So a thing about Warlocks!

[Trey Bright]

Do any of you make your players, or ask your players, to make an official pact with the patron? Like, they have to do x for their powers to keep working? Or are they just warlocks and that's how it is now? I know in 3.x there were repercussions to playing a warlock, but I think they were removed for 5e. Anyone bring those back? What kind of pacts/deals should I look at for my players. One is a Great Old One and that other is a Hex Blade, but I'm re-flavoring it so that a very powerful entity is bound to the sword, so thats how he's getting his power from the blade.

I was thinking they need to kill x number of people in y time frame to maintain power or fulfill the contract or something?

For the hexblade, I was specifically going to say he would need to, since he's bound to whatever being is inside the sword, let the being take over his body for x amount of time each day/week/month and give it some "free time". I was thinking he wouldn't be conscious for this either so I'd get to do whatever I want for a limited amount of time w/o anyone knowing then hand control back over to the player. He'd then have to figure out what the entity did, or not.

EDIT: Yikes! To clarify, the player and I have both talked about the patron taking control of his body, (I'll temporarily use his character) and I just wondered if anyone had anything similar to this in their games? How'd the other players take it? I've seen some good arguments for both why and why not to do it. I'm definitely going to go over the pact with both the GOO and the HexB before the game starts. I'm just wondering what I should do for them? Killing X-Number of people and taking their souls seems a little cliche, but it also sounds like a tried and true method...
Also, I don't want to give the warlocks more power then the other players who didn't pick warlock simply because of their class choice. If they offer a trade to their patron in exchange for a favor, then the cleric tries to get divine intervention and fail, then the cleric feels like their getting screwed.

EDIT II:
Well, would ya look at what D&D Beyond just dropped today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiS5mkIff_8

[Kane0]

Well in one game my Fiend warlock had a soul gem in his posession, and part of his pact was to fill it with the souls of 100 intelligent victims.

Took a lot of sessions but eventually got it done, and at a rather inopportune time later on my patron used said 100 souls to gate in a balor. Had nothing to do with me, I was just the means of getting the fiend into the plane as part of some greater game my patron had planned.


In a game I DMed a player had another Fiend warlock, I had his Imp familiar deliver messages to him from his patron (He was convinced he was working for Big A himself but it was really just some pencil-pusher in Minauros). Each one had a particular sidequest or secondary objective to complete during whatever adventure they were doing at the time.

Edit: Oh and another DM once did pacts like a Paladin Oath: one additional trait, bond and flaw to represent the things you signed up for. Well for the warlocks in an 'active' pact at least, not those ones that just happened to look into the night sky at just the right time or are part of an unfortunate lineage.

[Malifice]

For the hexblade, I was specifically going to say he would need to, since he's bound to whatever being is inside the sword, let the being take over his body for x amount of time each day/week/month and give it some "free time".

Good lord no. Dont do this.

[Kane0]

Would make for a hilarious downtime option though. Imagine the shenanigans!

[Trey Bright]

Well in one game my Fiend warlock had a soul gem in his posession, and part of his pact was to fill it with the souls of 100 intelligent victims.

Took a lot of sessions but eventually got it done, and at a rather inopportune time later on my patron used said 100 souls to gate in a balor. Had nothing to do with me, I was just the means of getting the fiend into the plane as part of some greater game my patron had planned.


In a game I DMed a player had another Fiend warlock, I had his Imp familiar deliver messages to him from his patron (He was convinced he was working for Big A himself but it was really just some pencil-pusher in Minauros). Each one had a particular sidequest or secondary objective to complete during whatever adventure they were doing at the time.

Edit: Oh and another DM once did pacts like a Paladin Oath: one additional trait, bond and flaw to represent the things you signed up for. Well for the warlocks in an 'active' pact at least, not those ones that just happened to look into the night sky at just the right time or are part of an unfortunate lineage.


Good lord no. Dont do this.
Why not?


Would make for a hilarious downtime option though. Imagine the shenanigans!
Exactly! It would also allow the patron to further his goals uninhibited.

[Malifice]

Why not?

Because you're arbitrarily siezing control of his character (no player agency) or unilaterally stripping his class features from him because of what you want.

Like I said in the other thread, just roleplay his relationship with his pact weapon as hostile but co-dependent.

If he wants to incorporate his PC being [half crazy/ half nice] on account of his Patron dominating him from time to time, that should be up to him. He can just declare it happens, and he then is trusted to play an evil version of himself.

Dont force that kind of thing on a player. Ever.

[Esprit15]

Because you're arbitrarily siezing control of his character (no player agency) or unilaterally stripping his class features from him because of what you want.

Like I said in the other thread, just roleplay his relationship with his pact weapon as hostile but co-dependent.

If he wants to incorporate his PC being [half crazy/ half nice] on account of his Patron dominating him from time to time, that should be up to him. He can just declare it happens, and he then is trusted to play an evil version of himself.

Dont force that kind of thing on a player. Ever.

Yes, because god forbid that a DM and a player talk things out before a game begins and agree on something that might have interesting consequences.

[Malifice]

Yes, because god forbid that a DM and a player talk things out before a game begins and agree on something that might have interesting consequences.

Thats exactly what I said above. Unless the player wants it, the DM shouldnt push this kind of thing on him.

The DM here is talking about stripping the Warlock of his powers, and taking over control of the Warlock PC unilaterally, based on the DMs interpretation of the Patron/ Warlock relationship.

It should only happen at the request of the Warlock PC (Hey DM- I want my sword to control me and make me do evil from time to time). And even then it should be preferably handled in a way so the Warlock player retains his agency as 'the possessed evil Warlock' instead of surrendering all narrative power and player agency over to the DM.

[Gryndle]

Do any of you make your players, or ask your players, to make an official pact with the patron? Like, they have to do x for their powers to keep working? Or are they just warlocks and that's how it is now? I know in 3.x there were repercussions to playing a warlock, but I think they were removed for 5e. Anyone bring those back? What kind of pacts/deals should I look at for my players. One is a Great Old One and that other is a Hex Blade, but I'm re-flavoring it so that a very powerful entity is bound to the sword, so thats how he's getting his power from the blade.

I was thinking they need to kill x number of people in y time frame to maintain power or fulfill the contract or something?

For the hexblade, I was specifically going to say he would need to, since he's bound to whatever being is inside the sword, let the being take over his body for x amount of time each day/week/month and give it some "free time". I was thinking he wouldn't be conscious for this either so I'd get to do whatever I want for a limited amount of time w/o anyone knowing then hand control back over to the player. He'd then have to figure out what the entity did, or not.

I wouldn't require anything of a warlock that I wouldn't from any of the other classes that gain their powers from outside sources (cleric, paladin, druid, etc.) IF you are going to place in-game "strings attached" to their class abilities, the player should be warned beforehand and on board with the idea. And I don't think I would ever require that a character's class abilities come with something akin to possession, at least not without it coming up organically in play such as from a curse like lycanthropy.

How do you handle the obligations of a paladin or cleric in your game?

I think utilizing a warlock's patron should be handled as delicately as a cleric's god or paladin's code. They are useful hooks for adventure ideas for the DM and motivations for the character, and I'm not opposed to having in-game obligations to the patron. But doing something like what the OP proposes here seems like it could open the door for "fallen warlocks" as a replacement for the old "how can we make a paladin fall" trap.

[Meta]

And even then it should be preferably handled in a way so the Warlock player retains his agency as 'the possessed evil Warlock' instead of surrendering all narrative power and player agency over to the DM.

The DM most likely knows far more about the pact giver's agenda than the Warlock does. If both player and DM are onboard for this, what's the issue?

[Lombra]

The patron may have nothing evil planned for the player ya know...

Grat Old One? Spread the word of a grater truth and build a new fancy religion so that the patron will ascend to god status.

Hexblade? It's a sword, maybe you wield it to protect others, just like a paladin, and the patron feeds on the souls of your evil victims? Or your patron is a cerimonial sword and it just wants for you to perform a blessing rite on the poor, like that chivalry cerimony thing where you tap shoulders and head of the knight, adding a bit of luck in their life?

There's nothing wrong in going evil but evil isn't the only option.

[RedMage125]

I know in 3.x there were repercussions to playing a warlock, but I think they were removed for 5e. Anyone bring those back? What kind of pacts/deals should I look at for my players. One is a Great Old One and that other is a Hex Blade, but I'm re-flavoring it so that a very powerful entity is bound to the sword, so thats how he's getting his power from the blade.


In 3.x, warlocks only had the requirement of "any chaotic or any evil" in alignment. There were no "repercussions" to playing one. Nor were there in 4e. If you played with a DM who had things like that, they were his house rules.

[Joe the Rat]

Depends on the Patron and situation. My game has two Warlocks at the moment - a Fiend and an Archfey. The Fiend is very formal: sought out the cursed idol to make the pact for power, patron asks for regular sacrifices (downed victims suffice) and the occasional innocuous-seeming act.

The Archfey Warlock did not (in-character) enter a formal pact - they simply got picked up by a wandering Fey Lord, ate the food, got imprisoned for a time in a pocket dimension while they learned some tricks, had adventures, got time-dilated 20 years forward, and was haunted in dreams and by the occasional murderous messenger to do a few "minor" tasks that would result in unleashing the local equivalent of the Time of Troubles. Since then, she has entered into a formal pact with a different Archfey - with the explicit request to help stop the first one from getting loose. (The rest of the party was present, and had tea and biscuits with them when this was discussed. Oops.)

In both cases, they are expected to help advance the Patron's agenda, but broadly speaking don't know what said agenda is. All they know is "Would you kindly" is the codephrase for "Do this or the crazy crow woman will come and eat your entrails."


The DM most likely knows far more about the pact giver's agenda than the Warlock does. If both player and DM are onboard for this, what's the issue?
This is the key - if you are going to do something with the Patron (or the tenets of a Cleric's (or Acolytes) faith, or an Order that the Paladin (or Knight) belong to, or or or - really, this applies to any aspect of a character that ties them to the world, or has anything written under Bonds or Flaws), you should discuss this ahead of time. Note you don't have to be exact as to what the role will be, just an agreement that shenanigans will occur, and that the DM is not going to be a codpiece filler about it.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I think part of the FUN of being a Warlock is having a patron.

Now they all don't have to be comic book simple evil.

A patron helps a DM come up with plot lines.

The right patron can step in and prevent a tpk, but at a cost to the party.

Like everything there is a point of taking it too far buy it is something I'm looking forward to.

[mgshamster]

This doesn't have to be regulated to just Warlocks.

The paladin has an Oath he must abide by.

The Cleric has a God or a church she must obey.

The Noble has state or familial obligations.

The Soldier has orders to follow.

The Druid has to adhere to requirements from the Circle.

There are classes and background that have communities built into them that allow a campaign to introduce obligations as part of the story. And that can make for a fun and interesting story.

The key is to talk it out with your group and ensure everyone is on board with the story being told. Or, if you really must have those obligations in play, then there's more than one way to play it out. Let the player decide how their PC is going to respond to the obligations and let it run its natural course. Do they uphold them or run from them? What are the consequences either way? No matter what direction it takes, it can make for a fun campaign.

[Laserlight]

As a player, I certainly would not want the DM to take control of my character. With discussion beforehand, I would be okay with the patron giving me goals; how I accomplish them is up to me. (Part of the point of playing is to figure out how to reach your objective, so don't tell me how). However, I might envision my lock as having stolen his power from an unwilling or unknowing patron; Great Cthulhu isn't going to be aware of some mere L3 mortal, much less communicate with it.

[alchahest]

We've had two warlocks in our current campaign - one is feypact, and frequently communes with his patron. The other was fiend pact who had a standing arrangement for exchanges, it was an entirely transactional agreement, started with the character's soul in exchange for warlock powers. There were RP elements that were basically akin to petitioning a god as a cleric - exchanging all of the character's childhood memories of his parents to release an NPC from the hold of a mind altering spell, for example. Nothing is without cost. Slowly the character's personality whittled away, and was reforming as influenced by the party members. He actually became a better person by giving up the things that had shaped him into a bad person.

Eventually (and briefly, as the character was retired for NPC-dom afterwards having taken on a demi-god type status along with a few other PCs) and through great service, managed to shift his patronage through great effort and good deed doing. There's some kind of metaphysical dispute over the destination of his soul now, though he is now effectively immortal.


basically patrons are a great bit of fun that can be had by both player and DM, don't feel restricted to "every now and then the patron says jump and you say how high"

[Sigreid]

I think part of the FUN of being a Warlock is having a patron.

Now they all don't have to be comic book simple evil.

A patron helps a DM come up with plot lines.

The right patron can step in and prevent a tpk, but at a cost to the party.

Like everything there is a point of taking it too far buy it is something I'm looking forward to.

Patrons are why I don't play warlocks. Gods are why I don't play clerics.

[KorvinStarmast]

Good lord no. Dont do this. May I second this notion? While from your perspective the opportunity for shenanigans is ripe with fun and possibility, please look at this from the perspective of All Of The Other Players In The Group. They are adventuring with this Warlock, and your shenanigans don't just have an impact on the Warlock.

[Erit]

For the hexblade, I was specifically going to say he would need to, since he's bound to whatever being is inside the sword, let the being take over his body for x amount of time each day/week/month and give it some "free time". I was thinking he wouldn't be conscious for this either so I'd get to do whatever I want for a limited amount of time w/o anyone knowing then hand control back over to the player. He'd then have to figure out what the entity did, or not.

Honestly, the number of times I see... Mate, you're the DM at your table in this hypothetical. The word "no" is in your vocabulary. Use it. Don't do this underhanded fiddling nonsense, don't make this the return of "The Paladin falls because Evil still exists in the world after they joined the order"; grow a spine and say, with your words, "No, I don't want a Warlock/hexblade/whathaveye in this adventure, think of something else". Trying to punish people for doing stuff you let them do despite not wanting them to do it isn't wise or subtle, it's cowardly and does nothing but engender resentment. Stop it.

[mgshamster]

Trying to punish people for doing stuff you let them do despite not wanting them to do it isn't wise or subtle, it's cowardly and does nothing but engender resentment. Stop it.

What makes you think he's doing this because he thinks the hexblade is OP?

To me, it seems like a story idea. I'd go for it as a player. I think to would be a lot of fun to explore. Even if it happened to another player's PC, it's no different than having to deal with a PC contracting lycanthrope.

Just be upfront about it, because it's not assumed to be a part of the class. It's there as an option. If a player is cool with it, then roll with it. It's all good.

[DracoKnight]

What makes you think he's doing this because he thinks the hexblade is OP?

To me, it seems like a story idea. I'd go for it as a player. I think to would be a lot of fun to explore. Even if it happened to another player's PC, it's no different than having to deal with a PC contracting lycanthrope.

Just be upfront about it, because it's not assumed to be a part of the class. It's there as an option. If a player is cool with it, then roll with it. It's all good.

Except you can’t gain lycanthropy via class features. And when you do you get lycanthropy + class features. This is taking a player’s choice and making it an extreme detriment to them.

It’s one thing to have a Patron give quests and make requests. It’s another to take away player agency because of a class feature.

[mgshamster]

Except you can’t gain lycanthropy via class features. And when you do you get lycanthropy + class features. This is taking a player’s choice and making it an extreme detriment to them.

It’s one thing to have a Patron give quests and make requests. It’s another to take away player agency because of a class feature.

But it can make for a good story and a fun adventure. If the player is ok with it, why not make it happen? All you have to do is ask.

I just now proposed this to my own group, and even the guy who is the most adamant about the golden box thought it was a cool idea.

[Honest Tiefling]

Do any of you make your players, or ask your players, to make an official pact with the patron? Like, they have to do x for their powers to keep working? Or are they just warlocks and that's how it is now? I know in 3.x there were repercussions to playing a warlock, but I think they were removed for 5e.

Wait, 3.x did have repercussions? I don't remember any mechanical ruling on that. Ah, the joys of getting older...Remind me, young whippersnapper.

Anyway, I am of the opinion that unless you take the warlock class and tell me 'I don't like sorcerers mechanically, but I have this character concept, and here's how I'm going to make this feel like a sorcerer' your character is a warlock. A warlock needs a patron. If you present me with a warlock without a patron, I will demand answers.

However, I am also willing to accept the idea that it might not have been the character who made the pact to begin with, and those kooky ancestors can get up to all sorts of trouble. Your character might be unaware or not as strongly bound to actually do anything, depending on what said ancestor did. Which means there might not be a solid pact, but I get a general idea of where the player is going and can ask appropriate questions on how far to go.

Communication never hurts. I'm happier with players who are willing to allow me to play up the dangerous side of being a warlock, but not all players trust me or find enjoyment in overcoming such obstacles.

[Erit]

What makes you think he's doing this because he thinks the hexblade is OP?

To me, it seems like a story idea. I'd go for it as a player. I think to would be a lot of fun to explore. Even if it happened to another player's PC, it's no different than having to deal with a PC contracting lycanthrope.

Leaving aside the last statement you made here because I do agree that the player being on board changes the discussion.

Nowhere did I say anything about being OP. Attributing arguments to me that were not made will not win you anything. 3.5e's Paladin wasn't OP, but there were still instances of DMs being spiteful underhanded pricks about their presence in the game because they didn't have the spine to tell a player "no". Enough instances that "the Paladin falls" became a meme; my statement was to the effect of "Do not turn Warlock into the new Paladin" because "the Paladin falls"—even as a meme—signified someone ceasing to have fun because the DM, whose authority trumps all at the game table, was irresponsible with that power and chose to inflict a punishment on a player for the DM's own unwillingness to deny them something overtly.

So, nothing makes me think he's doing this because he thinks the hexblade is OP. History and excessive personal experience with people being snide and unsubtle whelps, however, makes me think he might be doing this because he doesn't want people playing Warlock, or even just Hexblade specifically, but doesn't have the will to say "no" to the person wanting to play it.

[Meta]

Imo, the best DnD is about telling a story foremost and that should be informed by the rules, not constrained by it. If a player and a DM have an idea that they think will make a good story, give it a go. Sometimes it will probably affect what the rest of the party is doing. That's okay, now it's a plot point that the PCs can work to resolving.

[Chugger]

Because you're arbitrarily siezing control of his character (no player agency) or unilaterally stripping his class features from him because of what you want.

Like I said in the other thread, just roleplay his relationship with his pact weapon as hostile but co-dependent.

If he wants to incorporate his PC being [half crazy/ half nice] on account of his Patron dominating him from time to time, that should be up to him. He can just declare it happens, and he then is trusted to play an evil version of himself.

Dont force that kind of thing on a player. Ever.

Yes. This is right.

[mgshamster]

Leaving aside the last statement you made here because I do agree that the player being on board changes the discussion.

Nowhere did I say anything about being OP. Attributing arguments to me that were not made will not win you anything. 3.5e's Paladin wasn't OP, but there were still instances of DMs being spiteful underhanded pricks about their presence in the game because they didn't have the spine to tell a player "no". Enough instances that "the Paladin falls" became a meme; my statement was to the effect of "Do not turn Warlock into the new Paladin" because "the Paladin falls"—even as a meme—signified someone ceasing to have fun because the DM, whose authority trumps all at the game table, was irresponsible with that power and chose to inflict a punishment on a player for the DM's own unwillingness to deny them something overtly.

So, nothing makes me think he's doing this because he thinks the hexblade is OP. History and excessive personal experience with people being snide and unsubtle whelps, however, makes me think he might be doing this because he doesn't want people playing Warlock, or even just Hexblade specifically, but doesn't have the will to say "no" to the person wanting to play it.

Fair enough. I apologize for attempting to read into your post and guess the reasoning behind your words.

However, I feel that you're doing the exact same thing to the OP, and you're introducing an argument that he hasn't actually made.

[Kane0]

End of the day, have a chat to your player(s) and collaborate with them to figure out what works best for your game. Does no good accidentally sucking the fun out of the game just because of a cool idea you had.

[Xetheral]

My vote is let the player choose their relationship (if any) to their patron.

The last time I played a warlock, the pact was a one-time deal with the Queen of the Fae: a secret brownie recipie in exchange for eldritch power. I then occasionally baked brownies and brought them to the game.

The Queen of the Fae didn't feature in the campaign at all. Leveling represented increasing mastery of the granted power, rather than more of it. No one at the table cared one way or the other--they were too busy eating brownies.

[Brawndo]

My vote is let the player choose their relationship (if any) to their patron.

The last time I played a warlock, the pact was a one-time deal with the Queen of the Fae: a secret brownie recipie in exchange for eldritch power. I then occasionally baked brownies and brought them to the game.

The Queen of the Fae didn't feature in the campaign at all. Leveling represented increasing mastery of the granted power, rather than more of it. No one at the table cared one way or the other--they were too busy eating brownies.

This! I am a big fan of the player and the DM working together to establish the parameters of the deal with the patron.

For the Fiend Warlock I'm currently playing, the DM and I agreed that my deal is that I get the powers I get (and the ability to swap those Invocations/Spells when I level up is flavored as "putting in paperwork" to requisition different abilities). I owe "the Boss" a certain amount of souls. If I meet that quota, then I get to go on with my life and do whatever I want. If I die without fulfilling my quota, I become a slave in Hell until I can find a way to pay off the balance. My imp familiar was once a Warlock with a similar deal, who failed to meet his quota and is therefore reassigned to assist me. He gets partial credit towards his quota for every soul we dispatch together.

We can go about accomplishing our goals any way we want (my familiar is continuously trying to get me to start a cult, where we get people to sign their souls over to the boss willingly). The boss doesn't get any benefit from me killing the innocent; they just go to Heaven or wherever. Evildoers I kill go straight to the boss, so my character ends up being a de facto crusader against evil, even though she works for Satan.

[Lombra]

My vote is let the player choose their relationship (if any) to their patron.

The last time I played a warlock, the pact was a one-time deal with the Queen of the Fae: a secret brownie recipie in exchange for eldritch power. I then occasionally baked brownies and brought them to the game.

The Queen of the Fae didn't feature in the campaign at all. Leveling represented increasing mastery of the granted power, rather than more of it. No one at the table cared one way or the other--they were too busy eating brownies.

This is genuinely a great example of how TTRPGs can be bright places of happyness and lightheart fun, your post made me smile and thrive for my next session (which is tomorrow) thank you for making me go to sleep happier :D

Bake brownies! Not heated threads about morality and rules-lawyerism!

[Joe the Rat]

Bake brownies! Not heated threads about morality and rules-lawyerism!

But..but... I need the tears of frustration and argument to add to my liquids! I've tried plain old player's tears, but the don't have the same lacrimal je ne sais quoi that forum arguments provide.

In all seriousness, try replacing part of your water with Irish Cream.

[Honest Tiefling]

But..but... I need the tears of frustration and argument to add to my liquids!

You fool! Don't eat pure salt to cure your dehydration!

Back on topic...How many people would want their warlock to be in a perilous situation because of the pact? I get some don't want their abilities taken away, and with good reason. However, how do you make a pact feel dangerous without raining on the player's fun?

[alchahest]

Same way you treat clerics and paladins? A bond with a greater power (or Oath) doesn't have to be a punishment for having class features. it's a feature too. use it to build the story rather than crush a player's ideas of what they can do.

[Honest Tiefling]

Same way you treat clerics and paladins? A bond with a greater power (or Oath) doesn't have to be a punishment for having class features. it's a feature too. use it to build the story rather than crush a player's ideas of what they can do.

I was hoping for more specific examples, because without tension, there are no stakes. If the patron cannot simply remove the powers, where does the tension come from?

[alchahest]

Same place tension for a wizard or druid or rogue I suppose?

[Sigreid]

I was hoping for more specific examples, because without tension, there are no stakes. If the patron cannot simply remove the powers, where does the tension come from?

I don't think the patron should be able to remove powers as the book describes the patron as teaching secrets and it being more a master to apprentice relationship. Just speaking for myself but I think the patron can refuse to teach new secrets, but can't revoke what has been taught.

This doesn't mean a jilted patron won't have other means to ruin the warlock.

[Trey Bright]

Because you're arbitrarily siezing control of his character (no player agency) or unilaterally stripping his class features from him because of what you want.

Like I said in the other thread, just roleplay his relationship with his pact weapon as hostile but co-dependent.

If he wants to incorporate his PC being [half crazy/ half nice] on account of his Patron dominating him from time to time, that should be up to him. He can just declare it happens, and he then is trusted to play an evil version of himself.

Dont force that kind of thing on a player. Ever.

I wasn't going to force this on him at all. He was the one who wanted a "monster side" so I asked him if this would be okay. I'm still tweaking his pact, and may remove that aspect. We'll see. I'm planning this game for the summer, so I have a while.

[Trey Bright]

I wouldn't require anything of a warlock that I wouldn't from any of the other classes that gain their powers from outside sources (cleric, paladin, druid, etc.) IF you are going to place in-game "strings attached" to their class abilities, the player should be warned beforehand and on board with the idea. And I don't think I would ever require that a character's class abilities come with something akin to possession, at least not without it coming up organically in play such as from a curse like lycanthropy.

How do you handle the obligations of a paladin or cleric in your game?

I think utilizing a warlock's patron should be handled as delicately as a cleric's god or paladin's code. They are useful hooks for adventure ideas for the DM and motivations for the character, and I'm not opposed to having in-game obligations to the patron. But doing something like what the OP proposes here seems like it could open the door for "fallen warlocks" as a replacement for the old "how can we make a paladin fall" trap.

This is a really good point. Right now, I'm planning for my very first game, so I haven't done much interaction with paladins/clerics yet, but I'm planning on coming up with some stuff for them. I have a bit more reading up to do, then I need to start making notes. Thank you for brining this to my attention. I'll be sure to make sure all the classes are on even footing...or try.


In 3.x, warlocks only had the requirement of "any chaotic or any evil" in alignment. There were no "repercussions" to playing one. Nor were there in 4e. If you played with a DM who had things like that, they were his house rules.

I thought that Warlocks were harder to rez because their patron usually got their soul when they died or something? That might've been a house rule. I never played a warlock because of those requirements, but a good friend of mine loved playing them, so I only have second hand knowledge.


But it can make for a good story and a fun adventure. If the player is ok with it, why not make it happen? All you have to do is ask.

I just now proposed this to my own group, and even the guy who is the most adamant about the golden box thought it was a cool idea.

What's the "Golden Box"?


Wait, 3.x did have repercussions? I don't remember any mechanical ruling on that. Ah, the joys of getting older...Remind me, young whippersnapper.

Anyway, I am of the opinion that unless you take the warlock class and tell me 'I don't like sorcerers mechanically, but I have this character concept, and here's how I'm going to make this feel like a sorcerer' your character is a warlock. A warlock needs a patron. If you present me with a warlock without a patron, I will demand answers.

However, I am also willing to accept the idea that it might not have been the character who made the pact to begin with, and those kooky ancestors can get up to all sorts of trouble. Your character might be unaware or not as strongly bound to actually do anything, depending on what said ancestor did. Which means there might not be a solid pact, but I get a general idea of where the player is going and can ask appropriate questions on how far to go.

Communication never hurts. I'm happier with players who are willing to allow me to play up the dangerous side of being a warlock, but not all players trust me or find enjoyment in overcoming such obstacles.

I thought that Warlocks were harder to rez because their patron usually got their soul when they died or something? That might've been a house rule. I never played a warlock because of those requirements, but a good friend of mine loved playing them, so I only have second hand knowledge.

Anyways, his idea is that a powerful entity destroyed his town and for one reason or another, left a portion of it's "energy/power/soul/etc" inside of him. Later, this being was sealed in to a sword. One way or another, PC finds the sword and the power inside of him resonates with the sword and the Being recognizes the PC because of said energy. He's now trying to become a hero and use the power of this being to stop other people from suffering in the same way he did.


Leaving aside the last statement you made here because I do agree that the player being on board changes the discussion.

Nowhere did I say anything about being OP. Attributing arguments to me that were not made will not win you anything. 3.5e's Paladin wasn't OP, but there were still instances of DMs being spiteful underhanded pricks about their presence in the game because they didn't have the spine to tell a player "no". Enough instances that "the Paladin falls" became a meme; my statement was to the effect of "Do not turn Warlock into the new Paladin" because "the Paladin falls"—even as a meme—signified someone ceasing to have fun because the DM, whose authority trumps all at the game table, was irresponsible with that power and chose to inflict a punishment on a player for the DM's own unwillingness to deny them something overtly.

So, nothing makes me think he's doing this because he thinks the hexblade is OP. History and excessive personal experience with people being snide and unsubtle whelps, however, makes me think he might be doing this because he doesn't want people playing Warlock, or even just Hexblade specifically, but doesn't have the will to say "no" to the person wanting to play it.

I don't not want people to play the character they believe they'll have fun with. While warlock (along with the other specifically evil [and I suppose also chaotic?] classes) were my least favorite in 3.x (I'm kinda a goody two shoes...the worst character I played was a very cG bard), I'm warming up to the 5e warlock. I love paladins, and really don't want to be a ****. I've read plenty of stories online about players getting **** on, and I don't want to do that to my players. This is all about having fun. My player has grand aspirations, yeah, but I'm willing to try to accommodate him as long as he doesn't hurt the enjoyment other players are getting from the game. I actually recommended Hexblade to him because it was the only class that fit his character conception. I don't know if knowing any of the above helps, but I hope it sheds a little insight in to why I'm asking some of the questions I am. I'm going to be a brand new DM in the summer this coming year, and I want as many tricks up my sleeve as possible. :D


My vote is let the player choose their relationship (if any) to their patron.

The last time I played a warlock, the pact was a one-time deal with the Queen of the Fae: a secret brownie recipie in exchange for eldritch power. I then occasionally baked brownies and brought them to the game.

The Queen of the Fae didn't feature in the campaign at all. Leveling represented increasing mastery of the granted power, rather than more of it. No one at the table cared one way or the other--they were too busy eating brownies.
I like that idea of leveling is just mastering the power granted to them. I think I can use this. Also, brownies? That's awesome! :smallbiggrin:

[Sception]

As a general rule, in my campaigns the souls of anything they kill with the aid of their warlock spells and abilities will go to their patron instead of whatever normal afterlife they'd be fated for. Additionally, the patron has access to the warlock's sensory perceptions whenever they wish, and can access the warlock's memories and surface thoughts. The Warlock may experience some physical sensation or manifest some change when these things happen - maybe their eyes change color when the patron is looking through them, or they might get mild headaches or an itching sensation when the patron is listening in on their surface thoughts or they might experience random flashbacks when the patron is rifling through their memories. different sensations for different warlocks, kind of incorporate any spooky quirks the character wants their warlock to have anyway. If they put together what's happening they might be able to resist it with a will save (DC 10 + 1/2 warlock level), but generally they wouldn't even know its happening.

these are kind of static, universal features of warlock pacts in my game, and the character is typically unaware of them. Players too, for the most part, since I've never run for a warlock who got to a high enough level for this things to pose a direct problem for the party. Whether there's additional, more specific individual terms to the pact is something I generally leave to the player. If they want something like that, cool, and if they don't I won't burden them with it.

[Temperjoke]

Coincidentally, D&D Beyond released a vid on this very subject with Mike Mearls.


https://youtu.be/iiS5mkIff_8

[Waterdeep Merch]

This is a really good point. Right now, I'm planning for my very first game, so I haven't done much interaction with paladins/clerics yet, but I'm planning on coming up with some stuff for them. I have a bit more reading up to do, then I need to start making notes. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll be sure to make sure all the classes are on even footing...or try.
Try to get some info on everyone, either their class, race, or backstory. Ask what kind of stuff they'd like, from items to cool cosmetic stuff to interesting story beats. Then, mold all of that into the story somehow.

It seems most obvious to punish warlock, clerics, and paladins for acting against the source of their powers, and it can be interesting and fun for players that buy into that premises (make sure they buy into it first). But if they do allow for these restraints and play to them, reward them handsomely for it. Maybe the hexblade is sometimes given extra gifts for their loyalty? A unique power? Perhaps the patron directs them to unique manners of solving problems, like a directed divination. Stuff like that.

[Sigreid]

Coincidentally, D&D Beyond released a vid on this very subject with Mike Mearls.



And now I'm better with the idea of a warlock character. The RAI being that the power cannot be revoked or limited by the patron, and the terms of the pact can have been completed in the past. This opens the door for interesting characters like a fiend pact warlock that has seen the error of his ways and now uses his infernal power for good. He can even actually be pure of heart..now.

[Kane0]

And also might help ease the qualms people might have with celestial 'locks.

Deities preach to the masses, Angels and the like deal in pacts for a more... personal touch.

[Temperjoke]

Something to consider too, and this is just speaking generally on the subject, you don't actually have to actively involve a warlock's patron in the story or regular game! I know, it seems counter-intuitive to set the patron on the backburner when it's a way to involve the warlock. But by doing so you run the risk of splitting the party (part in favor of the patron, part against) or giving too much attention to the warlock (since it's their patron, they suddenly become the star of the show). I'd recommend saving things regarding patrons, oaths, and deities for things like side stories or time between campaigns. They make nice filler adventures where it's okay for particular players to shine, without interfering with the overall story. The only exception to this would be if the players suddenly acted in a manner completely opposite to the aforementioned patrons, oaths, and deities. Then you might need to involve them only to make sure the players are sticking to the character they created.

[Waterdeep Merch]

And also might help ease the qualms people might have with celestial 'locks.

Deities preach to the masses, Angels and the like deal in pacts for a more... personal touch.
A storyline I like for warlocks, and makes a horrible amount of sense for celestial pacts, is the idea that they're stealing the power they're wielding. Imagine a LE celestial pact warlock sapping an angel for personal gain.

[Kane0]

I was thinking more like 'Kord really wants this holy site cleared/relic recovered/guy killed/what-have-you, so I'm subcontracting the job to you' but that works too.

[Trey Bright]

As a general rule, in my campaigns the souls of anything they kill with the aid of their warlock spells and abilities will go to their patron instead of whatever normal afterlife they'd be fated for. Additionally, the patron has access to the warlock's sensory perceptions whenever they wish, and can access the warlock's memories and surface thoughts. The Warlock may experience some physical sensation or manifest some change when these things happen - maybe their eyes change color when the patron is looking through them, or they might get mild headaches or an itching sensation when the patron is listening in on their surface thoughts or they might experience random flashbacks when the patron is rifling through their memories. different sensations for different warlocks, kind of incorporate any spooky quirks the character wants their warlock to have anyway. If they put together what's happening they might be able to resist it with a will save (DC 10 + 1/2 warlock level), but generally they wouldn't even know its happening.

these are kind of static, universal features of warlock pacts in my game, and the character is typically unaware of them. Players too, for the most part, since I've never run for a warlock who got to a high enough level for this things to pose a direct problem for the party. Whether there's additional, more specific individual terms to the pact is something I generally leave to the player. If they want something like that, cool, and if they don't I won't burden them with it.




Coincidentally, D&D Beyond released a vid on this very subject with Mike Mearls.


https://youtu.be/iiS5mkIff_8

Yeah, lol, that is timing isn't it?


And now I'm better with the idea of a warlock character. The RAI being that the power cannot be revoked or limited by the patron, and the terms of the pact can have been completed in the past. This opens the door for interesting characters like a fiend pact warlock that has seen the error of his ways and now uses his infernal power for good. He can even actually be pure of heart..now.

And also might help ease the qualms people might have with celestial 'locks.
Deities preach to the masses, Angels and the like deal in pacts for a more... personal touch.

Yeah, that's pretty neat!


Something to consider too, and this is just speaking generally on the subject, you don't actually have to actively involve a warlock's patron in the story or regular game! I know, it seems counter-intuitive to set the patron on the backburner when it's a way to involve the warlock. But by doing so you run the risk of splitting the party (part in favor of the patron, part against) or giving too much attention to the warlock (since it's their patron, they suddenly become the star of the show). I'd recommend saving things regarding patrons, oaths, and deities for things like side stories or time between campaigns. They make nice filler adventures where it's okay for particular players to shine, without interfering with the overall story. The only exception to this would be if the players suddenly acted in a manner completely opposite to the aforementioned patrons, oaths, and deities. Then you might need to involve them only to make sure the players are sticking to the character they created.

Yeah, I suppose I'll try to limit how much the patrons interact with the warlocks as much as possible? Or should I just kinda let the story go however it will? I'm more of a story>rules kind of person. I like the idea of side quests/missions. That does seem like it'd be really useful.

[Trey Bright]

A storyline I like for warlocks, and makes a horrible amount of sense for celestial pacts, is the idea that they're stealing the power they're wielding. Imagine a LE celestial pact warlock sapping an angel for personal gain.
Oh! I like that idea for a villain! Maybe have them work with a Conquest Paladin to bring order to this unruly land? The PC's have to find and free the angel?


I was thinking more like 'Kord really wants this holy site cleared/relic recovered/guy killed/what-have-you, so I'm subcontracting the job to you' but that works too.
Subcontracting positions are open for all those who washed out of cleric school. It's a way to keep 'em out of trouble. :smallbiggrin:

[Laserlight]

how do you make a pact feel dangerous without raining on the player's fun?

I gave a couple of characters the opportunity to participate in a voodoo ceremony. The barbarian made a pact with a loa of fire and war, and the rogue made a pact with Baron Samedi. A bit later I had the party find a rapier, obviously intended for the rogue, with an inscription "The Gift of Death". And after that, from time to time I gave him a note to the effect of "I am watching you. I am always watching you", or I told him the blade twisted uneadily in his hand, or such. He got so spooked that he buried the blade, converted to a LG religion, and multiclassed into paladin.

[Temperjoke]

Yeah, I suppose I'll try to limit how much the patrons interact with the warlocks as much as possible? Or should I just kinda let the story go however it will? I'm more of a story>rules kind of person. I like the idea of side quests/missions. That does seem like it'd be really useful.

It's one thing to let the story go where it will, but at the same time, the DM should at least maintain a minimum of control, if only to keep track of options available for the players to pursue. You might consider a light touch with the warlock's patron(s). For example, you mentioned possessing the player's body. If you have the player's agreement, then by all means do, but at the same time, don't get heavy-handed with it. For example, the hexblade's patron takes over, and conducts a ritual for some purpose of it's own that has nothing to do with the player or the campaign. The players will drive themselves nuts trying to figure out what is going on through no overt action of your own. On the GOO warlock, it's a common trope that it's impossible for the mortal mind to comprehend or understand what a GOO thinks. You could have it just have the warlock do seemingly insane things that it's impossible to understand why. "Why did it want me to place this piece of granite here? I don't know why, but I needed to carve this symbol in this door frame at this time just before leaving the rock there."

Light touches.

[Millstone85]

Coincidentally, D&D Beyond released a vid on this very subject with Mike Mearls.This feels like it is an edition late. "For gods it is more like divine magic is really available to anyone who really studies and masters it. And the way I see it is each temple, each religion teaches a different technique and that's how you get different domains. But at the end of the day, divine magic is kind of like arcane magic. It is this background force in the universe. You can turn against your god, you don't lose your magic." That's fourth edition stuff. And I am not saying 4e was wrong to do it that way, but the 5e PHB tells a much different story.

[Danielqueue1]

Before my massive campaign, I warned my Players that I would be playing things straight across the board. Tieflings would be disliked. Paladins would be held to their oaths. Clerics would be expected to behave in a fashion befitting their chosen domain, and warlocks would be beholden to their patrons. (and wizards could have their spell-books stolen/damaged) all within the realm of story. I talked with my players about it, and none of them had any issues with it. no body even recommended playing a paladin, but everything else was fine. and we had 3 tieflings over the campaign nobody had any issue with it.

the Warlock received a few side-quests from the patron with threats if they failed, and rewards if they succeeded. The character was given a Wand of the pact keeper and failure would result in it losing its magic. further failure was threatened with far more dire consequences but it was just that, a threat. at one point the Warlock was tasked with killing a person who had turned away from their same patron, the implication being that there is no turning one's back on the patron without me as a DM having to state any type of actual punishment. these types of things don't affect the players abilities at all and a player can see their choices affecting the campaign.


but as a DM you can do any of these things to any class any character any background any alignment. just flavor it differently.


Barbarian; "you Abandoned the old ways, and make a mockery of your totem, I will not rest until you are dead."
Bard; "How was I supposed to know that was [important noble]'s Daughter?"
Cleric; "you turned your back on [deity] submit to the inquisition or die where you stand!"
Duid; "you were supposed to protect the Land from corruption but you abandoned us! your body will fertilize the ground you should have nurtured!"
Fighter; "As a soldier you swore fealty to the king. Treason ...Is a capital offense."
Paladin; "so much for the honor of a paladin. *spits* you are unworthy to bear that symbol. you are unworthy of the pitiful existence you call your life."
Ranger; Placeholder text
Sorcerer; "you can't control the wild magic within you! this isn't murder... this a mercy killing!"
Warlock; "I gave you your power and you defied me. my servants will deliver me your corpse!"
Wizard; "you think you can mock me in front of my associates? I will show you true arcane power!"

and as for taking control of the character. It is something to be done with caution and it seems like the player approves so go ahead. Downtime activities include rolls that involve getting so drunk you don't remember what happened. I would treat it similarly.

[Sigreid]

Before my massive campaign, I warned my Players that I would be playing things straight across the board. Tieflings would be disliked. Paladins would be held to their oaths. Clerics would be expected to behave in a fashion befitting their chosen domain, and warlocks would be beholden to their patrons. (and wizards could have their spell-books stolen/damaged) all within the realm of story. I talked with my players about it, and none of them had any issues with it. no body even recommended playing a paladin, but everything else was fine. and we had 3 tieflings over the campaign nobody had any issue with it.

the Warlock received a few side-quests from the patron with threats if they failed, and rewards if they succeeded. The character was given a Wand of the pact keeper and failure would result in it losing its magic. further failure was threatened with far more dire consequences but it was just that, a threat. at one point the Warlock was tasked with killing a person who had turned away from their same patron, the implication being that there is no turning one's back on the patron without me as a DM having to state any type of actual punishment. these types of things don't affect the players abilities at all and a player can see their choices affecting the campaign.


but as a DM you can do any of these things to any class any character any background any alignment. just flavor it differently.


Barbarian; "you Abandoned the old ways, and make a mockery of your totem, I will not rest until you are dead."
Bard; "How was I supposed to know that was [important noble]'s Daughter?"
Cleric; "you turned your back on [deity] submit to the inquisition or die where you stand!"
Duid; "you were supposed to protect the Land from corruption but you abandoned us! your body will fertilize the ground you should have nurtured!"
Fighter; "As a soldier you swore fealty to the king. Treason ...Is a capital offense."
Paladin; "so much for the honor of a paladin. *spits* you are unworthy to bear that symbol. you are unworthy of the pitiful existence you call your life."
Ranger; Placeholder text
Sorcerer; "you can't control the wild magic within you! this isn't murder... this a mercy killing!"
Warlock; "I gave you your power and you defied me. my servants will deliver me your corpse!"
Wizard; "you think you can mock me in front of my associates? I will show you true arcane power!"

and as for taking control of the character. It is something to be done with caution and it seems like the player approves so go ahead. Downtime activities include rolls that involve getting so drunk you don't remember what happened. I would treat it similarly.

Yeah, I would just not play a warlock. Just to be clear, I usually refrain from clerics, paladin and warlocks because I don't really like following orders in real life and have no intention of doing so in my magic kobold escapism. There are lots of campaigns I'm not suited to because I want to live in a world, not be a character in a story.

This video simply says that the default is a warlock no longer owes anyone anything

[Socratov]

In 3.x, warlocks only had the requirement of "any chaotic or any evil" in alignment. There were no "repercussions" to playing one. Nor were there in 4e. If you played with a DM who had things like that, they were his house rules.

warlocks in 5e are like paladins in 3.5: just about the only class that has a roleplaying requirement that allows the DM to demand something from a player. Personally I think that's a bad thing, but that opinion aside, I think that the roleplaying of the pact, as well as the setting of targets could be funny when done well. For me a list of do's and don'ts:


Do hash it out beforehand, i.e. no surprise contract
Do make the requirements for the bargain somewhat easily attainable and mainly story driven, i.e. make sure that it won't sabotage the party's main quest
Do give the player minor stuff to use in game corresponding to the services rendered by the player, i.e. make the pact special, it's not like the warlock class is among the stronger classes in the game in any case...
Don't take away all of the warlock's powers, and if you want to use the proverbial stick, after ample and more then enough warning, make sure that only the patron specific spells fail, or that the warlock is being visited by envoys of the patron as if there is a price on his head. A hunted party is always more fun then a party with deadweight or a character without any options
Do remember that extrapalaner entities (like Fiends, Celestials and Fey) view time on a whole different level then characters and see a lot more of the 'bigger picture'
Don't be a Richard.