Taking away a PC's class features

[Chaos Jackal]

Some of us have been there. Others have heard stories of it. The wizard whose spellbook was stolen. The warlock whose patron was killed. The cleric whose god went mad. The paladin who fell.

Some enjoy it. If it's temporary, it can be a fun roleplaying experience, depending on the player. If it's something agreed to between the player and the DM, or something that happened as a direct consequence of a player's actions, it can enhance the game.

Some dislike it. If it's permanent or takes a long time to reverse, it's frustrating. If the DM did it arbitrarily, or the situation was something completely outside the player's hands, it can be irritating to say the least.

I just became the victim of this myself, after my warlock's patron died in circumstances that were impossible for me to affect. She was basically killed in a cinematic during a battle, and now I'm a hexblade who can't swing a sword. If it was something I had discussed with the DM before, or if it was something I orchestrated, could have prevented but failed to, or some mistake I made that led to this, I would've sucked it up, or even welcomed it. But as it happened, it was basically my patron getting locked in battle with another powerful being as part of the scenery; an army clashing below, the two outsiders fighting over us. They don't even roll damage on each other or anything, they're just there to enhance the scenery and provide minor buffs to the armies below them. At the end of the battle, my patron dies, my magical sword breaks and all my features go down the drain. Just like that.

To clarify, I'm not requesting advice on how to deal with the matter, although it's appreciated. I'm planning to let this run for two or three sessions, and if it seems like it's stretching on, confront the DM and warn them that, if it takes much longer or if I'm forced to replace levels or multiclass, I'm out. How my character develops is my business and mine alone.

What I am is curious. What are your views on this? Your experiences? Would you play a character whose features have been disabled, and under what circumstances?

[MrStabby]

It's an excercise in trust in the DM.

Do you think it's a "ha ha, you suck!" moment, or are you going to bounce back more awesome.

If a clerics god falls, is this an opportunity for the gods clerics to bring them back - a way to earn some serious favour and a cool quest line?

The trouble is that under normal circumstances a character drives their own development, the player makes the choices. For this to be a good move, the DM has to let any plot change be more rewarding to the player than anything they could instigate themselves.

My advice would be to see if your character can recall tales of other patrons being killed and what happened to their warlocks. If the DM has some answers they are itching to give you then it is a sign they have thought through the possibilities and it's intended to be a prelude to awesome. If there isnt an answer, or its evasive or shallow then the DM probably hasn't given it enough thought and is just screwing with you.

[Man_Over_Game]

I agree with Stabz. Consider how your DM has been up to this point. Does he seem intuitive to the concerns of his players, or are they props in his orchestrated heroic opera?

I'm willing to bet it's the former, as removing someone's form of power, right in front of them, without much fault on the player or even from dice rolls, implies that it's something done with intent.

I am concerned over the fact that he hadn't talked to you about it, but that's a mistake caused to create tension. Still a mistake, IMO, as it requires the player to see their features as an extension of their history instead of a bundle of mechanics that expresses their impact on the world, but it's an earnest mistake. One he made because he thought the payoff would be worthwhile to you. Or at least, I hope. I don't know the DM, I just know what I would be thinking had I done something similar.

If I were to rip away your features from you without talking to you about it, It'd be because it'd be very temporary, and that you would be compensated for the stress.

[Chaos Jackal]

It's an excercise in trust in the DM.

Do you think it's a "ha ha, you suck!" moment, or are you going to bounce back more awesome.

If a clerics god falls, is this an opportunity for the gods clerics to bring them back - a way to earn some serious favour and a cool quest line?

The trouble is that under normal circumstances a character drives their own development, the player makes the choices. For this to be a good move, the DM has to let any plot change be more rewarding to the player than anything they could instigate themselves.

I have similar views. And odds are that within a few sessions I'll be OK.

It's just that I don't like my agency in the game removed. My character is my means of affecting the game; arbitrarily and severely weakening my character is, to my eyes, DM fiat killing my agency. Again, I'll probably recover. My DM isn't very good, and he's pulled a few questionable hijinks in the past, but I don't think he'd pull something like that for long. That doesn't mean, however, that I feel like any less of my agency has been removed.

It's just one experience really, brought up as an example. I've had depowering happen for a session or two before, but it was after being warned by the DM, and I obliged for plot's sake and knowing it would be worked into the game appropriately.

I'm generally curious to see how similar situations have played out for others, and how they view it in general. Maybe some people would never want anything to do with such a game, agreement or no agreement; still, others might roll with the punches and even multiclass or replace class levels if needed (something that I definitely wouldn't do, if temporarily taking away my agency is annoying, flat out telling me, multiple sessions in, that I cannot play my character the way I intended to, I'm very much out of that table by the end of the session).

[Mellack]

Talk to your DM. Ask them if this is going to last for more than a session. If they answer yes, say you plan on rolling up a new character. If they say no, I say see where it goes. Let them know how you feel (you seem less than excited to play as your character stands now).

[MaxWilson]

I just became the victim of this myself, after my warlock's patron died in circumstances that were impossible for me to affect. She was basically killed in a cinematic during a battle, and now I'm a hexblade who can't swing a sword... What I am is curious. What are your views on this? Your experiences? Would you play a character whose features have been disabled, and under what circumstances?

I could be wrong, but this looks like a disconnect between the DM and yourself about what the game is about: I'm guessing that you're viewing it as a roleplaying game where your goal is to engage with and overcome challenges through the viewpoint of a character (actor stance), whereas your DM may be expecting you to view it as more of a storygame where you explore the development of a character to whom you are not entirely sympathetic, and upon whom you are willing to inflict injuries and difficulties in the service of greater drama (author stance). This isn't a criticism of either of you, but if this is the disconnect the DM may not be aware of how deeply unpleasant you find these developments. Can't hurt to have a talk about what this campaign is about: is it a series of challenges for players to engage with and overcome, or is it a mixed series of triumphs and setbacks for characters to experience emotionally and be affected by?

In a way, this kind of reminds me of the debate over XP-based advancement vs. milestone levelling, and level draining. One playing of playing is for a player to not care what level their PC is at, or whether they're higher or lower level than anybody in the party. If the DM says "after killing Don Corleone and his mob, you're now 5th level and still at war with the Reds," they just shrug and accept it as a scenario detail. Another way of playing is to take it more personally and view XP as a personal achievement (for the player) and levels as a reward, and in games where level drain is possible these people take it very hard to get e.g. drained from 9th level back to 3rd level, whereas the first type of player might just shrug and embrace the thrill of playing an emotionally-scarred PC who is now wracked with phobias of the underground. Neither of these is bad, and it's even possible for one player to switch back and forth during the course of a game or campaign. (One of the risks your DM is taking by depowering your warlock is that you may stop caring about challenge-seeking or levelling up with this PC, which makes it harder to predict your PCs' intentions ahead of time and harder to construct interesting adventures that you'll want to see through to the end.)

RE: <<Would you play a character whose features have been disabled, and under what circumstances?>>

I would, but only if I were playing "support" in that campaign so to speak, instead of being in challenge-seeking full-participant wargamer mode. Like, if I were playing with four other players, none of whom were very good at the game, I'd totally ham up the depowered PC angle while still trying to keep the spotlight on the other players. But if I were playing with my three best friends in a game about a close-knit team of special ops troubleshooters who take on overwhelming challenges (like Daelkyr Invasions) and come out victorious, it just wouldn't be fun and wouldn't make sense to treat that depowered PC as anything other than a casualty, so I'd move him offscreen and bring on a different PC.
Apologies for the ramble. If I had more time I would have written less.

-Max

P.S. Scene framing also feels relevant here.

I'm going to quote from: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=6689

Ok, I'll try to summarize Scene Framing for you. First I'll start with a comparison of what it isn't:

Traditional play is location based. That is events occur or don't occur based on the location of PCs. This is a holdover from Dungeoncrawling, and the trick becomes either herding PCs to a particular spot or trying to get the interesting stuff to come to them. Players become particularly possessive over the power to control where "my guy goes".

This is not unlike a typical videogame. You end up having to "walk through" areas in order to get from point A to point B. This eats up a [large] amount of time in play, and represents the "boring" part of play.

So consider this scenario: The PCs want to catch a boat over to another land.

Under location based play, they go down to the docks, have to look around, and ask questions to see who is going where, then they have to waste anywhere from a few hours to a couple of days until the ship takes off, etc.

Now let's jump over to scene framing. Scene Framing works just like movies and tv. You cut, cut, cut out anything that doesn't need to happen.

This is where people get confused. "Need to happen" gets confused with the location (above). So, if the party wants to get on a boat to the other land, by use of scene framing you'll cut to one of the following:

-Negotiation over price of passage(it is assumed they asked around, and now are getting the tickets)
-The boat ride(They handled all that)
-or, the boat arriving at the new harbor, and the PCs hopping off.

What determines where, and what you cut to? Simple: Interest. Whatever is interesting takes priority as to where you cut the scene, and location is pushed to the side. This is also how you set up Bangs in the traditional sense, because you now are setting up the location, the general gist of the scene, instead of trying to herd PCs into it. It requires trust on the parts of players that you will put their characters in interesting scenes, and some hot water, but not hose them.

At first, this will feel like railroading, because suddenly you'll be declaring where their characters are at, a general idea of what they're doing, and setting up a situation that they'll have to react to. But by being hands off about the reactions, that's opening up the door for protagonist play.

So to give the example that introduced me to scene framing, Clinton was running TROS for me and some guys. He opened the game by describing a scene where my character was in confession and another PC was inpersonating the priest(w/o my character's knowledge). And then he said, "Go!"

What he did was scene frame a situation where you just know something interesting is going to happen, but no one knows what the ---- it is.

Your DM may be railroading you, or maybe he's just framing a scene, but he's definitely put your PC into hot water for you, and maybe you and the DM disagree about how interesting a de-powered warlock continues to be. What do you do when the DM frames you into a scene that you don't find interesting, or skips over a scene that you would have found interesting? Talk to the DM OOC.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

"You have made your pact with a mysterious entity from the Shadowfell — a force that manifests in sentient magic weapons carved from the stuff of shadow.... The shadowy force behind these weapons can offer power to warlocks who form pacts with it."

That the Raven Queen is the source of this power is merely speculation. Her death isn't the death of that power, the Shadowfell is still there, and I'm sure the mighty Blackrazor didn't shatter. Your character needs to look past her and tap into her source of power. Maybe one day you'll be the new patron of Hexblades. Let your DM know that this is what your character will be immediately doing.

Ask if you can accomplish this during whatever downtime occurs before the next session starts, and/or if it will require any in-character role-play to commune with the power of the Shadowfell and regain your class features. Let the DM know that your character will not be joining the rest of the party on any adventures until he's accomplished this and regained his power, as this is more important to him than any of their current goals or the current story. Nobody wants to play a useless character, and nobody wants a useless character tagging along and not contributing anything.

[Man_Over_Game]

"You have made your pact with a mysterious entity from the Shadowfell — a force that manifests in sentient magic weapons carved from the stuff of shadow.... The shadowy force behind these weapons can offer power to warlocks who form pacts with it."

That the Raven Queen is the source of this power is merely speculation. Her death isn't the death of that power, the Shadowfell is still there, and I'm sure the mighty Blackrazor didn't shatter. Your character needs to look past her and tap into her source of power. Maybe one day you'll be the new patron of Hexblades. Let your DM know that this is what your character will be immediately doing.

Ask if you can accomplish this during whatever downtime occurs before the next session starts, and/or if it will require any in-character role-play to commune with the power of the Shadowfell and regain your class features. Let the DM know that your character will not be joining the rest of the party on any adventures until he's accomplished this and regained his power, as this is more important to him than any of their current goals or the current story. Nobody wants to play a useless character, and nobody wants a useless character tagging along and not contributing anything.

I mean, that only works if:

The player stayed true with exactly the Hexblade's original flavor/lore (which I wouldn't recommend, as the Hexblade is about as bland as it gets for flavor)
The DM interprets the course of events exactly as you have.

But more than that, though, any time you have to pull a Reverse Card on your DM, that's a moment that you're choosing to ignore that he's your DM. It's a breach of trust and respect. It's a statement that the player is going to ignore the DM when it suits them, and it starts to form the mentality that the DM and the player are on opposite sides.

If you feel you have to do it, either the DM isn't right for you, or you're not right for the table. The only time I'd say it's acceptable is in a "War"-style DnD table, where anything RAW goes, and only then it's acceptable because everyone knows that expectation of the game.

It's a similar thing to PvP, playing evil characters, or doing R-rated stuff: It's fine, only as long as everyone knows it is.

[Chaos Jackal]

"You have made your pact with a mysterious entity from the Shadowfell — a force that manifests in sentient magic weapons carved from the stuff of shadow.... The shadowy force behind these weapons can offer power to warlocks who form pacts with it."

That the Raven Queen is the source of this power is merely speculation. Her death isn't the death of that power, the Shadowfell is still there, and I'm sure the mighty Blackrazor didn't shatter. Your character needs to look past her and tap into her source of power. Maybe one day you'll be the new patron of Hexblades. Let your DM know that this is what your character will be immediately doing.

Ask if you can accomplish this during whatever downtime occurs before the next session starts, and/or if it will require any in-character role-play to commune with the power of the Shadowfell and regain your class features. Let the DM know that your character will not be joining the rest of the party on any adventures until he's accomplished this and regained his power, as this is more important to him than any of their current goals or the current story. Nobody wants to play a useless character, and nobody wants a useless character tagging along and not contributing anything.

We're not playing FR, it's a homebrew setting. My patron was an ancient being who had forged part of their essence into the weapon my character was using.


I could be wrong, but this looks like a disconnect between the DM and yourself about what the game is about: I'm guessing that you're viewing it as a roleplaying game where your goal is to engage with and overcome challenges through the viewpoint of a character (actor stance), whereas your DM may be expecting you to view it as more of a storygame where you explore the development of a character to whom you are not entirely sympathetic, and upon whom you are willing to inflict injuries and difficulties in the service of greater drama (author stance). This isn't a criticism of either of you, but if this is the disconnect the DM may not be aware of how deeply unpleasant you find these developments. Can't hurt to have a talk about what this campaign is about: is it a series of challenges for players to engage with and overcome, or is it a mixed series of triumphs and setbacks for characters to experience emotionally and be affected by?

In a way, this kind of reminds me of the debate over XP-based advancement vs. milestone levelling, and level draining. One playing of playing is for a player to not care what level their PC is at, or whether they're higher or lower level than anybody in the party. If the DM says "after killing Don Corleone and his mob, you're now 5th level and still at war with the Reds," they just shrug and accept it as a scenario detail. Another way of playing is to take it more personally and view XP as a personal achievement (for the player) and levels as a reward, and in games where level drain is possible these people take it very hard to get e.g. drained from 9th level back to 3rd level, whereas the first type of player might just shrug and embrace the thrill of playing an emotionally-scarred PC who is now wracked with phobias of the underground. Neither of these is bad, and it's even possible for one player to switch back and forth during the course of a game or campaign. (One of the risks your DM is taking by depowering your warlock is that you may stop caring about challenge-seeking or levelling up with this PC, which makes it harder to predict your PCs' intentions ahead of time and harder to construct interesting adventures that you'll want to see through to the end.)
That's definitely a way to approach it, and on many levels I agree. Personally, I fit more into the "actor" part you described. However, after multiple games I've learnt to adapt pretty well overall to "author" DMs, scene framing and light railroading. Most of my DMs aren't doing sandbox games, so it typically requires some compromising on my side in order for the game to not break down. I want my agency, but I am not the type to run away from the party, pull off solo tricks or use the craftiest methods I have at my disposal to trivialize or avoid something the DM obviously wants to happen; I've grown quite good at recognizing the rails my DMs put in place, and at realizing how much I can stretch them. I've been scene-framed often, I'm accustomed to it and even enjoy it depending on the DM. My character getting stabbed or mind-controlled or dying is something I'm ready for. As long as I have an interaction with what caused the stabbing or the mind-controlling or the dying; an attack overcoming my AC, me failing a Will or Wisdom saving throw, even a Power Word: Kill.

The key is interaction. Because arbitrary changes to my character is something I always draw the line at. That's where I'm beginning to diverge from your opinion. I believe the author and the actor can coexist to a degree, and it's what I'm aiming for in every game I play that runs into this conundrum. If there are limits, I can act within them. If I'm asked to play a particular role (like being told "Yeah, I feel like a character arc where you lose your power could mesh well with the story, would you mind?"), chances are I'll accept it. In the end, however, it might be the DM's setting and story, but a character belongs to the player. The DM might determine the limits on the stage, but they shouldn't decide the character's capabilities in said stage after the play has began. I've played plenty of games, and I've always managed to balance out the story's needs and my agency.

Level draining, for example. It's part of the play, it's something I can deal with. I got drained because I didn't finish the fight fast enough, or didn't use a defensive spell, or exposed myself to more attacks than I should have. It could be plain bad luck, of course (or the DM throwing an unbalanced encounter), but in the end it's something I have some agency in. I have a character, I'm given a stage, and I act out the play the way my character would act within the rules of the game. Level draining exists, and works as intended.

But arbitrary removal of features makes me feel I'm being given not just the stage, but also the character. I no longer have something I made; I no longer have something that evolved as a result of acting in the stages given, within the rules given. I have something someone else made for me, acting within a different ruleset.

"You failed to stop your patron's enemy, and your patron has fallen" is a stage where my character enters and changes as a result of my actions. "Your patron fought their enemy and exploded because that's how the story goes" is my character changing as a result of a play in a stage they never entered. It's something that answers to no mechanics in-game, something literally rewriting (or in this case, erasing) my entire character sheet without me getting a say in it. There's no interaction, no ruleset, no mistake. I'm just given a story device.

[MaxWilson]

Note that my agenda in what I'm about to say is mostly about giving ChaosJackal new ways to talk about what is happening, not to judge anyone as good or bad.

ChaosJackal, what I'm hearing you say now is that you're totally fine with adopting an actor or author stance, but you object to anyone else including the DM adopting a director stance w/rt your PC especially for long-term consequences.

Stance, as I understand it, is about which player declares what about the game world and with what authority.

In author stance you manipulate a given character's internal state: what they notice, what they decide.

In director stance you manipulate external factors including other characters. For example, let's say I as a player am trying to sneak another PC into a carriage by creating a distraction, and I say, "I tell the guard he's ugly and incompetent, and start listing all the things he should be paying attention to that he's not, and then when he's getting really annoyed and is starting to insult me back, Dwindle sneaks into the carriage from the side while the guard is distracted." I had a picture in my head of an interaction, and I declared that whole interaction, which is great and saves time/preserves flow _if_ everybody agrees. But what happens if the person playing Dwindle or the person playing the guard see it happening differently? "That's not what I would do!" If no one else gets to object to my description of that interaction, and they just have to roll with it, that's director stance. D&D doesn't typically allow hardcore director stance for anyone but Dungeon Master, and even then PCs are sacrosanct and usually excluded except for things like "you miss" and "now you're paralyzed!"

Anyway, it seems to me that you view the patron as effectively an extension of the PC, and object to the DM adopting director stance w/rt the patron in ways that are affect the PC. Does the DM view things differently? Is the choice to seek power through a patron instead of by studying magic directly a choice in its own right, with consequences if the patron sours on the relationship or dies? Or is it mere fluff that's not supposed to affect anything? Or is it something in between where you now have terrific warlocking skills that stay with you, but you need to find a new source of power before you can resume using them?

It's worth having this discussion with your DM OOC. (Out of character, ideally between sessions.)

[prabe]

In the end, however, it might be the DM's setting and story, but a character belongs to the player. The DM might determine the limits on the stage, but they shouldn't decide the character's capabilities in said stage after the play has began. I've played plenty of games, and I've always managed to balance out the story's needs and my agency.

I just wanted to pull this out and respond to it: My feeling as a DM is that it's my setting (especially since I'm homebrewing it) but what happens in the game is the PCs' story. I get ... twitchy, when I see people talking about the DM's story, whether they're a player or a DM or a designer. I also believe the best stories are the ones that emerge from play, and that people refer (especially in reference to D&D) to "storytelling games" or "collective storytelling" because there's no good single for word for "the story emerges through play."

I'll go now.

[Christew]

Understandable feelings. I'd err on the side of trusting the DM has a larger purpose. That said, I wouldn't do this at my table. A player should have a reasonable expectation of agency over their own character. Losing your class powers for more than a story beat has ramifications for all of the choices you made as a player in getting your character to this point (ie probably wouldn't have played a hexblade if I knew my patron could randomly explode leaving me powerless).

If I were DM and wanted to use your character this way, I would ask OOC first. Keep it vague to preserve story, but don't pigeonhole someone without their permission.

[Jerrykhor]

I've done this before as a DM, it was in Out of the Abyss where the players start as prisoners, so of course they don't have their gear and spells. But it only lasted one session, and at the end of it, they broke free and escaped with all their stuff. I can see the players thought it was fun to be in a vulnerable situation like this, but surely not all the time. If your character is neutered for long periods, it wouldn't be fun at all. Nobody likes feeling weak and helpless for too long.

If I were you, I'd definitely argue with the DM. Lots of DM make the mistake of thinking that the warlock's relationship with the patron is similar to Clerics with their god, but its not. By RAW and RAI, warlocks still retain their powers even if the Patron ceases to exist. Their power doesn't come from the devotion or worship of their Patron, so they should keep their powers, though might not be able to gain more (level up).

Either way, a warlock's pact shouldn't be used as a tool to screw the players over.

[MaxWilson]

By RAW and RAI, warlocks still retain their powers even if the Patron ceases to exist. Their power doesn't come from the devotion or worship of their Patron, so they should keep their powers, though might not be able to gain more (level up).

Source please? I've never seen the issue explicitly addressed anywhere in RAW or public statements from Mearls/Crawford/et al.

[Jerrykhor]

Source please? I've never seen the issue explicitly addressed anywhere in RAW or public statements from Mearls/Crawford/et al.

"Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse. Through pacts made with mysterious beings of supernatural power, warlocks unlock magical effects both subtle and spectacular. Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as fey nobles, demons, devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power."

Along with,

"More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf."

You can argue this is just fluff text, and yes it is. But in that case, you also can ignore everything and play a warlock without patron, only counting the mechanical benefits as RAW.

There's also a sage advice from Mike Mearls saying warlock's abilities cannot be taken away. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/19/what-happens-to-a-warlock-who-disobeys-their-patron/

[Zuras]

"Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse. Through pacts made with mysterious beings of supernatural power, warlocks unlock magical effects both subtle and spectacular. Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as fey nobles, demons, devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power."

Along with,

"More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf."

You can argue this is just fluff text, and yes it is. But in that case, you also can ignore everything and play a warlock without patron, only counting the mechanical benefits as RAW.

There's also a sage advice from Mike Mearls saying warlock's abilities cannot be taken away. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/19/what-happens-to-a-warlock-who-disobeys-their-patron/

Yeah. 5e doesn’t have any explicit rules for taking away any classes powers because the source was destroyed. Heck, there isn’t anything explicit stating that a Cleric with a dead god won’t get spells. Your devotion to your god powers your spells. No reason you can’t be devoted to a dead god. There’s certainly nothing like the rules in AD&D limiting you to 2nd level spells and lower without a god, or that demigods only grant up to 5th level spells.

[Chaos Jackal]

5e doesn't have anything specific regarding loss of abilities. The only exception is the paladin, and even then it's along the lines of "You screwed up really badly, and you don't regret it" rather than "Break a tenet once and you're now a fighter without features until you walk up a staircase on your knees chanting Ave Maria fifty times".

Personally, I wouldn't depower a warlock whose patron died or split either. I've had this conversation in the past. I view it as a loan. If the bank closes down or the terms are violated, it can have consequences for the future, but you don't suddenly lose the money you've been given and whatever it is that you bought with them.

But it's really up to the DM in the end. I can't really accuse someone of pulling rule 0 and overriding an existing rule, because there's no existing rule. Just flavor. And people interpret flavor however it suits them for a character.

That being said, I'm probably adding a "you're granted permanent power as part of the deal" part to any future pacts my warlock makes in this game and any future warlocks I play or DM for after that. Wouldn't want anyone to avoid a warlock because they're worried of a power loss hanging over their heads.


I just wanted to pull this out and respond to it: My feeling as a DM is that it's my setting (especially since I'm homebrewing it) but what happens in the game is the PCs' story. I get ... twitchy, when I see people talking about the DM's story, whether they're a player or a DM or a designer. I also believe the best stories are the ones that emerge from play, and that people refer (especially in reference to D&D) to "storytelling games" or "collective storytelling" because there's no good single for word for "the story emerges through play."

I'll go now.
It can certainly be the PCs' story, but in the end it depends on the DM. Which is why I said that I adapt. The more agency I'm given, the better, but I can accept that I don't necessarily influence every part of the story. A PC, however, is always the player's property; it is, after all, the reason they're sitting in that table


ChaosJackal, what I'm hearing you say now is that you're totally fine with adopting an actor or author stance, but you object to anyone else including the DM adopting a director stance w/rt your PC especially for long-term consequences.

Stance, as I understand it, is about which player declares what about the game world and with what authority.

In author stance you manipulate a given character's internal state: what they notice, what they decide.

In director stance you manipulate external factors including other characters. For example, let's say I as a player am trying to sneak another PC into a carriage by creating a distraction, and I say, "I tell the guard he's ugly and incompetent, and start listing all the things he should be paying attention to that he's not, and then when he's getting really annoyed and is starting to insult me back, Dwindle sneaks into the carriage from the side while the guard is distracted." I had a picture in my head of an interaction, and I declared that whole interaction, which is great and saves time/preserves flow _if_ everybody agrees. But what happens if the person playing Dwindle or the person playing the guard see it happening differently? "That's not what I would do!" If no one else gets to object to my description of that interaction, and they just have to roll with it, that's director stance. D&D doesn't typically allow hardcore director stance for anyone but Dungeon Master, and even then PCs are sacrosanct and usually excluded except for things like "you miss" and "now you're paralyzed!"
Yeah, pretty much that. Arbitrary decisions affecting my character out of nowhere prevent me from playing the game the way I intended to play it. Sudden and inexplicable loss of class features is an extreme case of the above.

As I said, I'm confronting the DM over this if it seems it's being drawn out. But even if it isn't, I'm clarifying how the whole patron mechanic works, because I certainly don't want this to be a recurring theme whenever the DM needs dramatic tension or decides I need to pull punches.

[MaxWilson]

5e doesn't have anything specific regarding loss of abilities... But even if it isn't, I'm clarifying how the whole patron mechanic works, because I certainly don't want this to be a recurring theme whenever the DM needs dramatic tension or decides I need to pull punches.

The whole pact thing is frustratingly vague by design, but I don't like that design choice. It's good for maximizing market share by being inclusive of every conceivable pact-inspired character concept, but it can lead to frustrating experiences when two people interpret the ambiguity differently and one is the DM.

What are the warlock's obligations? Consequences for not meeting them? What guarantees does he receive in the event of the patron's default or death/incapacitation? What are the mechanisms of power and how is it that a patron can grant abilities that the patron themself lacks, like Forcecage and True Polymorph? What communication mechanisms are in place, are they two-way, and should the warlock expect roleplaying interactions as well, e.g. to call upon other allies of the patron for aid, or be called upon in turn? Why are pact boons tied to earning XP (killing goblins, solving murders, etc.) instead of specific services to your patron--is the expectation that the DM will always find a rationalization that aligns the patron's goals with the party's goals in each adventure? What if the patron and the adventure just don't fit?

Nothing is clear about pacts except what powers you can receive, and if your DM jumps to different conclusions than you do about how the rest of the pact works, you're in for a rough experience. I don't feel like I do a good job DMing warlocks--I just wind up treating them as alt-wizards, for lack of a better option.

[SociopathFriend]

What I am is curious. What are your views on this? Your experiences? Would you play a character whose features have been disabled, and under what circumstances?

I personally have never tried doing that to my players. Maybe temporarily in a prison scenario but I wouldn't outright TRY to take their stuff and keep it gone.
The closest I came to that would be when another DM kinda played me into that situation.

For context the DM and myself had played a much higher-level campaign complete with tons of loot and so when another separate player established a guild- our characters went along.
The DM seems to like inviting my past character to show up and clearly loves doing so with his past character.

During Out of the Abyss he called upon my character, a Wizard that had very few rules about gaining power aside from keeping to his word (Lawful Neutral basically) for the party to solicit the Shield Guardian from.
I've never seen the actual module so I don't know how it works but the DM basically had you make an Intelligence check 3 times to simulate a Chess-like strategy game. Best 2 out of 3. Play for stakes and winner takes all.

The party threw their own Wizard at me and, given he was something of a smug player, I informed him the terms of the game were: Shield Guardian vs Spellbook.
I have never seen that DM so flustered- dude had to bite down on his own fist.

[MoiMagnus]

What I am is curious. What are your views on this? Your experiences? Would you play a character whose features have been disabled, and under what circumstances?

Is the DM still expecting "normal gameplay" from you?
I'd be very frustrated if the DM considers that the following sessions are "business as usual" with standard combat encounters, etc.
If we go full "narrative RPG" for the few sessions, I'd say why not.

At the end, it's all about "Do I, the player, feel punished for it having the 'bad idea' of selecting the warlock class?".
(Which is very different from "Do my character feel punished to have chosen to be a warlock?". When a character make a pact, you'd expect some unpleasant consequences for him. But when you're a player who select the warlock classes out of the standard PHB classes, you don't expect some unpleasant consequences for you.)

It's like when the DM uses part of your background to make special quests, if those special quests make you feel "I should not have chosen that in my background because I hate how the session is going", that's badly handled by the DM. Does that mean the DM should never use NPCs from your background against you? Obviously not, he must just ensures that when doing so the player has fun.

[MaxWilson]

It's like when the DM uses part of your background to make special quests, if those special quests make you feel "I should not have chosen that in my background because I hate how the session is going", that's badly handled by the DM. Does that mean the DM should never use NPCs from your background against you? Obviously not, he must just ensures that when doing so the player has fun.

Heh. "Knife Theory" seems relevant here: https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-L-9CvlTWhoADagJfSZO

When writing a character's back story, it's important to include a certain number of "knives". Knives are essentially anything that the DM can use to raise the stakes of a situation for your character. Anything that can make a conflict personal, like a threatened loved one or the appearance of a sudden enemy. They're called "knives" because the players lovingly forge them and present them to the DM so that the DM can use them to stab the player over and over again.

A key component here is that the players and the DM are both on the same page about how these backstory elements will be used.

[fbelanger]

It work well in movie. We see often the hero without its favorite tools, Marvel do it very well.
But the hero is alone, and still he can overcome the challenge he have to face.

Shutting down a single character while facing the usual challenge with the rest of the party don’t bring a lot of satisfying challenge.

[prabe]

It can certainly be the PCs' story, but in the end it depends on the DM. Which is why I said that I adapt. The more agency I'm given, the better, but I can accept that I don't necessarily influence every part of the story. A PC, however, is always the player's property; it is, after all, the reason they're sitting in that table.

Yeah. Different tables are different. I was just describing my own approach.

As to characters losing class abilities: I think it's something I'd only do as a DM as the result of a player choice, and only after talking with the player. There might be a short arc where the warlock has to find a new patron (and maybe end up with a different pact). I've had a thought in the back of my brain for a while about doing something vaguely similar with subclass abilities--but that was specifically connected to figuring out how to allow a PC to change subclasses. In no case would I do it unilaterally by surprise.

[ezekielraiden]

What I am is curious. What are your views on this? Your experiences? Would you play a character whose features have been disabled, and under what circumstances?
I have, thankfully, not been subjected to something like this, though I had a DM who could have done this if he wanted. Instead, he made it a much more interesting situation: the character in question was from an artificially-created servitor race (used mostly as warriors, heavy-laborers, and engineers) whose creators were...very strict with their servitors. They had hard-coded into his species sensitivity to certain psionic signatures, primarily carried through carefully-constructed sound waves. This could manifest both beneficially (they would literally become stronger and healthier when exposed to their race's "hymns") and detrimentally (they could force their soldiers to behave, more or less, as desired). This manifested during a fight where the ambient effect meant that my character was treated as marked by all of his allies. Meaning that if he didn't attack one of them, he would suffer a -2 to hit, and take some psychic damage. It was a brilliant scene that really hammered home how domineering the creators were, and I was super on board. It led to very interesting future stories, too.

What I would not be on board for is the very sudden de-powering of a character in the way you described: spontaneous, apparently complete, unpreventable, and seemingly irreversible. If it were discussed in advance ( = not spontaneous), partial or progressing over time ( = incomplete, at least initially), the result of a meaningful failure on the character's part ( = preventable), or with a clear means to fix it ( = reversible), I could probably go along with it. I'd even say that that's the order of preference as to this kind of thing: tell me in advance and I'm most likely to be on board (especially since it gives me a chance to ask for the latter three things); make it only partial or progressing with time and it will feel like a problem to solve rather than a millstone to wear. If it results from my own foolish actions, well, that's a least somewhat on me (though let's avoid catch-22 BS), and if it's at least reversible then I can at least try to do something about it. But that brings me to...


It's an excercise in trust in the DM. <snip> The trouble is that under normal circumstances a character drives their own development, the player makes the choices. For this to be a good move, the DM has to let any plot change be more rewarding to the player than anything they could instigate themselves.
Normally, I'm a big skeptic when it comes to "trust your DM" arguments, but...yeah, this is appropriate here. I guess the problem for me is that if a DM sprung this on me out of the blue, I would see it as a breach of trust to begin with? It's hard to spontaneously pony up a lot of trust when you haven't been prepared for it. I don't often play with close friends (other than the game I run, where "trust the DM" isn't a concern for me there, is it?), so I don't usually have the background trust that some D&D players presume is always present.


My advice would be to see if your character can recall tales of other patrons being killed and what happened to their warlocks. If the DM has some answers they are itching to give you then it is a sign they have thought through the possibilities and it's intended to be a prelude to awesome. If there isnt an answer, or its evasive or shallow then the DM probably hasn't given it enough thought and is just screwing with you.
Good advice, though do be careful with the latter. Although I like to have plans, sometimes I have to fly by the seat of my pants when I DM. If a player had asked me (for example) to sing the Song of Thorns (a mimetic virus/powerful spirit of savagery that is also a song/poem) for them when the party first encountered a little snippet of it, I would have had to give an evasive or shallow answer. After that session, though, it became a top priority for me to write the song itself, which I have done so. (I'm now working with the party Bard to write a new "final verse" of the song, as part of an effort to kill/neuter the Song as a spirit--symbolic power is very important for the spirit world, so a Bard developing a "terminating" verse will be a very powerful weapon for the upcoming fight.)


I have similar views. And odds are that within a few sessions I'll be OK.
That's good to hear.


It's just that I don't like my agency in the game removed.
That, however, is not--and is exactly the problem I have. Player agency is extremely important, it's one of the pillars of being able to make reasonably informed decisions and respond to their consequences. (Agency, information, feedback, and re-evaluation are the four pillars thereof. Their antitheses are fiat, fudging, black-boxing, and excessive/arbitrary finality--be it lethality, effective or actual irreversibility, holding the game hostage, whatever.)


I'm generally curious to see how similar situations have played out for others, and how they view it in general. Maybe some people would never want anything to do with such a game, agreement or no agreement; still, others might roll with the punches and even multiclass or replace class levels if needed (something that I definitely wouldn't do, if temporarily taking away my agency is annoying, flat out telling me, multiple sessions in, that I cannot play my character the way I intended to, I'm very much out of that table by the end of the session).
I feel you on all of those. As noted above, when de-powering occurs in a game, I want it to be an inciting incident, not pumping the brakes on my character. That way, the four aforementioned pillars are preserved, and it becomes a process or unfolding story, rather than an absolute state change.

[BurgerBeast]

I think it’d be worth knowing exactly what the mechanical effects are going to be on your character. Are you going to be just a Hexblade who has lost all of his class abilities? Etc.

I could see myself doing something like this, as a DM, purely for story, and having no mechanical effect (my patron is gone but I still have all my powers... what’s going on?); or telling the character you get to keep all current levels of Hexblade but can no longer progress (or perhaps progress if you take on a different hexblade patron). Or you have to take a different (i.e. non-Hexblade) patron but you’ll get to keep your levels so you effectively just change subclass.

I just think it would suck to lose abilities permanently with no compensation, and be blindsided by it. As any of these factors is mitigated or eliminated, and as trust in the DM increases, they become less and less problematic.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah. Different tables are different. I was just describing my own approach.

As to characters losing class abilities: I think it's something I'd only do as a DM as the result of a player choice, and only after talking with the player. There might be a short arc where the warlock has to find a new patron (and maybe end up with a different pact). I've had a thought in the back of my brain for a while about doing something vaguely similar with subclass abilities--but that was specifically connected to figuring out how to allow a PC to change subclasses. In no case would I do it unilaterally by surprise.

I can imagine doing it by surprise--not to warlocks, but to wizards for sure. That is, if I'm running a game where items are destructible (in order to let me hand out magic items more freely without flooding the world with magic) and a wizard fails to make a backup of his spellbook, and winds up eating a Fireball or something and rolls poorly on dice, then fwooosh! Potentially your clothes are all gone and so is that book you keep in your back pocket. Oh, you didn't have a backup? So sorry, too bad, guess you'll be spending a lot of time and gold on spell research.

Or you would count that as "not by surprise" since the hypothetical campaign in question is up-front about bringing item destruction front-and-center?

[MoiMagnus]

Or you would count that as "not by surprise" since the hypothetical campaign in question is up-front about bringing item destruction front-and-center?

As long as there is no misunderstanding, that's "not a surprise". (Ex of misunderstanding: "Yeah, sure, item are destructible, but not all items are equals and I assumed it was obvious and implicit that it didn't included my spell book because that's essential to my class's gameplay." -> that player probably would not have chosen wizard at all if he realised that his spell book was destructible)

Though if you specifically crafted a scenario where NPCs tracked and secretly got rid of all the back-ups before explicitly targeting the PC's spell book, I'd say that would still count as "you should ask your player first".

[Illven]

Yeah, Warlock's don't lose their powers if their patron's die by RAW, so I'd ask the dm what's up. Since they're using a house rule without clearing it with the players first.

[DwarfDM]

I've done this before as a DM, it was in Out of the Abyss where the players start as prisoners, so of course they don't have their gear and spells. But it only lasted one session, and at the end of it, they broke free and escaped with all their stuff. I can see the players thought it was fun to be in a vulnerable situation like this, but surely not all the time. If your character is neutered for long periods, it wouldn't be fun at all. Nobody likes feeling weak and helpless for too long.

If I were you, I'd definitely argue with the DM. Lots of DM make the mistake of thinking that the warlock's relationship with the patron is similar to Clerics with their god, but its not. By RAW and RAI, warlocks still retain their powers even if the Patron ceases to exist. Their power doesn't come from the devotion or worship of their Patron, so they should keep their powers, though might not be able to gain more (level up).

Either way, a warlock's pact shouldn't be used as a tool to screw the players over.

I dit the same thing in Out of the Abyss. Only my players chose escape over retrieving their gear. (no wizard so no spellbook). They spent most of the next session thinking of ways to create their own makeshift gear. It was fun and a good roleplaying session.


I would advise to talk to your DM. Ask him out of session what is happening. Because if it is 100% out of your hands that your patron died/your pact is broken, the solution should also be presenten by the DM and clearly visible to your character.

[prabe]

I can imagine doing it by surprise--not to warlocks, but to wizards for sure. That is, if I'm running a game where items are destructible (in order to let me hand out magic items more freely without flooding the world with magic) and a wizard fails to make a backup of his spellbook, and winds up eating a Fireball or something and rolls poorly on dice, then fwooosh! Potentially your clothes are all gone and so is that book you keep in your back pocket. Oh, you didn't have a backup? So sorry, too bad, guess you'll be spending a lot of time and gold on spell research.

Or you would count that as "not by surprise" since the hypothetical campaign in question is up-front about bringing item destruction front-and-center?

To be clear, I was thinking about more conventional games of 5E, but I wouldn't count your hypothetical as "surprise" if destruction of items was on the table; I wouldn't count it as "taking away the PC's ability/abilities" because I think of a spellbook as a thing, not an ability. Sure, the wizard is kinda hosed, but I think the possibility of losing a spellbook is supposed to be a balancing feature on the wizard, anyway. I mean, in 5E (IIRC) the wizard can still cast the spells they have prepared, they just can't change their spells out without a spellbook.

[MaxWilson]

To be clear, I was thinking about more conventional games of 5E, but I wouldn't count your hypothetical as "surprise" if destruction of items was on the table; I wouldn't count it as "taking away the PC's ability/abilities" because I think of a spellbook as a thing, not an ability. Sure, the wizard is kinda hosed, but I think the possibility of losing a spellbook is supposed to be a balancing feature on the wizard, anyway. I mean, in 5E (IIRC) the wizard can still cast the spells they have prepared, they just can't change their spells out without a spellbook.

I'm inclined to agree about spellbooks being "things" not abilities, but note that:

(1) You're still losing something you spent build "picks" on (2 spells per level-up, and even though you can recreate a spellbook for the ones you have currently prepared, you won't have them all prepared when you lose the book so you will lose some), and

(2) The OP specifically calls out spell books as something whose loss they consider a loss of a class feature, akin to losing a patron. There are definitely people out there who consider spellbooks as much a part of the wizard as the OP considers the patron a part of the warlock.

[prabe]

I'm inclined to agree about spellbooks being "things" not abilities, but note that:

(1) You're still losing something you spent build "picks" on (2 spells per level-up, and even though you can recreate a spellbook for the ones you have currently prepared, you won't have them all prepared when you lose the book so you will lose some), and

(2) The OP specifically calls out spell books as something whose loss they consider a loss of a class feature, akin to losing a patron. There are definitely people out there who consider spellbooks as much a part of the wizard as the OP considers the patron a part of the warlock.

I can see that (seeing spellbooks as a feature) but I go back to 1e, and I remember playing wizards and worrying about their spellbooks. Also, there was the bit about making the possibility clear at the outset of the campaign. I think if I were thinking about having someone/something steal a wizard's spellbook in either of the 5E campaigns I'm running (where I haven't made it clear that spellbooks might come under threat) I'd talk to the player first, and I'd anticipate it being a short arc.

I think we aren't particularly disagreeing with each other, and I think we're both seeing and understanding the other side. Amazing how that can happen with reasonable people. :biggrin:

[Sigreid]

Ok, I've done the take away the spell book thing a few times for a very short duration. Basically a plot hook to put a big red arrow on where I wanted the players to look for adventure. Except for one time when to introduce a new player I got her to have her thief steal the wizard's spellbook (they were best friends in real life, everything was resolved pretty quickly, it was fine).

For fallen paladins, I have always followed the old rule of giving a warning about alignment changing activities (this feels wrong) and never have done the no win situation.

When I read the PHB description of a warlock, it seems to me it's says that the patron awakens the spark of power within the warlock, not that they draw their power from the patron. So my ruling as a DM would be that the warlock keeps their power and is free. Though that one invocation that lets you speak to your patron wouldn't work anymore for obvious reasons.

[prabe]

Ok, I've done the take away the spell book thing a few times for a very short duration. Basically a plot hook to put a big red arrow on where I wanted the players to look for adventure. Except for one time when to introduce a new player I got her to have her thief steal the wizard's spellbook (they were best friends in real life, everything was resolved pretty quickly, it was fine).

For fallen paladins, I have always followed the old rule of giving a warning about alignment changing activities (this feels wrong) and never have done the no win situation.

When I read the PHB description of a warlock, it seems to me it's says that the patron awakens the spark of power within the warlock, not that they draw their power from the patron. So my ruling as a DM would be that the warlock keeps their power and is free. Though that one invocation that lets you speak to your patron wouldn't work anymore for obvious reasons.

The way I read it, the warlock has made contact with something and made something like a deal. I personally don't think it's against the spirit of things for the warlock to lose access to some things if they renege on the deal, but I'd prefer that to be a consequence of player choice--not a "cinematic moment" as the OP describes.

[MaxWilson]

I can see that (seeing spellbooks as a feature) but I go back to 1e, and I remember playing wizards and worrying about their spellbooks. Also, there was the bit about making the possibility clear at the outset of the campaign. I think if I were thinking about having someone/something steal a wizard's spellbook in either of the 5E campaigns I'm running (where I haven't made it clear that spellbooks might come under threat) I'd talk to the player first, and I'd anticipate it being a short arc.

I think we aren't particularly disagreeing with each other, and I think we're both seeing and understanding the other side. Amazing how that can happen with reasonable people. :biggrin:

I agree, we're not disagreeing. If anything I'm griping a little bit about WotC's design--I too prefer the AD&D model where you have to find all of your spells in play, and finding a spell like Simulacrum or Wish is the wizardly equivalent of finding a Vorpal Sword or Holy Avenger. I don't like it when spellbooks are even a little bit class features instead of equipment.

[Sigreid]

The way I read it, the warlock has made contact with something and made something like a deal. I personally don't think it's against the spirit of things for the warlock to lose access to some things if they renege on the deal, but I'd prefer that to be a consequence of player choice--not a "cinematic moment" as the OP describes.

I can agree on the last part of your statement whole heartedly. I think that's a jerk move. I also think more than likely what it's really about is the DM just wanting to get rid of the hexblade subclass. Or maybe he would have murdered the cleric's god too. /shrug

Edit: I suppose this could also be a very short term trick. The patron faked their own destruction, etc.

[prabe]

I agree, we're not disagreeing. If anything I'm griping a little bit about WotC's design--I too prefer the AD&D model where you have to find all of your spells in play, and finding a spell like Simulacrum or Wish is the wizardly equivalent of finding a Vorpal Sword or Holy Avenger. I don't like it when spellbooks are even a little bit class features instead of equipment.

I'm torn. As a player, I don't completely detest that wizards get some input into the spells that go into their spellbooks, considering the other spellcasting classes get total choice; I am less than thrilled as a DM that PC wizards get exactly the spells they want, considering that finding other spells is supposed to be one of the prime motivations for adventuring wizards. I'm happy as both a player and a DM not to have to save for all of a character's possessions on a failed save against something like a fireball (that's a lot of bookkeeping for not a lot of fun, IMO) but that's a different issue entirely.

[prabe]

I can agree on the last part of your statement whole heartedly. I think that's a jerk move. I also think more than likely what it's really about is the DM just wanting to get rid of the hexblade subclass. Or maybe he would have murdered the cleric's god too. /shrug

Edit: I suppose this could also be a very short term trick. The patron faked their own destruction, etc.

One can hope it's a short-term thing. I'd still prefer to get the player on-board with it before doing it, but that connects to my seeing the game as belonging more to the PCs (and thereby the players) than to anything of mine as the DM.

[Sigreid]

One can hope it's a short-term thing. I'd still prefer to get the player on-board with it before doing it, but that connects to my seeing the game as belonging more to the PCs (and thereby the players) than to anything of mine as the DM.

I'm a bit more forgiving on that as I think part of the challenge for the game is not knowing what to prepare for specifically. Though if I were playing with new players I might would mention that I don't hold equipment and such as sacred and not to be touched/destroyed/taken away up front. But then I'm pretty old school.

[MoiMagnus]

I'm inclined to agree about spellbooks being "things" not abilities, but note that:

(1) You're still losing something you spent build "picks" on (2 spells per level-up, and even though you can recreate a spellbook for the ones you have currently prepared, you won't have them all prepared when you lose the book so you will lose some), and

(2) The OP specifically calls out spell books as something whose loss they consider a loss of a class feature, akin to losing a patron. There are definitely people out there who consider spellbooks as much a part of the wizard as the OP considers the patron a part of the warlock.

I think it depends a lot on how the DMs handle getting new spells for the wizard.

A player who barely has any additional spell compared to those he gets by level up will be much more defensive on his spellbook and will consider it as a class feature (because it de facto is) than a player who knows he will quickly loot some spellbooks with a variety of spells in them from spell he previously had to spells he never planed to learn, hence consider his spellbook as a magic item that can be looted and lost (because it de facto is).
[Also depends on worldbuilding: Is there some mage organisation that sells spells and/or spellbooks? Maybe against some favours rather than money?]

[prabe]

I'm a bit more forgiving on that as I think part of the challenge for the game is not knowing what to prepare for specifically. Though if I were playing with new players I might would mention that I don't hold equipment and such as sacred and not to be touched/destroyed/taken away up front. But then I'm pretty old school.

Yeah. "Getting on-board" can be by making it clear at the beginning of the campaign that spellbooks (for example) are things and might be stolen and/or destroyed (or in a long-term group, just by being how you play). It can also be by talking to the player before destroying their warlock's patron and nuking their class abilities (if that's how the DM reads the class) so they know it's either a short-term thing or that they need to ponder rebuilding or retiring the character.

[Sigreid]

I think it depends a lot on how the DMs handle getting new spells for the wizard.

A player who barely has any additional spell compared to those he gets by level up will be much more defensive on his spellbook and will consider it as a class feature (because it de facto is) than a player who knows he will quickly loot some spellbooks with a variety of spells in them from spell he previously had to spells he never planed to learn, hence consider his spellbook as a magic item that can be looted and lost (because it de facto is).
[Also depends on worldbuilding: Is there some mage organisation that sells spells and/or spellbooks? Maybe against some favours rather than money?]

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a wizard, a few levels in when he's starting to get some extra money, to invest in a little spellbook redundancy.

[prabe]

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a wizard, a few levels in when he's starting to get some extra money, to invest in a little spellbook redundancy.

It wouldn't be, if the wizard were actually finding that extra money. The 5E campaign I'm playing in, the wizard isn't even really getting enough money to copy the spells she wants from captured spellbooks into her own, once. Making a backup is a pipe dream.

Not that she's finding many other spellbooks with spells she's interested in, of course, because she's not interested in being the only kind of wizard the DM can imagine.

I'll stop grumbling now.

[Chaos Jackal]

A wizard's spellbook is a weird thing. It is, in many ways, a feature, but it's also an item. Items can be stolen or destroyed. In this case, the potential to lose it is even part of the feature in a way, as well as something you can and often should prepare for.

And even though I've never had a DM even attempt to take a wizard's spellbook, I always keep backup spellbooks (or other defenses if available, like Secluded Grimoire in PF), just in case but also because it makes sense from a character point of view. I mean, you're the super smart person who has catalogued their most important knowledge and the main source of their power into a book or whatever it is that you're using, but you've taken no precautions against it being stolen or taken away from you? No backups? Magical defenses? Hidden pockets? A string tied around your wrist? Nothing? What are you doing with all that Int?

Then again, my spellcasters have extra foci or component pouches, my martials always have a backup weapon, and all of my characters have daggers hidden in their boots or in wrist sheaths or in hidden pockets. Even if it typically ends up being just for flavor; as I said, my DMs haven't been the item-stealing types.

So, having a professional thief attempt to take a wizard's spellbook is fine, as long as the DM hasn't promised beforehand that a player's items aren't in danger. It's up to the wizard to protect the spellbook. But having the spellbook stolen without the thief rolling Stealth or Sleight of Hand or something, without the wizard getting to use their own or their familiar's perception, or just declaring that the spellbook spontaneously combusts or something... yeah, that's not OK.

In a situation like the one MaxWilson described, for example, it's simply a matter of laying it before the players at the start of the game. "Spells or very damaging attacks etc. might cause damage to your clothes and items. Ignore the restriction for worn or carried items in fireball and other similar spells, they can very much ruin your stuff.". If, after that, you don't start making a backup spellbook or commission a fireproof/waterproof case or something, you can't really blame the DM for fireballing you. But if you play with the standard assumption many players have, namely that their items are typically safe from area spells or sundering attempts, then in one fight you roll a 1 on your Dex save and the DM tells you your spellbook was burnt to a crisp... yeah, not OK.

[Sigreid]

It wouldn't be, if the wizard were actually finding that extra money. The 5E campaign I'm playing in, the wizard isn't even really getting enough money to copy the spells she wants from captured spellbooks into her own, once. Making a backup is a pipe dream.

Not that she's finding many other spellbooks with spells she's interested in, of course, because she's not interested in being the only kind of wizard the DM can imagine.

I'll stop grumbling now.

That's a couple of different issues you're citing there. :smallsmile:

[prabe]

That's a couple of different issues you're citing there. :smallsmile:

Yes. I continue playing in the campaign because 1) I don't want to just DM and 2) I like the other players a lot.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Backpacks are made from leather or heavy canvas, and should be resistant to fire dangers as well as water. Wizards don't need to carry their spellbook out in the open or reference it while casting their spells, it should be kept wrapped in an oiled (and thus waterproof) cloth and then wrapped in your bedroll (insulating it from heat) and tucked safely inside your backpack. So unless you get a random encounter while you're preparing your spells or adding a new one, there's almost never any risk of it being damaged. Even the suggestion that getting hit by a fireball could cause it to be burned is absurd and ignorant at best, but more likely willfully malicious on the DM's part.

[Sigreid]

2) I like the other players a lot.

This right here is the single largest determiner as to whether the game is worth playing. A game that is pretty bad in every other way can be fantastic if you have the right people with you.

[Zarrgon]

As a DM I love to do this. To weaken a character can make for great role playing. However, it's not the sort of thing that is just done at the roll of the dice. Occasionally a player will ask for it or we will work through the idea together; but most of the time I simply do it on my own.

With a couple Caveats:

*I have to have known the player at least six mouths or so as a player in my game (assuming at least one game a week).

*I have to have a good read on the player and their playstlye that they might be open to such an event, even without them saying so.

*The player must pass a 'test' where they loose something for just a short time and don't get mad or freak out or worse.

If all the above works out, then I might throw a good ''loss of power" story arc at the character. Though I am firm on the point that the Arc is NOT "lets derail the whole game just to get your character's power back", I make it somewhat easy for the character to find a ''backup power" and have a path for the character to regain their power.

Though if the player does intentionally and deliberately does something to loose power, then I do run with it.

As a Player I don't like it at all, mostly as all the above is not followed by other DMs.

Once upon a Time I joined a 5E game with a Warlock. All of 30 minutes into the game and my patron died 'somehow'. So my character was near powerless. All the other players were like "oh don't worry the DM likes to do the take away power plot, you will get it back." Though as the game went on I did not have much to do. And the DM refused to even talk to me about it as he was "only focused on the adventure". I did not bother to go back to that game.

[prabe]

This right here is the single largest determiner as to whether the game is worth playing. A game that is pretty bad in every other way can be fantastic if you have the right people with you.

One of the other players is my wife, so she probably skews the average, but it's a good group. I've come to the conclusion that the table is the most important thing.

That said, a bad GM can drag a table down, too.

[prabe]

Backpacks are made from leather or heavy canvas, and should be resistant to fire dangers as well as water. Wizards don't need to carry their spellbook out in the open or reference it while casting their spells, it should be kept wrapped in an oiled (and thus waterproof) cloth and then wrapped in your bedroll (insulating it from heat) and tucked safely inside your backpack. So unless you get a random encounter while you're preparing your spells or adding a new one, there's almost never any risk of it being damaged. Even the suggestion that getting hit by a fireball could cause it to be burned is absurd and ignorant at best, but more likely willfully malicious on the DM's part.

The way I remember the guy who DMed the last 1E (when fireballs specifically set stuff on fire) campaign I played in handled it was that the PC had a save, and if they saved all their stuff was safe; anything carried loose needed to save, and containers saved; only if a container failed a save after a PC failed a save did anything inside that container need to save.

In 5E, I don't necessarily think that failing a save against a fireball should destroy a spellbook in the wizard's backpack, but I am in principle willing to have the spellbook be a thing that can be stolen or destroyed. I would be reluctant to do it in the campaigns I'm running, because I haven't made the possibility clear to the players playing wizards, but that's more about keeping expectations on the same page than anything else.

[Throne12]

I dont know if any1 said this but your a warlock if your patron is killed you still have all your warlock abilities you just lose your spells. Look in the phb the first page of the warlock. Under the bold text "SWORN AND BEHOLDEN" the magic bestowed on a warlock ranges from minor but LASTING alterations to the war lock's being (such as the ability to see in darkness or to read any language) to access to powerful spells. Unlike bookish wizards warlock supplement their magic with some facility at hand-to-hand combat. They are comfortable in light armor and know how to use simple weapons.

So after reading this you should still be able use everything that's not spells higher then cantrips and patron abilities. So you still have your invocations, cantrips, pact boon, mystic arcanum.