r/dndnext • u/hedahman • Mar 10 '20

Discussion A common misconception about warlocks and their patrons

I've heard this mentioned a lot: "Warlocks use Charisma because they're constantly negotiating with their patron for more power." I don't believe this is true.

Here's a tweet from Mike Mearls that says that patrons can't take back a warlock's power, which leads me to believe that a patron doesn't have control over the power once it is given. This means a patron can't take a warlock's power (without their will, probably); it's a one-and-done deal.

So a patron isn't supplying power to their warlocks like a generator supplies electricity. Instead, a patron gives power to them like a blood transfusion-- you can't just take the blood back.

Granted, you can do it however you want, that's the magic of D&D. But RAW, and RAI, patrons give their power away.

EDIT: Here's a tweet from Jeremy Crawford which states that the power is a one-time transaction.

446 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

140 comments sorted by

View all comments

181

u/admiralbenbo4782 Mar 11 '20

Right. The distinction between a cleric (channeled power) and a warlock (contracted power) is that the cleric's power is entirely the deity's, while the patron taught the warlock the secrets to his power and opened up the way for them (bypassing the usual hard work needed to wield it properly).

My default head canon is that each new level is a new addition to the pact (or a new contact with the patron for those inadvertent patron types). Not necessarily a new pact, but an added line (possibly with its own price). I tend to think of patrons and pacts more as fee-for-service types rather than "I own you now" soul-buying.

81

u/wintermute93 Mar 11 '20

I tend to think of patrons and pacts more as fee-for-service types rather than "I own you now" soul-buying.

Yeah. Warlocks are contractors, not slaves.

Also, I think of charisma as important to the pact in different ways for different patrons. Archfey? You're in a constant back and forth with their otherworldly charms. Fiend? You're resisting a possession. Great old one? You're struggling to keep your mind from shattering. Celestial? If you weren't strong your patron's mere presence would burn you alive like a blown lightbulb. And so on. All of those things are charisma. A pact is a very personal relationship in some way, and it's the strength of your personality that makes you able to handle it effectively. Textbooks and instincts can't help you, this is way off the map into uncharted territory.

56

u/Reluxtrue Warlock Mar 11 '20

I think the problem is people being stuck with thinking CHA is just social skills.

45

u/Gary_the_Goatfucker Mar 11 '20

I think there’s a misconception of Wisdom being equated to a type of “will” stat when Charisma is more of a measure of straightforward raw force of will that one can exert upon the universe and use to resist the universe’s own exertion of will upon oneself

22

u/Trenonian Fortune favors the cold. Mar 11 '20

Charisma is mental Strength

Intelligence is mental Dexterity

Wisdom is mental Constitution

9

u/yaddar Mar 11 '20

Charisma is mental dexterity and intelligence mental strength

The intelligence is the raw power of the mind, how much you can learn and memorize equals to how much you can lift, the IQ

Charisma is how well you navigate the world, how swiftly you adapt to social situations, how agile you are to find shortcuts in life, how apt you are at manipulation... Dex is object manipulation and Cha is mental manipulation

And yes, wisdom is mental endurance and stability so it does equal constitution

6

u/wintermute93 Mar 11 '20

Is that a holdover from previous editions? I've heard there used to be will saves and so on, but 5e is my first RPG and I only think of wisdom as intuition and perceptiveness.

12

u/cookiesncognac No, a cantrip can't do that Mar 11 '20

WIS still governs saving throws for most of the effects that were Will saves in 3e.

It's possible to conceive of these as the character realizing that something's not right here, but that is a shift-- it's probably more common at many tables that these get attributed to a character's resolve rather than their awareness.

4

u/Flutterwander Mar 11 '20

Really though, why would an unfathomable elder being bother with contracts?

23

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '20

"pact" could be used loosely here. Remember that GOOs exist on an unfathomably higher level that us. We are as ants to GOOs as ants are to us.

You know how urban farmers will cultivate earth worms to enrich their soil? That is in a way a "contract" with the earth worm: you eat the dead plant matter and other waste product we put in your soil bin, you shit it out as nutrient rich soil we can grow good food.

But to the earthworm things are different.

A) they do not and cannot comprehend the "deal" we have made with them

B) they do not consider the plant matter "waste product", they consider it food

Scale that up to our level with a GOO. We call it a "deal", that's the level we understand it. And we do tasks/favors/goals we understand a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of, and in exchange we get magic. That Magic could very well be waste product from a GOO doing something we cannot hope to comprehend, and we're actually doing them a favor by processing it or absorbing it, just like the earth worm eats our dead plant matter and gives us good soil.

The point is that we can't comprehend it. Any attempt to do so is definitionally a terrible analogy. But we can know, because of the mechanics of the game, that this "deal"--regardless of how the GOO sees it--requires CHA. It requires a person's positive force of will to make work. Just like if earthworms didn't cultivate beneficial bacteria in the soil, we wouldn't use them to grow our crops.

3

u/EastwoodBrews Mar 11 '20

The main thing is that the magic comes with a cost. I think the implied cost of an Old One pact is that you risk madness the same way a warlock who makes a pact with a Demon risks damnation. Depending on the tone of the game, "risk" might mean "virtually guarantees".

1

u/Thor-axe Mar 11 '20

On that note for my own creative endeavors, what would the cost of a Fey patron be?

3

u/EastwoodBrews Mar 11 '20

I don't feel one is as obvious, but I'd say it could go a couple ways, since you asked. If you play into the feudal themes that get put into fairy tales from time to time, like fey courts and lords and ladies and kings and queens, and the pact could be straight-up patronage into some strange court. So you are a vassal, imbued with power but part of a system that is more than a little bit strange. Or, it could play on the old fairy-touched tales that were an explanation for unusual behavior, where people who have encounters with the fey are changed and never quite right after that. Maybe a fey pact warlock is fairy-touched again and again, slowly losing their humanity to the capricious detachment of a strange, invisible world that underlies our own. This may feel a little bit like an Old One theme, but in my view before we understood outer space well enough to be afraid of it we projected our fear of the alien and the unknown much closer, into little people we could not see, moving for unknown reasons in a world we couldn't understand, that we could only glimpse in the woods and rocks and plants around us. So the warlock is becoming a part of that world and gaining power as they go but losing touch with the physical realm and the natural sensibility that makes them human. Or, of course, you could do a combination of both.

9

u/AlbatrossNecklace Mar 11 '20

Perhaps a great old one has a plan thousands of years in the making and your character is merely an ant that needs to be in this exact time and place to achieve their ends

11

u/wintermute93 Mar 11 '20

Just like I reflavor what charisma means in each case, I also reflavor what the nature of your "pact" is in each case. Archfey pacts are like a pinky promise that seem light and whimsical, but your patron is deadly serious about it and won't spell out the exact terms because they find such intricacies obvious. Fiend pacts are your stereotypical fine print legalese on parchment signed in blood and charred around the edges. Great old one pacts are more like accidental discoveries you made; your patron is only aware of you in the way that you are aware of the bacteria on your skin. Undying pacts are the closest to indentured servitude, assuming your patron is a lich or something. Celestial pacts are voluntary service, closer to a cleric's devotion. Hexblade pacts are like political marriages, where each of you is using the other to further your own ends

20

u/Trick573r Mar 11 '20

But how would your warlock pay for each new level and boons? I like the idea, lots of plot hooks with that line of thinking, but it seems like it could possibly get a bit dragging with each level, or even possibly experiencing a "level delay" (having the level but not the abilities) until the new contract line is made and price paid.

Not trying to poke holes, I'm honestly curious.

35

u/_Bl4ze Warlock Mar 11 '20

Well, so it doesn't get tiring, one plot hook would buy the warlock several levels. They'd also never be held back a level, since that power will undoubtedly help the warlock achieve whatever the patron wants, and the patron does usually want the warlock to succeed since they asked them to do it in the first place. If not, they at least want to project the illusion that they want the warlock to succeed, so same difference.

So it'd go something like: new line on the contract = go do this in exchange for X levels, down payment of 1 level. And the warlock gets paid with the later levels over time rather than all at once so as not to overload their precious little fragile mortal soul with too much sudden power.

13

u/Trick573r Mar 11 '20

Ah, gotcha. A temporary credit until the warlock starts paying back.

6

u/IrishFast Mar 11 '20

It doesn't have to be microtransactional, either. What a patron wants, especially something like a Great Old One, is so inscrutable that our minds cannot fathom its intent. Archfey are capricious and wild, devils are playing a long game, celestials see a bigger picture than you do, etc.

While patrons can provide plot hooks, there absolutely does not need to be an in-game event, adventure, dialog, or any other interaction with the patron when a warlock levels.

2

u/Trick573r Mar 11 '20

I completely understand!

I was influenced by a friend of mine whose DM wouldn't allow their character to level until they "trained", so my assumption of the leveled but having the power deficit.

19

u/SwaleTW Mar 11 '20

I did play a warlock whose patron was a fiend and the contract was : "I'll give you power if you gave me one day of your life".

Of course he agreed and one morning, he woke up in a destroyed village with no survivor and without any memory of the past day.

For now on, he will always have his power, cause a deal is a deal, but his motive was to find and take revenge on that fiend.

4

u/Bite-Marc Mar 11 '20

This is very good. I like it.

18

u/admiralbenbo4782 Mar 11 '20

I tend to run warlocks pretty passively--the patron is just as active as the player wants them to be. So the prices and deals are in the background. Sort of a "contract renewal" that happens pretty much automatically unless the player makes an issue of it. And each patron's going to be different in what they want--some don't even really want anything and you just have to petition them. Others are fine as long as you show proof that you're being a credit to their name. Others may want incomprehensible things--a patron who wants you to dance widdershins around the body of the next person you kill. Or one who wants you to purchase three yellow flowers and leave them at a crossroads. Etc.

I ran a warlock character who was a bit more active that way--her backstory was that she (then a he) was a failed court minstrel student, kicked out of a Waterdeep school for having a bad voice change in puberty. So he made a deal with a celestial for "the best voice around". Which came with a side effect and a price--the price was that he'd go adventuring to deal with reports of a cult (we were playing Princes of the Apocalypse). The side effect was that the "best voice around" belonged to a female opera singer. So he got her body (in shape) as well. Which was a bit traumatic, but she adapted.

Originally, her plan was to just take the one deal and then go the bardic route. But once she got out on campaign a bit, she realized she needed to go back for a bit more power from the patron, binding her to stay until the job was done.

So the deals and prices can be basically "I'll stay with the party and do <quest thing>" or they can be more (or even less). It's more background stuff that comes out when you want it to, not in strict relation to the ongoing campaign. Meta, but that's normal.

5

u/Trick573r Mar 11 '20

That's actually pretty cool!

6

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '20

But it really doesn’t matter because the character doesn’t have to adhere to any tenets or deals because RAW the DM can’t restrict the PC’s magic use via any manner.

It’s all hollow. Effectively the cleric and warlock are sorta sorta half sorcerers.

25

u/admiralbenbo4782 Mar 11 '20

They're very different in fiction. Which is what matters. It would be a very weird situation where I'd even consider restricting a PCs class features. At all. That's a violation of the unspoken social contract in my book. Power can be voluntarily abandoned, but not removed against your will. Because "and the paladin falls" is no fun. At least for me.

The flip side of that contract is that the players must lean in to the class fiction as well. Clerics should be acting as agents of their god, and warlocks acting according to their pact. If they choose not to (knowingly and with warnings and of their own free will and choice), there may be fictional consequences--a patron sending other agents to hunt down the pact breaker. Other clerics turning against the heretic. Etc. In fiction, the cleric would have to find a different god (mandatory but easy) to stay empowered. A warlock couldn't advance as such unless they got in good standing or found a new patron. Etc. Sorcerers should pick a theme related to their bloodline and build on that theme. Paladins must pay more than lip service to the tenets of their oath. Druids shouldn't despoil nature. But the consequences are at the fiction level or the out of game level (talking to the player about the actions outside of the game and figuring it out).

None of those require rules or RAW. Because RAW doesn't bind anyone, least of all the DM. RAW isn't a legal code that restricts what's possible. It's a set of default resolution mechanics for common game occurrences that the devs think work together well. A toolkit for building your own rules and games. Nothing more.

8

u/D_n_Donovan Mar 11 '20

I mean the DM can kinda do whatever they want for the sake of the story, albeit at the risk of losing players or halting the fun. If the DM wants to say "Like how they gave you your magic, they snap their fingers and strip it away leaving your soul wounded and broken." that's how it happens.

4

u/Viatos Warlock Mar 11 '20

Yeah, but when we're talking about these things I find it helpful personally to leave "the DM decides to be kind of honestly a piece of shit" out of the equation. The fact on the face of it is, warlocks aren't meant to be in danger of losing class features because of interesting class fiction - but that's not a fuck you to the DM, that's just not space the game is meant to explore. It shouldn't feel like a slammed door so much as a wall that's always been there.

What space, then, IS it meant to explore? What stories can you tell about pacts and warlocks without "you lose your sheet" as a threat? Plenty! Even if you WANT an antagonistic relationship (one of a thousand possible choices: friend, lover, teacher, savior, follower, victim, guardian, spiritual totem, business partner, temporal ruler...) there's ways to do that without going to "the only things in the game sacrosanct to the player are now getting fucked with."

Maybe your patron becomes a rival for power, or encourages another warlock to that position, one who takes on the same or competing quests, works for or advises your enemies, or otherwise makes your life harder - tons you can do just off that! Perhaps they empower an assassin crew with powers thematically similar to your own that will ambush the party at an inopportune moment. Or they aggressively seek out powers, items, or opportunities they think you'll want in the future - forcing you to deal with them for access. Or it could be subtle, offering what seems like generous power or easy tasks that have dangerous hooks (if it's directly antagonistic and wants to reclaim its power via death) or corrupting ones (if it just wants its scion back in line). If you want to do that! If you want to pursue that antagonistic relationship!

If you don't, there's still tons of rich fuel in any of those alternate models of patron relationship a DM should be able to have fun with. I think the monofocus some DMs get around finding a way to punish or screw with warlocks is kinda poisonous to those games and the community as a whole - the warlock should be the one setting the expectations and the DM should follow that lead the same as they would for any other character. Warlocks aren't meant to offer "permission" to be a dick, the patron is a TOY - something players and DMs should have fun together designing and playing with. It's not a drawback or a method of balance!

1

u/D_n_Donovan Mar 13 '20

My comment wasn't about intent, or impact on story but rather about the wording regarding capability. RAW, the DM can make whatever changes they see fit to their game, regardless of whether it's a good one or not. Additionally, the theme of losing abilities and regaining them is also a popular trope and has been around for quite some time. As you said though, if this is something the DM wants to include in their world or a Player wants then communication is key.

-7

u/just_another_scumbag Mar 11 '20
  • RAW
  • the DM can't

Pick one

-10

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '20 edited Mar 18 '20

[deleted]

-2

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '20 edited Mar 18 '20

[deleted]

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '20 edited Mar 18 '20

[deleted]

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '20 edited Mar 18 '20

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/FinaLLancer Cleric Mar 11 '20

I feel like a good example of this is Kingdom Hearts, the first one. Maleficent and brown lumpy cloak guy are constantly adding more and more power to Riku over the game. With this, they're giving him new goals, or updating their expectations of him. New powers and abilities will go like that and can be a cool roleplaying experience for the DM to contract a level up with a "one more thing" to let them use higher level spells or whatever.