quite a bit to be desired when it comes to capable builds. Eldritch blast is too easily acquired to be as optimal as it is. The pact magic mechanics are too restrictive to really allow a warlock build as 'a wizard that took a shortcut to power.' The different pacts are wildly out of balance with each other mechanically. The invocations are also severely lacking in the balance department. All these factors work together to create a class that acquires most of its best features by level 2 and offers little to reward single classed warlocks beyond level 5 or so. Most classes fizzle out at some point, but warlocks do so the earliest by a rather large margin. I'm currently working on a different mechanical warlock class design that starts with far less casting power mechanically, eldritch blast as a class feature that scales by invocations and warlock class level, and a greatly increased number of invocation options to allow warlocks to strengthen different aspects as they desire.

As to the setting wreckingly popular issue, honestly this is just personal prejudice in action. No one ever complains that every party having a fighter or rogue is somehow setting wrecking. Are you limiting your campaigns to the 'magic is rare and special' trope? I personally don't. If your setting is so fragile that the presence of $class will upset it, then ban $class. If every setting you make has that problem with the same class, then just admit that you don't know how to include that class in your settings. It isn't the fault of $class.

I think I should have called my second issue "narrative hijacking potential" rather than "snowflakeism". I get that every character is a snowflake to some extent, and that's just as it should be. I still feel the warlock more than any other class, by its basic concept, feels as if it demands to be centre stage. It's not just that they come with a free NPC who might get involved. I suppose it's that, in light of our cultural/pop-cultural expectations, they seem like characters who start the game halfway through a story in which they are the protagonist. Even interpreting the pact feature very broadly, this is someone who has made a deal with a mysterious otherworldly entity on mysterious terms. This is an immensely powerful and evocative concept. At level 1 the character is just starting to explore the new powers they have gained from this. In terms of classical story structure it puts them squarely in the first act of an unresolved story. As a DM my choice is then whether to use the campaign to resolve their story - turning all the other players into supporting characters - or leave that story unresolved - leaving us all with narrative blue balls, so to speak.

Now I'm aware that this is a very personal and rarified argument. With regard to the above paragraph I have in fact seen a lot of useful approaches to the warlock concept that help to circumvent the problem - ways of writing a warlock backstory that doesn't feel unresolved. That's what I was hoping for so thanks for those suggestions. I just felt the need to respond to the two posts above because I was unhappy that my efforts to explain what it is about the class that bothers me apparently came across as "hipsterism" and "personal prejudice".

[JakOfAllTirades]

Question to those who play Warlocks regularly: does Pact Magic feel like enough spellcasting to you pre-11th level? I've always felt incredibly constricted with 2 spell slots, even if they recharge on a short rest. Most of the time I'm just spamming Eldritch Blast.

In my experience, Pact Magic doesn't measure up to the spellcasting abilities of a full caster. But it doesn't need to. The last time I played a BladeLock, I felt like Pact Magic was just one part of my arsenal; I also had my Pact Blade, my Eldritch Blast, my Invocations, my Pact Features (Fey Pact gets a lot of good stuff) and my racial powers. (Tieflings are awesome.) I seldom felt as if my options were restricted.

[rollingForInit]

Gonna have to agree with point 2. Even if the player is a really good roleplayer, either it looks like there aren't any consequences for selling your soul or the plot gets derailed.

I've never really understood this. If you don't want a game that's about a character who sold his soul, there doesn't have to be any selling of souls. Even with Fiends, it could just have been a one-time favour. Maybe you helped some devil destroy a rival devil, and got warlock powers as a reward. Maybe you agreed to pass on rumours about demonic activities. An Archfey warlock could've gotten lost in the woods, ended up in an erotic scenario with some fey creature, and walked out with a tiny bit of the feywild etched into his soul, which would power his warlock abilities. A GOO warlock could've found some magical crystal that fused with her body, and draws power from the far realm, but the creature it draws powers from doesn't even notice and is never relevant.

There are so many ways to play a warlock without having to deal with the patron in-game. All that could be in the past. Hell, even if someone did sell their soul to a devil, that could be so far in the future that they just don't care yet. The elf isn't gonna have to consider it for another 500 years, so it won't be an issue. Or something like that. >

And the rest of the party won't ever have to know that the character is actually a Warlock, unless the warlock player wants to. Could go as a Sorcerer. Innate magic, you know? Who'd know? Or just say "I'm drawing power from a magical crystal" or "I got a gift from the feywild" and that's probably not any stranger than someone drawing power from the blood of dragons flowing in their veins.

Eldritch Blast
I also don't agree that this is better than a Fighter's ranged attacks. Maybe a Ranger's, but rangers have issues anyway. Fighters and Rangers both get the Archery fighting style, that's +2 to all ranged attacks. That's a huge increase with bounded accuracy, something Warlocks never get. And they get Action Surge built into the base class.

[Cybren]

"Selling your soul" is being used generically to mean "made a pact with", not literally. regardless of the nature of why you got magic powers from an evil demon, you did. That's what people are talking about.

[Unoriginal]

It's probably worth mentioning that the Mythos Great Old Ones that D&D's Great Old Ones are inspired by weren't out to murder everything, their alien nature just had that effect on any human who had too much knowledge of them. They just didn't notice or care about humanity.

Not quite. Some were clearly malevolent, going so far as to personally and knowingly murder people, some were indifferent but would cause a lot of damage if they showed up, and some where relatively reasonable to meet.

Funnily enough, Azathoth, arguably the most powerful of all those beings (only one other can contest this), is in the last category. Meeting it and its endless ball of grotesque dancers and pipers was the kind of thing you could do without any trouble, as long as you got some warnings beforehand.

[Unoriginal]

"Selling your soul" is being used generically to mean "made a pact with", not literally. regardless of the nature of why you got magic powers from an evil demon, you did. That's what people are talking about.

You could also be stealing powers from them, or half a dozen explanations as to how you ended up with those powers.

Heck, warlocks that are powerful enough can grant those powers to other people.

[MrStabby]

"Selling your soul" is being used generically to mean "made a pact with", not literally. regardless of the nature of why you got magic powers from an evil demon, you did. That's what people are talking about.

I don't think so - simply because people seem to be suggesting that "selling your soul" makes you evil. Whilst it might hold for genuine selling of a soul, it wouldn't for simply making a pact therefore I concluded that "selling your soul" meant selling your soul. Maybe some who actually wrote it might disagree.

[Cybren]

I don't think so - simply because people seem to be suggesting that "selling your soul" makes you evil. Whilst it might hold for genuine selling of a soul, it wouldn't for simply making a pact therefore I concluded that "selling your soul" meant selling your soul. Maybe some who actually wrote it might disagree.

I actually wrote it, so (unless you mean "wrote the class" or "wrote the pact" and not "used the phrase")

At any rat, if you work for the mob, I'm not hanging around you. If you made a one time business deal with them, I'm still hanging around you

[Spellbreaker26]

I don't think so - simply because people seem to be suggesting that "selling your soul" makes you evil. Whilst it might hold for genuine selling of a soul, it wouldn't for simply making a pact therefore I concluded that "selling your soul" meant selling your soul. Maybe some who actually wrote it might disagree.

I think that it being an ambiguous deal is part of what makes the warlock so attractive a choice for many people. Even the comparatively most moral choice in the PHB - the Archfey - is incredibly capricious. Perhaps you haven't literally sold your soul, but you've gotten power in a way that compromises you in a fashion.

[KorvinStarmast]

Devil: You have summoned me, O puny mortal. I will grant you anything you desire--
Warlock: I wanna shoot fire from my nipples.
Devil: Wait, what? Are you serious?
Warlock: Oh yeah. I want to see what I can destroy with my chest. Given the high charisma Warlocks have, dropping one's top and firing away from the breasts by a female warlock sounds hilarious for one of those Japanese cartoons you see on youtube, but at a table I think it would get old after a few iterations. (Then again, firing from the male nether regions would be hilarious once or twice, but eventually get old and lead to a lot of Denis Leary repeats of "pull up your pants!

There is also the point that warlocks use CHARISMA, not intelligence or wisdom. If they'd gone with Int, a lot of the complaints about multi classing would probably go away. I wish that's what they'd have chosen.
I'm more bothered with those disgusting 2-level dips for minicombos than a full-fledged warlock.
"Mortal, do you want to sell me your soul for nice rays coming out of your fingers and seeing in darkness?"
"Yes, milord, I'll do anything!" Multi classing is a feature, it's up to the DM and player to make the whole thing make sense.

... make a patron that could fit many campaigns Why not ancestral spirits? Great idea! Love it.
I challenge ANYONE to say they don't know of someone who wouldn't honestly consider trying to pull a fast one on a evil patron to get the power to shoot fire from inappropriate areas. As above, funny for a while but then it gets old. (Be careful of that traveling burlesque show, she shoots fire from her nipples ... funny once or twice, and then it gets old).

[QUOTE=War_lord;21739417]
Archfey

My patron is infatuated with me, I convinced them to share a small fragment of their power.
My patron appeared in a dream and offered me power, telling me that I was "interesting" and could do great things.

Great Old One

By reading a forbidden tome of Eldritch knowledge, I learned how to insert an image of myself into the dreams of an eternally sleeping Great Old One, granting me power, if only I could get the whispers to stop.

Fiend

My patron granted me these powers against my will, apparently as part of some "grand plan", I need to find out what before it's too late.

Well played, like it. In fact, keeping that for next year when I may get a chance to run a game.


Are you one of those that hates anything that is popular? If so, then arguing with you is pointless. Its a very hipster mentality, and it dilutes logical reasoning.
There's a lot of that on the internet.

Would you rather see Murderhobo Fighter #749 with no background? Even murder hobo fighters have backgrounds in D&D 5e, it's in the book. :smallbiggrin:

Or Mr Edgy Ninja Rogue with face mask, hoodie, dual swords on back and a lousy backstory? Even rogues have backstories ... :smallbiggrin:

I could understand if you as DM end up being tired of always having to RP the patron of the warlock. They are the class that needs the most interaction from DM, and its just a lot less fun if the DM just ignores the warlock's bond with the patron. For DM's like me who like to role play, patrons are fun stuff.

My 2 cents on the OP.
EB is good and imho essential. Warlocks don't get to fling that many high damage spells, so some reliable dpr is good. Yep.

Snowflake -syndrome is more about the player than the class. There's a t-shirt deal in there somewhere, and profit.

I think that it being an ambiguous deal is part of what makes the warlock so attractive a choice for many people. Even the comparatively most moral choice in the PHB - the Archfey - is incredibly capricious. Perhaps you haven't literally sold your soul, but you've gotten power in a way that compromises you in a fashion.

My only complaint with Warlock is that Our Campaign ended because my nephew went back to college and his dad, my brother, called him out on "time spent versus tuition paid." (I agree with my brother, RL wins, but man, it was a great little campaign we had going. Cleric, Paladin, Eldritch Knight, Warlock, Barbarian.
My warlock. Archfey, half elf, pact of the chain. (Sprite was a great little scout).
Invocations were agonizing blast and speak with animals.
Background was performer. (Poetry, songs, lute). Back story: more or less ran off to join the circus after elves banished (mom and I) from the village due to her having dallied with a highly charismatic human (bard), getting knocked up, and making a mess of the betrothal between her family and the druid's son. Mom ended up working as a barmaid on the waterfront in a human town; my char had the old 'where's dad" thing going and a knack for music. In the campaign, the tensions between elves and humans was palpable.
DM used the archfey to pass the occasional bizarre dream or vision ... it was up to me to figure them out. I think it might have gotten a lot better at higher levels (my nephew has a good imagination) but ... so it went.

[rollingForInit]

"Selling your soul" is being used generically to mean "made a pact with", not literally. regardless of the nature of why you got magic powers from an evil demon, you did. That's what people are talking about.

Then I don't really see what the fuss is about. There are dozens of ways you get be getting your magic from a fiend without owing that fiend anything. Yeah, having any connection to a fiend could make people suspicious, but that assumes anyone actually knows. How are the NPC's you encounter going to know? And the other PC's usually have reasons to stick together. Only the most zealous of Lawful Stupid paladins would break up a party because of it. Could it lead to inter-party drama? Sure. But that can be fun!

And it's only the fiend pact that's with explicitly evil entities. Fey, GOO's, hexblades, most other stuff can be either good or evil or neutral, or lack alignment altogether.

If your Warlock is entering an existing party and everyone agrees that the characters in that party would have difficulties with a fiend warlock ... then you can all agree that they don't need to know, especially if there won't be any plot hooks to it. The character can just lie about the power's origin.

Or you can reflavour the pact altogether. If you aren't going to play the Patron, what's the point of it being a fiend, anyway? Maybe you found a gemstone from the Plane of Fire that gave you the powers. Maybe you get them after releasing a Genie and it granted you your wish of "power". Whatever works.

[Tanarii]

I don't think so - simply because people seem to be suggesting that "selling your soul" makes you evil. Whilst it might hold for genuine selling of a soul, it wouldn't for simply making a pact therefore I concluded that "selling your soul" meant selling your soul. Maybe some who actually wrote it might disagree.
As one of the first people to use that phrase in this thread ... no, no I wasn't using it to suggest it makes you evil. The exact opposite. I was saying since Evil characters aren't allowed IMC, I want to know why you aren't Evil and you're still a Warlock.

I was using it to suggest you traded something very valuable in the far future (soul, first born child, a favor at an in-opportune moment), for power right now, with a powerful capricious (Fey), Evil (Fiend) or Insanely Alien & Inimical to Life, so effectively Evil (Great Old One). That doesn't make the Warlock Evil. It does mean he's willing to bargain with / accept power from such creatures, for some reason.

Why? That's what I care about. Give me a motivation, not a factoid. I know you made the bargain, knowingly or not. That's what it means to be a Warlock. Now give me a short summary of the motivation. Especially since, as I mentioned, Evil PCs aren't allowed in my campaign. So it's somewhat more relevant than it otherwise would be. Why are you, this non-Evil and maybe even Good PC, willing to bargain with / accept power from, such a creature (or their lackeys)?

All that said, I absolutely accept "I wanted power, I sold my actual soul, which will be claimed after my death." Especially for Fiend Pacts.

[Spellbreaker26]

The thing about the three PHB pacts:

-Fiend - Obviously evil

-GOO - You're in constant danger of it taking notice of you. If you aren't reduced to a blubbering madman by that, its demands will not be so much evil as totally disconnected from normal logic. It's as likely to ask you to bring it a bunch of lawn gnomes as it is to ask you to rig up a large arena with explosives.

-Archfey - Ignoring the possibility of a warlock making a pact with an Archfey he *thought* was good, even a relatively benevolent Archfey might occassionally act irrational or possessive of their pawn. By making a pact with one of these you've walked into a world with very strict, very confusing and very unwritten rules.

Also, there are not "dozens of ways to get magic from a fiend without owing him anything" unless the fiend in question is an absolute fool.

So while I can buy a Warlock that's good now, making a pact is, while not always a capital E Evil act, always a capital R Risky one.

[Blacky the Blackball]

Also, there are not "dozens of ways to get magic from a fiend without owing him anything" unless the fiend in question is an absolute fool.

In the past, I've had players use:

"My grandmother was a succubus and my mother a cambion, although my father is human. When I was born, my grandmother gave me a 'present', and I've had these powers ever since. I try my best not to take after that side of the family, though, and use the powers for good wherever possible."

"I was apprenticed to a wizard who had summoned a demon in order to bind it and extract some kind of service. One evening I was cleaning my master's lab when it promised me power in exchange for its freedom. In the foolishness of youth I accepted, and was given these abilities. I've not seen it since."

I'm sure there are lots of other examples from other groups/players.

[Gawayne]

I love Warlocks mechanics and concept, altough I do agree on most things said about the problems of being able to get and buff Eldricht Blast so early.

My main issue with Warlocks is that I'm yet to see someone who wants to ROLE PLAY a Warlock. The way the class is presented is pretty obvious it's inspired on the classic demonic cultist, witch of the woods or power hungry and possibly mad researcher/scientist. People who would be willing to make a pact with alien and, most of the time, downright evil entities in exchange for power and knowledge. But I'm yet to sit on a table with someone who wants to rp any variation of those.

Most Warlock players I've played with RP their characters as the clichê dark, brooding, angsty, "i never asked for this" anime protagonist who either got their powers against their will, hate their patron and are actively fighting against them or their patrons love them and ask nothing in return. Not only that but every single Warlock player I've encountered came up with a reason to completely weasel out on their side of the pact but kept their powers. Or their side of the pact is something that has absolutely no impact on their characters. Stuff like:

Archefey: I saved a fey creature from a trap once. The Archefey showed me their gratitude by granting me reality bending abilities. Because I'm too beautiful I guess.

Archdevil: My parents sold the soul of their firstborn child. And even though I grew up surrounded by evil and hearing voices of demons since young age I became a good hearted person. Why the devil gave me powers even though he already had my soul is unimportant.

GOO: All my patron wants is knowledge. I fulfill my pact by adventuring and allowing him to experience everything I do.

And I understand that sometimes neither the player nor the DM want to deal with the fluff of the class, or you want the powers of an Archdevil but don't want to be Evil. But after 5 or 6 games with different groups, different players rolling Warlocks and reading throughout the net, looks like no one wants to embrace the flavor of the class. It's like if pretty much every Paladin came up with reasons to weasel out of their tennets or every Druid completely disregarded nature.

And I find that pretty weird because, the way I see it, Warlock is one of the classes with the most RP inspiration right off the bat.

[Cybren]

As one of the first people to use that phrase in this thread ... no, no I wasn't using it to suggest it makes you evil. The exact opposite. I was saying since Evil characters aren't allowed IMC, I want to know why you aren't Evil and you're still a Warlock.

I was using it to suggest you traded something very valuable in the far future (soul, first born child, a favor at an in-opportune moment), for power right now, with a powerful capricious (Fey), Evil (Fiend) or Insanely Alien & Inimical to Life, so effectively Evil (Great Old One). That doesn't make the Warlock Evil. It does mean he's willing to bargain with / accept power from such creatures, for some reason.

Why? That's what I care about. Give me a motivation, not a factoid. I know you made the bargain, knowingly or not. That's what it means to be a Warlock. Now give me a short summary of the motivation. Especially since, as I mentioned, Evil PCs aren't allowed in my campaign. So it's somewhat more relevant than it otherwise would be. Why are you, this non-Evil and maybe even Good PC, willing to bargain with / accept power from, such a creature (or their lackeys)?

All that said, I absolutely accept "I wanted power, I sold my actual soul, which will be claimed after my death." Especially for Fiend Pacts.
I mean, it's called a "patron" not a "schmuck you stole from". There's a serious implication that the patron is expecting something in return. (Because that's what "patron" means)

[Segev]

Archfey


My patron is infatuated with me, I convinced them to share a small fragment of their power.
My patron appeared in a dream and offered me power, telling me that I was "interesting" and could do great things.


Great Old One


By reading a forbidden tome of Eldrich knowledge, I learned how to insert an image of myself into the dreams of an eternally sleeping Great Old One, granting me power, if only I could get the whispers to stop.


Fiend


My patron granted me these powers against my will, apparently as part of some "grand plan", I need to find out what before it's too late.






Archefey: I saved a fey creature from a trap once. The Archefey showed me their gratitude by granting me reality bending abilities. Because I'm too beautiful I guess.

Archdevil: My parents sold the soul of their firstborn child. And even though I grew up surrounded by evil and hearing voices of demons since young age I became a good hearted person. Why the devil gave me powers even though he already had my soul is unimportant.

GOO: All my patron wants is knowledge. I fulfill my pact by adventuring and allowing him to experience everything I do.

All good examples.

Heck, a Fiend-Patron Pact of the Chain might literally be a pact with the imp that is your familiar. Sure, he styles himself "the Arch-Fiend," but really, you're the boss in this relationship. Why'd he sign on? Because you're more powerful and fun than he could be on his own. Plus, he's getting away from his devil-dad who keeps telling him to get a job already.

The Archfey-Patron might well be a multiclass Sorcerer/Warlock. "I inherited the Gift, but Mom keeps insisting that I don't bundle up in enough magics for her taste and thus sent this Tome full of advice. *sigh*"


"I spoke half the oath under the misaligned stars, and tricked the world into believing me a chosen of the Vanished Gods, though I made no promises that I have not already fulfilled."

A Paladin with an Oath of the Ancients might be the lover of a Faerie Princess. As her knight champion, he enjoys a Pact of the Blade with her patronage.

[Knaight]

I think I should have called my second issue "narrative hijacking potential" rather than "snowflakeism". I get that every character is a snowflake to some extent, and that's just as it should be. I still feel the warlock more than any other class, by its basic concept, feels as if it demands to be centre stage. It's not just that they come with a free NPC who might get involved. I suppose it's that, in light of our cultural/pop-cultural expectations, they seem like characters who start the game halfway through a story in which they are the protagonist. Even interpreting the pact feature very broadly, this is someone who has made a deal with a mysterious otherworldly entity on mysterious terms. This is an immensely powerful and evocative concept. At level 1 the character is just starting to explore the new powers they have gained from this. In terms of classical story structure it puts them squarely in the first act of an unresolved story. As a DM my choice is then whether to use the campaign to resolve their story - turning all the other players into supporting characters - or leave that story unresolved - leaving us all with narrative blue balls, so to speak.

Clerics and Paladins are just as significant here, particularly Clerics who replace a mysterious otherworldly entity with an actual divine being and the mysterious terms with being of a chosen caste given power by their god. They manage to fly under the radar by being more traditional, but that's about the only reason why.

[Tanarii]

In the past, I've had players use:None of those are motivations I would accept from a Warlock player. Because they are precisely what Gawayne says in the very next post ...


Most Warlock players I've played with RP their characters as the clichê dark, brooding, angsty, "i never asked for this" anime protagonist who either got their powers against their will, hate their patron and are actively fighting against them or their patrons love them and ask nothing in return. Not only that but every single Warlock player I've encountered came up with a reason to completely weasel out on their side of the pact but kept their powers. Or their side of the pact is something that has absolutely no impact on their characters. Stuff like:
Well said, and good examples (of how not to do it). I don't very much like the dark, brooding and angsty "and some day I'll have to pay the piper"-type warlock, but at least it's not trying to dodge the downsides of the archetype. That's how those always smell to me. Refluffing-lite on the archetype, while trying to look like you're not refluffing. In many games, refluffing to various degrees is absolutely fine. In others where the archetype is intentionally strong and lining up with the PHB concepts, refluffing won't fly. But this is some weird hybrid version of it ... refluffing all the perceived negative out while trying to keep all the perceived positive.


All good examples.

(stuff)
If feel like you missed they're good examples of how NOT to do it. As are yours. Edit: Because clearly my way is the right way. I kinda have to laugh at how bad it is that I'd feel that way, but I really do feel that's trying to dodge all the bad while only keeping the good.

[Gawayne]

I also wonder how the Patrons feel about the rampant Warlock dip.

"They summon you, tell you they'll love you forever, and as soon as you buff their nipple lasers they're gone. Never hear from them again. My last Warlock ditched me and took up the lute, decided to become a musician. Mephistopheles told me not to worry, that it's just a phase, but I'm not too sure of that..."

[Addaran]

If feel like you missed they're good examples of how NOT to do it. As are yours. Edit: Because clearly my way is the right way. I kinda have to laugh at how bad it is that I'd feel that way, but I really do feel that's trying to dodge all the bad while only keeping the good.

That's an argument that often comes with paladins also. Trying to get all the good while not following the restriction.

It would make sense...if the classes actually were better then the others for having those restrictions. Since they aren't better mechanically, there's no need to put a penalty to the class, unless the player and DM want it. And while it might be fun to play an actual cultist, like the archetype strongly implies, if the DM says no evil PC, then it's kinda not possible. At that point, there's no reason not to allow the fiend warlock to be like a dragonic sorcerer. There's fiend in my bloodline, so i have innate powers.

So i find it a bit weird that you want someone to follow the archetype, but don't allow evil PC, so at best, they can do a cliche anime-trope "i don't want this" or a cursed feel like Constantine. Basically, only half-way the archetype.

[Cybren]

Clerics and Paladins are just as significant here, particularly Clerics who replace a mysterious otherworldly entity with an actual divine being and the mysterious terms with being of a chosen caste given power by their god. They manage to fly under the radar by being more traditional, but that's about the only reason why.

While those classes present their own set of problems, I think the warlock is a degree harder to integrate into a lot of campaigns for various reasons. While you can re-envision warlocks as you desire (and I think I might recast them to be more like King Solomon than Faust in my games), the way the book presents them they are deliberately and intentionally comporting with Bad Juju, whereas Paladins and Clerics tend to be more orthodox with respect to society in most campaign worlds. (that said, I do resent DMs that force me, regardless of class, to have to align or have ties to a specific organization or religion for a particular class. I played on an NWN2 server for the better part of a decade and they had this very obnoxious habit of taking every prestige class and making them each belong to a specific organization. I never encountered so many people that wanted to be Dragons)

[2D8HP]

Because clearly my way is the right way.


Well I'm convinced!

Thematically the price Warlocks pay creep me out and I wouldn't play one, but I really don't mind other players playing one,

Sometimes Fey patrons are presented as the "safe pact", but when not malevolent the Fey tend to have an alignment of Lawful or Chaotic "orange", so I'm doubtful of the safety.

Otherwise I only play Champion Fighters, some Rogue levels, and briefly a first level Barbarian as all of the other classes look to have too many things for me to keep track of, so if the players of those classes gain a little extra power compared to my PC's that seems fair given the complexity or loss of some freedom that those classes players endure.

[Tanarii]

That's an argument that often comes with paladins also. Trying to get all the good while not following the restriction.

It would make sense...if the classes actually were better then the others for having those restrictions. Since they aren't better mechanically, there's no need to put a penalty to the class, unless the player and DM want it. And while it might be fun to play an actual cultist, like the archetype strongly implies, if the DM says no evil PC, then it's kinda not possible. At that point, there's no reason not to allow the fiend warlock to be like a dragonic sorcerer. There's fiend in my bloodline, so i have innate powers.Yeah, that's why, as I say, in some campaigns various degrees of refluffing is like totally a cool thing to do. And why I feel kinda guilty that I feel that way about it. My feelings on the roleplaying side of things and what I know about mechanical balance are in conflict. :smallyuk:


So i find it a bit weird that you want someone to follow the archetype, but don't allow evil PC, so at best, they can do a cliche anime-trope "i don't want this" or a cursed feel like Constantine. Basically, only half-way the archetype.That's a consequence of having a class where a huge part of the archetype is actually Evil characters. If I was running a no-good PCs campaign, I'd have the exact same problem with Paladins. In a urban campaign, it'd be an issue with Druids (and to a lesser degree, Rangers and Barbarians). In an wilderness campaign, Rogues make less sense. In various campaign settings (Darksun for example), Arcane characters are rare or require some special snow-flake status (Preservers *cough*). The campaign has an impact on which archetypes fit, and which don't.

The Warlock archetype isn't all about Evil. Otherwise they wouldn't be a PC class. And Infernal wouldn't be a PC sub-class if it required being Evil. They'd be NPC Villian sub-classes like Oath Breaker Paladin and Death Cleric. But, like the Paladin, the archetype(s) definitely leans in a certain direction.

/ramblingresponse


Well I'm convinced!Hahahaha first time evar!

[Segev]

If feel like you missed they're good examples of how NOT to do it. As are yours. Edit: Because clearly my way is the right way. I kinda have to laugh at how bad it is that I'd feel that way, but I really do feel that's trying to dodge all the bad while only keeping the good.


That's an argument that often comes with paladins also. Trying to get all the good while not following the restriction.

It would make sense...if the classes actually were better then the others for having those restrictions.
What Addaran said, first off. Because really, why is there "bad" for playing Warlocks (and Paladins), but not for playing Clerics, of all things (which are supposed to be devoted to a god and his ethos)? Why are wizards escaping scot free without even needing to make an excuse as to why they don't have any "bad?" Why are sorcerers?

It's fluff. Flavorful fluff. The mechanics are in what the choice gives you; there is no mechanical cost. If you want an RP cost, great! If you view it not as a cost but as a hook, even better! But use it however you want.


I think it would be cool for a "failed wizard apprentice" to have a GOO Patron not because his patron wants anything or even knows of him, but because what caused his failure was reading the wrong book in his old master's library and being driven mad by the knowledge. Now, his cracked mind leaks in both ways (hence the telepathy), and he has a mad intuitive grasp of the alien (hence, magic) while being a little...uncertain...about the reality of, well, reality.


And the Knight Champion of the Faerie Princess who has the Pact of the Blade and her as his Patron as well as having sworn an Oath of the Ancients seems quite reasonable. He's the mortal youth who hopes to be Faerie King one day, if he proves worthy enough to keep the heart of his beloved Princess.


I also wonder how the Patrons feel about the rampant Warlock dip.

"They summon you, tell you they'll love you forever, and as soon as you buff their nipple lasers they're gone. Never hear from them again. My last Warlock ditched me and took up the lute, decided to become a musician. Mephistopheles told me not to worry, that it's just a phase, but I'm not too sure of that...":smallbiggrin: Well written. That's funny.

[Gawayne]

That's an argument that often comes with paladins also. Trying to get all the good while not following the restriction.

It would make sense...if the classes actually were better then the others for having those restrictions. Since they aren't better mechanically, there's no need to put a penalty to the class, unless the player and DM want it. And while it might be fun to play an actual cultist, like the archetype strongly implies, if the DM says no evil PC, then it's kinda not possible. At that point, there's no reason not to allow the fiend warlock to be like a dragonic sorcerer. There's fiend in my bloodline, so i have innate powers.

So i find it a bit weird that you want someone to follow the archetype, but don't allow evil PC, so at best, they can do a cliche anime-trope "i don't want this" or a cursed feel like Constantine. Basically, only half-way the archetype.

Actually, those out of combat, purely RP, restriction DO come up with out of combat advantages. And a DM who enforces those restrictions should also give the player those benefits.

A paladin isn't just dude in plate. He's a holy warrior, champion of his god, pure of heart, a symbol of hope to all of those around him, not just the PCs. He has all the organization of his church to rely on and command a ton of respect in most authorities whose alignment is similar to his. A king devout to the deity followed by the Paladin would treat him with the utmost respect. And all those benefits come directly from the fact that everyone knows he follows those strict tennets. Similar things could be said about Clerics. Druids are pretty much the Paladins of the wilds, and should be shown due respect from woodland denizens, spirits of the wild and other druidic circles.

A Warlock may have sold his soul, or work for an alien being. But that also means that alien being is interested in him and is capable of actively aiding him much more than deities aid Paladins and Clerics. Deities give their powers pretty much freely, because they have a LOT of power to give, so each Cleric and Paladin is just another follower in thousands upon thousands. Patrons have a much tighter relationship with their Warlocks, because they don't have that much power to throw around, so each Warlock is kind of special. Also let's not forget the Patrons are, even though they usually aren't as powerful as proper Deities, are at least demi-God like beings, not just some random imp or fairy. Your Patron is one of the Lords of Hell, maybe even Asmodeus himself and they don't go out granting powers to any random dude who summons them. In fact they rip the heart out of pretty much everyone who even tries. The fact that they didn't outright murdered you AND gave you powers means they have a lot of interest in you for some reason, so they'll be more than willing to give some extra help when they deem fit.

Other classes may have this kind of out of combat help also, but the tribe the Barbarian comes from, the garrison where the Fighter trained, or the school the Wizard studied will hardly ever have the same impact of the inspiration the Paladin commands or being buds with a Demi-God like the Warlock. And that's why they have tennets and pacts. If you ignore those, remember to also ignore all the benefits that should come with them, otherwise you're actually making the player more powerful than the other PCs.

[Unoriginal]

Also, there are not "dozens of ways to get magic from a fiend without owing him anything" unless the fiend in question is an absolute fool.


That's ignoring all the lore about Warlock and all the lore about Fiends.

A Demon give some poor schmuck's power to see what happen. A mortal found a Devil's True Name and uses it to get magic. An Incubus thinks that the best way to corrupt a mortal is to give them the possibility to be powerful, and see how far they'd go for more.

And even if you DO owe something to the Fiend, it doesn't mean it has to be big.

[Desamir]

Patrons don't need to be directly involved with a Warlock. The Great Old One specifically says the patron might be totally unaware of the Warlock's existence.


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.

[HidesHisEyes]

I love Warlocks mechanics and concept, altough I do agree on most things said about the problems of being able to get and buff Eldricht Blast so early.

My main issue with Warlocks is that I'm yet to see someone who wants to ROLE PLAY a Warlock. The way the class is presented is pretty obvious it's inspired on the classic demonic cultist, witch of the woods or power hungry and possibly mad researcher/scientist. People who would be willing to make a pact with alien and, most of the time, downright evil entities in exchange for power and knowledge. But I'm yet to sit on a table with someone who wants to rp any variation of those.

Most Warlock players I've played with RP their characters as the clichê dark, brooding, angsty, "i never asked for this" anime protagonist who either got their powers against their will, hate their patron and are actively fighting against them or their patrons love them and ask nothing in return. Not only that but every single Warlock player I've encountered came up with a reason to completely weasel out on their side of the pact but kept their powers. Or their side of the pact is something that has absolutely no impact on their characters. Stuff like:

Archefey: I saved a fey creature from a trap once. The Archefey showed me their gratitude by granting me reality bending abilities. Because I'm too beautiful I guess.

Archdevil: My parents sold the soul of their firstborn child. And even though I grew up surrounded by evil and hearing voices of demons since young age I became a good hearted person. Why the devil gave me powers even though he already had my soul is unimportant.

GOO: All my patron wants is knowledge. I fulfill my pact by adventuring and allowing him to experience everything I do.

And I understand that sometimes neither the player nor the DM want to deal with the fluff of the class, or you want the powers of an Archdevil but don't want to be Evil. But after 5 or 6 games with different groups, different players rolling Warlocks and reading throughout the net, looks like no one wants to embrace the flavor of the class. It's like if pretty much every Paladin came up with reasons to weasel out of their tennets or every Druid completely disregarded nature.

And I find that pretty weird because, the way I see it, Warlock is one of the classes with the most RP inspiration right off the bat.

This is a really interesting idea, and I've had similar experiences. I think it comes down to an expectation that one can treat character classes as tools to make the character they have in mind, both conceptually and mechanically, rather than as concepts in and of themselves. Of course the reality is somewhere in the middle: they are archetypes that can be used as tools and tools that can be used as archetypes. But for some, the very idea that by choosing a class you are, to some extent, committing to a pre-existing concept seems to have completely fallen by the wayside.

And KorbinStarmast and Jerykhor:
Quote Originally Posted by Jerrykhor View Post
Are you one of those that hates anything that is popular? If so, then arguing with you is pointless. Its a very hipster mentality, and it dilutes logical reasoning.
There's a lot of that on the internet.

There's a lot of strawmanning too. Much as I hate the practice of throwing around accusations of "fallacies", it does get tiresome trying hard to express somewhat nuanced ideas and being misunderstood in a way that, frankly, comes across as a conscious decision.

[HidesHisEyes]

Clerics and Paladins are just as significant here, particularly Clerics who replace a mysterious otherworldly entity with an actual divine being and the mysterious terms with being of a chosen caste given power by their god. They manage to fly under the radar by being more traditional, but that's about the only reason why.

I'm not so sure. I've always interpreted the warlock pact as a more direct You-scratch-my-back-etc DEAL, like one two ordinary mortals might make, than the spiritual faith-based oath of devotion that a paladin or cleric makes. The latter is more like a decision to live one's life in service to a deity and be a paragon of that deity's values. In other words, much less chance of the non-mortal being getting involved in the character's ****. But as I've said, people on this thread have done a lot to convince me I was wrong about that, which is good.

[War_lord]

Or, as I suggested, the Fiend gave you powers because he knows something you'll do with it later down the line will advance their plans. An immortal being can afford to play the long game.

I don't really follow those who suggest that playing a Warlock should have such serious drawbacks. None of the other classes have that kind of benefit/drawback mechanic. The Paladin had it in older Editions, but 5e nuked that specifically because it was making the Paladin unpopular.

[HidesHisEyes]

Or, as I suggested, the Fiend gave you powers because he knows something you'll do with it later down the line will advance their plans. An immortal being can afford to play the long game.

Good point. That might also be a good way for a DM to make the pact meaningful without messing with the game's story too much.

[Knaight]

While those classes present their own set of problems, I think the warlock is a degree harder to integrate into a lot of campaigns for various reasons. While you can re-envision warlocks as you desire (and I think I might recast them to be more like King Solomon than Faust in my games), the way the book presents them they are deliberately and intentionally comporting with Bad Juju, whereas Paladins and Clerics tend to be more orthodox with respect to society in most campaign worlds. (that said, I do resent DMs that force me, regardless of class, to have to align or have ties to a specific organization or religion for a particular class. I played on an NWN2 server for the better part of a decade and they had this very obnoxious habit of taking every prestige class and making them each belong to a specific organization. I never encountered so many people that wanted to be Dragons)

Sure, because most campaign worlds have been built within D&D and take D&D's tropes into account. The existence of the Cleric class basically demands a polytheistic medieval setting with gods who have divine agents, so there's something that's a huge issue for a whole bunch of campaigns. The existence of the warlock class demands some sort of powerful but non-divine being capable of bestowing powers.

[Iamcreative]

It's as likely to ask you to bring it a bunch of lawn gnomes as it is to ask you to rig up a large arena with explosives.


Old man henderson turns warlock, I'd play that.

[Unoriginal]

Sure, because most campaign worlds have been built within D&D and take D&D's tropes into account. The existence of the Cleric class basically demands a polytheistic medieval setting with gods who have divine agents, so there's something that's a huge issue for a whole bunch of campaigns. The existence of the warlock class demands some sort of powerful but non-divine being capable of bestowing powers.

I don't see the huge issue. Could you elaborate?

[Iamcreative]

I don't see the huge issue. Could you elaborate?

Not op but I think he is getting at the point that warlocks 'dont fit in the world'. They might not, but only because the world was created in such a way to not make them fit. In the same way clerics wouldnt fit with most 'randomly generated worlds' but in dnd people automatically make it feel like classic midevil europe, or at least the very stereotypical dnd setting (which has baked in support for the clerics who draw power from dieties). Even though the game has changed in order to make room for new classes and ideas like the warlock.

[Unoriginal]

Not op but I think he is getting at the point that warlocks 'dont fit in the world'. They might not, but only because the world was created in such a way to not make them fit. In the same way clerics wouldnt fit with most 'randomly generated worlds' but in dnd people automatically make it feel like classic midevil europe, or at least the very stereotypical dnd setting (which has baked in support for the clerics who draw power from dieties). Even though the game has changed in order to make room for new classes and ideas like the warlock.

Well, I don't see how Clerics getting powers from gods make the Warlock not fit.

There are Clerics that don't get power from gods, same for the Druids. And there is plenty of entities that are incredibly powerful on their own right without actually being gods, even in the basic D&D world.

[Addaran]

Old man henderson turns warlock, I'd play that.

What wondering if someone would mention it. ;)

[Iamcreative]

What wondering if someone would mention it. ;)

It fit so well too which is what makes it. Have this old guy in a hawiian shirt shouting about lawn gnomes and that time he dropped a boat on a skyscraper and he's just surronded by medieval ****. (Even like... beating Hastor has given Henderson a slice of his soul)

Probably not for more serious games.

[Iamcreative]

Well, I don't see how Clerics getting powers from gods make the Warlock not fit.

There are Clerics that don't get power from gods, same for the Druids. And there is plenty of entities that are incredibly powerful on their own right without actually being gods, even in the basic D&D world.

Exactly! I think! Maybe! Agreed

[HidesHisEyes]

Well, I don't see how Clerics getting powers from gods make the Warlock not fit.

There are Clerics that don't get power from gods, same for the Druids. And there is plenty of entities that are incredibly powerful on their own right without actually being gods, even in the basic D&D world.

I see the warlock as fitting in perfectly to the standard d&d setting, which includes the various other planes. Warlocks are almost a natural consequence of that assumption.

[Iamcreative]

I see the warlock as fitting in perfectly to the standard d&d setting, which includes the various other planes. Warlocks are almost a natural consequence of that assumption.

Agreed. I think this was point brought up besides your original 3 points.

[Segev]

Heck, a GOO Warlock might also be a cleric of his GOO. It'd be a completely valid version of the multiclass combo.

[Iamcreative]

Heck, a GOO Warlock might also be a cleric of his GOO. It'd be a completely valid version of the multiclass combo.

That would be cool! But then could I be a warlock of pelor? (Probably just use fiend powers cause fire)

[Ninja-Radish]

This whole BS about Warlocks not fitting the setting is just that: BS. Statements like that say alot more about the lack of imagination and creativity from the person making that statement than they do about the Warlock class.

This is just more of the same old grognard griping that's all over 5E forums. "There were no Warlocks back in 1978 when I started playing, so they shouldn't exist now! And get off my lawn you damn kids!"

Or the other great grognard argument: "I don't like it, therefore nobody else has a right to enjoy it"

Warlocks exist and are popular, get over it.

[Gawayne]

...

There are Clerics that don't get power from gods, same for the Druids. And there is plenty of entities that are incredibly powerful on their own right without actually being gods, even in the basic D&D world.

In RPGs anything is possible, but if we're going to discuss about D&D official fluff then I believe you're wrong. The books we have on 5e don't go too deeply in that subject, but pretty much all magic labeled as Divine comes from the Gods, one way or another.

It IS possible for a Divine caster not to worship a particular God, like most Clerics do, and still receive access to Divine Spells. But the spells still come from the Gods. That's what happens with Druids, Rangers and Paladins, instead of worshiping a God in particular they "worship" or embody a domain, so the Gods linked to those domains look kindly upon them and grant them power. A Druid will receive his Divine spells from deities linked to nature, not from nature itself as some believe, Paladins will receive their spells from Gods who simpatize with their particular Oath and alignment. You could even build a Cleric who doesn't worship a particular God, if he fiercily believes in a particular representation of a Domain. It would be a bit weird, probably insteresting if you take your RP seriously and don't use it just so you don't have to answer to no one, but doable.

Having said that, I also believe the Warlocks fit D&D perfectly. But, apparently, people have a hard time understanding the difference between being a Warlock of a being and a Cleric of a being. Basically, Warlocks are created by beings who lack the power to create Clerics. Beings that are either not true Gods or are just unable to openly distribute their power around as one does. No matter the reason, the power a PAtorn has to throw around is much more limited, so he shouldn't go around creating Warlocks to "see what happens". Each of his Warlocks is a valuable asset, a favored champion among his minions/worshippers. The power of the Gods is everywhere in the world, all someone has to do is align their beliefs hard enough. A Patrons power has to be "injected" on the Warlock and it's present only inside him and others Warlocks of his Patron, it's a transformation of a being who could do little to nothing magic-wise to someone who can bend reality to his will.

[JakOfAllTirades]

This whole BS about Warlocks not fitting the setting is just that: BS. Statements like that say alot more about the lack of imagination and creativity from the person making that statement than they do about the Warlock class.

Agreed.

The question is, which setting? Many of the classic D&D settings came out before the first appearance of the Warlock class in D&D3.5E, so it's true that the Warlock character class didn't appear in them as originally written. I'm getting really annoyed with this response from every GM I run into; "This setting doesn't have Warlocks, so I don't allow them in my campaign."

So what? Unless you're an obsessive purist who considers "canon" to be the immutable word of some Higher Power of Gaming which can never, ever be altered on pain of death, settings change. Deal with it.

[mr-mercer]

Heck, a GOO Warlock might also be a cleric of his GOO. It'd be a completely valid version of the multiclass combo.

The GOOlock in my current campaign isn't doing this mechanically, but in terms of flavour is doing just that: their patron is an extremely obscure god of death from a different universe entirely. Our DM used this as a jumping-off point to kickstart the current branch of the story.

[Desamir]

No matter the reason, the power a PAtorn has to throw around is much more limited, so he shouldn't go around creating Warlocks to "see what happens". Each of his Warlocks is a valuable asset, a favored champion among his minions/worshippers. The power of the Gods is everywhere in the world, all someone has to do is align their beliefs hard enough. A Patrons power has to be "injected" on the Warlock and it's present only inside him and others Warlocks of his Patron, it's a transformation of a being who could do little to nothing magic-wise to someone who can bend reality to his will.

Unless the patron is Great Old One, in which case it might not even know its Warlocks exists.

[Gawayne]

Unless the patron is Great Old One, in which case it might not even know its Warlocks exists.

And that's exactly why the Warlock can only draw a limited amount of power from it, instead of having a broad list of spells, powers and blessings to choose from at will like a Cleric normally has.

[HidesHisEyes]

In RPGs anything is possible, but if we're going to discuss about D&D official fluff then I believe you're wrong. The books we have on 5e don't go too deeply in that subject, but pretty much all magic labeled as Divine comes from the Gods, one way or another.

It IS possible for a Divine caster not to worship a particular God, like most Clerics do, and still receive access to Divine Spells. But the spells still come from the Gods. That's what happens with Druids, Rangers and Paladins, instead of worshiping a God in particular they "worship" or embody a domain, so the Gods linked to those domains look kindly upon them and grant them power. A Druid will receive his Divine spells from deities linked to nature, not from nature itself as some believe, Paladins will receive their spells from Gods who simpatize with their particular Oath and alignment. You could even build a Cleric who doesn't worship a particular God, if he fiercily believes in a particular representation of a Domain. It would be a bit weird, probably insteresting if you take your RP seriously and don't use it just so you don't have to answer to no one, but doable.

Having said that, I also believe the Warlocks fit D&D perfectly. But, apparently, people have a hard time understanding the difference between being a Warlock of a being and a Cleric of a being. Basically, Warlocks are created by beings who lack the power to create Clerics. Beings that are either not true Gods or are just unable to openly distribute their power around as one does. No matter the reason, the power a PAtorn has to throw around is much more limited, so he shouldn't go around creating Warlocks to "see what happens". Each of his Warlocks is a valuable asset, a favored champion among his minions/worshippers. The power of the Gods is everywhere in the world, all someone has to do is align their beliefs hard enough. A Patrons power has to be "injected" on the Warlock and it's present only inside him and others Warlocks of his Patron, it's a transformation of a being who could do little to nothing magic-wise to someone who can bend reality to his will.

Awesome. This is maybe my favourite articulation of the warlock class concept that I've yet seen. You've really got to the heart of what the difference is between a cleric and a warlock. The clerics' deities are embodiments of the ideas they represent, whilst warlocks' patrons are in some crucial way just ordinary people - with agendas just like ordinary people. Hence the difference between a paladin's oath and a warlock's pact.

[Unoriginal]

In RPGs anything is possible, but if we're going to discuss about D&D official fluff then I believe you're wrong. The books we have on 5e don't go too deeply in that subject, but pretty much all magic labeled as Divine comes from the Gods, one way or another.

It IS possible for a Divine caster not to worship a particular God, like most Clerics do, and still receive access to Divine Spells. But the spells still come from the Gods. That's what happens with Druids, Rangers and Paladins, instead of worshiping a God in particular they "worship" or embody a domain, so the Gods linked to those domains look kindly upon them and grant them power.

Well, in 3.X at least you could get power from worshiping a concept, without Gods granting the power. Might have been changed.


Also, another difference between Warlock and Cleric is while the Cleric is granted powers emanating from the Gods and Domains, the Warlock is more or less taught/discover how to draw power from their sources and to grab it.

It's a small difference, but the Cleric's "may I have a Cure Light Wound, my Lord, please?" is still different from the Warlock's "I can use my spell, I've just leeched the energy from by Patron."

[Tanarii]

This whole BS about Warlocks not fitting the setting is just that: BS. Statements like that say alot more about the lack of imagination and creativity from the person making that statement than they do about the Warlock class.

This is just more of the same old grognard griping that's all over 5E forums. "There were no Warlocks back in 1978 when I started playing, so they shouldn't exist now! And get off my lawn you damn kids!"

Or the other great grognard argument: "I don't like it, therefore nobody else has a right to enjoy it"

Warlocks exist and are popular, get over it.
I'm a grognard. I love Warlocks. I think they fit into the apocryphal "D&D setting" fantastically. At least, the three subclass ones in the PHB do. They're perfect, and D&D is better off for having a class that forms a willing or unwilling a pact to an capricious or evil or alien creature in return for gaining power.

But they are amazingly popular compared to how frequently you would expect them to show up as a population of the average campaign world's adventuring population. I see far more warlocks than sorcerers or wizards (taken individually). OTOH that's true for Paladins too. I actually don't have a problem with that (for any class), but it is kind of weird, conceptually. Since, like I said, I am a grognard.


Also, another difference between Warlock and Cleric is while the Cleric is granted powers emanating from the Gods and Domains, the Warlock is more or less taught/discover how to draw power from their sources and to grab it.

It's a small difference, but the Cleric's "may I have a Cure Light Wound, my Lord, please?" is still different from the Warlock's "I can use my spell, I've just leeched the energy from by Patron."It's not even that. A Warlock's Pact Magic power can't be channeled from the Patron. It's Arcane, therefore it is the Warlock directly manipulating the Weave without an intermediary when they use the spell, using their own knowledge. The Patron may have taught the Warlock that, or the Warlock may have learned it themselves. But the ability to manipulate the power is inherent to the Warlock, and the power itself is the Weave. It is not channeled manipulation (Divine Spells) or channeled power (Channel Divinity) from the Patron.

Some of the other abilities might be directly drawing on the Patron's Power somehow, especially the Boons and some of the Invocations. But not Pact Magic Spells.

[War_lord]

Well you probably don't see many Sorcerers because Sorcerers have gained a reputation for being rather rubbish (I'm not saying they are, I'm saying that's a reputation they have), so then that leaves full casters to choose between Warlock and Wizard, and Warlock has cool fluff and ease of use on their side.

[Ninja-Radish]

Tanarii, it makes me happy to see a grognard embracing classes that weren't around back in 1st edition. Cheers!

You say that you've seen alot of Warlocks in play. Personally I've only seen the 2 level dippers (they piss me off). Have you actually seen anyone play a Warlock for more than 2 levels?

[Matrix_Walker]

Well you probably don't see many Sorcerers because Sorcerers have gained a reputation for being rather rubbish (I'm not saying they are, I'm saying that's a reputation they have), so then that leaves full casters to choose between Warlock and Wizard, and Warlock has cool fluff and ease of use on their side.

Warlocks are not full casters. If muticlassing four levels costs you your 9th level slot, you're obviously not playing all full caster classes.

[Knaight]

Not op but I think he is getting at the point that warlocks 'dont fit in the world'. They might not, but only because the world was created in such a way to not make them fit. In the same way clerics wouldnt fit with most 'randomly generated worlds' but in dnd people automatically make it feel like classic midevil europe, or at least the very stereotypical dnd setting (which has baked in support for the clerics who draw power from dieties). Even though the game has changed in order to make room for new classes and ideas like the warlock.
Exactly.


Well, I don't see how Clerics getting powers from gods make the Warlock not fit.
Clerics getting powers from the gods doesn't make Warlocks not fit. The point is that the existence of each class, at all, creates certain assumptions about the setting. For instance, the existence of a Fighter class presumes that there are people for whom combat is a primary skill. The existence of a Rogue class presumes that there are people for whom combat is a primary skill, but also they're pretty good at something else. These are incredibly broad assumptions and settings that don't fit them are vanishingly rare. The Warlock has a bigger imposition, but my point is that the imposition of the Warlock is no bigger than that of the Cleric.

[Cybren]

It's not even that. A Warlock's Pact Magic power can't be channeled from the Patron. It's Arcane, therefore it is the Warlock directly manipulating the Weave without an intermediary when they use the spell, using their own knowledge. The Patron may have taught the Warlock that, or the Warlock may have learned it themselves. But the ability to manipulate the power is inherent to the Warlock, and the power itself is the Weave. It is not channeled manipulation (Divine Spells) or channeled power (Channel Divinity) from the Patron.

Some of the other abilities might be directly drawing on the Patron's Power somehow, especially the Boons and some of the Invocations. But not Pact Magic Spells.

I always conceptualized pact magic as a Thing that the patron gave the warlock, rather than something the warlock channels through the patron. If I gave you a kalashnikov you wouldn't need my permission to shoot someone.

[Tanarii]

Tanarii, it makes me happy to see a grognard embracing classes that weren't around back in 1st edition. Cheers!

You say that you've seen alot of Warlocks in play. Personally I've only seen the 2 level dippers (they piss me off). Have you actually seen anyone play a Warlock for more than 2 levels?Yes, but my campaign is single class only so that distorts my stats. OTOH it's 'open table' and I run sessions at several game stores, so I have a large number of players and PCs participate in the campaign, so it's a pretty big sample base. Although my Tier 2 sessions (5-10) are a smaller sample base since it takes being a regular attendee to get to that level, obviously.

But I certainly recall seeing plenty in AL when I played it regularly too.


I always conceptualized pact magic as a Thing that the patron gave the warlock, rather than something the warlock channels through the patron. If I gave you a kalashnikov you wouldn't need my permission to shoot someone.
The problem with that analogy is it still means you're talking about granted power. I see Pact Magic (specifically) more the Patron teaching/granting the Warlock the ability to SEE and USE a Kalashnikov that was already lying on the ground in front of him, previously invisible to him. Then the warlock picks it up and uses it to shoot people.

[Anderlith]

That would be cool! But then could I be a warlock of pelor? (Probably just use fiend powers cause fire)

Pact of Undying Light

[Unoriginal]

[QUOTE=Tanarii;21743065
It's not even that. A Warlock's Pact Magic power can't be channeled from the Patron. It's Arcane, therefore it is the Warlock directly manipulating the Weave without an intermediary when they use the spell, using their own knowledge. The Patron may have taught the Warlock that, or the Warlock may have learned it themselves. But the ability to manipulate the power is inherent to the Warlock, and the power itself is the Weave. It is not channeled manipulation (Divine Spells) or channeled power (Channel Divinity) from the Patron.

Some of the other abilities might be directly drawing on the Patron's Power somehow, especially the Boons and some of the Invocations. But not Pact Magic Spells.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, but I've seen many people treat Warlock powers like something the Patron could remove if the pact was broken.

If it was only something taught, then any Warlock could find someone with decent Charisma and teach them how to be a Warlock.

Now that'd be funny. Imagine a guy who learned how to be a Warlock because he's the son of the innkeeper and a local Warlock taught him stuff to pay his tab.

[Zalabim]

And as far as the pact goes, it could be as innocent as "make a 'thats what she said' joke as often as is reasonable"
I think I know someone who made that pact. It's an insidious burden.


Given the high charisma Warlocks have, dropping one's top and firing away from the breasts by a female warlock sounds hilarious for one of those Japanese cartoons you see on youtube, but at a table I think it would get old after a few iterations. (Then again, firing from the male nether regions would be hilarious once or twice, but eventually get old and lead to a lot of Denis Leary repeats of "pull up your pants!
I imagined the nipple beams to be the sort of power Parco Folgore wishes he was granted when he entered a partnership with a monstrous being from another dimension and received a book full of magic spells. It's also possibly one of the powers that his evolved form, Aikuro Mikisugi, can barely keep in check based on how his nipples glow with an eldritch light whenever they're near the screen.

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/zatchbell/images/7/73/Cha-kyanchome.gif
http://static1.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_small/4/47703/3568491-untitled-5.jpg
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/kill-la-kill/images/2/2a/Aikuro_Mikisugi_Ep20Pan.jpg

But they are amazingly popular compared to how frequently you would expect them to show up as a population of the average campaign world's adventuring population. I see far more warlocks than sorcerers or wizards (taken individually). OTOH that's true for Paladins too. I actually don't have a problem with that (for any class), but it is kind of weird, conceptually. Since, like I said, I am a grognard.
I would actually expect to see warlocks the most since all you have to do to become one is say the right name three times, for example. Compared to that, any other class is hard work.

Warlocks are not full casters.
Let's not start this **** again.

[Segev]

I would actually expect to see warlocks the most since all you have to do to become one is say the right name three times, for example. Compared to that, any other class is hard work.This is actually a good point. Also, is pacting with Red Fel pacting with a Fiend or a Great Old One? Does Red Fel even do pacts? Would he be a hands-off patron, or are Red Fel-Patronized warlocks amongst the more...observed...out there?




Let's not start this **** again.Let me help with this one: http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/4a/4aee5737f48eab9e8cb6db02bfa99554ed1fe9ae28ff1deee1 8ab36755feb89c.jpg

[Sigreid]

Fair enough, but I've seen many people treat Warlock powers like something the Patron could remove if the pact was broken.

If it was only something taught, then any Warlock could find someone with decent Charisma and teach them how to be a Warlock.

Now that'd be funny. Imagine a guy who learned how to be a Warlock because he's the son of the innkeeper and a local Warlock taught him stuff to pay his tab.

I personally wouldn't actually have a problem with that. In that case the older warlock would be the patron.

A DM who didn't want to allow that could simply state that a supernatural being has to unlock the pathways the power flows through, kind of like throwing a switch to open an electrical circuit before you can use the lessons.

[Unoriginal]

I personally wouldn't actually have a problem with that. In that case the older warlock would be the patron.

A DM who didn't want to allow that could simply state that a supernatural being has to unlock the pathways the power flows through, kind of like throwing a switch to open an electrical circuit before you can use the lessons.

Well, level 20 or close Warlocks are said to be able to give Pact Magic to other people.

[Sigreid]

Well, level 20 or close Warlocks are said to be able to give Pact Magic to other people.

I've not heard that before. Don't have a problem with it. That could very easily be the warlock's gambit for transforming himself into an immortal/demigod/whatever.

Where did you see that?

[Unoriginal]

Where did you see that?

Pretty sure it's in the DMG

[DracoKnight]

Pretty sure it's in the DMG

I've been scouring the DMG, but I can't find any reference to it. Do you have any inkling as to which section of the DMG?

[Desamir]

I've been scouring the DMG, but I can't find any reference to it. Do you have any inkling as to which section of the DMG?

I'm guessing he is referring to this (DMG 37-38):


Levels 17-20: Masters of the World

Characters who reach 20th level have attained the pinnacle of mortal achievement. Their deeds are recorded in the annals of history and recounted by bards for centuries. Their ultimate destinies come to pass. A cleric might be taken up into the heavens to serve as a god's right hand. A warlock could become a patron to other warlocks. Perhaps a wizard unlocks the secret to immortality (or undeath) and spends eons exploring the farthest reaches of the multiverse. A druid might become one with the land, transforming into a nature spirit of a particular place or an aspect of the wild. Other characters could found clans or dynasties that revere the memory of their honored ancestors from generation to generation, create masterpieces of epic literature that are sung and retold for thousands of years, or establish guilds or orders that keep the adventurer's principles and dreams alive.

[DracoKnight]

I'm guessing he is referring to this (DMG 37-38):

Okay, that does indeed seem like it's possible then! :smallsmile: Now, I wonder if you're granting them power from yourself, or if you're actually just setting up the contract between the new Warlock and your Patron.

[Tanarii]

Okay, that does indeed seem like it's possible then! :smallsmile: Now, I wonder if you're granting them power from yourself, or if you're actually just setting up the contract between the new Warlock and your Patron.
That section is pretty clearly talking about ways they surpassed mortality, and cease to be PCs. Not something you do as a 20th level character, but rather ways in which they exit the game, so to speak.

[Rysto]

Now I'm picturing an Amway-like organization of Warlocks, using a pyramid scheme to gain power.

[pwykersotz]

Heck, a Fiend-Patron Pact of the Chain might literally be a pact with the imp that is your familiar. Sure, he styles himself "the Arch-Fiend," but really, you're the boss in this relationship. Why'd he sign on? Because you're more powerful and fun than he could be on his own. Plus, he's getting away from his devil-dad who keeps telling him to get a job already.

I really want to do this. :smallbiggrin:


Okay, that does indeed seem like it's possible then! :smallsmile: Now, I wonder if you're granting them power from yourself, or if you're actually just setting up the contract between the new Warlock and your Patron.

Well, if you interpret it in Tanarii's way (which I do), then all you're doing is teaching the secrets which you have learned.

[Millstone85]

Mind Flayers, Aboleths, and Beholders are all spawn of the same realm as the patrons of Great Old One Warlocks. They're Alien, effectively insane by any prime material standard, and their overall behavior lines up with Evil alignments.
What if you play a warlock who made a Pact with the King of the Flumphs?This is why there is more to the flumph than a joke monster. Here is an aberration that just begs to be linked to a D&D version of the FSM somewhere in the Far Realm, which is a place irreconcilable with the fundamental nature of the Great Wheel. Just like aboleths, beholders and illithids, this creature is "wrong" by the standards of the reality the PCs live in. And yet, alignment-detecting magic registers the flumph as good. What does it mean?

Fiends might be similarly disconcerted by the aboleths. They know evil. They live in planes that are made of the stuff. Evil is part of the cosmic balance that defines the Great Wheel. But the evil of the aboleths is... They are not sure what it is.

And then of course there are neutral aberrations, like the cloaker or the otyugh.


In RPGs anything is possible, but if we're going to discuss about D&D official fluff then I believe you're wrong. The books we have on 5e don't go too deeply in that subject, but pretty much all magic labeled as Divine comes from the Gods, one way or another.
The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. These spellcasters’ access to the Weave is mediated by divine power—gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin’s oath.
Forces and Philosophies
Not all divine powers need to be derived from deities. In some campaigns, believers hold enough conviction in their ideas about the universe that they gain magical power from that conviction. In other campaigns, impersonal forces of nature or magic replace the gods by granting power to mortals attuned to them. Just as druids and rangers can gain their spell ability from the force of nature rather than from a specific nature deity, some clerics devote themselves to ideals rather than to a god. Paladins might serve a philosophy of justice and chivalry rather than a specific deity.
Forces and philosophies aren't worshiped; they aren't beings that can hear and respond to prayers or accept sacrifices. Devotion to a philosophy or a force isn't necessarily exclusive of service to a deity. A person can be devoted to the philosophy of good and offer worship to various good deities, or revere the force of nature and also pay homage to the gods of nature, who might be seen as personal manifestations of an impersonal force. In a world that includes deities with demonstrable power (through their clerics), it's unusual for a philosophy to deny the existence of deities, although a common philosophical belief states that the deities are more like mortals than they would have mortals believe. According to such philosophies, the gods aren't truly immortal (just very long-lived), and mortals can attain divinity. In fact, ascending to godhood is the ultimate goal of some philosophies.
The power of a philosophy stems from the belief that mortals invest in it. A philosophy that only one person believes in isn't strong enough to bestow magical power on that person.Nah, I think 5e does in fact encourage the distinction between "the gods", as these super-duper-spellcasters who are much like mortals except better, and other divine powers like the semi-impersonal spirits of the forest, justice, etc. commonly associated with druids and paladins.

And I really like the idea of a deity as a Metatron-like figure. He speaks for the trees. She is the face of chivalry. They are considered to be these things incarnate. But what they really are is first among the divine spellcasters attuned to certain principles.

[Xetheral]

What the class needs is DMs who won't allow powergamers to dip 2 levels in Warlock. If they want to play a Warlock, then they should have to deal with the suck. How the hell do you sell your soul "just a little bit" anyway?

As others have mentioned, nowhere in the PHB does it even mention selling your soul as part of being a warlock. So the indivisibility of souls isn't necessarily a problem.

But even if the player of a multiclass warlock wanted to fluff the pact as soul-selling, taking the class at all could easily cost the character their entire soul. If they choose to turn their back on further developing the power they've "paid" for, that's on them.

Also, I reject the contention thay warlock-dipping for Eldritch Blast is primarily used by powergamers. From my perspective, it is instead primarily of interest as a low-cost way to give an out-of-combat-focused character an effective in-combat option. And I tend not to think of players who make out-of-combat-focused characters as "powergamers".

Eldritch Blast is useful because of it's cost-to-power ratio, not for its top-end power. For powergamers there are plenty of ways to exceed the potential of Eldritch Blast, they simply require a much larger fraction of the build to accomplish. Since powergamers, almost by definition, are devoting their entire build to combat effectiveness, the efficiency of Eldritch Blast isn't as appealing. (The major exception would be for Powergamers building Nova builds who need a low-cost backup option.)

[Telwar]

Devil: You have summoned me, O puny mortal. I will grant you anything you desire--
Warlock: I wanna shoot fire from my nipples.
Devil: Wait, what? Are you serious?
Warlock: Oh yeah. I want to see what I can destroy with my chest.


...I had a guy in a high school Shadowrun game who wanted *exactly* this. (shudder)

[DracoKnight]

As others have mentioned, nowhere in the PHB does it even mention selling your soul as part of being a warlock.

Which makes it hilarious that so many people get hung up on this facet of the warlock: "Oh, but you sell your soul..." Nope. The writers at WotC were very careful to avoid such language in the fluff. They've pissed off Christians enough in years past.

[gfishfunk]

My only Warlock was a fiend pact with a dragon. Same feel. Fluff is exactly that: useful, but mold-able.

I am seriously considering putting out a free PDF with patrons, gods, and oaths because people keep having trouble with the fluff. Good fluff is really, really good. Bad fluff results in emo-locks, bland clerics, and lawful stupid paladins.

[solidork]

Eldritch Blast is useful because of it's cost-to-power ratio, not for its top-end power. For powergamers there are plenty of ways to exceed the potential of Eldritch Blast, they simply require a much larger fraction of the build to accomplish. Since powergamers, almost by definition, are devoting their entire build to combat effectiveness, the efficiency of Eldritch Blast isn't as appealing. (The major exception would be for Powergamers building Nova builds who need a low-cost backup option.)

I'm someone who can appreciate optimization as an exercise, and flexibility/efficiency are way more exciting than just raw numbers.

[Sigreid]

Eldritch Blast is useful because of it's cost-to-power ratio, not for its top-end power. For powergamers there are plenty of ways to exceed the potential of Eldritch Blast, they simply require a much larger fraction of the build to accomplish. Since powergamers, almost by definition, are devoting their entire build to combat effectiveness, the efficiency of Eldritch Blast isn't as appealing. (The major exception would be for Powergamers building Nova builds who need a low-cost backup option.)

I'm kind of surprised more paladins don't take Spell Sniper to get EB as a relatively low cost way to get a decent long ranged attack option. Not as good as EB+AB, but the opportunity cost is fairly low.

[gfishfunk]

I'm kind of surprised more paladins don't take Spell Sniper to get EB as a relatively low cost way to get a decent long ranged attack option. Not as good as EB+AB, but the opportunity cost is fairly low.

I agree, but I think its a conditioning aspect of DMs. They typically have a battle mat which is a set size. They simply do not think of creating a combat space large enough for long range spells.

[Desamir]

I'm kind of surprised more paladins don't take Spell Sniper to get EB as a relatively low cost way to get a decent long ranged attack option. Not as good as EB+AB, but the opportunity cost is fairly low.

Meh. Without AB, EB has about the same effectiveness as any other attack cantrip. I wouldn't take a feat to get what amounts to a Fire Bolt that deals force damage.

[Sabeta]

Nowhere does it even say that the source of a Warlock's power is the patron. They simply struck a deal to unlock the forbidden knowledge necessary to blow people up. The SCAG puts it pretty well, most people don't make any difference between the mages. Even the mages view each others as individually perusing the true art in their own way; however there are small stigmas within the community. Enough Warlocks are infernal soul-sellers that it makes all mages look bad, and sometimes the wizards don't like that. wizards and sorcerers often bicker about the nature of magic due to the process used to gain their magic.

I've personally played a Warlock whose imp familiar was also her pactmaker. The Imp was bored and the Tiefling was curious. No souls were sold, they merely entered into a contract with one another that was mutually beneficial. The sorcerer agreed to do impressive things in exchange for magical secrets. The way the conditions worked out, is the Imp could bail if he ever found things getting boring, but because he was merely a tutor in dark arts, not a giver, the Warlock wouldn't lose her powers even if he did bugger off.

I've also seen a number of Tieflings who were simply born warlocks, not unlike a sorcerer might be. Asmodeus or another prince of hell decided that they wanted this child to have access to powers because they foretold their destiny involved a lot of death and mayhem, and even if the tiefling fought for good surely a few damned souls would end up wandering to his realm as a result of the Tiefling's actions, so it was a win no matter what.

Fluff is by nature flexible. Warlock is not at fault, and most of the classes have an air of snowflakiness to them. Fighter, Rogue, Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlock all tend to be snowflakes, as do rangers and druids by virtue of them rarely being proper adventurers and preferring to stick to their conclaves or circles.

[Steampunkette]

Meh. Without AB, EB has about the same effectiveness as any other attack cantrip. I wouldn't take a feat to get what amounts to a Fire Bolt that deals force damage.

That takes multiple attack rolls any of which can miss...

Which, of course, makes it vastly -better- than Fire Bolt in many situations since you can spread damage across multiple targets (if some are badly hurt) or against an enemy at range with high AC since there's a greater chance you'll do at least -some- damage rather than roll one miss and be SoL on all damage.

[Xetheral]

I'm someone who can appreciate optimization as an exercise, and flexibility/efficiency are way more exciting than just raw numbers.

I agree entirely. However, I do not consider optimization and powergaming to be synonymous, so I stand by my claim about the lesser appeal of eldritch blast for powergamers.

[Sigreid]

Meh. Without AB, EB has about the same effectiveness as any other attack cantrip. I wouldn't take a feat to get what amounts to a Fire Bolt that deals force damage.

Point is it's a decent long range option for a class that really doesn't have any. I mean they can use a bow, but they're far less impressive with that.