The Warlock doesn't make any literal sense. Their prime stat is Charisma, which makes perfect sense if they're petitioning their patron for their power. "Blood and souls for my lord Arioch!" But they don't petition their patron for their power, all they have to do is gain XP and level up and their patron will teach them more lore. But if they're lore-focused then Int should be their prime stat. You can't "force of personality" yourself smarter. I fear this is like Clerics and Gods. There's a really strong idea there; "clerics have a relationship with a divine power," "warlocks have a relationship with an otherworldly power" but the DevTeam were quick to run away from that. You can be a cleric without a god! You can be a warlock who's patron thinks you're a wanker! It's up to us as DMs to save the class' potential coolness from the watered-down, milquetoast lore the PHB gave us. Pact-burner warlocks for everyone!!
Warlocks suffer similarly to rangers where their niche isn't very protected. I'm experimenting combining them into a short-rest focused magic hunter that uses parts of creatures or mutations. Calling it the Chimera
I kinda wish Warlock’s were MORE different than other classes. Namely I wish that their spell save DC was not tied to a stat at all, their abilities come from a patron, not their strength of will. It does become difficult to figure out leveling, and it draws focus, but I like it. The other thing I like is constitution based warlocks, the idea that channeling the power of the patron as a physical conduit, it is physically hard.
The problem with the warlock, sorry I feel so strongly about this that I needed to make another comment, the problem with the warlock is that there is no Faustian bargain. The warlock doesn’t have to do anything to get their power. They don’t have to harvest souls, they don’t have to take any action. It’s us who have a literary bent who project onto the warlock the idea of this bargain. But there’s no bargain. The player just selects warlock as a class, and kills monsters like every other class, and levels up. We as dungeon Masters imagine that clerics have to please their God, warlocks make a bargain with their patron, but the rules don’t say anything like that.
Aaaaand, for me, that's part of the reason why certain players love to dip into Warlock... all gain with no drawbacks. Though, I have a slight disagreement that nothing is expected in return. The PHB is clear on that point with these lines: "A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being." and "The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron's behalf." There's a pact; there's a cost... though it's certainly not presented as a Faustian bargain, to be sure. It does state that the relationship is more as apprentice and master which supports what you are saying. I mean, due to the varied list of patrons (GOO, fiend, archefey...) it could be argued that a Faustian bargain is restrictively narrow; certainly from a narrative sense.
This seems like a bit of an issue with the abstraction of experience points. If, say the wizard had no real issue with level for learning spells, but had to spend time researching tomes or experimenting to grow. Or perhaps the cleric needed to literally do god's work for greater boons - or perhaps in response to dire situations. And maybe the warlock needed to sacrifice souls to the fiend for greater power. But..I suppose one could include this in play? like giving the wizard a tome right around level time - with the implication that there would be deeper secrets in it- or similar actions for other classes. This might leave the fighters a little in the dust, though.
I think the necessity of rules stating drawback to a Warlock might make it less appealing as a base class for players to pick from (thinking back to AD&D). Granted, as a DM, it totally is fun to add drama by giving certain plot elements to challenge the Warlock (equally to other party members).
I think the problem with warlocks highlights what I consider to be a core aspect of D&D: The game is flawed. The game tries to be a framework for an infinite number of worlds and game tables, this means that it will inevitably fail. As a DM I consider this death-of-the-author perspective to be very liberating because I find that I rarely want to play a game as the book prescribes it. I agree that warlocks should be more dependent on their patron but others might disagree, and if we assume the books are an imperfect foundation rather than law, we are both right. Every DM, and every adventuring party, will have their own worlds with their own stories and the books can't possibly cover them all. I agree that it would be great if Wizards of the Coast would fix a few things that I don't like about the game, but what I love about D&D and the community that surrounds it is that I don't have to wait and hope that the next edition will address my concerns. Instead I am free to talk with my players and connect with DMs from around the world in-order to write my own rules for warlock patrons or solve other problems that the designers couldn't have anticipated. I don't mean to say that we shouldn't express frustration with the game. I don't want to dismiss your concerns by telling you to solve the problem yourself. Instead I guess my point is just that nothing in the game should be set in stone. There is an amazing community surrounding this game and as long as you properly communicate with your players there is nothing wrong with incorporating new ideas that radically alter the experience.
In 5e, rules are suggestions. Classes are meant to be broadly applicable and cover a wide range of possible stories. Warlocks in particular are a broad idea that can't be nailed down to a single mechanic for EVERY individual Warlock. If you want the "Faustian bargain" you are expected and encouraged to make it for yourself in a way that makes sense for your character. I hate to repeat the party line about this, and of course I think WotC should give us something to work with, but I think it is better design to expect us to ADD things that we want to be part of our experience rather than REMOVE things that we don't.
That's super interesting. So does that mean.... oh man, does that mean that when Paladins break their oaths, they could become Warlocks? I really dig it!
@@MonarchsFactory 'Old English wærloga "traitor, liar, enemy, devil," from wær "faith, fidelity; a compact, agreement, covenant," from Proto-Germanic *wera- (source also of Old High German wara "truth," Old Norse varar "solemn promise, vow"), from PIE root *were-o- "true, trustworthy." Second element is an agent noun related to leogan "to lie" (see lie (v.1); and compare Old English wordloga "deceiver, liar"). 'Original primary sense seems to have been "oath-breaker;" given special application to the devil (c. 1000), but also used of giants and cannibals. Meaning "one in league with the devil" is recorded from c. 1300. Ending in -ck (1680s) and meaning "male equivalent of a witch" (1560s) are from Scottish.' www.etymonline.com/word/warlock
Was about to comment exactly this thing. Thank you for beating me to it. Because of this, one of the ways that I like flavoring warlocks in my game is that they are *already* stealing their powers: *that* is their heresy, their "oath-breaking". Like- they made a mutual pact, perhaps, but then they ran with it. Or the terms weren't clear, or they found a loophole and got one over on their "patron". While the patron is powerful enough to grant power, it is not powerful enough to sever the connection once forged. It means that the class stays as-is, but the patron functions simply as a powerful NPC - one who can be appeased, potentially, but who regards their warlock as a dangerous loose cannon at best and a mistake and adversary at worse. In this case, I really adore Charisma as the warlock stat- it implies they outwitted or out-lawyered this otherworldly entity - by accident or design - to take a part of their power and keep it.
6:50 funny note, in 5e Next, warlocks were originally intelligence based, which is probably why a lot of their mentions talk about them being researchers and whatnot. It was changed to charisma based on player feedback. At my tables though I let players make warlocks int or cha based (locked in once chosen.)
Your call is a really good way to handle it! With more thought about it, it makes good sense game-design wise for them to be an Intelligence class, giving a second Int class next to Wizard. It would also reduce the membership of the Charisma club, which provides more "specialness" to the remaining Cha classes.
WotC: Alright, here’s the warlock! Intelligence based, so we have two full casters for each stat. Players: BUT EARLIER EDITION WARLOCKS USED CHARISMA WotC: Ok fine we’ll make them charisma casters! Sheesh, make one fourth edition and everyone hates change...
@@sylvanas9329 this is why i love that at the start of every core book they’re just like “yknow do whatever you want. like this is how we built it but who cares do whatever have fun”
This reminds me of a cool (albeit dark) story from one of the games I played. My friend Dan played a warlock named Faustus Vorloi. The short version of the story is that he was new to the country and needed some money. Some locals lured him into the forest, drugged him, and disemboweled him to serve as bait for a night hag; those locals then took the hag's eyes and left them both for dead. Faustus made a pact with the hag (Rowena); she would help him survive until he could receive medical attention, and grant him the power to seek revenge; in turn, Rowena would be able to see through one of his eyes, and he had to track down each of the attackers in turn (at least one per year) and bring them before her to be punished. That part went fine. The wrinkle was that Rowena fell in love with him, and (by Rowena assuming a fair form and actually being kind of nice as hags go) vice-versa. Some time after finding the last of their attackers, Rowena announced she was pregnant with Faustus's child. Months of game time later (and near the end of the campaign), Rowena went into labor. Faustus helped with the delivery and brought their daughter into the world--only for Rowena to go mad and immediately try to eat the child. Faustus was forced to kill Rowena in order to save their baby, simultaneously ending his pact (which, to be fair, had basically been completed by that point). There's a happy ending; Faustus was able to capture Rowena's spirit--now restored to sanity--inside a ring so that he and their daughter could continue to commune with her after her death. He was also able to continue using all of his warlock abilities, since he still had a connection to Rowena through both their daughter and the ring.
That's fucking awesome! Especially the first half. Would've been neater if the player fell in love with another PC and the spying hag would be jealous and so on... but that's just my thoughts! (maybe the eye would start hurting or something, or the hag might cast evil gaze or what's-the-spells-name, you know what I mean, and the warlock would have to take that eye out, or wear a lead eyepatch or something... huh...). Love the concept anyways ^^
I'm gonna be that guy.... I REALLY hope that night hag had alter self. I'm not judging taste, but sleeping with a nighthag is... Special. To say the least.
You see, I never had that "shouldn't the warlock lose their powers?" moment, because the first warlock-esque characters I read about were Ghost Rider, Silver Surfer and Spawn. All of them betrayed their "patrons", all retained their powers.
Same here. It seems like it’s a question of are you “given” power, such as the case with your examples, or are you given “access” to someone else’s powers. The key difference is one is much easier to revoke than the other. Very interesting point though!
I agree, keeping the power is fun but the idea of that power now being somewhat restricted by the inability to replace what is lost or grow further is pretty slick
I think the difficulty should go up around you, rather than losing (or suddenly being on a shaky footing with) your powers. If you piss off your Patron, suddenly you've... pissed off your Patron. That's a really bad idea. Now you've angered an Archfey or Noble Genie and hoo boy are they in hot pursuit of you.
The problem with that interpretation is that it is drawing on "warlocks" from a different medium. Ghost Rider or Silver Surfer don't need more power from the Devil or Galactus to continue. When they break their bond what they have is enough. But the nature of D&D means that PCs need to keep leveling up. You can justify a warlock retaining the powers they had when they broke the pact but it is much harder to justify them gaining new powers from a patron they aren't serving anymore. That's why in most liveplay show when the warlock breaks their pact they keep what they have then multiclass into something else. The patron can't take what was already given but you can't justify them continuing to give more.
In the game I run, the Warlock is the only class that can "consume" other class levels. The group I run for has a Glamour Bard that later on took 2 levels in Warlock for some abilities (Keep in mind, I had already made clear before the game began the nature of warlocks and pacts in my setting). Their patron was a voice in their head that asked them to do things. Which they did. They even stopped using their Bard support abilities and just focused on killing stuff with warlock abilities. So the next time they leveled up, I told them, "Your next level is in warlock and you lose one level of Bard and replace it with one in warlock." They thought this was really cool. I think they forgot this could happen. Though the other players are freaked out (rightfully) and keep warning her to stop, "Feeding the voice."
I really like that option. I think it'd have to be used sparingly but when executed right that sounds like great drama and a great option for mechanical flexibility if a player is feeling too boxed in or stagnant. And maybe if they end up betraying their pact, instead of all the levels that went over from x to warlock becoming pact burner warlock levels, they just change back to their original class and only their new levels become pact burner warlock levels
This is quite excellent, especially if they did not grow their barding very far, and were bored of being a bard, so this allows them to functionally change characters in a fun way. I hope the entire party gets that level of development, that could make the game feel too focused on one person. All other considerations waived, however, I love it.
I've made a 'fallen Warlock' build very similia to this, I drew heavely from Guts from the "Berserk" series for inspiration and one of the things I added was that the warlock's soul is "branded" and is being chased by the patrons minions; this combined with a lovecraft style of "mortals arent ment to understand other worldly knowledge" causes them to have an "Insanity" stat. Everytime they cast a leveled spell or short rest they gain levels of insanity and only get rid of them with a "good night's rest" (long rest). after every leveled spell attack they make a CHA save to not go insane and the DC is determined by the level of their insanity. On a fail they go insane and they enter an insane stat (like a barb rage) where they get advantage/disadvantage to things like insight, perception and wisdom (will) saves but also get buffs like more spell slots and being able to "see the truth" (see invisable/see into the ethereal plane). and then I'd throw in things depending on the campaign like, "while insane "nightmares (ethereal creatures) can attack you", (based off don't starve's insanity mechanic) Obviously this isn't quite what you were oing for but figured i'd share the idea
Love the idea of "working within the system" to gain new abilities after the pact is broken. This has fantasy magic system written all over it. The idea that the warlock has learned enough secrets to begin to essentially compose their own invocations. There is so much potential for character quests to facilitate this arc, I am overwhelmingly inspired. Bloody good work, DM.
My very first 5e character was a Warlock and I ended up discovering, based off his backstory and how I was playing him, (a fire genasi named Jalen), that he didn't want to serve his master. Of course, I hadn't realized that choosing the 10th archduke of the Nine Hells, Gargauth (who was too evil for even the nine other archdukes that they decided to kick him out of Hell, info can be found in the Forgotten Realms wiki), was being pretty nasty. I actually discussed this with my DM and we worked out that he would quest to find another Patron.. a celestial one. So, I really like this idea a lot.
Now, when you say "pact burner" it sounds like someone who intentionally makes and breaks pacts repeatedly. The idea of a Warlock with multiple Patrons makes me think of Harry Dresden.
Yeah I can't shake the image of a guy who has sold his soul to a bakers dozen otherworldly beings in an attempt to make sure that if he ticks off any one of them or they try to back stab him, he'll have 12 more backing him up. Either that or a guy who starts learning as much as they can about other worldly beings and kind of slowly becomes ad anti-magic warlock with lots of protection spells and features that lets them protect against, and undermine otherworldly forces.
@@patrickbuckley7259 a caster literally telling you "ay yea, Ay've sold my soul to a baker's dozen of devils and such, love, I don't even keep track of em anymore" as they take a long drag is a vibe and a half
Still as adorable as ever! The pact burner reminds me of my very first 5e character, who was a warlock. I didn't want to do the obvious thing of, oh, she's a tiefling, she must serve an archfiend. So I gave her the Great Old One patron. But she was no mad cultist--she was more like a Call of Cthulhu investigator who had read too many forbidden times and unlocked how to cast spells from them. Which she used to fight back against exactly the kinds of eldritch horrors she'd been obsessively reading about!
I'm 100 percent making a response video to this. I've got a script mostly written for a lore interpretation video about how magic works in D&D 5e metaphysics based on the commonalities and differences between classes, with a particular emphasis on/explanation for the idea that losing metaphysical association with some power (god, patron, etc) doesn't inherently cost any access to spellcasting ability. I think it'd mesh really well with this kind of reasoning and accompanying game dev. The short version is that access to magic involves poking holes in the membrane that separates individual consciousness from the Complete and Simultaneous Multiverse. Different kinds of magic entail different ways of opening up that gateway, and different kinds of guidance re: how it can be used. Leveling up gets more powerful spells cuz you're literally able to make the hole bigger and still handle it without tearing your soul apart, and if you abandon your god or patron or whatever put the hole there, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sometimes gods put their faith in the wrong mortals. (just for the record I also agree with Matt's comments that D&D magic doesn't, and maybe doesn't have to, make any literal sense. I love this kind of theorizing and gamemaking that says every game rule has a coherent diagetic parallel, but I worry there's a risk that the way I talk about it might come off as "This is the Right Way to Have Fun" and I don't want to do that)
Love it! The idea of a 'shadow-class' kinda reminds me of the Prestige Classes from 3.5e. You couldn't just 'choose' to play it; there were... certain requirements. The way I dealt with a Pact-Breaker once is to rescind their Warlock abilities (yes, I know it sucks, but bear with me here!), at which point the player essentially becomes a Free Agent. Their Patron is not the only Otherworldly being out there. There are many, many others and all of them tend to watch other Warlocks. They've seen you walk away from your Patron, and some of them are interested in making a deal. You have some bargaining power, here: Whilst your loyalty will forever be questioned, at the end of the day you've proven yourself to be a capable, resourceful Warlock. The higher your Character Level, the more valuable this bargaining chip becomes. So then you enter that oh-so-fun stage: CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS!
Fun concept. Some more ideas for using your patrons knowledge against them: 1) can perform rituals to tap into/ attune to the energy now denied you. Basically requiring 10 min or short rest prep time. 2) focuses and markings to channel in lieu of no more patron. Ex: tattooed leylines on your skin, arcane circles, burning pages of runic script for temp effects, talisman’s to leech power from sources you still sense 3) performing rituals to mask your presence or shield yourself from patron powers/ gaze. Ex.: sprinkle with holy water, carrying iron to repulse fey, intoxication to stupefy your mind to old ones thoughts and murmurs, a vow of pacifism or binding your sword arm with consecrated wrappings for hexblade, purifying any blood split after the fact (with oils, incense, or salt, etc.) so patron is denied using it as a source to connect with your plane, etc., etc.
I feel like the most important question to ask a warlock player when they start out as a warlock is a few questions. As the answer to them wil influence patron/warlock relationship 1. Have you payed the contract price in backstory or would you like to do it in game? 2. Are you okay with the possibility of loosing power if you upset the patron? I am of the school of thought that a warlock should almost never loose his power, following the thought line that the flavor text says something along the line "more often than not the relationship is that of a master, apprentice" and to me that implies that the power a warlock gains is theirs no matter what, like what you says about learning acient knowledge. I view it kind of like the patron having granted their warlock a seed of power the warlock is capable of growing without the help of the patron, this is not something the patron would want the warlock to know ofc as the patron wants the warlock feeling like he needs the patron so the patron makes sure that it makes it feel like it is the reason for the growth of power, and perhaps it is capabøe of making the power grow more quickly than what the player would be able to on his own, who knows. There is afterall something poetic using the power you gained from your patron to turn it against it. What you say about a pact burner sounds realy interesting. Another possibility could be to make a new pact with a new creature, I personaly like the idea of a warlock having multiple patrons in his lifetime. Say fiend warlock from lv 1-5 and a fey warlock from 6-10 etc etc and that the warlock have the features of the patron he had during lv ups. I have personaly been toying with the idea of granting my players additional subclasses as quest rewards, like a sorcerer doing an acient blood rite gaining the bloodline powers of another sorcerer in addition to his own or a warlock making more pacts.
I’d love to see you take a crack at Sorcerous Origins, I feel like that’d be a blast. Also would love to see some FairyDaels on the Just-So stories by Rudyard Kipling.
The way you flip a concept that could very easily be a negative gameplay experience to something positive and exciting and rewarding is incredible. I really love the concept.
The Deathlock in Tome of Foes implies that a warlock has a kind of arcane “leash” or tether that the patron uses to turn a failed warlock into a subservient deathlok. It also states other creatures and persons have learned ways to tap into that severed connection to create deathloks loyal to them instead. It makes me think of a variant of astral projection and it’s silver thread. Imagine a powerful necromancer realizes the loose thread he might be able to gain control of and now they’re after the PC, too. Perhaps a quest knot off that thread. Maybe the warlock binds it to something else?
I was browsing through youtube and this comes up in my recommended and it's literally the exact arc I was thinking of doing for my past hexblade warlock
I don't play D&D and mostly have no idea what you're talking about, but it's still very interesting. You are such a good narrator, and I really enjoy your mythology videos!
One of my players plays a warlock and from the very first session she came up with the idea that her warlock would offer the bodies of creatures killed within the past minute by her to her patron as an offering. Each time she slays a foe, she takes her time after combat to perform a ritual to offer "magic" them away. This fulfills part of her pact along with the other odd tasks she's given and allows her to adventure as most adventurers do while explaining her powers she's given
A twist to Warlocks I have toyed with is the Rental Warlock. Your patron operates a temp agency and pays you with basic abilities while renting you to various other begins in exchange for something it wants. While rented you gain access to spells based on the powers of whoever you are currently working under. PC is also paid with a number of limited use spells they can use after the rental ends and carries a ledger they use to cast the banked spells.
In my personal experience, I've found that the most interesting warlocks are the ones that eschew the faustian bargain archetype in favour of more unconventional deals, arrangements, or relationships. I once made a character who's grandmother was not only a witch, but his warlock patron, always looking out for him with a little Raven familiar and so on... But on the flipside, my current character literally snuck himself and one of the other party members out of a warlock contract, with powers intact, by becoming a patron himself through outwitting the original patron (in this case, a bored and nihilistic god). It's made for some very interesting moments, and a new subclass for my friend: the Charlatan patron. Not so much a pact burner as newly self-employed.
Dael this is definitely something I'm going to need. One of the potential campaign Big Bads of my game is an ancient, sentient mask bent on (spoilers for my players) replicating itself and 'masking' every sapient creature on the world, turning them into its hivemind drones to 'protect' them from a fated extraplanar invasion. Naturally the party bard put the first fragment of the mask On His Goddamn Face and later made a warlock pact with it he is now hardcore regretting as its goals become more apparent. It has left a metal shard inside his skull it can use to talk to him, listen to his thoughts and cause him pain at will. If the party finds a way to extract it, the pact will technically be broken as the mask is far from omnipotent and needs a physical anchor to project to. I'm not sure what will happen to the bard if they do this. Input welcome:)
I've had a couple of warlocks in 5E. One was a Great Old warlock. One of the things he would do was after he and his group would clear out certain lairs and dungeons that he deemed suitable he would bury a scrimshaw he had carved covered in his own blood somewhere in the place. When he was asked about it he said it was "So the Colony would know where to look." Another was a Fiend warlock. He was essentially married to his patron (In this case Glasya) and as such he had to play the part of the dutiful husband. IT lead to heavy drinking. At least when he was on his own on the material plane.
When you said the spellcasting mod changes from cha to int you had me. I had been really wondering how to handle this kind of situation for a long time and I had no solutions but even that on its own would just make a lot of sense, especially alongside your other points that can be fleshed out. I think maybe a fun way to actually execute this as a DM would be to have an extra behind the scenes character sheet developed for that warlock, and every time that warlock levels up you level that character sheet with it but with any of the alterations and replacements (ie enemy of the archfey instead of pact of the archfey), and when the warlock makes the decision to break the pact there's a big dramatic moment where you ask for their character sheet and hand the alternate one to them. Of course giving them a chance to move items over and all. I think another interesting video to see would be sort of in a similar vein, which would be how to handle when clerics betray their deity (which I don't think you've made a video on) I've had some thoughts about how to handle that but they mostly revolve around revoking spellcasting from the cleric until they find another deity to worship, which isn't really satisfying and I don't want a player to feel like their character is a burden to the party (it could be fun if the character feels that way and it's roleplayed but I don't want the player to internalize that you know?) but at the same time the relationship between cleric and deity is different from that of a warlock and their patron, since in the flavor as written a cleric's magic does come directly from their patron
I would love to see an updated version of this as it's fleshed out as it is a good narrative tone that can really offer great roleplay moments in a party. On that note I would also like to see a subclass of something similar for the Cleric to round out all the classes that kind of look to a higher power for their abilities. Something like the Domain Rebuker Cleric. I'm not sure what it's abilities would look like but I think it's a good idea to float around that's similar to this.
I once played as a warlock that was basically like this (except without all the cool stat buffs). My character had a contract with his patron that basically said "Bring me king's blood, or... I'll get it myself from your kid." Long story short, he failed to get the king's blood, and his kid (who was technically the bastard son of a princess) got yoinked into the nine-hells. So my character starts out with a bunch of warlock power but his pact is technically already fulfilled. And his quest is actually to find a way to get rid of his warlock powers, which he sees as a curse, and a way that the Great Fiend still holds influence over him. It made for pretty cool rp and character motivations throughout the story.
I found this channel again! today is a great day I had burned my contract with the GOO by the name of Utobee and they denied me all my knowledge but have bested my patron and found you again despite all the odds All hail
Please make more videos featuring your own story-driven home brews. I don't play d&d, but your perspective so creative that it inspires me to think outside the cube. Plus, I just like to hear you talk.
I love this. I just finished a campaign I ran with a warlock player who turned his back on his patron. When he did his patron sent other warlocks to hunt him down and I used this as an opportunity for him to still gain abilities even though they were no longer given to him. I told him that the same way he takes power from his patron he is able to take from other warlocks he defeats. This allows him to still level up in his warlock class by syphoning abilities from defeated warlocks sent to hunt him down. So in essence its like he's looting power like items.
Your video got me thinking about Warlocks, and now I'm working on a new patron: The Chained Trickster. A deity in the vein of Prometheus, the Chained Trickster is being punished for stealing fire for mortals and doesn't have temples or clerics, but has spent the millenia gathering powerful secrets, and is now ready to share them. Pact spells focus on fire damage and illusion. The patron is seeking revenge against a lawful good deity, and possible endgame content could include trying to release the patron.
This is cool. In my game I implemented a more simple solution. 1. The things your patron taught to you are yours to keep. They are secrets they taught to you. 2. However if you break your pact, you can no longer advance as a warlock and you gain a powerful enemy.
Thinking about it, I prefer the idea that once a warlock bond is made, it can't be severed unless both parties agree to it. For example, the way Ghost Rider uses his own curse against the devil that put it on him, and that devil could and would remove it, but only with his consent. So a burned Warlock would continue to get their powers from their patron, but every time they use them they give the former patron information about where they are and what they're doing, and draw unwelcome attention to themselves. You could instill a simple mechanic where every time a burned Warlock uses an invocation, it triggers an encounter later down the line, or makes an existing one tougher.
Great video. I had a similar conversation with my DM, as a what if, when my character shifted from Bard to Warlock, due to a story experience. In Critical Role, Ford had to find a new Patron to get his abilities back. I would say you could counterspell against the bonus spells that are specific to that patron. You don't want the ability to be so powerful that it messes up balance. Also, I've looked through a lot of the comments. I can't believe I'm the only one staring at the Pandemic game on the shelf in the background.
I think for the Invocations, as many of them are just flavoured spells , you could treat them more "wizardly". Through their previous connection with their patron they can already do any of the invocations, however without the patron they will need to translate the knowledge themselves. So they may have to do a skill challenge to translate the invocation for their use (this could lead to a possibility of a failure) or have a cost for them to translate it, similar to a wizard adding a spell to their book.
Charisma is an interesting ability for me. The mental scores are hard to define, but I think about it like this: Intelligence is the application of knowledge and critical thinking. It's used for problem solving and piecing bits of info together i.e. investigation checks and seeing through illusions. Wisdom is the acquisition of information and being aware and mindful of yourself and your surroundings. It's used for gaining understanding and information and centering yourself i.e. insight checks and most Wisdom saves. The thing is, Charisma doesn't fall as easily into those qualities. It's saving throws seem somewhat arbitrary and on the surface there doesn't seem to be anything in common between Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlock and Bard spellcasting, convincing someone of something and avoiding being Banished to another plane. In my opinion, the through line for that is confidence and force of will. Sorcerer's power comes from inside, their belief in themselves is the only conduit they have. Warlocks and Bards both have personally forged connections to arcane sources and were granted personal power, again hinging on the force of their will. Paladins act as emissaries on the prime material, unlike Clerics who are more like conduits. I always saw Paladin's more like Warlocks or Angels, granted power by their deities and left to their own devices, under the assurance that their will is a reflection of their god's. Lying, persuading, performing and intimidating all hinge on your genuine belief that you won't screw it up. Anyway, that's just my 2 cents. I don't just see it as nothing but pure charm, so Warlock's casting using it always made sense to me.
The thing which people always seem to forget with paladins, is that in the rules of 5e their power isn't derived from a god, but rather an oath, and the way I see it, specifically their dedication to that oath, and their conviction that their cause is just, hence charisma being their spellcasting ability. Whether it is simply the sheer power of this conviction and dedication influencing the weave of magic, or if a god, out of respect or desire for the oath to be fulfilled, had granted the paladin power, the main conduit for this power is the oath. Feel like I should clarify that I'm not saying DMs who run pallys differently are wrong, but this is my input from my interpretation of the phb.
I like to think of warlocks as gaining warlock powers once and then developing their access to them on their own. So basically if your betray your patron you keep your power, you can continue levelling as a warlock. But you have a very powerful new enemy, with whom you have broken contract, and your patron might want to settle your debt violently.
I like this idea very much (and not gonna lie Oathbreaker paladin was the first thought in my head when i saw this). However i have a different take on what the player would keep/give up. The way i kinda thought of this was that once you break you pact everything you've learned from that patron either gets weakend or completely removed. Things that go away: Expanded spell list (except for the spells you already learned from it) Specific abilities aquired from that patron. Mystic Arcanums Things that get weakend: Pact boon(Tome) - so instead of keeping your book of secrets just like how it was. It instead becomes a regular spellbook that is atunned(optional) to you. All spells on there now take up spell slots but you gain spell slots equal to half the total spells you know of that level. (Example: you know 6 3rd level spells, you would gain 3 3rd level spell slots.) Pact Weapon - the weapon becomes just a normal weapon that you are proficient in. You can not summon it to you nor can you change it. Pact familiar - honestly what you saod hits the mark for me. Eldrich invocations concerning spells - same thing with the tome, they just take up spell slots now. Anything not in either category is to be assumed that the player keeps it with no drawbacks or i probably just forgot to mention it. I did it this way because it feels much more immediate and mechanically changing. I will say though that this comes from a perspective of warlocks being about the pact you made not the physical acts your patron asks of you. However what you came up with is incredibly cool and i think i just changed to better suit my personal style of play. Personally i feel like an otherworldy being wouldn't let you still have all the cool stuff thwy let you borrow. Which is how i see the pact as, borrowed magic.
I have a level 1 party in a freshly started roll20 campaign, "Lockdown", right now. One of my roommates plays an elven noble warlock who forged a pact with a demonic entity to reclaim his lost colonies. Thing is, she already hates playing according to the demon's wishes. I'm so gonna introduce this into my homebrew collection... Dael, half of my campaign rules are stuff I stole from you, you're amazing, keep this stuff coming! :D
I am already thinking of some neat "miscellaneous tasks" for warlocks. Things like "tear out every third page of that religious text and put them back in random order." or "give a mouse a cookie, then walk away." - This idea of a price for unfaithfulness needs to be a player-DM discussion with Clerics, Druids, Paladins and Rangers (and some other subclasses that have a concept of "patron") as well.
In the backstory of one of my characters it was her parents who betrayed the archfey specifically Verenestra, and while she kept her side of the bargin she cursed their daughter to slowly take on a snake like form as a reminder of their betrayal. Eventually she sought out Verenestra to lift her curse which she eventually agreed to do but only after she fulfilled her service to her. I should also mention that Verenestra also included an "insurance policy" in case she had any funny ideas and now she literally can't go back on promises, deals, agreements ect without lethal consequences. Seriously she will actually die if she so much as tries to cheat her way out of a deal she made with a merchant to hand over half of what she found in a cave said merchant told her about
I try to push that people can always house rule that Warlocks use Int as their stat to fit what lore they want. I also think it should be that whatever power they have gained is through power given or knowledge taken (it's the player's and the DM's job to make the lore work for them). Perhaps, if the Warlock has progressed far enough they might have the basis of knowledge enough to start progressing on their own (sometimes all one needs is a little push). Even then, breaking the pact might not be so easy. In some cases, the pact has been broken and the patron will send minions to take what was "stolen", sure; however, in other cases like the fiend, the patron might send an ominous reminder: "You think you've gotten out of this? Remember, when you die I still get your soul. The bargain was struck, and the bill will come due."
My GOO Warlock made a pact with the Time Lord Rassilon and he was suppose to spread the name of Rassilon! He mainly did it by introducing his make believe invisible friend as Rassilon! He was spying for the elves and did it by making people think he was crazy by introducing his "friend" that nobody could see as Rassilon! He was a fun character to play and roleplay!
Awesome video! Huge fan! Can you PLEASE do in depth ideas about the planes? Like you did for the Feywild? Maybe a mini series covering each one or your favourites? The DMG has such tiny paragraphs about most of them. I’d also love to see a video on characters you’ve made or played?
Very nearly did this a couple of days ago. She refused the demands of her fiend patron. So she was burned almost to death and had no powers any more. Almost went with a pact breaker thing but landed on vengeance paladin instead. Her oath? To make sure nobody else suffers the manipulation I have suffered. I was very inspired by this video and it turned into one of my top DnD moments (and apparently the player's literal top DnD moment). So thanks!!!
My first instinct for a Pact Burner Warlock is. The Patron is a stabalizing agent, so some spells may do more damage. But they may now come with an additional cost. And you'd give a table for high level spells. So a 7-9 Spell might require HP to be paid, or a Critical Failure guarantees a Double Failure on that chart. A familiar may when resummoned adopt a new form.
Apparently warlocks did use to be INT based back in the original 5E playtesting, but the players said it felt strange to play and so that's why they just shoved it in with all the other CHA spellcasters yet much of the lore is about wanting to obtain more knowledge and power. Honestly I think Intelligence makes more sense even beyond balancing out the classes main stat distribution. -Less shrewd characters would be unlikely able to negotiate an agreement that is mutually beneficial for themself in the first place. -Intelligence makes it about finding every loophole and exploit in the contract, which is a perfect excuse in how they can still level and gain new powers if their patron is ever gone. Compared to the thing where Charisma is described as being about willpower and a strong sense of identity. -It perfectly fits the whole Lovecraftian thing of researchers looking where they shouldn't and gaining knowledge and abilities they shouldn't really ever have. -It completely differentiates them from Clerics and with Intelligence being the more visceral and concrete of the mental stats it reinforces them making a calculated deal with a higher power instead of being rewarded for blind trust in them. I've actually just started playing a INT Aasimar Celestial Warlock whose patron is their half angel Divine Soul Sorcerer father. Who is also a famous adventurer on top of that. So things should get interesting.
This is a great take on what to do when the Warlock DOESN'T stay loyal to the patron. Either way the drama is there and I love the idea of them keeping stuff and wondering, "is my familiar spying on me now?" or "will using my book of shadows draw attention from my ex-sugar daddy?" Great vid as always, cheers.
Reminds me of a lot of the mystic cards from the Arkham horror card game. A lot of their ideas are "I'm not with them but they have a lot of good ideas and resources that maybe we should use." Might be a great source of inspiration.
Canonically in the game, there is actually an in-game consequence for a warlock breaking their pact. It's that when they die, if they haven't mended their relationship with their patron, they come back as a deathlock bound to the patron with their free will basically stripped away and forced to serve them for all eternity. So, if one of the warlocks in your game breaks their pact and then dies, there will be no resurrecting them. Their soul is stripped away to their patron's realm and their body resurrected as one of these things. I guess the DM would then have a cool villain to throw at the party.
Int based warlocks make a lot of sense and were playtested that way before 5e was released. As for the pact, I've always seen it as the patron can't just take the power back, it's bonded to you, it's yours. They can, obviously, send their agents after you. However, I might limit the levels a pact-broken warlock can get after they've broken the pact, depending on the character and the narrative. As in they get no /more/ power than what they already have
Arthurian Legend/Greek Heroes smash up where you tell either an Arthurian chronicle or Greek Myth but swap a knight for hero (or vice versa) and makeup how they likely would have acted.
When I saw the title, I thought of a Warlock whose speciality is that they change Patrons very often, gaining whatever benefits they can, then "burning" the pact (ideally before they have to actually take any responsibilities) and moving on to the next patron.
My first time player read through the PHB and realized it was a deal for power, so he himself came up with a "pact" since his Patron only has him as a warlock they made a deal where the Patron can control his body in exchange for gifts. And the way he gets powers is literally by convincing his patron to give him more gifts
This is a fantastic idea. I had a similar idea regarding druids using metal armor and losing their nature magic (in Pathfinder.) Have the class 'prestige' into a similar, but different class. Like one with less emphasis on the more earth-based spells and more on the savagery of the animal forms, etc.
Mark of the pack breaker:; your pack burner can always be found and carries a magical seal that reveals your location and transgression to your warlock followers.
There could be a way of making yourself stronger by breaking the limits of the power given to you. I always imagined the Eldritch Blast as an ability that sort of "unnerfs" itself as the warlock gets stronger. Being more powerful means there's more energy you can channel without breaking yourself. With a patron it's straightforward, without one, working with what you have, a warlock can learn to control it better, maybe increasing it's quantity instead of it's potential.
If they strayed too far from their Patron, I would tell my players they've gained the "Pact Breaker"-template: - You can no longer gain levels in the Warlock Class. - You keep all currently aqcuired Warlock features. - You cannot use Spell Slots Aqcuired through Pact Magic. - You can cast spells that require spell slots by decreasing your hit points by xd6, where x is the level at which the spell is cast. A fun way of showing with the patron wants the player to interact with, is to give clues through omens/messengers/dreams like: - Only you can see a glowing symbol related to your patron etched on the entryway of a house. - You can see a familiar pattern in a swarm of flies gathering above a public execution. If the party doesn't react you could have an unknown warlock of the same patron intercept in their stead. - When seeing a pact breaker, you are overcome by a sudden surge of anger. Make a DC17 Charisma saving throw, on a failure you have to make a hostile action against that pact breaker. - You see a hint of recognition in the bartenders eyes when he glances at your familiar. When he delivers the next batch of drinks you receive a sealed envelope with the symbol of your patron pressed upon it. Containing further instructions from that patron. - Once every few sessions the warlock will have a dream about a full moon shining over a notable nearby location. This indicates where all nearby warlocks of that patron will gather during the next full moon.
Your idea about giving a bonus or benefit to the pact burner when he is trying to detect threats from his old patron sparked an idea in me. I'm not sure if it's too mechanically fiddly or demands too much of the DM, but here it goes: Paranoia, whenever you roll a perception check you can choose to reroll it; if you do, the second roll can only be considered a success if there is anything perceivable present pertaining to your old patron. The DM decides if there is and how to narrate a "false positive". This I think could be some excellent opportunities for the player to descend into madness. DM: "The bartender looks at you curiously"; PB: "Maybe he is part of the cult! Can I recognise any marks or insignia pertaining to the cult of my old patron?"; DM: "Roll a perception check"; PB: "Ah, shoot, a 4. I want to reroll... Yes! 16!"; DM: "Yea, you can barely make out the top of the skull crest hanging in a chain around his neck, tucked under his shirt." It gives the player the opportunity to decide when to risk false positives, and if he/she does, it mimic in game mechanic the effect of no being able to trust your one mind. Thematically it would sit very well with former Old One Locks...
I think somekind of unique ability related to the Banishment spell would be fitting for this. Focused on Abjuration (warding) and Divination (seeing). Because the Pact Burner is always on the lookout and always on the defensive.
I’m running a campaign with the hex blade war lock set in Zakhara forgotten realms. They got their pact weapon from a genie but the genie is not the patron. The blade is cursed with a soul stuck inside that has the powers of a max level warlock. As the character levels they access more of that souls power but as they get more powerful the soul is starting to influence them in the real world and at some point there’s going to be a struggle over who is in control of that body and that may swing back and forth. So at first he had visions or dreams of this figure since he’s a changeling now he’s at one point been forcibly changed into the look of that soul already but we are only level five so we will see.
I once had a player that was a Dragonborn warlock of Tiamat who played it pretty vain as a blue Dragonborn and when he did something that really displeased her I had his color turn grey and it became a huge thing with completing a task for her and he loved it!
I really like a Pact Burner Warlock in the RP of the PRG, but there's a unique angle for how a DM could use setting to make Patrons related to the game's subclasses. They way I like to imagine Warlocks is that if a Patron is so willing to imbue a Warlock with magic then that Warlock has value beyond themselves and what a single humanoid might normally be worth. This value inspires demand among different patrons to incentivize warlocks to stay loyal and continue with the Faustian Bargain, and if such a Warlock were to go rogue they could be prime pickings for other patrons competing for these Warlocks. If a warlock is considered employed talent, than that talent can be poached and coerced into joining the ranks of their former competition. This could mean that your fiend warlock becomes an arch fey warlock, or they just move from one fiend to another. This competition between patrons could be helpful in instances were warlocks have a change of heart because if a warlock doesn't want to do the questionable thing, a competing patron could 'hire' the warlock on the spot to thwart the efforts of their old patron to do this questionable thing. The central tenant of all of this is that a Warlock and their services are considered valuable to their patron, if they weren't they would be warlocks or they wouldn't be warlocks capable of meaningful betrayal.
I really like the concept of the Pact Burner Warlock. I kind of wonder how my Great Old One Kenku would handle that as he would loose his "voice". On a separate note I do appreciate the Dead of Winter and Pandemic games in the back. Probably the two best games to play under quarantine. XD
So I once played a Warlock up to level 20 (Well, 18 Warlock, 2 in a homebrew class, irrelevant for this story.) It was a modified Archfey patron, because she was an ex-moon goddess I was helping regian her former glory. My character was a hopeless disaster lesbian, an incorrigible flirt, and blind to the manipulations of a pretty face, so she went along with anything her patron said, even though it was... Clearly leading to the apocalypse to everyone but her. Eventually, we hit level 18, we stopped the big bad from finishing his ritual... Which was supposed to seal my patron forever. Whoops. She then proceeds to emact her plans to slaughter the entire pantheon. Double Whoops. She asks me to join her, and I made the mistake of saying that I should have trusted her mortal enemy. She sighed, sadly. Shame, she really liked me. I was left a level 2 character, and the party took me on an escort mission through the Shadowfell so I could make a new pact with the Ravem Queen. Once I did, I was able to keep my levels, the Raven Queen saw I was a valuable asset, if a bit... Gullible, but the trudge of despair from knowing I caused the apocalypse through a land thst feeds on despair... Surprisingly, that was not one of the 4 total times I died in that campaign with the same character!
Hey Dael, perfect timing! I just rolled up an eladrin Archfey warlock, though I'm still struggling with what/how their patron is. If you're looking for more videos to make, how about one on how you'd do archfey patrons? Or really any less divine godlike beings?
The character Japheth from Plague of Spells by Bruce Cordell is exactly this type of Warlock. Stealing the power of his patron (The Lord of Bats) and on the run.
Hi Dael - I'm just catching up on this one, it's been in my "watch later" list for ages! I 100% love the concept of a warlock gone rogue. I have a warlock player in the game I run and while the whole pact burner thing might not come up, it's a great idea to have in my back pocket. It was a good reminder to have the warlock serving the patron, too, I often forget to include that part of the deal and just figure that PC has cool powers with no consequences. Well, not any more! (My warlock player is going to find their life develops some complications, and they may not thank me!) Also, since nobody else in the comments seems to have mentioned it, I've got to say that is an awesome shirt :)
One of the benefits of serving an otherworldly power is that you quickly learn who their enemies are. If your pact isn't working out and you find yourself as a pact-burner, then you probably know someone who is hiring warlocks who would gleefully accept your service because it would frustrate your former patron ever so much... especially if you're offering your old pact boon to your new patron.
I would love a video on travel on the outer positive/good planes. you can read so much cool stuff on travel in the nine hells, the many layers of the abyss, the unfathomable creatures from the far realms, the destructive and dangerous elemental realms. But what dangers would you face in the realms of good creatures?
Love the idea of shadow classes/subclasses. Stuff the DM alters or enhances based on what your story is becoming. Had a similar idea for a gestalt campaign with very few players. Using classes and subclasses to give more tools to the players rather than just making them OP from the start. Also love the idea of making Mental stats more flexible for the classes that use them as spell-abilities. Int/Wisdom for wizards, any mental stat for Sorcerer, Cha/Int Warlock, Cha/Wis for Bards and Clerics, snd so on. Find what feels best for you based on how your view each stats application.
The other warlock gone rouge option is pact shopping. There are plenty of Fiends that would look kindly on a little treachery to a former master as resume building, and would rely on their own intellect to keep you in check this time. Or maybe your fairy godfather had a rival you could go work for. so now you have to deal with the hassle of a slightly less trusting patron, but have a more clearly negotiated contract up front, what with you now being an experienced warlock and knowing what to expect.
The Warlock doesn't make any literal sense. Their prime stat is Charisma, which makes perfect sense if they're petitioning their patron for their power. "Blood and souls for my lord Arioch!"
But they don't petition their patron for their power, all they have to do is gain XP and level up and their patron will teach them more lore. But if they're lore-focused then Int should be their prime stat. You can't "force of personality" yourself smarter.
I fear this is like Clerics and Gods. There's a really strong idea there; "clerics have a relationship with a divine power," "warlocks have a relationship with an otherworldly power" but the DevTeam were quick to run away from that. You can be a cleric without a god! You can be a warlock who's patron thinks you're a wanker!
It's up to us as DMs to save the class' potential coolness from the watered-down, milquetoast lore the PHB gave us.
Pact-burner warlocks for everyone!!
I made it so my players can opt in on an Int Warlock. That way they have a choice, though I also don't quite get the Charisma stat.
Int-based Warlocks are apparently really popular, I'm not sure why.
@@mcolville it's the idea of the man who read to much and seen what he shouldn't have.
Warlocks suffer similarly to rangers where their niche isn't very protected. I'm experimenting combining them into a short-rest focused magic hunter that uses parts of creatures or mutations. Calling it the Chimera
I kinda wish Warlock’s were MORE different than other classes. Namely I wish that their spell save DC was not tied to a stat at all, their abilities come from a patron, not their strength of will.
It does become difficult to figure out leveling, and it draws focus, but I like it.
The other thing I like is constitution based warlocks, the idea that channeling the power of the patron as a physical conduit, it is physically hard.
The problem with the warlock, sorry I feel so strongly about this that I needed to make another comment, the problem with the warlock is that there is no Faustian bargain. The warlock doesn’t have to do anything to get their power. They don’t have to harvest souls, they don’t have to take any action. It’s us who have a literary bent who project onto the warlock the idea of this bargain. But there’s no bargain. The player just selects warlock as a class, and kills monsters like every other class, and levels up. We as dungeon Masters imagine that clerics have to please their God, warlocks make a bargain with their patron, but the rules don’t say anything like that.
Aaaaand, for me, that's part of the reason why certain players love to dip into Warlock... all gain with no drawbacks.
Though, I have a slight disagreement that nothing is expected in return. The PHB is clear on that point with these lines: "A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being." and "The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron's behalf." There's a pact; there's a cost... though it's certainly not presented as a Faustian bargain, to be sure. It does state that the relationship is more as apprentice and master which supports what you are saying. I mean, due to the varied list of patrons (GOO, fiend, archefey...) it could be argued that a Faustian bargain is restrictively narrow; certainly from a narrative sense.
This seems like a bit of an issue with the abstraction of experience points. If, say the wizard had no real issue with level for learning spells, but had to spend time researching tomes or experimenting to grow. Or perhaps the cleric needed to literally do god's work for greater boons - or perhaps in response to dire situations. And maybe the warlock needed to sacrifice souls to the fiend for greater power. But..I suppose one could include this in play? like giving the wizard a tome right around level time - with the implication that there would be deeper secrets in it- or similar actions for other classes. This might leave the fighters a little in the dust, though.
I think the necessity of rules stating drawback to a Warlock might make it less appealing as a base class for players to pick from (thinking back to AD&D). Granted, as a DM, it totally is fun to add drama by giving certain plot elements to challenge the Warlock (equally to other party members).
I think the problem with warlocks highlights what I consider to be a core aspect of D&D: The game is flawed. The game tries to be a framework for an infinite number of worlds and game tables, this means that it will inevitably fail. As a DM I consider this death-of-the-author perspective to be very liberating because I find that I rarely want to play a game as the book prescribes it. I agree that warlocks should be more dependent on their patron but others might disagree, and if we assume the books are an imperfect foundation rather than law, we are both right. Every DM, and every adventuring party, will have their own worlds with their own stories and the books can't possibly cover them all. I agree that it would be great if Wizards of the Coast would fix a few things that I don't like about the game, but what I love about D&D and the community that surrounds it is that I don't have to wait and hope that the next edition will address my concerns. Instead I am free to talk with my players and connect with DMs from around the world in-order to write my own rules for warlock patrons or solve other problems that the designers couldn't have anticipated.
I don't mean to say that we shouldn't express frustration with the game. I don't want to dismiss your concerns by telling you to solve the problem yourself. Instead I guess my point is just that nothing in the game should be set in stone. There is an amazing community surrounding this game and as long as you properly communicate with your players there is nothing wrong with incorporating new ideas that radically alter the experience.
In 5e, rules are suggestions. Classes are meant to be broadly applicable and cover a wide range of possible stories. Warlocks in particular are a broad idea that can't be nailed down to a single mechanic for EVERY individual Warlock. If you want the "Faustian bargain" you are expected and encouraged to make it for yourself in a way that makes sense for your character.
I hate to repeat the party line about this, and of course I think WotC should give us something to work with, but I think it is better design to expect us to ADD things that we want to be part of our experience rather than REMOVE things that we don't.
Warlock comes etymologically from an old english word meaning oath-breaker
What you've made is a warlock warlock
Wait, WHAT? Really??
That's super interesting. So does that mean.... oh man, does that mean that when Paladins break their oaths, they could become Warlocks? I really dig it!
Damn sir!
@@MonarchsFactory
'Old English wærloga "traitor, liar, enemy, devil," from wær "faith, fidelity; a compact, agreement, covenant," from Proto-Germanic *wera- (source also of Old High German wara "truth," Old Norse varar "solemn promise, vow"), from PIE root *were-o- "true, trustworthy." Second element is an agent noun related to leogan "to lie" (see lie (v.1); and compare Old English wordloga "deceiver, liar").
'Original primary sense seems to have been "oath-breaker;" given special application to the devil (c. 1000), but also used of giants and cannibals. Meaning "one in league with the devil" is recorded from c. 1300. Ending in -ck (1680s) and meaning "male equivalent of a witch" (1560s) are from Scottish.'
www.etymonline.com/word/warlock
Was about to comment exactly this thing. Thank you for beating me to it.
Because of this, one of the ways that I like flavoring warlocks in my game is that they are *already* stealing their powers: *that* is their heresy, their "oath-breaking". Like- they made a mutual pact, perhaps, but then they ran with it. Or the terms weren't clear, or they found a loophole and got one over on their "patron". While the patron is powerful enough to grant power, it is not powerful enough to sever the connection once forged. It means that the class stays as-is, but the patron functions simply as a powerful NPC - one who can be appeased, potentially, but who regards their warlock as a dangerous loose cannon at best and a mistake and adversary at worse.
In this case, I really adore Charisma as the warlock stat- it implies they outwitted or out-lawyered this otherworldly entity - by accident or design - to take a part of their power and keep it.
6:50 funny note, in 5e Next, warlocks were originally intelligence based, which is probably why a lot of their mentions talk about them being researchers and whatnot. It was changed to charisma based on player feedback. At my tables though I let players make warlocks int or cha based (locked in once chosen.)
Your call is a really good way to handle it! With more thought about it, it makes good sense game-design wise for them to be an Intelligence class, giving a second Int class next to Wizard. It would also reduce the membership of the Charisma club, which provides more "specialness" to the remaining Cha classes.
WotC: Alright, here’s the warlock! Intelligence based, so we have two full casters for each stat.
Players: BUT EARLIER EDITION WARLOCKS USED CHARISMA
WotC: Ok fine we’ll make them charisma casters! Sheesh, make one fourth edition and everyone hates change...
@@sylvanas9329 this is why i love that at the start of every core book they’re just like “yknow do whatever you want. like this is how we built it but who cares do whatever have fun”
This reminds me of a cool (albeit dark) story from one of the games I played. My friend Dan played a warlock named Faustus Vorloi. The short version of the story is that he was new to the country and needed some money. Some locals lured him into the forest, drugged him, and disemboweled him to serve as bait for a night hag; those locals then took the hag's eyes and left them both for dead. Faustus made a pact with the hag (Rowena); she would help him survive until he could receive medical attention, and grant him the power to seek revenge; in turn, Rowena would be able to see through one of his eyes, and he had to track down each of the attackers in turn (at least one per year) and bring them before her to be punished.
That part went fine. The wrinkle was that Rowena fell in love with him, and (by Rowena assuming a fair form and actually being kind of nice as hags go) vice-versa. Some time after finding the last of their attackers, Rowena announced she was pregnant with Faustus's child. Months of game time later (and near the end of the campaign), Rowena went into labor. Faustus helped with the delivery and brought their daughter into the world--only for Rowena to go mad and immediately try to eat the child. Faustus was forced to kill Rowena in order to save their baby, simultaneously ending his pact (which, to be fair, had basically been completed by that point).
There's a happy ending; Faustus was able to capture Rowena's spirit--now restored to sanity--inside a ring so that he and their daughter could continue to commune with her after her death. He was also able to continue using all of his warlock abilities, since he still had a connection to Rowena through both their daughter and the ring.
That's a helluva wicked plot! Very inspiring.
Daaaaamn
That's fucking awesome! Especially the first half. Would've been neater if the player fell in love with another PC and the spying hag would be jealous and so on... but that's just my thoughts! (maybe the eye would start hurting or something, or the hag might cast evil gaze or what's-the-spells-name, you know what I mean, and the warlock would have to take that eye out, or wear a lead eyepatch or something... huh...).
Love the concept anyways ^^
What Dael said.
I'm gonna be that guy....
I REALLY hope that night hag had alter self. I'm not judging taste, but sleeping with a nighthag is... Special. To say the least.
You see, I never had that "shouldn't the warlock lose their powers?" moment, because the first warlock-esque characters I read about were Ghost Rider, Silver Surfer and Spawn. All of them betrayed their "patrons", all retained their powers.
Same here. It seems like it’s a question of are you “given” power, such as the case with your examples, or are you given “access” to someone else’s powers. The key difference is one is much easier to revoke than the other. Very interesting point though!
I agree, keeping the power is fun but the idea of that power now being somewhat restricted by the inability to replace what is lost or grow further is pretty slick
at least not without finding a new patron :D
I think the difficulty should go up around you, rather than losing (or suddenly being on a shaky footing with) your powers.
If you piss off your Patron, suddenly you've... pissed off your Patron. That's a really bad idea. Now you've angered an Archfey or Noble Genie and hoo boy are they in hot pursuit of you.
The problem with that interpretation is that it is drawing on "warlocks" from a different medium. Ghost Rider or Silver Surfer don't need more power from the Devil or Galactus to continue. When they break their bond what they have is enough. But the nature of D&D means that PCs need to keep leveling up. You can justify a warlock retaining the powers they had when they broke the pact but it is much harder to justify them gaining new powers from a patron they aren't serving anymore. That's why in most liveplay show when the warlock breaks their pact they keep what they have then multiclass into something else. The patron can't take what was already given but you can't justify them continuing to give more.
In the game I run, the Warlock is the only class that can "consume" other class levels. The group I run for has a Glamour Bard that later on took 2 levels in Warlock for some abilities (Keep in mind, I had already made clear before the game began the nature of warlocks and pacts in my setting). Their patron was a voice in their head that asked them to do things. Which they did. They even stopped using their Bard support abilities and just focused on killing stuff with warlock abilities.
So the next time they leveled up, I told them, "Your next level is in warlock and you lose one level of Bard and replace it with one in warlock." They thought this was really cool. I think they forgot this could happen. Though the other players are freaked out (rightfully) and keep warning her to stop, "Feeding the voice."
I really like that option. I think it'd have to be used sparingly but when executed right that sounds like great drama and a great option for mechanical flexibility if a player is feeling too boxed in or stagnant. And maybe if they end up betraying their pact, instead of all the levels that went over from x to warlock becoming pact burner warlock levels, they just change back to their original class and only their new levels become pact burner warlock levels
This is quite excellent, especially if they did not grow their barding very far, and were bored of being a bard, so this allows them to functionally change characters in a fun way. I hope the entire party gets that level of development, that could make the game feel too focused on one person. All other considerations waived, however, I love it.
This happened in one of my groups as well, also with a bard!
I should have done this long ago. This video finally prompted me to make a list titled "ID&Deas" to save videos like this I come across.
Mad props for that portmanteau. I love a quality portmanteau.
ID&Dea stolen! Ha!
That is so much easier to say than it is to read
I'm gonna be THAT person and have a brief laugh about the Pandemic box behind Dael
Oh nooooo
Was coming to say the same, intentional or not... I had a little laugh
Me and my family have played pandemic in lockdown more times than is tasteful
@@jackiecozzie4803 I have read more dystopia in lockdown. I recommend you don't follow in my footsteps.
I've made a 'fallen Warlock' build very similia to this, I drew heavely from Guts from the "Berserk" series for inspiration and one of the things I added was that the warlock's soul is "branded" and is being chased by the patrons minions; this combined with a lovecraft style of "mortals arent ment to understand other worldly knowledge" causes them to have an "Insanity" stat. Everytime they cast a leveled spell or short rest they gain levels of insanity and only get rid of them with a "good night's rest" (long rest). after every leveled spell attack they make a CHA save to not go insane and the DC is determined by the level of their insanity. On a fail they go insane and they enter an insane stat (like a barb rage) where they get advantage/disadvantage to things like insight, perception and wisdom (will) saves but also get buffs like more spell slots and being able to "see the truth" (see invisable/see into the ethereal plane). and then I'd throw in things depending on the campaign like, "while insane "nightmares (ethereal creatures) can attack you", (based off don't starve's insanity mechanic)
Obviously this isn't quite what you were oing for but figured i'd share the idea
5:58 “you leave when you’re dead”
Sometimes you can’t leave even if you’re dead...
Undying Patron laughs at you're attempts to leave
Ghost Mafia Assemble
Love the idea of "working within the system" to gain new abilities after the pact is broken. This has fantasy magic system written all over it. The idea that the warlock has learned enough secrets to begin to essentially compose their own invocations. There is so much potential for character quests to facilitate this arc, I am overwhelmingly inspired.
Bloody good work, DM.
8:03 nervously eyeing the dimensional ripper and displacer hound that “found” there way into the party’s possession...
My very first 5e character was a Warlock and I ended up discovering, based off his backstory and how I was playing him, (a fire genasi named Jalen), that he didn't want to serve his master. Of course, I hadn't realized that choosing the 10th archduke of the Nine Hells, Gargauth (who was too evil for even the nine other archdukes that they decided to kick him out of Hell, info can be found in the Forgotten Realms wiki), was being pretty nasty. I actually discussed this with my DM and we worked out that he would quest to find another Patron.. a celestial one. So, I really like this idea a lot.
Now, when you say "pact burner" it sounds like someone who intentionally makes and breaks pacts repeatedly.
The idea of a Warlock with multiple Patrons makes me think of Harry Dresden.
Yeah I can't shake the image of a guy who has sold his soul to a bakers dozen otherworldly beings in an attempt to make sure that if he ticks off any one of them or they try to back stab him, he'll have 12 more backing him up.
Either that or a guy who starts learning as much as they can about other worldly beings and kind of slowly becomes ad anti-magic warlock with lots of protection spells and features that lets them protect against, and undermine otherworldly forces.
@@patrickbuckley7259 a caster literally telling you "ay yea, Ay've sold my soul to a baker's dozen of devils and such, love, I don't even keep track of em anymore" as they take a long drag is a vibe and a half
Still as adorable as ever!
The pact burner reminds me of my very first 5e character, who was a warlock. I didn't want to do the obvious thing of, oh, she's a tiefling, she must serve an archfiend. So I gave her the Great Old One patron. But she was no mad cultist--she was more like a Call of Cthulhu investigator who had read too many forbidden times and unlocked how to cast spells from them. Which she used to fight back against exactly the kinds of eldritch horrors she'd been obsessively reading about!
I'm 100 percent making a response video to this. I've got a script mostly written for a lore interpretation video about how magic works in D&D 5e metaphysics based on the commonalities and differences between classes, with a particular emphasis on/explanation for the idea that losing metaphysical association with some power (god, patron, etc) doesn't inherently cost any access to spellcasting ability. I think it'd mesh really well with this kind of reasoning and accompanying game dev.
The short version is that access to magic involves poking holes in the membrane that separates individual consciousness from the Complete and Simultaneous Multiverse. Different kinds of magic entail different ways of opening up that gateway, and different kinds of guidance re: how it can be used. Leveling up gets more powerful spells cuz you're literally able to make the hole bigger and still handle it without tearing your soul apart, and if you abandon your god or patron or whatever put the hole there, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sometimes gods put their faith in the wrong mortals.
(just for the record I also agree with Matt's comments that D&D magic doesn't, and maybe doesn't have to, make any literal sense. I love this kind of theorizing and gamemaking that says every game rule has a coherent diagetic parallel, but I worry there's a risk that the way I talk about it might come off as "This is the Right Way to Have Fun" and I don't want to do that)
"It's me, I'm ya doctor now"
I don't believe that woman's ever been to medical school
🤣
Love it! The idea of a 'shadow-class' kinda reminds me of the Prestige Classes from 3.5e. You couldn't just 'choose' to play it; there were... certain requirements.
The way I dealt with a Pact-Breaker once is to rescind their Warlock abilities (yes, I know it sucks, but bear with me here!), at which point the player essentially becomes a Free Agent.
Their Patron is not the only Otherworldly being out there. There are many, many others and all of them tend to watch other Warlocks. They've seen you walk away from your Patron, and some of them are interested in making a deal.
You have some bargaining power, here: Whilst your loyalty will forever be questioned, at the end of the day you've proven yourself to be a capable, resourceful Warlock. The higher your Character Level, the more valuable this bargaining chip becomes. So then you enter that oh-so-fun stage: CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS!
Fun concept. Some more ideas for using your patrons knowledge against them:
1) can perform rituals to tap into/ attune to the energy now denied you. Basically requiring 10 min or short rest prep time.
2) focuses and markings to channel in lieu of no more patron. Ex: tattooed leylines on your skin, arcane circles, burning pages of runic script for temp effects, talisman’s to leech power from sources you still sense
3) performing rituals to mask your presence or shield yourself from patron powers/ gaze. Ex.: sprinkle with holy water, carrying iron to repulse fey, intoxication to stupefy your mind to old ones thoughts and murmurs, a vow of pacifism or binding your sword arm with consecrated wrappings for hexblade, purifying any blood split after the fact (with oils, incense, or salt, etc.) so patron is denied using it as a source to connect with your plane, etc., etc.
I feel like the most important question to ask a warlock player when they start out as a warlock is a few questions. As the answer to them wil influence patron/warlock relationship
1. Have you payed the contract price in backstory or would you like to do it in game?
2. Are you okay with the possibility of loosing power if you upset the patron?
I am of the school of thought that a warlock should almost never loose his power, following the thought line that the flavor text says something along the line "more often than not the relationship is that of a master, apprentice" and to me that implies that the power a warlock gains is theirs no matter what, like what you says about learning acient knowledge. I view it kind of like the patron having granted their warlock a seed of power the warlock is capable of growing without the help of the patron, this is not something the patron would want the warlock to know ofc as the patron wants the warlock feeling like he needs the patron so the patron makes sure that it makes it feel like it is the reason for the growth of power, and perhaps it is capabøe of making the power grow more quickly than what the player would be able to on his own, who knows. There is afterall something poetic using the power you gained from your patron to turn it against it.
What you say about a pact burner sounds realy interesting.
Another possibility could be to make a new pact with a new creature, I personaly like the idea of a warlock having multiple patrons in his lifetime. Say fiend warlock from lv 1-5 and a fey warlock from 6-10 etc etc and that the warlock have the features of the patron he had during lv ups.
I have personaly been toying with the idea of granting my players additional subclasses as quest rewards, like a sorcerer doing an acient blood rite gaining the bloodline powers of another sorcerer in addition to his own or a warlock making more pacts.
I’d love to see you take a crack at Sorcerous Origins, I feel like that’d be a blast. Also would love to see some FairyDaels on the Just-So stories by Rudyard Kipling.
Thomas Merrick if I could like this comment twice, I would.
The way you flip a concept that could very easily be a negative gameplay experience to something positive and exciting and rewarding is incredible. I really love the concept.
The Deathlock in Tome of Foes implies that a warlock has a kind of arcane “leash” or tether that the patron uses to turn a failed warlock into a subservient deathlok. It also states other creatures and persons have learned ways to tap into that severed connection to create deathloks loyal to them instead. It makes me think of a variant of astral projection and it’s silver thread. Imagine a powerful necromancer realizes the loose thread he might be able to gain control of and now they’re after the PC, too. Perhaps a quest knot off that thread. Maybe the warlock binds it to something else?
Perhaps by taking an strong oath?
Didn’t realize how badly I needed this...for a specific Warlock NPC my party has taken a shine to. Thank you!!!
I was browsing through youtube and this comes up in my recommended and it's literally the exact arc I was thinking of doing for my past hexblade warlock
I don't play D&D and mostly have no idea what you're talking about, but it's still very interesting. You are such a good narrator, and I really enjoy your mythology videos!
One of my players plays a warlock and from the very first session she came up with the idea that her warlock would offer the bodies of creatures killed within the past minute by her to her patron as an offering. Each time she slays a foe, she takes her time after combat to perform a ritual to offer "magic" them away. This fulfills part of her pact along with the other odd tasks she's given and allows her to adventure as most adventurers do while explaining her powers she's given
A twist to Warlocks I have toyed with is the Rental Warlock. Your patron operates a temp agency and pays you with basic abilities while renting you to various other begins in exchange for something it wants. While rented you gain access to spells based on the powers of whoever you are currently working under. PC is also paid with a number of limited use spells they can use after the rental ends and carries a ledger they use to cast the banked spells.
In my personal experience, I've found that the most interesting warlocks are the ones that eschew the faustian bargain archetype in favour of more unconventional deals, arrangements, or relationships. I once made a character who's grandmother was not only a witch, but his warlock patron, always looking out for him with a little Raven familiar and so on...
But on the flipside, my current character literally snuck himself and one of the other party members out of a warlock contract, with powers intact, by becoming a patron himself through outwitting the original patron (in this case, a bored and nihilistic god). It's made for some very interesting moments, and a new subclass for my friend: the Charlatan patron. Not so much a pact burner as newly self-employed.
Dael this is definitely something I'm going to need. One of the potential campaign Big Bads of my game is an ancient, sentient mask bent on (spoilers for my players) replicating itself and 'masking' every sapient creature on the world, turning them into its hivemind drones to 'protect' them from a fated extraplanar invasion. Naturally the party bard put the first fragment of the mask On His Goddamn Face and later made a warlock pact with it he is now hardcore regretting as its goals become more apparent. It has left a metal shard inside his skull it can use to talk to him, listen to his thoughts and cause him pain at will. If the party finds a way to extract it, the pact will technically be broken as the mask is far from omnipotent and needs a physical anchor to project to. I'm not sure what will happen to the bard if they do this. Input welcome:)
Beautiful!
Monarch Factory is the best way to start a Saturday!!
I've had a couple of warlocks in 5E.
One was a Great Old warlock. One of the things he would do was after he and his group would clear out certain lairs and dungeons that he deemed suitable he would bury a scrimshaw he had carved covered in his own blood somewhere in the place. When he was asked about it he said it was "So the Colony would know where to look."
Another was a Fiend warlock. He was essentially married to his patron (In this case Glasya) and as such he had to play the part of the dutiful husband. IT lead to heavy drinking. At least when he was on his own on the material plane.
When you said the spellcasting mod changes from cha to int you had me. I had been really wondering how to handle this kind of situation for a long time and I had no solutions but even that on its own would just make a lot of sense, especially alongside your other points that can be fleshed out. I think maybe a fun way to actually execute this as a DM would be to have an extra behind the scenes character sheet developed for that warlock, and every time that warlock levels up you level that character sheet with it but with any of the alterations and replacements (ie enemy of the archfey instead of pact of the archfey), and when the warlock makes the decision to break the pact there's a big dramatic moment where you ask for their character sheet and hand the alternate one to them. Of course giving them a chance to move items over and all.
I think another interesting video to see would be sort of in a similar vein, which would be how to handle when clerics betray their deity (which I don't think you've made a video on) I've had some thoughts about how to handle that but they mostly revolve around revoking spellcasting from the cleric until they find another deity to worship, which isn't really satisfying and I don't want a player to feel like their character is a burden to the party (it could be fun if the character feels that way and it's roleplayed but I don't want the player to internalize that you know?) but at the same time the relationship between cleric and deity is different from that of a warlock and their patron, since in the flavor as written a cleric's magic does come directly from their patron
I would love to see an updated version of this as it's fleshed out as it is a good narrative tone that can really offer great roleplay moments in a party. On that note I would also like to see a subclass of something similar for the Cleric to round out all the classes that kind of look to a higher power for their abilities. Something like the Domain Rebuker Cleric. I'm not sure what it's abilities would look like but I think it's a good idea to float around that's similar to this.
I once played as a warlock that was basically like this (except without all the cool stat buffs). My character had a contract with his patron that basically said "Bring me king's blood, or... I'll get it myself from your kid." Long story short, he failed to get the king's blood, and his kid (who was technically the bastard son of a princess) got yoinked into the nine-hells.
So my character starts out with a bunch of warlock power but his pact is technically already fulfilled. And his quest is actually to find a way to get rid of his warlock powers, which he sees as a curse, and a way that the Great Fiend still holds influence over him.
It made for pretty cool rp and character motivations throughout the story.
I found this channel again!
today is a great day
I had burned my contract with the GOO by the name of Utobee and they denied me all my knowledge
but have bested my patron and found you again despite all the odds
All hail
Please make more videos featuring your own story-driven home brews. I don't play d&d, but your perspective so creative that it inspires me to think outside the cube. Plus, I just like to hear you talk.
I love this. I just finished a campaign I ran with a warlock player who turned his back on his patron. When he did his patron sent other warlocks to hunt him down and I used this as an opportunity for him to still gain abilities even though they were no longer given to him. I told him that the same way he takes power from his patron he is able to take from other warlocks he defeats. This allows him to still level up in his warlock class by syphoning abilities from defeated warlocks sent to hunt him down. So in essence its like he's looting power like items.
"I looked cute in the mirror."
If that's not a big mood 😖
I love this!!!! Narrative help for warlocks is always useful
Your video got me thinking about Warlocks, and now I'm working on a new patron: The Chained Trickster. A deity in the vein of Prometheus, the Chained Trickster is being punished for stealing fire for mortals and doesn't have temples or clerics, but has spent the millenia gathering powerful secrets, and is now ready to share them.
Pact spells focus on fire damage and illusion.
The patron is seeking revenge against a lawful good deity, and possible endgame content could include trying to release the patron.
Great Video!! I'd like to hear more of your opinions on Cleics, as you tangentially mentioned the Domains in your "Building a Pantheon" Video.
This is cool. In my game I implemented a more simple solution.
1. The things your patron taught to you are yours to keep. They are secrets they taught to you.
2. However if you break your pact, you can no longer advance as a warlock and you gain a powerful enemy.
Can't believe Tom Hanks kept you from getting a haircut
Thinking about it, I prefer the idea that once a warlock bond is made, it can't be severed unless both parties agree to it. For example, the way Ghost Rider uses his own curse against the devil that put it on him, and that devil could and would remove it, but only with his consent. So a burned Warlock would continue to get their powers from their patron, but every time they use them they give the former patron information about where they are and what they're doing, and draw unwelcome attention to themselves.
You could instill a simple mechanic where every time a burned Warlock uses an invocation, it triggers an encounter later down the line, or makes an existing one tougher.
Great video. I had a similar conversation with my DM, as a what if, when my character shifted from Bard to Warlock, due to a story experience.
In Critical Role, Ford had to find a new Patron to get his abilities back.
I would say you could counterspell against the bonus spells that are specific to that patron. You don't want the ability to be so powerful that it messes up balance.
Also, I've looked through a lot of the comments. I can't believe I'm the only one staring at the Pandemic game on the shelf in the background.
I think for the Invocations, as many of them are just flavoured spells , you could treat them more "wizardly".
Through their previous connection with their patron they can already do any of the invocations, however without the patron they will need to translate the knowledge themselves.
So they may have to do a skill challenge to translate the invocation for their use (this could lead to a possibility of a failure) or have a cost for them to translate it, similar to a wizard adding a spell to their book.
Charisma is an interesting ability for me. The mental scores are hard to define, but I think about it like this: Intelligence is the application of knowledge and critical thinking. It's used for problem solving and piecing bits of info together i.e. investigation checks and seeing through illusions. Wisdom is the acquisition of information and being aware and mindful of yourself and your surroundings. It's used for gaining understanding and information and centering yourself i.e. insight checks and most Wisdom saves. The thing is, Charisma doesn't fall as easily into those qualities. It's saving throws seem somewhat arbitrary and on the surface there doesn't seem to be anything in common between Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlock and Bard spellcasting, convincing someone of something and avoiding being Banished to another plane. In my opinion, the through line for that is confidence and force of will. Sorcerer's power comes from inside, their belief in themselves is the only conduit they have. Warlocks and Bards both have personally forged connections to arcane sources and were granted personal power, again hinging on the force of their will. Paladins act as emissaries on the prime material, unlike Clerics who are more like conduits. I always saw Paladin's more like Warlocks or Angels, granted power by their deities and left to their own devices, under the assurance that their will is a reflection of their god's. Lying, persuading, performing and intimidating all hinge on your genuine belief that you won't screw it up. Anyway, that's just my 2 cents. I don't just see it as nothing but pure charm, so Warlock's casting using it always made sense to me.
The thing which people always seem to forget with paladins, is that in the rules of 5e their power isn't derived from a god, but rather an oath, and the way I see it, specifically their dedication to that oath, and their conviction that their cause is just, hence charisma being their spellcasting ability. Whether it is simply the sheer power of this conviction and dedication influencing the weave of magic, or if a god, out of respect or desire for the oath to be fulfilled, had granted the paladin power, the main conduit for this power is the oath. Feel like I should clarify that I'm not saying DMs who run pallys differently are wrong, but this is my input from my interpretation of the phb.
I like to think of warlocks as gaining warlock powers once and then developing their access to them on their own. So basically if your betray your patron you keep your power, you can continue levelling as a warlock. But you have a very powerful new enemy, with whom you have broken contract, and your patron might want to settle your debt violently.
I like this idea very much (and not gonna lie Oathbreaker paladin was the first thought in my head when i saw this).
However i have a different take on what the player would keep/give up.
The way i kinda thought of this was that once you break you pact everything you've learned from that patron either gets weakend or completely removed.
Things that go away:
Expanded spell list (except for the spells you already learned from it)
Specific abilities aquired from that patron.
Mystic Arcanums
Things that get weakend:
Pact boon(Tome) - so instead of keeping your book of secrets just like how it was. It instead becomes a regular spellbook that is atunned(optional) to you. All spells on there now take up spell slots but you gain spell slots equal to half the total spells you know of that level.
(Example: you know 6 3rd level spells, you would gain 3 3rd level spell slots.)
Pact Weapon - the weapon becomes just a normal weapon that you are proficient in. You can not summon it to you nor can you change it.
Pact familiar - honestly what you saod hits the mark for me.
Eldrich invocations concerning spells - same thing with the tome, they just take up spell slots now.
Anything not in either category is to be assumed that the player keeps it with no drawbacks or i probably just forgot to mention it.
I did it this way because it feels much more immediate and mechanically changing. I will say though that this comes from a perspective of warlocks being about the pact you made not the physical acts your patron asks of you. However what you came up with is incredibly cool and i think i just changed to better suit my personal style of play. Personally i feel like an otherworldy being wouldn't let you still have all the cool stuff thwy let you borrow. Which is how i see the pact as, borrowed magic.
I have a level 1 party in a freshly started roll20 campaign, "Lockdown", right now. One of my roommates plays an elven noble warlock who forged a pact with a demonic entity to reclaim his lost colonies. Thing is, she already hates playing according to the demon's wishes. I'm so gonna introduce this into my homebrew collection...
Dael, half of my campaign rules are stuff I stole from you, you're amazing, keep this stuff coming! :D
I am already thinking of some neat "miscellaneous tasks" for warlocks. Things like "tear out every third page of that religious text and put them back in random order." or "give a mouse a cookie, then walk away."
-
This idea of a price for unfaithfulness needs to be a player-DM discussion with Clerics, Druids, Paladins and Rangers (and some other subclasses that have a concept of "patron") as well.
In the backstory of one of my characters it was her parents who betrayed the archfey specifically Verenestra, and while she kept her side of the bargin she cursed their daughter to slowly take on a snake like form as a reminder of their betrayal. Eventually she sought out Verenestra to lift her curse which she eventually agreed to do but only after she fulfilled her service to her.
I should also mention that Verenestra also included an "insurance policy" in case she had any funny ideas and now she literally can't go back on promises, deals, agreements ect without lethal consequences. Seriously she will actually die if she so much as tries to cheat her way out of a deal she made with a merchant to hand over half of what she found in a cave said merchant told her about
I try to push that people can always house rule that Warlocks use Int as their stat to fit what lore they want. I also think it should be that whatever power they have gained is through power given or knowledge taken (it's the player's and the DM's job to make the lore work for them). Perhaps, if the Warlock has progressed far enough they might have the basis of knowledge enough to start progressing on their own (sometimes all one needs is a little push).
Even then, breaking the pact might not be so easy. In some cases, the pact has been broken and the patron will send minions to take what was "stolen", sure; however, in other cases like the fiend, the patron might send an ominous reminder: "You think you've gotten out of this? Remember, when you die I still get your soul. The bargain was struck, and the bill will come due."
My GOO Warlock made a pact with the Time Lord Rassilon and he was suppose to spread the name of Rassilon! He mainly did it by introducing his make believe invisible friend as Rassilon! He was spying for the elves and did it by making people think he was crazy by introducing his "friend" that nobody could see as Rassilon! He was a fun character to play and roleplay!
Just glad to have you back and hope you're feeling better.
I feel you, Dael. My undercut is like 2 inches long now.
Seriously thinking of getting some clippers and doing it myself.
Best take on warlock I've heard in a while. Well done.
Awesome video! Huge fan! Can you PLEASE do in depth ideas about the planes? Like you did for the Feywild? Maybe a mini series covering each one or your favourites? The DMG has such tiny paragraphs about most of them.
I’d also love to see a video on characters you’ve made or played?
Very nearly did this a couple of days ago. She refused the demands of her fiend patron. So she was burned almost to death and had no powers any more. Almost went with a pact breaker thing but landed on vengeance paladin instead. Her oath? To make sure nobody else suffers the manipulation I have suffered.
I was very inspired by this video and it turned into one of my top DnD moments (and apparently the player's literal top DnD moment). So thanks!!!
My first instinct for a Pact Burner Warlock is. The Patron is a stabalizing agent, so some spells may do more damage. But they may now come with an additional cost. And you'd give a table for high level spells.
So a 7-9 Spell might require HP to be paid, or a Critical Failure guarantees a Double Failure on that chart. A familiar may when resummoned adopt a new form.
Apparently warlocks did use to be INT based back in the original 5E playtesting, but the players said it felt strange to play and so that's why they just shoved it in with all the other CHA spellcasters yet much of the lore is about wanting to obtain more knowledge and power.
Honestly I think Intelligence makes more sense even beyond balancing out the classes main stat distribution.
-Less shrewd characters would be unlikely able to negotiate an agreement that is mutually beneficial for themself in the first place.
-Intelligence makes it about finding every loophole and exploit in the contract, which is a perfect excuse in how they can still level and gain new powers if their patron is ever gone. Compared to the thing where Charisma is described as being about willpower and a strong sense of identity.
-It perfectly fits the whole Lovecraftian thing of researchers looking where they shouldn't and gaining knowledge and abilities they shouldn't really ever have.
-It completely differentiates them from Clerics and with Intelligence being the more visceral and concrete of the mental stats it reinforces them making a calculated deal with a higher power instead of being rewarded for blind trust in them.
I've actually just started playing a INT Aasimar Celestial Warlock whose patron is their half angel Divine Soul Sorcerer father. Who is also a famous adventurer on top of that. So things should get interesting.
warlock can have a little bit of ancient lore... as a treat
This is a great take on what to do when the Warlock DOESN'T stay loyal to the patron.
Either way the drama is there and I love the idea of them keeping stuff and wondering, "is my familiar spying on me now?" or "will using my book of shadows draw attention from my ex-sugar daddy?"
Great vid as always, cheers.
Reminds me of a lot of the mystic cards from the Arkham horror card game. A lot of their ideas are "I'm not with them but they have a lot of good ideas and resources that maybe we should use." Might be a great source of inspiration.
Canonically in the game, there is actually an in-game consequence for a warlock breaking their pact. It's that when they die, if they haven't mended their relationship with their patron, they come back as a deathlock bound to the patron with their free will basically stripped away and forced to serve them for all eternity. So, if one of the warlocks in your game breaks their pact and then dies, there will be no resurrecting them. Their soul is stripped away to their patron's realm and their body resurrected as one of these things. I guess the DM would then have a cool villain to throw at the party.
Int based warlocks make a lot of sense and were playtested that way before 5e was released.
As for the pact, I've always seen it as the patron can't just take the power back, it's bonded to you, it's yours. They can, obviously, send their agents after you. However, I might limit the levels a pact-broken warlock can get after they've broken the pact, depending on the character and the narrative. As in they get no /more/ power than what they already have
Arthurian Legend/Greek Heroes smash up where you tell either an Arthurian chronicle or Greek Myth but swap a knight for hero (or vice versa) and makeup how they likely would have acted.
When I saw the title, I thought of a Warlock whose speciality is that they change Patrons very often, gaining whatever benefits they can, then "burning" the pact (ideally before they have to actually take any responsibilities) and moving on to the next patron.
Dael can make a video 2 hours long and nobody would blink an eyelash
My first time player read through the PHB and realized it was a deal for power, so he himself came up with a "pact" since his Patron only has him as a warlock they made a deal where the Patron can control his body in exchange for gifts. And the way he gets powers is literally by convincing his patron to give him more gifts
This is a fantastic idea. I had a similar idea regarding druids using metal armor and losing their nature magic (in Pathfinder.) Have the class 'prestige' into a similar, but different class. Like one with less emphasis on the more earth-based spells and more on the savagery of the animal forms, etc.
When she talked about these small tasks I couldn’t help but notice the similarities between this and Erebos
Dale uploads a video:
Wizards of the coast: Right that down! Right that down!
seriously
Write that down.
Mark of the pack breaker:; your pack burner can always be found and carries a magical seal that reveals your location and transgression to your warlock followers.
There could be a way of making yourself stronger by breaking the limits of the power given to you. I always imagined the Eldritch Blast as an ability that sort of "unnerfs" itself as the warlock gets stronger. Being more powerful means there's more energy you can channel without breaking yourself. With a patron it's straightforward, without one, working with what you have, a warlock can learn to control it better, maybe increasing it's quantity instead of it's potential.
If they strayed too far from their Patron, I would tell my players they've gained the "Pact Breaker"-template:
- You can no longer gain levels in the Warlock Class.
- You keep all currently aqcuired Warlock features.
- You cannot use Spell Slots Aqcuired through Pact Magic.
- You can cast spells that require spell slots by decreasing your hit points by xd6,
where x is the level at which the spell is cast.
A fun way of showing with the patron wants the player to interact with, is to give clues through omens/messengers/dreams like:
- Only you can see a glowing symbol related to your patron etched on the entryway of a house.
- You can see a familiar pattern in a swarm of flies gathering above a public execution.
If the party doesn't react you could have an unknown warlock of the same patron intercept in their stead.
- When seeing a pact breaker, you are overcome by a sudden surge of anger. Make a DC17 Charisma saving throw, on a failure you have to make a hostile action against that pact breaker.
- You see a hint of recognition in the bartenders eyes when he glances at your familiar. When he delivers the next batch of drinks you receive a sealed envelope with the symbol of your patron pressed upon it. Containing further instructions from that patron.
- Once every few sessions the warlock will have a dream about a full moon shining over a notable nearby location. This indicates where all nearby warlocks of that patron will gather during the next full moon.
There's flavour text for the Great Old One patron that it may not even be aware of you.
Me about to watch this video: eh, not my kinda topic, but ill watch it cuz i love daels videos
Me, literally 1 minute in: I WILL USE THIS
I love the idea that a 'pact burner" uses their Intelligence modifier!
Your idea about giving a bonus or benefit to the pact burner when he is trying to detect threats from his old patron sparked an idea in me. I'm not sure if it's too mechanically fiddly or demands too much of the DM, but here it goes:
Paranoia, whenever you roll a perception check you can choose to reroll it; if you do, the second roll can only be considered a success if there is anything perceivable present pertaining to your old patron. The DM decides if there is and how to narrate a "false positive". This I think could be some excellent opportunities for the player to descend into madness.
DM: "The bartender looks at you curiously";
PB: "Maybe he is part of the cult! Can I recognise any marks or insignia pertaining to the cult of my old patron?";
DM: "Roll a perception check";
PB: "Ah, shoot, a 4. I want to reroll... Yes! 16!";
DM: "Yea, you can barely make out the top of the skull crest hanging in a chain around his neck, tucked under his shirt."
It gives the player the opportunity to decide when to risk false positives, and if he/she does, it mimic in game mechanic the effect of no being able to trust your one mind. Thematically it would sit very well with former Old One Locks...
Oh, and remember: "Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you."
Warlocks can have a little secret of the universe, as a treat.
I think somekind of unique ability related to the Banishment spell would be fitting for this. Focused on Abjuration (warding) and Divination (seeing). Because the Pact Burner is always on the lookout and always on the defensive.
I like the idea of a shadow class, like a new class, only for characters that have reached a certain level of prestige, a prestigious class
I’m running a campaign with the hex blade war lock set in Zakhara forgotten realms. They got their pact weapon from a genie but the genie is not the patron. The blade is cursed with a soul stuck inside that has the powers of a max level warlock. As the character levels they access more of that souls power but as they get more powerful the soul is starting to influence them in the real world and at some point there’s going to be a struggle over who is in control of that body and that may swing back and forth. So at first he had visions or dreams of this figure since he’s a changeling now he’s at one point been forcibly changed into the look of that soul already but we are only level five so we will see.
I once had a player that was a Dragonborn warlock of Tiamat who played it pretty vain as a blue Dragonborn and when he did something that really displeased her I had his color turn grey and it became a huge thing with completing a task for her and he loved it!
I really like a Pact Burner Warlock in the RP of the PRG, but there's a unique angle for how a DM could use setting to make Patrons related to the game's subclasses. They way I like to imagine Warlocks is that if a Patron is so willing to imbue a Warlock with magic then that Warlock has value beyond themselves and what a single humanoid might normally be worth. This value inspires demand among different patrons to incentivize warlocks to stay loyal and continue with the Faustian Bargain, and if such a Warlock were to go rogue they could be prime pickings for other patrons competing for these Warlocks. If a warlock is considered employed talent, than that talent can be poached and coerced into joining the ranks of their former competition. This could mean that your fiend warlock becomes an arch fey warlock, or they just move from one fiend to another. This competition between patrons could be helpful in instances were warlocks have a change of heart because if a warlock doesn't want to do the questionable thing, a competing patron could 'hire' the warlock on the spot to thwart the efforts of their old patron to do this questionable thing. The central tenant of all of this is that a Warlock and their services are considered valuable to their patron, if they weren't they would be warlocks or they wouldn't be warlocks capable of meaningful betrayal.
I really like the concept of the Pact Burner Warlock. I kind of wonder how my Great Old One Kenku would handle that as he would loose his "voice". On a separate note I do appreciate the Dead of Winter and Pandemic games in the back. Probably the two best games to play under quarantine. XD
So I once played a Warlock up to level 20 (Well, 18 Warlock, 2 in a homebrew class, irrelevant for this story.) It was a modified Archfey patron, because she was an ex-moon goddess I was helping regian her former glory. My character was a hopeless disaster lesbian, an incorrigible flirt, and blind to the manipulations of a pretty face, so she went along with anything her patron said, even though it was... Clearly leading to the apocalypse to everyone but her. Eventually, we hit level 18, we stopped the big bad from finishing his ritual... Which was supposed to seal my patron forever. Whoops. She then proceeds to emact her plans to slaughter the entire pantheon. Double Whoops. She asks me to join her, and I made the mistake of saying that I should have trusted her mortal enemy. She sighed, sadly. Shame, she really liked me. I was left a level 2 character, and the party took me on an escort mission through the Shadowfell so I could make a new pact with the Ravem Queen. Once I did, I was able to keep my levels, the Raven Queen saw I was a valuable asset, if a bit... Gullible, but the trudge of despair from knowing I caused the apocalypse through a land thst feeds on despair... Surprisingly, that was not one of the 4 total times I died in that campaign with the same character!
Hey Dael, perfect timing! I just rolled up an eladrin Archfey warlock, though I'm still struggling with what/how their patron is. If you're looking for more videos to make, how about one on how you'd do archfey patrons? Or really any less divine godlike beings?
The character Japheth from Plague of Spells by Bruce Cordell is exactly this type of Warlock. Stealing the power of his patron (The Lord of Bats) and on the run.
Hi Dael - I'm just catching up on this one, it's been in my "watch later" list for ages! I 100% love the concept of a warlock gone rogue. I have a warlock player in the game I run and while the whole pact burner thing might not come up, it's a great idea to have in my back pocket. It was a good reminder to have the warlock serving the patron, too, I often forget to include that part of the deal and just figure that PC has cool powers with no consequences. Well, not any more! (My warlock player is going to find their life develops some complications, and they may not thank me!)
Also, since nobody else in the comments seems to have mentioned it, I've got to say that is an awesome shirt :)
THANK you! I really love that shirt a lot. I hope your warlock player has fun really roleplaying a warlock!
One of the benefits of serving an otherworldly power is that you quickly learn who their enemies are. If your pact isn't working out and you find yourself as a pact-burner, then you probably know someone who is hiring warlocks who would gleefully accept your service because it would frustrate your former patron ever so much... especially if you're offering your old pact boon to your new patron.
literally came in TH-cam to click on a playlist for background noise.
Saw you video and didn't even think hesitate to click it.
I would love a video on travel on the outer positive/good planes. you can read so much cool stuff on travel in the nine hells, the many layers of the abyss, the unfathomable creatures from the far realms, the destructive and dangerous elemental realms. But what dangers would you face in the realms of good creatures?
Warlocks can have some ancient lore, as a treat.
Love the idea of shadow classes/subclasses. Stuff the DM alters or enhances based on what your story is becoming. Had a similar idea for a gestalt campaign with very few players. Using classes and subclasses to give more tools to the players rather than just making them OP from the start. Also love the idea of making Mental stats more flexible for the classes that use them as spell-abilities. Int/Wisdom for wizards, any mental stat for Sorcerer, Cha/Int Warlock, Cha/Wis for Bards and Clerics, snd so on. Find what feels best for you based on how your view each stats application.
The other warlock gone rouge option is pact shopping. There are plenty of Fiends that would look kindly on a little treachery to a former master as resume building, and would rely on their own intellect to keep you in check this time. Or maybe your fairy godfather had a rival you could go work for. so now you have to deal with the hassle of a slightly less trusting patron, but have a more clearly negotiated contract up front, what with you now being an experienced warlock and knowing what to expect.
Celestial pact.
I only know this because I played a warlock with a celestial patron. Funnily enough, she was a repenting _former_ cultist.