If a player wanted to Multiclass as warlock: would you make them find a patron?

[Dragonkingofth]

You can argue that all other classes are 'self taught' to some degree. Wizard study a, sorceers are born, fighter just swing metal about and so on.

But warlocks need to find a patron to have any magic at all: so as a DM if a player wanted to be multi-class as a warlock: would you require that they had to find there patron? make a deal with a demon, fey or something to get there magic? Or would you hand wave it? Seems Like you could make it an interesting plot hook/side quest but I don't know, would it be more trouble then it was worth?

[bid]

Nah, you should have to find a wizard to teach two reed an right magic language. About as hard as finding how to invoke a patron.

[Dragonkingofth]

Nah, you should have to find a wizard to teach two reed an right magic language. About as hard as finding how to invoke a patron.

Well I Agree with you: but Volo's guide has that story of the urchin stealing a spell book and ending up this great ocean going wizard (pages 61-67 it's the captioned images) so in D&D it is canon that you can be a self taught wizard. Not saying it makes a lot of sense but: there you go.:smallconfused:

[Nifft]

If you can make it awesome and fun, then hell yes.

If it's supposed to penalize the player for multi-classing, then no.

[GreyBlack]

So, I mean, I know what my campaign answer might be. Then again, I run a pretty low magic campaign, with any powerful magic in the world basically approaching eldritch horror.

To me, I would require that the player seek out a patron, but I would also design a side quest to allow the player to do so. I would maybe ask the player how they would try to find a patron, and maybe hash out the contract during this interaction.

ETA: Another option? If your player wants it, maybe talk to them about an unwilling contract? Maybe the PC did something that the patron didn't like and now will impress the PC into their service in exchange for, I don't know, not killing their family. Of course, the standard contract grants certain powers to be used to contribute to their service....

[Vogie]

You can argue that all other classes are 'self taught' to some degree. Wizard study a, sorceers are born, fighter just swing metal about and so on.

But warlocks need to find a patron to have any magic at all: so as a DM if a player wanted to be multi-class as a warlock: would you require that they had to find there patron? make a deal with a demon, fey or something to get there magic? Or would you hand wave it? Seems Like you could make it an interesting plot hook/side quest but I don't know, would it be more trouble then it was worth?

The same way someone would MC into sorcerer. Sorcerer's abilities are Blood-related by RAW, so if someone gains a level in sorcerer late in life it's because they didn't know they had the power/didn't manifest any power up until that point.

With warlocks, the choice may not have even been theirs -

The PC's great great grandfather sold the soul of the third child of his third child to a fiend, to be collected at age X.
The Celestial arrives at a location where the PC happens to be at the time.
An Archfey arrives to collect on a debt that the PC evidently made as a child, thinking they were talking to their imaginary friends.
The PC purchases or finds an old, well-used, and fairly unremarkable weapon, and once they clean it up & change the handle, it comes alive and the hexblade begins to whisper to them.
The PC starts having nightmares of the Great Old One sleeping.
The PC has a Near Death Experience and sees the Morrigan / Raven Queen striding over the field, choosing the slain.

And so on

[Belier]

You can argue that all other classes are 'self taught' to some degree. Wizard study a, sorceers are born, fighter just swing metal about and so on.

But warlocks need to find a patron to have any magic at all: so as a DM if a player wanted to be multi-class as a warlock: would you require that they had to find there patron? make a deal with a demon, fey or something to get there magic? Or would you hand wave it? Seems Like you could make it an interesting plot hook/side quest but I don't know, would it be more trouble then it was worth?

Is it so hard to make the player meet his patron? Hell as far as I know he could just find a contract stipulating the terms of the bond and he sign it without ever seeing the patron.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Is it so hard to make the player meet his patron? Hell as far as I know he could just find a contract stipulating the terms of the bond and he sign it without ever seeing the patron.

Touching the GOO's mind in meditation or in dreams and pulling power from that (without the patron's awareness) is a canonical GOO-lock backstory. Straight in the PHB IIRC.

And not all contracts are that formal. Fey, in particular, are known for meddling without anything so formal as a written contract. A touch, a smile, a kiss.

Devils are about the only ones that really go in for contracts, IMO. And no one says that the contract must be an ongoing thing--it could be fee for service--do X, get power Y, making a new limited contract each time you level in the class.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you can make it awesome and fun, then hell yes.

If it's supposed to penalize the player for multi-classing, then no. This.

To answer the OP title question.
If a player wanted to Multiclass as warlock: would you make them find a patron?
How about this: the patrons finds them. :smallwink: (I am looking for someone to take care of some light work for me, and you seem to be a good fit ... *sly grin* ... )
Or use the old trope: spoken to during a dream.

[MilkmanDanimal]

I'd appreciate it if the player gave me some backstory of how it happened, but I'd just really throw it into the "and stuff happened in between adventures" bucket and go forward. A good player would throw me a hook or two for future endeavors, but, really, why would finding a patron require more explanation than, say, a wizard who suddenly multiclasses into cleric and can now walk around in heavy armor?

[Spiritchaser]

Warlock patrons can be amazing plot foils.

Figure out what the player wants, more or less, write in a patron that fits, that would be interested in the campaign, and has at least one mortality conflicting goal at stake (don’t add too many, that just gets tedious)

[JakOfAllTirades]

I'm not fond of "dipping" into one or two levels of a class just for mechanical reasons -- I'd prefer to see characters in my campaign have actual roleplaying reasons for multi-classing. So yes, I'd expect the Warlock to find a patron, but I'd also expect anyone else taking a new class to find a mentor or trainer of some sort. It's not fair to single out the Warlock for this treatment. As long as they've got any kind of reasonable roleplaying explanation for doing it, I'll work with them to make it happen in the campaign.

[Talionis]

I think any time anyone plays a Warlock the DM and the player need to have a conversation about how they agree to play the Pact, there are lots of options here, in books, and even in movies, etc. Its okay to play loose with the fluff here so that it makes sense in your campaign.

I dont think you role play the interaction....you negotiate the background... my player should come to me with a plausible backstory and as a DM, I would tweak it and negotiate.

After the DM and player negotiate you come up with an agreed upon flashback and the DM has fair game to role play future interaction with the Patron, which could cause campaign hooks etc.

[JoeJ]

My rule is that anybody who wants to multiclass has to let me know at least one level ahead of time, at which point we'll have a discussion about what should happen in the game to play out that transition. So yeah, I'd absolutely make acquiring a patron part of the game.

[Sinon]

Back in earlier editions, the paladin risked losing her powers at the slightest infraction of their alignment; and whether or not they had done so was exclusively the DM’s judgment call.

Though some people may have found that fun, I did not. And, truth be told, I’ve never met one of those people. I just can’t prove they don’t exist.

Sort of like I can’t prove Sasquatch exists, but, well…

Anyway, point is, it struck me as grossly unfair that the players of one class faced all sorts of restrictions and hoops when none of the others did.

The hint that the player who wants to run a warlock would have to face a bunch of hoops and restrictions elicits a bit of a knee-jerk reaction from me.

The only way I would do something like this is if the player asked for it, and would have to be a collaboration with the player taking the lead.

[Sigreid]

I would not. Admittedly only because I don't really like the whole patron aspect of warlock (it's why I don't play them) so I ignore it as much as I can.

[Finback]

Who says they have to meet their patron? What if the patron chose the PC, because that PC is inadvertently serving their purposes?

Case in point: my PC, Gerhart. Paladin of vengeance, mc'ed into warlock (Celestial). His anger manifests now as blazing light and fire. Hoar, the god of vengeance, saw this angry, angry man fighting to fix the world, and basically said "I'mma buff this guy". Gerhart didn't go asking, he doesn't know why, but now he's damn better at exacting vengeance on the guilty than ever before. Maybe it will come back to haunt him later*, but therein lies the fun.

Maybe the PC has a fey patron because they once met some fey as a child, and did them a kindness, and that has not been forgotten. Maybe a devil has grand plans, and putting a bit of fuel on the fire will tip the scales to their advantage later. Maybe some elder thing from beyond is just running an experiment on those weird three-dimensional beings.

[JoeJ]

The patron is, IMO, the only thing that makes warlocks interesting enough to even exist in a setting at all.

[Kane0]

You can argue that all other classes are 'self taught' to some degree. Wizard study a, sorceers are born, fighter just swing metal about and so on.

But warlocks need to find a patron to have any magic at all: so as a DM if a player wanted to be multi-class as a warlock: would you require that they had to find there patron? make a deal with a demon, fey or something to get there magic? Or would you hand wave it? Seems Like you could make it an interesting plot hook/side quest but I don't know, would it be more trouble then it was worth?

It's entirely dependent on the game and group. A hack n' slash adventure would be far more likely to gloss over such details where a more character and plot focused game could be all over that sort of thing. Tone also plays a part, as one might not be inclined to RP making a pact or finding that forbidden knowledge if the setting doesn't call for it. The DM and player should always discuss this sort of thing.
Also note that direct interaction is not necessary. One can become a warlock simply by stargazing, for example.

[GreyBlack]

Back in earlier editions, the paladin risked losing her powers at the slightest infraction of their alignment; and whether or not they had done so was exclusively the DM’s judgment call.

Though some people may have found that fun, I did not. And, truth be told, I’ve never met one of those people. I just can’t prove they don’t exist.

Sort of like I can’t prove Sasquatch exists, but, well…

Anyway, point is, it struck me as grossly unfair that the players of one class faced all sorts of restrictions and hoops when none of the others did.

The hint that the player who wants to run a warlock would have to face a bunch of hoops and restrictions elicits a bit of a knee-jerk reaction from me.

The only way I would do something like this is if the player asked for it, and would have to be a collaboration with the player taking the lead.

I enjoyed it, and I ran a paladin in 2e. I enjoyed the meaningful character interactions and choices that I had to make in order to maintain my alignment. That said, having to walk that fine line also meant that I had a certain amount of mechanical flexibility.

Walking that line made me feel special and heroic. Maybe the rules were harsh; I'll agree. But that feeling of being special can't be replicated without those hoops and restrictions.

[Sinon]

That said, having to walk that fine line also meant that I had a certain amount of mechanical flexibility.
I have to confess, I don’t understand how this works, but I don’t wish to derail the conversation.

Philosophically, I want to have fun, and I want everyone else playing to have fun. Part of that means I want everyone to feel free to explore whatever character concepts they wish, and while I’m a bit of a “strict constructionist” about the mechanics, fluff is fluff (within reason).

The key word in the title is making. I would never make a player do this. Likewise, I wouldn’t make the guy who wants to multiclass into a wizard buy a spellbook, find a mentor, and scribe his first six spells.

To me, making a player do something mechanically unnecessary to realize their character concept is less fun, even if it can be explained by the fluff. Doubly so if I do it for one concept (e.g. warlock multiclass) and not another (like a wizard multiclass).

But if the player asked for something and was willing to collaborate on getting it organized, that would be adding to the fun.

That’s what it is about.

To be clear though, this is how I approach the game. Others have different approaches.

[Jama7301]

Since I tend to use milestone leveling, I fit these things into the downtime period. I'll work with the player to craft a scene explaining how they came into their new abilities, and it adds a bit to the world. Maybe a new NPC gets added as a rescued mage who teaches some basics as payment for saving their lives, or someone finds a hidden spring blessed by the natural forces of the world. It helps add things to the world, and it lets players know their decisions fit into a larger world.

[JoeJ]

I have to confess, I don’t understand how this works, but I don’t wish to derail the conversation.

Philosophically, I want to have fun, and I want everyone else playing to have fun. Part of that means I want everyone to feel free to explore whatever character concepts they wish, and while I’m a bit of a “strict constructionist” about the mechanics, fluff is fluff (within reason).

The key word in the title is making. I would never make a player do this. Likewise, I wouldn’t make the guy who wants to multiclass into a wizard buy a spellbook, find a mentor, and scribe his first six spells.

To me, making a player do something mechanically unnecessary to realize their character concept is less fun, even if it can be explained by the fluff. Doubly so if I do it for one concept (e.g. warlock multiclass) and not another (like a wizard multiclass).

But if the player asked for something and was willing to collaborate on getting it organized, that would be adding to the fun.

That’s what it is about.

To be clear though, this is how I approach the game. Others have different approaches.

What do you mean by character concept? To me it sounds like you're not talking about the character at all, just their build.

The character concept for a warlock, as I would use that term, would be primarily about the relationship they have with their patron. Did they seek out a patron? Were they tricked? Are they supporting their patron's goals or trying to subvert them? Are they trying to con their patron into giving them something for nothing? The mechanical stuff is secondary; it needs to exist to support the character, but it's not what the character is all about.

[Daithi]

Nah, you should have to find a wizard to teach two reed an right magic language...

I'm assuming that was intentional, but either way, you get a thumbs up for making me laugh.

[Naanomi]

I would (probably, not always) *have* them find their patron, but I wouldn’t *make* them (I wouldn’t prevent or delay them from taking a level in Warlock because I hadn’t gotten to it yet); but I always try to have conversations about plans for leveling and feats to make it more organic if possible which generally lets me work it in

[mgshamster]

As a player, I wouldn't want to multiclass into warlock without bring in the "how" into the story somehow. It just feels wrong for it to be otherwise.

As a DM, I'm ok with them not having to actively seek one out, but I do say, "If you want to multiclass, please tell me in advance so we can make it an interesting part of the story. Tell me how you view this new class with your character so we can make it work."

If a player wants to say, "I've always had a deal with this patron, but my powers are just now coming to fruition," that's perfectly acceptable. If they say, "I want to find a patron by level 5, please make it happen in game," that works, too! If a player doesn't know, then I'll ask questions so we we can figure it out. Things like, "When did you want to have first learned of this patron - in the past (pre-game), during game, or you haven't yet?" From there, we can come up with a story that fits.

All is that we communicate, work together, and make it a fun story for all.

[alchahest]

I wouldn't require it at all. If a character wants their mechanics to fit a concept, then I want them to find the mechanics they're comfortable with and feel will reflect the concept they have in mind. It's not in any way reducing the role play, it's just shifting the role play to the campaign rather than the mechanics.

[Demonslayer666]

You can argue that all other classes are 'self taught' to some degree. Wizard study a, sorceers are born, fighter just swing metal about and so on.

But warlocks need to find a patron to have any magic at all: so as a DM if a player wanted to be multi-class as a warlock: would you require that they had to find there patron? make a deal with a demon, fey or something to get there magic? Or would you hand wave it? Seems Like you could make it an interesting plot hook/side quest but I don't know, would it be more trouble then it was worth?

Most likely no. But it depends on how they go about it. If it's too cheesy, then I won't allow it.

If it fits their character background and can work into the story, then sure.

Edit: I would make them be involved with a patron, not necessarily find theirs. It would not be more trouble than it was worth, as I'd make it pretty simple rather than derail the campaign.

[mephnick]

If "shooting laser-beams of magic" is part of the character concept, but being an actual warlock isn't, then I wouldn't make them do it.

I honestly don't want to go through the work of role-playing a patron if the player doesn't actually care about that conflict. I'd rather focus on stuff that matters to everyone.

[Lunali]

If a lvl 1 warlock doesn't have to know anything about their patron or why they're able to be a warlock, I don't see why a multiclass one would need to find one. I would just let them have some connection to the patron that they didn't know about.

[bid]

I'm assuming that was intentional, but either way, you get a thumbs up for making me laugh.
It's a magical language. Although it's prolly closer to "Romanes eunt domus".

[Sinon]

What do you mean by character concept? To me it sounds like you're not talking about the character at all, just their build.
I meant it in the broadest way possible. What a character does or can do and how, i.e. the mechanical build, is as much a part of the concept (as I meant the term) as the personality and history and everything else.

[Vogie]

What do you mean by character concept? To me it sounds like you're not talking about the character at all, just their build.


That's exactly what they're saying... there are those people who want to use a class mechanically, without any of the localized fluff. You build it, using the proven design skeleton of mechanical classes, then put your own fluff around it. For example:

Can't use firearms in your world, but want to play an hedge wizard/gunslinger combo? Have a revolver shaped arcane focus, and play a "Tome warlock", with EB casting as "bullets" (Rays aren't that different), and ritual casting.
Want to play Captain America, Spiderman or another superhero-esque character that fights hand to hand without armor? Play a monk, but refluff ki as something like Cinematic Action points or something. Doubly so if your DM allows you to use a Shield as a Kensei weapon, and use the Agile Parry feature to mechanically represent Cap switching between using the shield as a shield, vs using it as a melee weapon.

The first is just using the warlock chassis to represent a "gun firing multiple bullets" while also having spell casting and ritual casting... it really has nothing to do with the Fluff of warlocks, including patron. They'll still have a patron, mechanicallly, but it wouldn't be a thing in the game.
The second is using the Monk Chassis to represent that comic book skill of being hard to hit and/or kill and hit things with fists. It may have nothing to do with any of the fluff of monks, including Ki, Ways, et cetera.

[Ganymede]

I expect my players to hang the lampshade on their character choices. They don't have to do much, but they have to do something.

[JoeJ]

That's exactly what they're saying... there are those people who want to use a class mechanically, without any of the localized fluff. You build it, using the proven design skeleton of mechanical classes, then put your own fluff around it. For example:

Can't use firearms in your world, but want to play an hedge wizard/gunslinger combo? Have a revolver shaped arcane focus, and play a "Tome warlock", with EB casting as "bullets" (Rays aren't that different), and ritual casting.
Want to play Captain America, Spiderman or another superhero-esque character that fights hand to hand without armor? Play a monk, but refluff ki as something like Cinematic Action points or something. Doubly so if your DM allows you to use a Shield as a Kensei weapon, and use the Agile Parry feature to mechanically represent Cap switching between using the shield as a shield, vs using it as a melee weapon.

The first is just using the warlock chassis to represent a "gun firing multiple bullets" while also having spell casting and ritual casting... it really has nothing to do with the Fluff of warlocks, including patron. They'll still have a patron, mechanicallly, but it wouldn't be a thing in the game.
The second is using the Monk Chassis to represent that comic book skill of being hard to hit and/or kill and hit things with fists. It may have nothing to do with any of the fluff of monks, including Ki, Ways, et cetera.

In which case their character concept would help determine what actions have to happen in the game in order to obtain the abilities they want. In any case, I'm not going to have new capabilities simply appear with only a handwave.

[Desteplo]

A teifling shadow monk wanted to multiclass warlock.

His mother made a deal with a succubus to have sons. But not of her blood. He was one of the birthed (his older brother twin killed his mother)

After they had met and fought, the brother won but the succubus interfered (she didn’t like her blood fighting)

Teleported him (by using shadows) to her keep in the shadowfell

“If you ever need help, whisper my name and I will grant you power.”

Basically:
Build it into your campaign. It’s as much your responsibility as it is theirs

[GreyBlack]

A teifling shadow monk wanted to multiclass warlock.

His mother made a deal with a succubus to have sons. But not of her blood. He was one of the birthed (his older brother twin killed his mother)

After they had met and fought, the brother won but the succubus interfered (she didn’t like her blood fighting)

Teleported him (by using shadows) to her keep in the shadowfell

“If you ever need help, whisper my name and I will grant you power.”

Basically:
Build it into your campaign. It’s as much your responsibility as it is theirs

Agreed.

I suppose I should rephrase my answer. As a DM, I would ask my player how they made the Pact to become a Warlock. If they didn't have an answer for me, as a DM, I say that, if they or their character couldn't figure out how the Pact was made, that I might figure something out. From there, I would maybe introduce the Patron as an NPC at some point who might give the PC a quest, making it obvious that this is their patron and that they might need to serve this matter as per the Pact. Maybe even explain to the PC what they have to do to maintain this Pact, and integrate it organically into the narrative.

That said, I would never allow a player to take Warlock without at least giving them an opportunity to figure it out. To me, classes aren't just bundles of mechanics; they do mean something. But that's just my deal.

[Seclora]

I would. A Patron is a valuable roleplaying asset in addition to altering the entire flavor of the class. What's more, you're expected to have a patron at level one, so choosing a patron should not be optional or delay-able. I wouldn't make it necessary to track them down, since anything powerful enough to grant spells is also strong enough to answer your call, but I do expect my players to have a name for their patron. I also prefer to establish what is expected from the character, and what is granted by the patron. Obviously, a GOO warlock will not have the same sort of pact that a Fiend warlock will, but both will function as warlocks with invocations and pact magic. I like to think that pact magic actually draws on the magical nature of the pact itself, and invocations are like clauses in the pact or things you demand from reality in your patron's name.


Recently, I had a player decide that they wanted to become Fey. Because they're high enough level for such a goal to be feasible, I offered that they could find an archfey patron, level in warlock, and request it as their boon. In exchange, they would be expected to complete a quest to prove their devotion and to swear fealty to the archfey they chose. Fey are fickle and timeless, so there is no urgency to the quest, but they will not get to be fey until they have leveled to warlock 3, and also completed their quest. The player agreed, understanding that saying no would make the goal nearly impossible but also considering the requirements to be reasonable for their character.

[Unoriginal]

One thing to keep in mind is that not all Pacts are big, important affaires.

You could become a Warlock by giving an interesting magic item, or by meditating the nature of some strange stars, or by internaly begging for help from anyone as you're in danger.

Those are important moments for the character, certainly, but in itself the event isn't exceptional. Until the Patron establish contact with the character, or the reverse, that is.

So yeah, a Warlock needs a Patron for the initial spark of power, but finding a Patron doesn't need to be an high-in-drama quest.

[Beelzebubba]

We're pretty character-driven as a group. So, for multiclassing, as a DM, I request to be told ahead of time so I can work it into the game. I'll then drop something or someone into the game to make it more interesting and narrative, rather than just new numbers on the sheet.

I also ask them to accept that there can be new plot hooks coming from this new direction.

Our group is really chill, self-selecting to be up for this sort of thing, and enjoys the ways I run those things, so it works out.

[GreyBlack]

One thing to keep in mind is that not all Pacts are big, important affaires.

You could become a Warlock by giving an interesting magic item, or by meditating the nature of some strange stars, or by internaly begging for help from anyone as you're in danger.

Those are important moments for the character, certainly, but in itself the event isn't exceptional. Until the Patron establish contact with the character, or the reverse, that is.

So yeah, a Warlock needs a Patron for the initial spark of power, but finding a Patron doesn't need to be an high-in-drama quest.

I'll agree to a point. The Patron is still an entity with its own desires and whims, and the power does flow from a pact with this patron. In my reading, you don't have to intentionally make the pact; that can be something as deliberate as a contract with Mephistopheles or as simple as a Fey likes how you look and decides to simply bestow power. That said, there is still a bestower of that power, and at least some mediation on how that power was bestowed would, to my mind, create a deeper and more fully fleshed out character.

WebDM did a great episode on Warlocks and different types of relationship between the warlock and their patron that I would recommend.

[Tanarii]

Totally would depend on the game I was running.

- official play? Multiclass however you like.

- my ongoing gamestore campaign? No Multiclassing allowed

- "soda and pretzels" one shot home game? Multiclass however you like. Leveling up can happen right after a fight for all I care. Ding!

- "serious" one shot home game with downtime? Explain your Multiclassing justification as during downtime, or pre-establish it before the game begins.

- no downtime, every day of the characters is played? C'mon now, I'm not crazy. Who does that? :smallyuk:

[Spacehamster]

We completely ignore the whole Patron fluff of the warlock, simplest that way.

[JoeJ]

We completely ignore the whole Patron fluff of the warlock, simplest that way.

So basically a sorcerer with a different mechanic?

[Vogie]

So basically a sorcerer with a different mechanic?

Inasmuch as most classes can be reduced to "another class, but with a different mechanic". Sorcerers are just wizards with a different mechanic.

[JoeJ]

Inasmuch as most classes can be reduced to "another class, but with a different mechanic". Sorcerers are just wizards with a different mechanic.

No, sorcerers use magic innately and wizards study for it. That, not the mechanic, is what differentiates them. Since the poster I was responding to ignores the warlock's patron, which is the defining element for warlocks, I was guessing that they explain the magical abilities as innate. A wizard with a different mechanic would not be the same thing, although it's also a possibility, as is a cleric with a different mechanic if they explain their magic as coming from a deity.

[Vogie]

No, sorcerers use magic innately and wizards study for it. That, not the mechanic, is what differentiates them

That is literally a mechanic. It's fluff. Spell casters receive the ability to cast spells. If you get it from a deity, they call it one thing; from a book, another; from a patron, another; from a bardic college, another; from a feat, another; vague bloodline-related handwaving, yet another. But they're all dudes and dudettes that receive the ability to cast spells.

You could just as easily flip the RAW script... You move the shoe to the other foot, and you can just as easily justify it with flavor. Here's a justification if you do nothing else but make the Sorcerer follow the Wizard mechanic, and the Wizard use the sorcerer mechanic:

Sorcerers are arcane dabblers, having learned magic from books, and only are able to cast things defined in the book, based on some internalized rule-following; Wizards, on the other hand, not only have innate knowledge of magic, but also study and make note of the fundamental essence of magic, so much so that they learn over time to alter and manipulate their spells.

Think about it this way.

Let's make a new character all about using technology to use marvelous, nearly supernatural things

Are they using a bunch of individual gadgets and devices, that they craft, upgrade and recharge themselves, either that they discovered, were taught about, or of their own design?
Are they using technology from another, higher world or completely alien entity that was merely given to them out of some understanding and devotion?
Are they using technology contained inside their own person, like a cyborg?
Are they using technology they've received from someone (or something) else whose technology is superior to their own?

These are all characters using technology... but I've just described a Wizard, a Cleric, a Sorcerer, and a Warlock (respectively) just without using the word magic, by mechanics only.

If a character concept works within the mechanical confines of a class' skeleton, and all you are changing is the fluff, that's not even changing mechanics. Removing the Patron from the Warlock design skeleton is just removing fluff.

[Xetheral]

One thing to keep in mind is that not all Pacts are big, important affaires.

I once had a character who had traded her award-winning brownie recipe to the queen of the fey in exchange for eldritch power. That was the extent of the pact.

[GreyBlack]

To be fair, I've always wondered what would happen if they had just called the Warlock "Sorcerer" instead of "Warlock." Like, instead of pacts, you choose a heritage or power source and channel your magic like that. Heck, you could even make "wild magic" a source of magic, and maintain the mechanics from the Sorcerer class.

But that's kinda off topic and a source of contention for another day. Tl;dr: I'm fine with the "Sorcerer with a different mechanic" line of thinking.

[Kane0]

To be fair, I've always wondered what would happen if they had just called the Warlock "Sorcerer" instead of "Warlock." Like, instead of pacts, you choose a heritage or power source and channel your magic like that. Heck, you could even make "wild magic" a source of magic, and maintain the mechanics from the Sorcerer class.

Many have indeed noted the similarity between the two, and more than one homebrewer has worked on merging them.

[Asmotherion]

Yes, that's part of the D&D experiance. You don't need to make it difficult for the player, just have a talk about his intentions to multiclass and plan out the patron as a "Deus Ex Machina"... or a way to contact him/her at least, and make him work for it.

Same for someone who multiclasses as a Sorcerer. He'd need to somehow obtain innate magical abilities, either through some magic ritual/experiment, or developing something that was already there, but never really touched before (thus exploring a hidden past/backstory of the character by meeting someone who knew something about some Magic Wielding Ancestor perhaps?).

I generaly believe that the first level of a Multiclass is a great RP oportunity for a side-quest, and the Level itself is it's own reward. At the same time, it allows a small derivation from the main plot, and if everyone takes turns for his class(es), everyone gets a turn to Shine.

[mgshamster]

I once had a character who had traded her award-winning brownie recipe to the queen of the fey in exchange for eldritch power. That was the extent of the pact.

This is now my favorite pact deal ever.

[JoeJ]

That is literally a mechanic. It's fluff. Spell casters receive the ability to cast spells. If you get it from a deity, they call it one thing; from a book, another; from a patron, another; from a bardic college, another; from a feat, another; vague bloodline-related handwaving, yet another. But they're all dudes and dudettes that receive the ability to cast spells.

You could just as easily flip the RAW script... You move the shoe to the other foot, and you can just as easily justify it with flavor. Here's a justification if you do nothing else but make the Sorcerer follow the Wizard mechanic, and the Wizard use the sorcerer mechanic:


Think about it this way.

Let's make a new character all about using technology to use marvelous, nearly supernatural things

Are they using a bunch of individual gadgets and devices, that they craft, upgrade and recharge themselves, either that they discovered, were taught about, or of their own design?
Are they using technology from another, higher world or completely alien entity that was merely given to them out of some understanding and devotion?
Are they using technology contained inside their own person, like a cyborg?
Are they using technology they've received from someone (or something) else whose technology is superior to their own?

These are all characters using technology... but I've just described a Wizard, a Cleric, a Sorcerer, and a Warlock (respectively) just without using the word magic, by mechanics only.

If a character concept works within the mechanical confines of a class' skeleton, and all you are changing is the fluff, that's not even changing mechanics. Removing the Patron from the Warlock design skeleton is just removing fluff.

What you call fluff is what makes the difference between playing a character and pushing a set of mechanical buttons. The specific mechanics; spell slots, invocations, number of cantrips, etc. are secondary. They're only there for support. How somebody obtained their power, what they do to keep it, and what that means for the way they live their life - that's the important part. The in-world explanation of how they do what they do can be anything (subject to DM approval), but it has to be something, or you don't really have a character at all.

[Finback]

I once had a character who had traded her award-winning brownie recipe to the queen of the fey in exchange for eldritch power. That was the extent of the pact.

And by brownie, do you mean the baked food, or... the little fey people?

OR BOTH?

[JoeJ]

And by brownie, do you mean the baked food, or... the little fey people?

OR BOTH?

That's a good question. And here, I was just wondering what other recipes were required to gain further levels.

[Finback]

That's a good question. And here, I was just wondering what other recipes were required to gain further levels.

Angelcake.
Devilled eggs.
Redcappertisers.
Trollmades.
Lasagnoll.