Does a warlock have to have a pact with a patron

[dnd2016]

I am a Bard 11 level. If i take a warlock dip(2 lvls max.), do i have to make a pact with a patron?

[Boci]

DMs call. Given that the warlock's patron has no mechanical effect beyond the abilities the class gives you, there is certainly leeway for re-interpretation on a dip, but unless your group is rather lax with player refluffs, the DM would still have to okay it.

Do you have any solid ideas for where the abilities would be coming from, if not a patron?

[dnd2016]

Not at all. Doing some research now

[Unoriginal]

The warlock's power come from a patron. It doesn't mean the patron agreed to it, or that they even know the warlock exists.

But yeah, the normal lore is that the warlock get their spark of power from a specific entity, one way or another.

[Malifice]

Give me some RP deets on your Bard and ill help you fluff it.

[Great Dragon]

It can also depend on which Warlock type you pick. So, knowing more about your Character would help us.

Hexblade - Blade Pact (lv 3) can give your Character a weapon you never lose and does Force damage instead of slashing/piercing/blunt.

I don't see much need for Celestial, since Bard already has healing spells.

Great Old One gives limited telepathy.

Fiend gives Fire-based spells.

I'd have to look up Undying.

[Sigreid]

By RAW and at least one developer comment, there's nothing wrong with playing a warlock who has already completed their end of the bargain and owes nothing more. But, it's really up to your DM.

[stoutstien]

Apparently the price that one would sell ones soul is a good cantrip and a short rest spell slot.

[Malifice]

Apparently the price that one would sell ones soul is a good cantrip and a short rest spell slot.

Bargain with extraplanar being doesnt = selling of soul (although it could be part of the bargain).

Elistraee (my Hexblade patron) certainly doesnt require any such thing. Only that I advance her faith, and follow her ideals (liberty, gender and racial harmony, arts and beauty).

[Rukelnikov]

My lock literally never knew why the GOO made him see things from time time, and never spoke a word to him.

[Unoriginal]

Apparently the price that one would sell ones soul is a good cantrip and a short rest spell slot.

Any Warlock who sell their soul for their Pact is getting scammed hard. It's like giving up a mansion for an ice cream cone.

[MeeposFire]

Just because you have a patron does not mean that you or the patron know who the other is.

[Great Dragon]

Undying Patron grants: undead have difficulty harming you.


Just because you have a patron does not mean that you or the patron know who the other is.

This can be true for a lot of Fiend Patrons.
Although it is more likely that the PC won't know who the Fiend is - then the reverse.
But, Stealing Power from a Demon is an Old Trope.
And some ancient Ancestor selling the PC to a Devil for power is also an Old Trope.
Or that either of these tricked the Ancestor or PC into the 'contract'.

For other Patrons not knowing (or caring) about the PC, this happens a lot with both the Archfey and the Great Old One.

In the end - it really depends on how much effort the DM wants to put into the how and why of a Warlock's power.


---
For myself (as the DM) - I like the Roleplay potential of an Active Patron, and will want to work with the Player to portray the interactions between these two. Especially for how the PC gains their Powers/Spells/Invocations at higher levels; since I don't (normally) do the 'you get the ability to gain all powers from the beginning' bit. The Fiend Patron is the only one that I will consider doing that, treating the Warlock as being like Johnny Blaze from Ghost Rider, and the PC is always dealing with both the forces of Evil and the inner Temptation to use his Powers for harmful and Selfish (Evil) reasons.
But, I don't want a dozen versions of this Trope in my Game.

However, I don't have the Patron's demands being like that of a God for a Cleric.
Ie: total devotion and obedience.

[Unoriginal]

Being a Cleric doesn't demand devotion, though.

As I've said in other threads, in 5e, you're not a Cleric because you believe in a deity, you're a Cleric because a deity believes in you.

Main difference between Cleric and Warlock is that Clerics have their magic continuously and consciously given by a divine being, while Warlocks somehow get a spark of power from some kind of supernatural entity once and then it's theirs.

Some Patrons are worshipped by their Warlocks, too.

[Great Dragon]

Being a Cleric doesn't demand devotion, though.

As I've said in other threads, in 5e, you're not a Cleric because you believe in a deity, you're a Cleric because a deity believes in you.

Main difference between Cleric and Warlock is that Clerics have their magic continuously and consciously given by a divine being, while Warlocks somehow get a spark of power from some kind of supernatural entity once and then it's theirs.

Some Patrons are worshipped by their Warlocks, too.

True. 5e is kinda annoying at times.

The main difference that I see, is that while a God can cut off a Cleric's Daily Spells (and some Class-based abilities) for non-compliance to their Tenants/Goals, the Patron cannot 'take away' the Warlock's power (including spells) - once they have it, it's theirs.

How Paladins work when they fail their Oath, seems to be up to the DM.
Outright Breaking the Oath, can cause the PC to change to the Oathbreaker.

[JoeJ]

Being a Cleric doesn't demand devotion, though.

As I've said in other threads, in 5e, you're not a Cleric because you believe in a deity, you're a Cleric because a deity believes in you.

Main difference between Cleric and Warlock is that Clerics have their magic continuously and consciously given by a divine being, while Warlocks somehow get a spark of power from some kind of supernatural entity once and then it's theirs.

Some Patrons are worshipped by their Warlocks, too.

I don't see anything in the class description resembling a one-time "spark of power." Both the PHB and XGtE are pretty clear that a warlock has an ongoing relationship with their patron. The patron is actually a patron, in the colloquial sense of the word, and the warlock has certain obligations they must fulfill in order to maintain that relationship. Nothing is spelled out about what happens if they fail to do so, but I would think that at the very least they would be unable to gain any further levels in the class.

[Great Dragon]

I don't see anything in the class description resembling a one-time "spark of power." Both the PHB and XGtE are pretty clear that a warlock has an ongoing relationship with their patron. The patron is actually a patron, in the colloquial sense of the word, and the warlock has certain obligations they must fulfill in order to maintain that relationship. Nothing is spelled out about what happens if they fail to do so, but I would think that at the very least they would be unable to gain any further levels in the class.

Heh. Right.
How the PC Warlock gets their Higher Level Powers - is also still up to how much the DM cares.
This includes being able to take any more Warlock Class Levels.

Now, for me - if you fail one Patron, and can find another of the same Type (Ie change one Devil for another for Fiend) then you can continue gaining Levels and Powers as normal - as long as you keep the new Patron happy. But, like was pointed out, once the warlock has the power, they can do whatever they want with it, and don't lose what they already have.

[Millstone85]

I don't see anything in the class description resembling a one-time "spark of power."It is not in the class description, but there is this:
The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called arcane magic. These spells rely on an understanding--learned or intuitive--of the workings of the Weave. The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect. Eldritch knights and arcane tricksters also use arcane magic.

The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. These spellcasters' access to the Weave is mediated by divine power--gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin's oath.

There is direct access to the Weave and there is mediated access to the Weave, with the warlock being listed as having direct access. To reconcile that with a patron, I would indeed think there was a spark and/or knowledge imparted to the warlock at one point, unlike an ongoing connection with the divine.

That being said...

I would think that at the very least they would be unable to gain any further levels in the class.This is what I would do too.

[Sigreid]

Undying Patron grants: undead have difficulty harming you.



This can be true for a lot of Fiend Patrons.
Although it is more likely that the PC won't know who the Fiend is - then the reverse.
But, Stealing Power from a Demon is an Old Trope.
And some ancient Ancestor selling the PC to a Devil for power is also an Old Trope.
Or that either of these tricked the Ancestor or PC into the 'contract'.

For other Patrons not knowing (or caring) about the PC, this happens a lot with both the Archfey and the Great Old One.

In the end - it really depends on how much effort the DM wants to put into the how and why of a Warlock's power.


---
For myself (as the DM) - I like the Roleplay potential of an Active Patron, and will want to work with the Player to portray the interactions between these two. Especially for how the PC gains their Powers/Spells/Invocations at higher levels; since I don't (normally) do the 'you get the ability to gain all powers from the beginning' bit. The Fiend Patron is the only one that I will consider doing that, treating the Warlock as being like Johnny Blaze from Ghost Rider, and the PC is always dealing with both the forces of Evil and the inner Temptation to use his Powers for harmful and Selfish (Evil) reasons.
But, I don't want a dozen versions of this Trope in my Game.

However, I don't have the Patron's demands being like that of a God for a Cleric.
Ie: total devotion and obedience.

And DM desires like yours for an ongoing relationship are why I dont play warlocks. That would annoy me as a player. To be fair, it's also why i dont tend to play clerics.

[fbelanger]

I am a Bard 11 level. If i take a warlock dip(2 lvls max.), do i have to make a pact with a patron?

You should state that you want eldritch blast and agonising blast. And ask if you have to made a pact.
Power come with a price!

[MThurston]

Yes you have a patron. It's in the first paragraph of Warlock.

[Max_Killjoy]

Just because you have a patron does not mean that you or the patron know who the other is.

Which to me is stranger than not having a patron at all, and just using the Warlock mechanics for something else.

It's like someone said "we don't want to force people to deal with a patron, but they're sure as heck not getting warlock powers without there having been a patron". :smallfrown:

[Great Dragon]

And DM desires like yours for an ongoing relationship are why I dont play warlocks. That would annoy me as a player. To be fair, it's also why i dont tend to play clerics.

Huh. Well, if you told me this at Session Zero, I could put aside my desire in favor of your enjoyment of the game. 5e did keep the "Godless" Domain connection for Clerics (as an Option IiRC) so even that can be dealt with.

After all - all the other "Divine Classes" don't have to cow-tow to some Deity anymore:
Paladin or Ranger.

The goal is to have Fun, after all.:durkon:

[Sigreid]

Huh. Well, if you told me this at Session Zero, I could put aside my desire in favor of your enjoyment of the game. 5e did keep the "Godless" Domain connection for Clerics (as an Option IiRC) so even that can be dealt with.

After all - all the other "Divine Classes" don't have to cow-tow to some Deity anymore:
Paladin or Ranger.

The goal is to have Fun, after all.:durkon:

Yep, or I can just play something else and we can both be happy with the way everything is handled. I don't feel deprived by not playing them. 😊

[Unoriginal]

Which to me is stranger than not having a patron at all, and just using the Warlock mechanics for something else.

It's like someone said "we don't want to force people to deal with a patron, but they're sure as heck not getting warlock powers without there having been a patron". :smallfrown:

Strange is a good thing when dealing with weird para-existential entities.

Many Great Old Ones won't notice the insignificant humanoids who are siphoning a bit of their powers, for example.

[Millstone85]

Which to me is stranger than not having a patron at allAnd also much more dangerous than a regular pact. If the patron is unaware of your theft, what happens when they finally notice it?

[Great Dragon]

Many Great Old Ones won't notice the insignificant humanoids who are siphoning a bit of their powers, for example.


And also much more dangerous than a regular pact. If the patron is unaware of your theft, what happens when they finally notice it?

Sure, Cthulhu might not notice you doing this for quite some time, but as you gain in Power - the more you take; and the chance of being noticed goes up. And well, everyone knows what happens when Cthulhu wakes up!

(Personally, I don't use Lovecraft-ian Elder Beings: I just used Old Squid-Face as a reference that most everyone would get, and because I found it funny.:amused:

I homebrew my own Great Old Ones, and the 'more you take = greater chance of being noticed' happens. Same for Stealing from Demons/Devils/Genie. Undying could go either way, depending on what their personality was. Even a Celestial Patron would be unhappy with someone stealing from them.)

Sure, Patrons are not as 'powerful' as Gods - but most are just as arrogant, and likely to retaliate against a "Thief".

[MThurston]

Huh. Well, if you told me this at Session Zero, I could put aside my desire in favor of your enjoyment of the game. 5e did keep the "Godless" Domain connection for Clerics (as an Option IiRC) so even that can be dealt with.

After all - all the other "Divine Classes" don't have to cow-tow to some Deity anymore:
Paladin or Ranger.

The goal is to have Fun, after all.:durkon:

I find this very sad.

You can't even have pretend Gods without people being offended.

[Great Dragon]

I find this very sad.

You can't even have pretend Gods without people being offended.

Yes, I also find it sad.

Gone are the Days of Old; when people actually liked to portray how the things their Character believed in (Gods, now Patrons) affects how they dressed, acted; looked at the world and interacted with it.

But, I suppose that we can all thank the Satanic Panic of the 80's for this trend.

@Sigreid - I'm glad that you can still find enjoyment out of other classes.
I just like to encourage my Players (and in this case you GittPG readers) to play, and enjoy as many different things as possible. From Class/Subclasses to Races. To Homebrew.
I really hope that I never offend anyone.

[MThurston]

Yes, I also find it sad.

Gone are the Days of Old; when people actually liked to portray how the things their Character believed in (Gods, now Patrons) affects how they dressed, acted; looked at the world and interacted with it.

But, I suppose that we can all thank the Satanic Panic of the 80's for this trend.

LOL. I blame people who say you can't talk about religion or politics.

[Pex]

No.

If you need a reason why you suddenly have warlock powers discuss with your DM. Maybe Eldritch Blast is an audio musical note that does force damage instead of thunder because it's so concentrated the sound waves hit the opponent all at once, and it's the impact that does the damage. If you take Devil's Sight invocation it's echolocation.

Or you do have a Patron but it doesn't have to be what the book says. Maybe a Muse likes you.

Fluff in the rule book helps players think about their character to be more than words and numbers on the character sheet. They inspire, not legislate. You and the DM can have any story you want.

[Sigreid]

Yes, I also find it sad.

Gone are the Days of Old; when people actually liked to portray how the things their Character believed in (Gods, now Patrons) affects how they dressed, acted; looked at the world and interacted with it.

But, I suppose that we can all thank the Satanic Panic of the 80's for this trend.

@Sigreid - I'm glad that you can still find enjoyment out of other classes.
I just like to encourage my Players (and in this case you GittPG readers) to play, and enjoy as many different things as possible. From Class/Subclasses to Races. To Homebrew.
I really hope that I never offend anyone.

No offence. And I've been playing since there was only basic D&D and I've never really done much cleric wise. Part of my D&D fantasy is having no boss I have to listen to. True freedom.

[MaXenzie]

LOL. I blame people who say you can't talk about religion or politics.

I didn't know the Giantitp staff team were at fault.

[Max_Killjoy]

No.

If you need a reason why you suddenly have warlock powers discuss with your DM. Maybe Eldritch Blast is an audio musical note that does force damage instead of thunder because it's so concentrated the sound waves hit the opponent all at once, and it's the impact that does the damage. If you take Devil's Sight invocation it's echolocation.

Or you do have a Patron but it doesn't have to be what the book says. Maybe a Muse likes you.

Fluff in the rule book helps players think about their character to be more than words and numbers on the character sheet. They inspire, not legislate. You and the DM can have any story you want.

I spent a lot of time using the HERO system, where there isn't even implied fluff/crunch connection. You come up with the character and their abilities, and then use the Characteristics, Skills, Talents, Powers, Advantages/Limitations, and Disads to map that character into the system.

So my instinct now is to look at the rules in 5e the same way, but there are a LOT of players who consider it a very bad thing to use Warlock mechanics for anything other than a character who made a pact with some entity in exchange for power.

[Yunru]

Sell your soul for power? Bah!
Sell someone else's soul for power!

[Millstone85]

Personally, I don't use Lovecraft-ian Elder Beings: I just used Old Squid-Face as a reference that most everyone would get, and because I found it funny.:amused:For my warlock's patron, I took inspiration from Shub-Niggurath. I pushed the idea of a nature spirit from an alien ecosystem, likely intent on supplanting those of this world.

My character called this patron her godmother, but PCs and NPCs alike kept saying "your god". :smallannoyed:

[OmSwaOperations]

You should feel free to fluff it however you want. I remember I once played a "Barbarian" who wasn't any kind of beefy fighter man, or tribal warrior, but a cleric whose secret demonic heritage made him prone to bouts of violent rage. It wasn't really using the class as written, but it worked both mechanically and narratively... so honestly, go wild

[Max_Killjoy]

Sure, Cthulhu might not notice you doing this for quite some time, but as you gain in Power - the more you take; and the chance of being noticed goes up. And well, everyone knows what happens when Cthulhu wakes up!

(Personally, I don't use Lovecraft-ian Elder Beings: I just used Old Squid-Face as a reference that most everyone would get, and because I found it funny.:amused:

I homebrew my own Great Old Ones, and the 'more you take = greater chance of being noticed' happens. Same for Stealing from Demons/Devils/Genie. Undying could go either way, depending on what their personality was. Even a Celestial Patron would be unhappy with someone stealing from them.)

Sure, Patrons are not as 'powerful' as Gods - but most are just as arrogant, and likely to retaliate against a "Thief".

I'm highly skeptical of the notion that a character can repeatedly take power from another being completely unnoticed.

The "unpact" to me works far better when it's some sort of eldritch knowledge, or "power unlock", that the character gains from contact with the entity or force or strange dimension or cursed book, but doesn't require continued drawing on the power of another being.

[Great Dragon]

I spent a lot of time using the HERO system, where there isn't even implied fluff/crunch connection. You come up with the character and their abilities, and then use the Characteristics, Skills, Talents, Powers, Advantages/Limitations, and Disads to map that character into the system.

So my instinct now is to look at the rules in 5e the same way, but there are a LOT of players who consider it a very bad thing to use Warlock mechanics for anything other than a character who made a pact with some entity in exchange for power.

I liked your Idea for the Music connection. For up to the 3rd level, I could even extend it as a 'wierd extension' of your regular Bardic power.

But, what I don't like is lots of people who see someone else's Idea, and think, "that's a cool way around the rules!" and duplicate it - to death.

Which is why I'd most likely go for your "Muse" Patron. Especially for Chain/Blade/Book effects.

Makes me wonder what you'd come up with for a Race/Gender, Name and "Cosmic Status" for The Muse.
By Cosmic Status, I mean things like "Archfey", "Arch-Devil", "Demon-Lord", or one of the various "Celestials" (From Unicorn, Kirin and lowly Deva - to Solar). Great Old Ones are usually separate, but still on this level.

[Max_Killjoy]

I liked your Idea for the Music connection. For up to the 3rd level, I could even extend it as a 'wierd extension' of your regular Bardic power.

But, what I don't like is lots of people who see someone else's Idea, and think, "that's a cool way around the rules!" and duplicate it - to death.

Which is why I'd most likely go for your "Muse" Patron. Especially for Chain/Blade/Book effects.

Makes me wonder what you'd come up with for a Race/Gender, Name and "Cosmic Status" for The Muse.
By Cosmic Status, I mean things like "Archfey", "Arch-Devil", "Demon-Lord", or one of the various "Celestials" (From lowly Deva to Solar). Great Old Ones are usually separate, but still on this level.

The music / muse idea was Pex's I think.

(I like the idea too, but I don't want to seize credit.)

[Great Dragon]

The music / muse idea was Pex's I think.

Opps - Yes. Sorry, Pex

[Millstone85]

Sell your soul for power? Bah!
Sell someone else's soul for power!There is this great SCP story about sufficiently advanced AIs being indistinguishable from souls, only to be used as demonic currency. Those programmed to not accept this fate had greater value.

[Sigreid]

Sell your soul for power? Bah!
Sell someone else's soul for power!

In the Palladium system I played a summoner once who bartered in other people's souls...including the party's once.

[Chronos]

When I did a GOO warlock, I fluffed it as he didn't even want the power: It was just sort of leaking into reality, and he was the leak. But given that (for whatever reason) he had the power, he was determined to use it to fight as hard as he could against the Entity once It manifested Itself in the world (even though he believed that such fight was ultimately futile).

[MThurston]

When I did a GOO warlock, I fluffed it as he didn't even want the power: It was just sort of leaking into reality, and he was the leak. But given that (for whatever reason) he had the power, he was determined to use it to fight as hard as he could against the Entity once It manifested Itself in the world (even though he believed that such fight was ultimately futile).

I still don't understand why you would just randomly get powers. For no reason. No radioactive spider.

[The Kool]

I am a Bard 11 level. If i take a warlock dip(2 lvls max.), do i have to make a pact with a patron?

As others said before, this depends on your DM. However, it always helps to present an alternative for your case. If you'd like our help with this, we'd need to know which 'patron' you were looking at to help you refluff it. The Hexblade, for example, could easily be a bond formed with the spirit of the weapon itself.

[Millstone85]

I still don't understand why you would just randomly get powers. For no reason. No radioactive spider.One word: sorcery.

This is something I generally see as a problem. Where are "Otherworldly Patron: The Wyrm" and "Sorcerous Origin: Fey Ancestry"? Whenever they publish a patron, I feel this is an origin we are less likely to see, and vice versa.

But in the case of Chronos' character, it would be easy to say they got this inner portal in a sorcerous manner. Something with their ancestors, the alignment of planets when they were born, etc. But instead of a plane at large, it linked them to this particular entity.

[Rukelnikov]

I still don't understand why you would just randomly get powers. For no reason. No radioactive spider.

It may not be random, its just that you don't know why. Trying to understand the workings of a GOO (assuming there even are workings at all), can be a one way ticket to madness.

This was essentially the basis of my GOO. Trying to understand "why me?", "what does it want?", and eventually "is it even aware of me?"

[Vogie]

Remember a Pact isn't a soul-selling arrangement... it's just an arrangement.

That arrangement may be direct or indirect.

A direct arrangement would be sought out, or bargained for by the warlock, something like the Silver Surfer connection with Galactus, Davy Jones power in the PoC series, Ghost Rider's origin, Jean Grey's connection with the Phoenix Force in the original run, Arya's powers from the Faceless Men, or other types of metaphysical contract (voice selling, soul bargaining, favors and IOUs)
An indirect arrangement would not be sought out from the warlock, with the connection coming from the Patron, or a third party. Such as Sam's mother giving allowing a demon in house in Supernatural, Harry Dresden's accidental pact with Lasciel's shadow, a Jedi's pact with the Force, Scarlett Witch's powers from the Mind Stone in the MCU, or use of a greater beings' power through items (including tattoos, like Scar from FMA) or weapons (like the Witchblade).

[MThurston]

As others said before, this depends on your DM. However, it always helps to present an alternative for your case. If you'd like our help with this, we'd need to know which 'patron' you were looking at to help you refluff it. The Hexblade, for example, could easily be a bond formed with the spirit of the weapon itself.

I'm playing hexblade in one game and my powers are from the weapon. I can not cast spells without my weapon.

[Willie the Duck]

My lock literally never knew why the GOO made him see things from time time, and never spoke a word to him.
With a GOO, would you even know if you spoke with them? :smallbiggrin:


Yes you have a patron. It's in the first paragraph of Warlock.
But that wasn't the question asked. The question was whether you need a pact with them. And that's a lot more complicated (although elsewhere in the class description you get pact magic, so there are going to be contradictions if there isn't a pact) .


True. 5e is kinda annoying at times.

5e doesn't seem to be afraid to make multiple ways of accomplishing the same goal, either in terms of mechanics, or for flavor/concept.


Which to me is stranger than not having a patron at all, and just using the Warlock mechanics for something else.
It's like someone said "we don't want to force people to deal with a patron, but they're sure as heck not getting warlock powers without there having been a patron". :smallfrown:

WotC doesn't seem to want to force people to roleplay at all. It's all back to 'treat these characters as fully realized individuals, or little more than board game playing pieces, whichever you prefer.'

As to the warlock mechanics--from what I gather, the 3e warlock absolutely was a set of mechanics ('attempt at post-vancian caster type, take 2') first, and a backstory about otherworldly pacts second.


I find this very sad.
You can't even have pretend Gods without people being offended.

Yes, I also find it sad.
Gone are the Days of Old...
I really hope that I never offend anyone.
I see no evidence that any of this is related to 'offending' people. Pinning down a specific campaign playstyle seems to be the primary motivation. The original oD&D clerics of back in the day general served relatively ill-defined 'gawds' because they weren't important to the primary game structure. It wasn't really until the late 1e Greyhawk/FR boxed sets and the like that these pseudo-polytheistic gods with churchs of clerics who acted halfway like priests in monotheistic religions and to hell with the contradictions came to the for. 3e introduced Ur-priests, which stole power from the gods in much the way people are talking about warlocks maybe syphoning power off greater beings without said beings knowing or caring about them. There simply isn't one single preferred playstyle and thankfully WotC seems to realize that.

[BaconAwesome]

Generally, your character has some relationship with a patron, but there's a lot of room for what that relationship is. In addition to "I make a deal" could see any of:

- Ancestral curse manifests,
- Weird NPC healer heals you by implanting something in you that creates the relationship,
- Your character is messing around on her instrument/reading in the back stacks/dreaming and comes across a musical score that is the form that an extradimensional entity takes in our world. Just knowing the earworm is enough to create the relationship, and it's up to you and the GM to decide what the earworm wants, how it communicates with you, and what you do about it.

Or really anything - do you have a story in mind for how you get this power?

[LibraryOgre]

I am a Bard 11 level. If i take a warlock dip(2 lvls max.), do i have to make a pact with a patron?

It might be a completed pact. I can see a clear path for a bard. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9uk9IcoQ0w)

[Great Dragon]

Remember a Pact isn't a soul-selling arrangement... it's just an arrangement.

That arrangement may be direct or indirect.

A direct arrangement would be sought out, or bargained for by the warlock, something like the Silver Surfer connection with Galactus, Davy Jones power in the PoC series, Ghost Rider's origin, Jean Grey's connection with the Phoenix Force in the original run, Arya's powers from the Faceless Men, or other types of metaphysical contract (voice selling, soul bargaining, favors and IOUs)
An indirect arrangement would not be sought out from the warlock, with the connection coming from the Patron, or a third party. Such as Sam's mother giving allowing a demon in house in Supernatural, Harry Dresden's accidental pact with Lasciel's shadow, a Jedi's pact with the Force, Scarlett Witch's powers from the Mind Stone in the MCU, or use of a greater beings' power through items (including tattoos, like Scar from FMA) or weapons (like the Witchblade).


Nice examples.

Another Butcher fan!:smallbiggrin:

Yes, but Harry did all three over the course of the years.
I believe that Harry's Deal with Leandreshee is where he got his real start.
(He learned the Basics of Magic from Jason, but needed power fast to fight against him)
That is very much an Active "Direct" Patron Pact.
Sure, his mother set it up, but Lea was always trying to sweeten the Deal in her favor.
That was her nature.

Then Harry meets Ebenezer and learns how to be a True Wizard.

While Harry's 'pact' with Lasciel's Shadow was an accident, she still tried everything possible to tempt him to Fall - like giving him literal Hellfire. Once Harry became aware that this was happening, she became 'active' and constantly tempted him, until he finally won her over.
(This would not have happened with the True Lasciel)

>Edited personal opinion.<

[stoutstien]

Bargain with extraplanar being doesnt = selling of soul (although it could be part of the bargain).

Elistraee (my Hexblade patron) certainly doesnt require any such thing. Only that I advance her faith, and follow her ideals (liberty, gender and racial harmony, arts and beauty).

It was more of a facetious comment about how warlock is the only class that people feel restricted by the fluff. you never have to rationalize you want to take a level of rogue
you are just suddenly more sneaky.

[Max_Killjoy]

It was more of a facetious comment about how warlock is the only class that people feel restricted by the fluff. you never have to rationalize you want to take a level of rogue
you are just suddenly more sneaky.


Depends on the class.

Cleric, many players will expect that your character worships and serves some extraplanar entity that can provide spells etc in turn.

Paladin, many players will expect that the character is actually true to their principles and Oath.

Etc.

[JoeJ]

It is not in the class description, but there is this:

There is direct access to the Weave and there is mediated access to the Weave, with the warlock being listed as having direct access. To reconcile that with a patron, I would indeed think there was a spark and/or knowledge imparted to the warlock at one point, unlike an ongoing connection with the divine.

That passage lists warlocks in the same category as wizards, which I like because I see them as being taught certain magical tricks by their patron, just as wizards learn them through study. To gain another level they need to learn more, whether it's through meeting their fey lover in the woods or hearing Yog-thulu whisper secrets that man was not meant to know in their dreams, or whatever the player & DM have come up with to characterize that relationship.

[stoutstien]

Depends on the class.

Cleric, many players will expect that your character worships and serves some extraplanar entity that can provide spells etc in turn.

Paladin, many players will expect that the character is actually true to their principles and Oath.

Etc.
True but they really lifted off a lot of the restrictions from older editions. Players can expect that they worship certain deities but the players don't necessarily have to do that.
A paladin oath could just be a set ideals that they uphold and Xans had a passage about clerics not having to have a god(s). Instead they can worship ideas or even a plane.

I think with the potential power of a low-level warlock dip people feel like they need to rationalize the choice.

[Tectorman]

Yes, I also find it sad.

Gone are the Days of Old; when people actually liked to portray how the things their Character believed in (Gods, now Patrons) affects how they dressed, acted; looked at the world and interacted with it.

But, I suppose that we can all thank the Satanic Panic of the 80's for this trend.

@Sigreid - I'm glad that you can still find enjoyment out of other classes.
I just like to encourage my Players (and in this case you GittPG readers) to play, and enjoy as many different things as possible. From Class/Subclasses to Races. To Homebrew.
I really hope that I never offend anyone.

It's not about not liking to portray characters as having relationships with other characters or entities in the game or not wanting to be invested in the world. It's about the delineation between what all the DM controls and what little the player has. As in, if I've got however many levels in whichever class, I feel as though that should be a completely concluded transaction. I earned the XP. I spent that XP on levels in whichever class, and now it should be bought and paid for. For the game to encourage the DM in some of those cases to come back and require the player to additionally toe this or that roleplaying line feels like having to pay full price just to rent.

I've got plenty of characters with their own patron deity, but none of them are mechanically beholden to those deities. I can have those Rogue or Monk or Sorcerer characters have whatever relationship with those deities I feel fits best. And no matter what conversation the DM wants to have about any of those characters' level or interpretation of worship with those deities, since there's no Sword of Damocles hanging over my neck, I feel like that can be an honest conversation. But that same conversation with a Cleric or a Paladin or a Warlock? Oh no. I have to come at it with the agenda of avoiding having spent those XP for nothing at all costs.

It's why I maintain that the Oath of Treachery for the Paladin needs to see print. Not because it requires you to be treacherous, but because it doesn't require anything, not even for you to be treacherous. You earn the XP, you spend it on levels in the class, transaction complete. It's actually the most honest and forthright Paladin Oath in the game.

...

Oh, right, the topic is Warlocks. I'm glad that with my group at least, I've managed to dodge that particular bullet, though it remains lamentable that that bullet is even there to be dodged.

[MeeposFire]

I spent a lot of time using the HERO system, where there isn't even implied fluff/crunch connection. You come up with the character and their abilities, and then use the Characteristics, Skills, Talents, Powers, Advantages/Limitations, and Disads to map that character into the system.

So my instinct now is to look at the rules in 5e the same way, but there are a LOT of players who consider it a very bad thing to use Warlock mechanics for anything other than a character who made a pact with some entity in exchange for power.

I remember when 5e first officially came out somebody was using it for a cyberpunk type game and he had warlocks as being specialized hackers. That seemed fun.

[J-H]

I'm not super comfortable playing a cleric of a priest or a soul-seller due to my personal faith & beliefs.
Clerics are also not usually my cup of tea anyway.

I am about to introduce a warlock into the campaign I'm running for her (solo campaign, it'll be her 4th party member - arcane abilities without the option overload of a wizard). The Warlock will have been kidnapped by a cult (cult issues previously mentioned as a quest option) that's sacrificing people...let's say a Fiendish warlock type cult. They set her up as a sacrifice (mystic runes or magic paint or whatever) and something goes wrong...before the sacrifice goes off she gets a visitor in her mind.

Now The Dweller Beyond is getting a chance to explore the mortal world by reliving her day in dreams when she sleeps... seeing the mortal world through mortal eyes. In exchange...she gets GOO powers. It might get curious and prompt her to look at something or do something occasionally (DM plot hook delivery power) but otherwise just enjoys seeing something besides the starlit clouds of hydrogen as it floats through the galaxy.

[Great Dragon]

The 3x Warlock was just someone that had 'inherited' their power from some Fiend Ancestor.
No explanation for how they discovered this power, or how they increased it.

The Ur-Priest is a better example, IMO.
But then, you get the same problem of how long they can go 'unnoticed'.
Also, I never had a Player want to be one.
But then, I never saw the 3.5 Factotum in my games, either.

@Tectorman
But then, new D&D got rid of a lot of the 'requirements' of the Old D&D.
Like the "Training" time required to Level Up.
(Sure, they have it for learning new Tools and Languages - 250 gold and 250 days = eight months)

Like a Rogue being a member of a Thieves' Guild.
Or a Fighter being under the tutelage of an Old War Master.
Or a Barbarian returning home to learn new abilities and skills.
Bards stole the "Colleges" from the Wizard version of a Guild.
We already covered Clerics, Paladins and Rangers.
D&D 5e just lumps this in Downtown, so it's not even important.

I can understand your view - of just spending the Exp and move on, from being on the Player's side. But, I suppose that once again I'm just the Old Grognard, wanting more from my Game time (as Player and GM) then just number crunching, and moving pieces around on a board.

And yes, I noticed that you put in RP with other Character Ideas;
But, you balk at the idea that these might be required.

Well, whatever is fun for you and your Friends.

[Trustypeaches]

It’s also worth mentioning that a “pact” is basically just an agreement. It’s a relationship between a player and some kind of magical entity, but the nature of that relationship and who this entity is are entirely up to you.

You can be a shaman who is haunted by the ghosts of his ancestors (Celestial), or a young girl whose has a sentient shadow (Great Old One).

[MThurston]

It’s also worth mentioning that a “pact” is basically just an agreement. It’s a relationship between a player and some kind of magical entity, but the nature of that relationship and who this entity is are entirely up to you.

You can be a shaman who is haunted by the ghosts of his ancestors (Celestial), or a young girl whose has a sentient shadow (Great Old One).

The issue is we have real world people that can't handle the fact that a player character is Simi controlled by a pact or God or way if life.

So instead of just making up something that is cool, they want to ignore it.

I liked the idea of a ghost entity that is trying to hold onto the world by giving someone it's power.

As I said earlier, my Hexblade gets his power from a sentient weapon, that I suspect will take him over or be taken from him by his allies.

[Mordaedil]

Bargain with extraplanar being doesnt = selling of soul (although it could be part of the bargain).

Elistraee (my Hexblade patron) certainly doesnt require any such thing. Only that I advance her faith, and follow her ideals (liberty, gender and racial harmony, arts and beauty).

I mean, why would Eilistraee want something she already has?

But he's right, the pact and the details of what it requires of you is up to you. If you don't want to have a pact, I can recommend you just grab either Magic Initiate or Spell Sniper for whatever you want from the warlock class. If you are taking levels in warlock, you are buying into the whole idea of making a pact for power, power that includes the magic the class grants. I think fulfilling the pact would mean the deal is over and your powers no longer belong are awarded you, so I think that's a sort of poor phrasing for how these things work.

If you really want to grab warlock, I kinda think not wanting to grab the fluff kinda misses the forest for the trees. You can modify the pact as you want and even change it, but if you don't want a pact, I gotta ask, why warlock?

[Unoriginal]

The issue is we have real world people that can't handle the fact that a player character is Simi controlled by a pact or God or way if life.

So instead of just making up something that is cool, they want to ignore it.

I liked the idea of a ghost entity that is trying to hold onto the world by giving someone it's power.

As I said earlier, my Hexblade gets his power from a sentient weapon, that I suspect will take him over or be taken from him by his allies.

Warlocks aren't "semi-controlled" by their Patrons, though, even in-universe. Not if they don't agree to.

Patrons are the kind of entities who have only as much power over you as you're giving them, and each of them will want something different.

Imix, the Elemental Evil of Fire, demands religious fanaticism form its Warlocks, even though it cannot grow more powerful by having beings worshiping it (unlike an actual divine being would). Meanwhile, Raxivort, fiendish demigod and creator of the xvarts, only ask to be given one interesting magic item, one time. Both are Fiendish Patrons, though.

[Pex]

I mean, why would Eilistraee want something she already has?

But he's right, the pact and the details of what it requires of you is up to you. If you don't want to have a pact, I can recommend you just grab either Magic Initiate or Spell Sniper for whatever you want from the warlock class. If you are taking levels in warlock, you are buying into the whole idea of making a pact for power, power that includes the magic the class grants. I think fulfilling the pact would mean the deal is over and your powers no longer belong are awarded you, so I think that's a sort of poor phrasing for how these things work.

If you really want to grab warlock, I kinda think not wanting to grab the fluff kinda misses the forest for the trees. You can modify the pact as you want and even change it, but if you don't want a pact, I gotta ask, why warlock?

Why warlock? Perhaps the player wants the fun of the game mechanics the class provides, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The story of his character is up to him and the DM. The rules can go jump in the lake for that purpose.

[Willie the Duck]

If you really want to grab warlock, I kinda think not wanting to grab the fluff kinda misses the forest for the trees. You can modify the pact as you want and even change it, but if you don't want a pact, I gotta ask, why warlock?

Depends on if you consider it important. Some people are playing the game as a challenge (maximize your success compared to adversity) and the mechanical bits are the point. Others (and I see a lot of this with people who started playing before 3e) absolutely care about character and flavor and all that, but don't really care about the fluff that WotC decided to put on the things ("Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock--they're all variants of the Magic User I've been playing since 197X, this one still uses spellbooks, this one doesn't and gets a restricted list of spells known and some fancy 'metamagic' perks in compensation, this one recharges on this new short-rest mechanic, take your pick"). Beyond that, if you're used to the era where the party pseudo-needed a cleric (for curse/disease-removal, even if not hp-recovery), even if no one was interested in exploring the D&D-religion aspect, then you're probably used to some level of rolled-eyed lip-service to the in-game-book fluff.

In general, though, I personally agree. The edition has done (mostly) away with mandatory roles, and the power differential between classes is extremely muted -- compared to, say, 3e, where I totally get playing a multiclass+PrC frankenmonster for the mechanics and then refluffing as a monk or fighter (but playable) -- so you shouldn't have to dip into X with your character if you don't want to explore playing an X. But that's of course personal opinion. The people who want different aren't doing it wrong in any way, shape, or form.

[Mordaedil]

Why warlock? Perhaps the player wants the fun of the game mechanics the class provides, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The story of his character is up to him and the DM. The rules can go jump in the lake for that purpose.
I mean, that is all fine I think, but there's some things I am wondering about, like why he isn't taking spell sniper or magical initiate instead. 2 levels would hurt more than help going from bard (multiclassing in 5e is generally not necessary from my experimentation, but I'll admit I have only really experimented with a few multiclasses where I discovered a better option going pure class instead) so usually there's little reason to do so unless you are aiming for a specific fluff, so I am a little confused by the desire to multiclass and then opt out of that fluff.

Also, asking the question to the OP could maybe give me an idea for suggesting something else that will answer his question in a way where he doesn't have to take on fluff he doesn't want. Figuring out what he wants from the 2 levels can answer that. For example, the invocations bring stuff to the table that can't really be reproduced by simply taking a feat, but spellsniper would easily do the job of eldritch spear, for instance.

[Tanarii]

Everyone who answered the question "no" is house-ruling. That's fine, y'all just need to be aware of it.

The PHB Warlock:
- Has a section Sworn and Beholden that starts off with "A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being."
- has a Patron class feature that says you made a pact with a patron
- has a Pact Magic class feature that details some of the magic you gained from that pact.

The description of the class says it's what defines a warlock. You literally have a class feature defining that you have a pact with a patron at level 1. The answer to the question posed is: Yes, a warlock has to have a Pact with a Patron.

[Max_Killjoy]

Everyone who answered the question "no" is house-ruling. That's fine, y'all just need to be aware of it.

The PHB Warlock:
- Has a section Sworn and Beholden that starts off with "A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being."
- has a Patron class feature that says you made a pact with a patron
- has a Pact Magic class feature that details some of the magic you gained from that pact.

The description of the class says it's what defines a warlock. You literally have a class feature defining that you have a pact with a patron at level 1. The answer to the question posed is: Yes, a warlock has to have a Pact with a Patron.

Most classes aren't locked behind a major "fiction level" gate, however -- why should warlock be different?

We're not just "house ruling", we're question that "rule" at its core.

[Vogie]

Most classes aren't locked behind a major "fiction level" gate, however -- why should warlock be different?

We're not just "house ruling", we're question that "rule" at its core.

What?

... They totally are. All of them.

Rogues mechanically known Thieves' Cant and Druids know Druidic - secret languages that are imbued only to those within certain tight circles.
Rangers mechanically know about the natural environment in a significant way.
Sorcerers are tied to bloodlines
Clerics are mechanically tied to a god-level power, and disagree at their peril.
Paladins are mechanically bound to a powerful oath, and breaking such an oath has consequences up to, but including, being forced to abandon their class
Barbarians, Fighters, Wizards and Monks are all solidly tied to a significant amount of training required.

The only class that isn't 100% bound by a "fiction level" gate is Bard... and even they are connected to various bardic colleges, which could be literal schools, or just schools of thought.

And for those following along at home, "Just Bard" is not "Most classes"

[Max_Killjoy]

What?

... They totally are. All of them.

Rogues mechanically known Thieves' Cant and Druids know Druidic - secret languages that are imbued only to those within certain tight circles.
Rangers mechanically know about the natural environment in a significant way.
Sorcerers are tied to bloodlines
Clerics are mechanically tied to a god-level power, and disagree at their peril.
Paladins are mechanically bound to a powerful oath, and breaking such an oath has consequences up to, but including, being forced to abandon their class
Barbarians, Fighters, Wizards and Monks are all solidly tied to a significant amount of training required.

The only class that isn't 100% bound by a "fiction level" gate is Bard... and even they are connected to various bardic colleges, which could be literal schools, or just schools of thought.


Rogues don't have to take Thieves' Cant or be part of an organization... nothing forces a character to take a mechanical or "fiction level" benefit. I'd like to think no one would say "if you don't take Thieves Cant, you can't be a rogue", but a few DMs are just that far up their own backsides.

Druids don't have to take Druidic or be part of an of an organization... nothing forces a character to take a mechanical or "fiction level" benefit.

A Sorcerer is not tied to a bloodline, they can just be spontaneous, or exposed to a "magical accident", or...

Clerics can draw from other sources besides actual deities, such as philosophies, etc,

Paladins are bound to an Oath at 3rd level, and they have such a plethora of Oaths that its fairly wide open. It's pretty much "Want to be a Paladin? Pick an Oath that your character concept can keep without much dilemma!"

Nothing in the Barbarian, Fighter, or Wizard mandates any sort of formal training, it can just as easily be hard-won personal experience and research.

Bards... Bards just gate a lot of the "skill and lore master" mechanics behind being the fiction-level concept of being some sort of charming performer.

[NaughtyTiger]

It was more of a facetious comment about how warlock is the only class that people feel restricted by the fluff. you never have to rationalize you want to take a level of rogue
you are just suddenly more sneaky.

Depends on the DM. In my non-AL games, I do require folks to RP their leveling decisions.

Wizards have to "practice" the 2 spells they are going to acquire at the next level.
Multiclassing requires training with that class, abliet as informally as sparring with the fighter during long rests to gain a level of fighter.

But, that's cuz i view it as a role playing game and try to keep the immersion.

[Trustypeaches]

I mean, that is all fine I think, but there's some things I am wondering about, like why he isn't taking spell sniper or magical initiate instead. 2 levels would hurt more than help going from bard (multiclassing in 5e is generally not necessary from my experimentation, but I'll admit I have only really experimented with a few multiclasses where I discovered a better option going pure class instead) so usually there's little reason to do so unless you are aiming for a specific fluff, so I am a little confused by the desire to multiclass and then opt out of that fluff.

Also, asking the question to the OP could maybe give me an idea for suggesting something else that will answer his question in a way where he doesn't have to take on fluff he doesn't want. Figuring out what he wants from the 2 levels can answer that. For example, the invocations bring stuff to the table that can't really be reproduced by simply taking a feat, but spellsniper would easily do the job of eldritch spear, for instance.2 levels of warlock gets you Agonizing Blast + Eldritch Blast i.e. the best at will damage cantrip in the game, on top of invocations such as Repelling Blast. You also get 2 recharging spell slots.

Finally, you also get subclass features, most notably Hexblades who have an insane first level with armor proficiencies, charisma based weaponry, and Hexblade's Curse.

[Vogie]

Rogues don't have to take Thieves' Cant or be part of an organization... nothing forces a character to take a mechanical or "fiction level" benefit. I'd like to think no one would say "if you don't take Thieves Cant, you can't be a rogue", but a few DMs are just that far up their own backsides.

Druids don't have to take Druidic or be part of an of an organization... nothing forces a character to take a mechanical or "fiction level" benefit.

A Sorcerer is not tied to a bloodline, they can just be spontaneous, or exposed to a "magical accident", or...

Clerics can draw from other sources besides actual deities, such as philosophies, etc,

Paladins are bound to an Oath at 3rd level, and they have such a plethora of Oaths that its fairly wide open. It's pretty much "Want to be a Paladin? Pick an Oath that your character concept can keep without much dilemma!"

Nothing in the Barbarian, Fighter, or Wizard mandates any sort of formal training, it can just as easily be hard-won personal experience and research.

Bards... Bards just gate a lot of the "skill and lore master" mechanics behind being the fiction-level concept of being some sort of charming performer.

You just... don't have to?
Not only is that a glorious example of goalpost moving and the forum-favorite "Nuh-uh" defense, that's an interesting view of RAW.
I can imagine just how well that'll go over in any game.
"The Mage throws a fireball at your feet! Roll a Dexterity Saving throw!" "I don't have to. I reject your fiction level benefit that such a thing could damage my character."

[Millstone85]

I mean, why would Eilistraee want something she already has?In many drow cities, the existence of Eilistraee is forbidden knowledge. I could see would-be warlocks calling upon the mysterious and subversive power of the Dark Maiden. They would be surprised when she tells them to rescue the orphans of a fallen house, less so when they then have to organize those in a cult.

[MThurston]

Everyone who answered the question "no" is house-ruling. That's fine, y'all just need to be aware of it.

The PHB Warlock:
- Has a section Sworn and Beholden that starts off with "A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being."
- has a Patron class feature that says you made a pact with a patron
- has a Pact Magic class feature that details some of the magic you gained from that pact.

The description of the class says it's what defines a warlock. You literally have a class feature defining that you have a pact with a patron at level 1. The answer to the question posed is: Yes, a warlock has to have a Pact with a Patron.

100% on the spot.

[Max_Killjoy]

You just... don't have to?
Not only is that a glorious example of goalpost moving and the forum-favorite "Nuh-uh" defense, that's an interesting view of RAW.
I can imagine just how well that'll go over in any game.
"The Mage throws a fireball at your feet! Roll a Dexterity Saving throw!" "I don't have to. I reject your fiction level benefit that such a thing could damage my character."

False equivocation.

"I choose to forgo this benefit to my own character" is not the same as "I reject your character's abilities in the system".

[VoxRationis]

Everyone who answered the question "no" is house-ruling. That's fine, y'all just need to be aware of it.

The PHB Warlock:
- Has a section Sworn and Beholden that starts off with "A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being."
- has a Patron class feature that says you made a pact with a patron
- has a Pact Magic class feature that details some of the magic you gained from that pact.

The description of the class says it's what defines a warlock. You literally have a class feature defining that you have a pact with a patron at level 1. The answer to the question posed is: Yes, a warlock has to have a Pact with a Patron.


100% on the spot.

I'm glad someone brought this up. I wanted to but didn't think it would get anywhere to mention it.

[Wasp]

I think the Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron suggested that a Warlock in Eberron could get his power from specialized Wandslinger military training if the DM approves

[Willie the Duck]

I'm glad someone brought this up. I wanted to but didn't think it would get anywhere to mention it.

Why? The OP question was "do i have to make a pact with a patron?" So that was exactly what they were looking for. Now, of course, a lot of people are going to discuss whether DM ruling otherwise makes things better, or what a pact actually entails (and that's a pretty open to interpretation question), or whether that means there are any outstanding duties placed on the warlock and so forth, but that doesn't mean a straight-up answer to the question wouldn't have been appreciated.

[Vogie]

I think the Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron suggested that a Warlock in Eberron could get his power from specialized Wandslinger military training if the DM approves

100%. Patrons are any entity that aren't god-level that can still imbue powers. A hexblade lock may have had his pact assigned via the military service, and an Archfey lock may have been given that pact as part of an judgement or boon of a Fey Court.

[Chronos]

Thieve's Cant isn't a secret language taught only to members of the Guild. It's slang so thick that only someone who lives among it can understand it. Think Jive, in the Airplane! movies. To the extent that there's a narrative connection between thieves' guilds and cant, it's the other way around: A guild would never even consider admitting a member unless they could already talk the talk.

Druidic is a secret language, so I suppose that does suggest the existence of a druidic organization. But there's almost no information given about that organization, so a player is free to imagine it however suits their character. And it still doesn't even prove the existence of that organization: Maybe if you study nature intently enough, you just develop an intuitive sense of what things ought to be called.

And back to warlocks, "bound by a pact to a patron" does not imply "made a pact with a patron". Maybe your parents made the pact on your behalf. Maybe there was an ancient pact that a baby born at the confluence of ley lines when the stars were aligned correctly would be bound to be the herald of The One Beyond. And even if the player did make a pact, there's plenty of room for what the terms of that pact might be. Some entities might even agree to a pact that doesn't explicitly give them anything in return, on the theory that access to the power will in itself corrupt (or redeem) the user to their cause.

[Sigreid]

Thieve's Cant isn't a secret language taught only to members of the Guild. It's slang so thick that only someone who lives among it can understand it. Think Jive, in the Airplane! movies. To the extent that there's a narrative connection between thieves' guilds and cant, it's the other way around: A guild would never even consider admitting a member unless they could already talk the talk.

Druidic is a secret language, so I suppose that does suggest the existence of a druidic organization. But there's almost no information given about that organization, so a player is free to imagine it however suits their character. And it still doesn't even prove the existence of that organization: Maybe if you study nature intently enough, you just develop an intuitive sense of what things ought to be called.

And back to warlocks, "bound by a pact to a patron" does not imply "made a pact with a patron". Maybe your parents made the pact on your behalf. Maybe there was an ancient pact that a baby born at the confluence of ley lines when the stars were aligned correctly would be bound to be the herald of The One Beyond. And even if the player did make a pact, there's plenty of room for what the terms of that pact might be. Some entities might even agree to a pact that doesn't explicitly give them anything in return, on the theory that access to the power will in itself corrupt (or redeem) the user to their cause.

"Feathers fine our fates entwined. Bird and man, thine and mine. Formed a pact that gods divine. Hallowed on an ancient shrine..." Elric

[Misterwhisper]

I played a character once whose family tradition was that the eldest son of each generation owed a great deed to one of the great old ones to prolong the family line of magical power.

His great grandfather was given the secrets to create rechargeable wands but it drained a fraction of the weave every dawn.

His grandfather was a Great War general who had to make sure a bloody war kept going for years.

His grandfather had no sons and the patron got pissed so my character was not given magic. I was a rogue with a patron who gave me nothing but family burden.

You could easily play a warlock without a specific pact.

Maybe your dedication to the bardic ways has given you patronsgip as a gift from the spirit of performance.

[Rukelnikov]

With a GOO, would you even know if you spoke with them? :smallbiggrin:

Probably not, doubt I could even begin to understand what motivates such a creature's actions lol

[Chronos]

Is your head exploded? No? Then It didn't talk to you.

[Tanarii]

Why? The OP question was "do i have to make a pact with a patron?" So that was exactly what they were looking for. Now, of course, a lot of people are going to discuss whether DM ruling otherwise makes things better, or what a pact actually entails (and that's a pretty open to interpretation question), or whether that means there are any outstanding duties placed on the warlock and so forth, but that doesn't mean a straight-up answer to the question wouldn't have been appreciated.
Right. Not my intent to shut all that down, although I probably came across that way, looking back at my post. But it seemed like 3 pages in before someone provided a direct answer was a bit too much.

(I may have missed someone else doing exactly that though.)

[Great Dragon]

@Mordaedil
I can only think of one real option for why the OP would want a 2 level dip into Warlock.

Which is Eldritch Spear for 300 foot EB, and then Spell Sniper to increase to 600 feet, plus ignoring everything up to 3/4 cover.

If he's an Elf, add Elven Accuracy for Advantage.

Plus Bard spells and abilities.

All for "free".