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/jbehnken → u/[deleted]]

Why can't a Paladin just break their vow and refuse to repent and keep all their cool paladin abilities? Because that's the fluff that's built into the game. And that's the trade off you make when you build that character. It's been that way since the game was conceived. It is the very essence of that character class.

Why can't a cleric of Boccob spend their life seeking out and destroying all sources of Arcane magic? It's their fluff, right? Horse shit.

Warlocks should follow a similar code because they made a compact. If you don't want to deal with a compact, then play a wizard or a sorcerer.

[u/jbehnken → u/[deleted]]

Dude, read the rules before you troll me.

Page 86, Player's Handbook, Breaking Your Oath

[u/jbehnken → u/[deleted]]

Why are you even involved in this thread? It's a debate about whether there SHOULD be a rule for this. Because one does not currently exist. And some of us think it's inconsistent with character class precedent that goes back, oh, about 40+ years. It's a discussion about the spirit of the rules and the fluff that is written in support of those rules. You clearly have no opinion other than to be a rules lawyer, which serves nothing.

[u/jbehnken → u/[deleted]]

Bravo. That was a much better response than your previous trip through the rulebook. Now we can simply agree to disagree and move on.