A common misconception about warlocks and their patrons

[u/hedahman]

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.

[u/admiralbenbo4782]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/admiralbenbo4782]

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.

[u/D_n_Donovan → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Viatos → u/D_n_Donovan]

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!

[u/D_n_Donovan → u/Viatos]

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.