• Match!!@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    1 year ago

    When clerics betray their gods they lose their powers

    When warlocks betray their gods they gain a target on their back

    • MajorHavoc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah. It’s way more fun to leave their powers intact and send wave sheet wave of eldritch horrors bent on revenge after them.

  • Infynis@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Eldritch pacts are meant to be agreements between a master and an apprentice, kind of like the Sith, or tradesmen in real life. The Warlock receives knowledge and resources from the Patron, and the Patron gets the Warlock’s service in return. If the pact is broken, the Warlock loses the ability to continue to learn from the Patron, leverage their resources and influence, etc., but they do not lose the knowledge they’ve already learned (unless that was a specific stipulation in the pact).

    • DontTreadOnBigfoot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      I could definitely see it going either way. That being either the patron bestows knowledge, or the patron actually provides the power in real time.

      But it should be something that is agreed to between the player and DM as soon as the class is chosen.

  • smeg@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    1 year ago

    Clerics have a pray each morning and their deity grants them some spells for the day, meaning if the deity is unhappy it can deny them today’s spells. Warlocks have been given the knowledge of how to cast some forbidden magicks, they don’t need their patron to give them permission to cast what they already know. If a warlock pisses off their patron then they’ll have to come down and rip that knowledge out of their head with their slimy tentacles, which sounds like a great plot, I’ve got some writing to do…

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Warlock is given the power too. You wouldn’t be able to bargain your spellslots back of it didn’t come from your patron.

      Also, if it was knowledge based, you’d use your intelligence, not your charisma.

      • smeg@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        Warlock was apparently meant to be an INT-based caster in 5e, apparently the grognards didn’t like change so they reverted it after the dndnext playtest (but forgot to change all the starting proficiencies!) It makes more sense for the “mad mage who studied the forbidden magicks” archetype though.

        • 1simpletailer@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Man 5e really needs another INT caster and has too many CHA casters too. Every party is full of charismatic dumbfucks which I guess fits with how most players play.

          • smeg@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The trouble is that there’s basically no downside to dumping INT, it’s not like back in the day when things like languages and skill ranks depended on it

        • bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, I think the current distribution is far better. A mad mage who studied forbidden magic is a wizard, like all mages who study. A “mage who made a pact with an entity to get power or magic”, by definition, did not studied. A mage who studied and also made a pact can have both classes.

          There is the pact of the tome that emphasise the idea that you can get a magical tome to get spells. You didn’t wrote those spells. You still didn’t learn this magic. What intelligence is there to this craft?

  • bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    I really feel like it’s dishonest for players to argue about this. The one to decide is the dm. Trying to bully the dm into a position where the player is guaranteed anything when the class purposefully places you in the hands of the dm is not cool imo.

    Like, ok guys, you want to play a tactical wargame and you don’t care about any lore or world building and the dm is your opponent. But why do you play a warlock, a paladin or a cleric if you want to be an ass about it?

  • edgemaster72@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    This along with Clerics and Paladins also potentially losing their powers are better left up to individual tables to decide if and how they want to implement

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Ultimately D&D is about telling stories. Does the player want to tell a story about having his character lose those powers temporarily? If not, you can just say that the contract is to sow chaos or something else vague and almost impossible for an adventurer to fail at.

    (Or maybe have a supernaturally evil entity simply grant the magic for free, no strings attached. Having Satan give you great power with no explanation might seem even more menacing than a conventional agreement to do evil.)

    Beyond that, game rules can’t fix bad roleplaying. The right answer to immersion-ruining, unfun in-game behavior is an out-of-game conversation with the player, which might need to end with “…and stay out!”

    • sammytheman666@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Plus I think its unfair that some classes are bounded to strict conditions and some not. Why doesnt the artificer or wizard able to lose their powers then if the cleric or paladin does ?

      I agree with you. If the player agrees to it, sure go ahead. As a bad surprise or a bad consequence of something else ? Find something that would affect anyone the same. Like jail.

      • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well the wizard loses his spells of he loses his spellbook or spell components, or at least that’s how it used to be.

        Got nothing for the Artificer. It would be cool if they had tools or something like that they used. But I don’t think it’s about fairness as it is about immersion. Depending on the patron, especially the ones all about planning or intelligence, it breaks some people’s suspension of disbelief that they would make such dumb contracts that allowed the person to keep powers or gain new ones after betraying them.

        • sammytheman666@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Used to be. In 5th, all you lose is the possibility to switch spells. And with a focus no need for most components except the ones that have a gold cost.

          ONLY if the player is cool with it. I prefer to break immersion that lose a player. If I have to choose, fuck immersion, I love my players and I want to keep them at my table.

          Althought I do love immersion. You can have your cake and eat it too. Just… fuck it if the cost is a player’s fun.

          • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Oh definitely, I agree 100%. Player’s fun above all else. I had to defend it because I’m the kind of person who wouldn’t mind this, but with a DM and party who uses it for cool story purposes, not to screw me over.

            (Rest of this post is just me reminiscing lol) For an example, one of our old group’s favorite sessions of all time, one we would talk about for years to come, was when we were imprisoned in an anti-magic field prison without weapons or equipment and had to escape. Sure we lost our spells and equipment, but it was only one session, it let some players shine who hadn’t in a long time, and the spell caster(s) still had ways to contribute (the DM dropped interactable pieces of the environment they could manipulate to help us escape during battles and the followers that came in to help spring us had a relationship with them, so they were controlled by them, too).
            Or another time, a DM had a paladin’s god threaten them with falling when they kept doing evil stuff. She never actually lost her powers, but the fear of it pushed her to do a solo atonement quest when we split up during downtime where we she could get more fun character story spotlight and she came back with a cool sword or armor or something.

  • Malgas@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    The term “warlock” comes from a root (Old English, wærloga) that literally means “pact-breaker”.

    So I’d say it’s very much in the spirit of the class to eventually betray one’s patron.

    • The Octonaut@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right, but they’re specifically talking about breaking your pact with (the Christian) god. Like, y’know, the devil did. Warlocks were devils, not protégés of devils.

      • SheDiceToday@eslemmy.es
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure, within reason for the setting. There is a reason that their patron has them in the first place, and I’m betting until the warlock did the betrayal, the reason was something along the lines of “can’t act directly in the mortal realm” or somesuch. As long as this isn’t a ‘god’s wrath falls, warlock dies’ moment, there is a lot of room for fun in how a warlock might have to start dodging other warlocks or mystical beings the patron can act through.

      • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, part the deal is likely that whatever you cut a deal with gets a new chew toy for eternity upon your death

        So you know, benefits now punishment later

  • GTG3000@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    Русский
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you can somehow betray your patron (eldrich gods may not give a singular fuck about what you do), I’d rule that your spell slots become same as sorc spell slots, no short rest recharge, no “only max level”. And if you die, your soul is immediately claimed by your former patron.

    But frankly, people don’t seem to interact with the whole mechanic much.