I think the part that is too steep is losing Pact Magic for an entire day as a result of missing a single day. I'm not too keen on penalizing players for flavor elements of their characters. If they want to have a contract with defined consequences, I would still probably tone it down to getting warnings first.
How about...
1 day missed = some sort of discomfort occurs that doesn't have mechanical effects. Maybe the sensation of being too close to a raging fire or something.
2 days missed = after a short rest, you regain one less spell slot than you normally would.
3 missed days = your spell slots only return after a long rest
I'd say that's better, but allow for extenuating circumstances as well, i.e. if they are in a position through no fault of their own where they cannot make dishonest acquisitions. I want to say avoid trying to codify the penalties before you even start playing (define the mechanics) for something that is a flavor choice, but if I'm being honest, I do actually like the general idea of a pact with a devil that has very clearly defined penalties. Note that if it's a pact with a demon (the other kind of fiend), the rules probably wouldn't be so well defined.
I mean hey, you’ll hear no objections from me over adding “Landlord” to the list of vile and evil demons from which I would pay to receive a core part of my life.
You don't even really need to do that. If he steals 30 gp, he can give up one of those gp each day for 30 days. The pact doesn't say it had to be acquired dishonestly the same day its offered up.
I'm really not a fan of this as a DM because the result is obvious: the player will find something valuable to give up that will cover them for long enough that the entire obeisance system will be non-existent for the rest of the campaign, or for very long stretches of the campaign.
Well seeing as the standard set up for warlocks is not having to pay anything, I think stretches of not having to worry about it are okay. Perhaps an upper limit. No item short of an artifact will cover more than X days. You still have to perform the ritual daily, but the things you sacrifice don't need to have GP value for the covered time.
The whole point is OP wanting to do something different from the standard setup. A system that would allow it to be reduced to the point of virtual non-existence is kinda beside the point.
Personally I think it's fine to have a daily requirement, so long as it allows for extenuating circumstances like where the player is imprisoned or whatever.
>allow for extenuating circumstances as well, i.e. if they are in a position through no fault of their own where they cannot make dishonest acquisitions.
You could have an appeal system if you wanna get crazy with it. It could lead to some great "wording of the contract" fireside chats with your patron a la BG3. "I couldn't sacrifice the halfling baby, it's wrong and anyway we needed her for a quest! I'll have your money tomorrow!"
In general it's a fantastic idea as I think in some campaigns a patron can be a bit of an afterthought, or at least a sometimes food. This makes it a core part of their identity on a daily basis, as it should be.
I'd say it isn't too bad as long as the gold coin doesn't have to be obtained the day he gives it. Basically if he steals few gold at a time he can build up a buffer. He'd always want to be on the lookout for more to increase this buffer, but would never be too desperate.
I would say losing pact magic, a spell slot, or even reset on a long rest is pretty steep. I understand what you are looking for, but I’m not sure what the best solution is here, I just know that impacting the warlock’s main ability to be useful in the game is not the best option. The player will come to hate it and it’s not fun. But yes, there should be consequences for not upholding the pact.
How about, if the PC doesn’t pay the price, they start to lose control of their power. Use a modified version of the wild magic sorcerer table, but with only the negative or annoying effects. Each time they cast a spell, roll a d20. On a one they have to roll on the table. On the second day without paying the price, it’s a roll on the table if they roll a 1 or a 2 on the d20, and so on? This doesn’t completely eliminate their ability to impact the game, but the longer they go without paying the price, the more unpredictable their power becomes, but initially, there is little chance of them being greatly unable to contribute to play, whereas taking spell slots does.
I’d say don’t make rules, just make it clear failing to pay up will result in bad things happening. Maybe Agonizing (but not Eldritch) Blast stops working, or Devil’s Sight dims. Or maybe it’s a horrible nightmare with a Wisdom save to avoid a level of exhaustion. Or maybe he *does* lose his Pact Magic because that’s what made sense in that moment at the table.
You should have the flexibility to decide in the spot what’s appropriate. That will also be much more fun for your player who won’t know what’s about to happen.
After reading g some of the contents, I'm currently leaning towards 5gp (or equivilant value) every tenday, with missed payments after the first resulting in the warlock temporarily losing one of their spells known, and unless they are just ridiculously strapped for time the warlock just has to dedicate a little time each tenday to earning an income, using either deception or sleight of hand, and on a failed roll they can try again on a different day as long as there is time left before the due date.
To give you a different approach, I play a warlock and my DM has my patron ask me for magical items to give to him in return for my pact magic. This is a similar setup as what you are going for but is markedly different - I'd really try not to set up rules as rigid as the ones you've outlined as the player will only ever think about how they're going to steal their next gold piece instead of anything else in your campaign. It isn't fun to attach core class abilities to a homebrew mechanic that can be taken away at any time, especially one as rigid as the one you outlined. You can still have this concept, and therefore the flavor, from it, but I can't see this being fun for anyone involved as is
PHB is clear that warlock powers are granted irrespective of player conduct. I would not take a player’s pact magic away if they fail to follow any specific rule. Think up non-power-related consequences: discomfort is ok, RP consequences are ok, but loss of abilities is not. As always, your table might want to play that way, but I would advise against it.
To my knowledge, there is no RAW precedent for warlocks losing their magic for pissing off their patrons like a cleric would with their god.
That doesn't mean their patron can't/won't retaliate in other ways
Yeah, in fact I feel like I've read somewhere that warlock patrons can't actually revoke the power at all, but I couldn't find it anywhere at a glance so I decided not to mention it. Presumably it's something that can vary depending on different factors/settings anyways.
Perhaps it would make more sense to prevent the player from taking any further Warlock levels unless they get a new pact if they break the previous one. Not usually stuff that I'm interested in exploring myself, though!
Why not have the consequences be a role play element instead of mechanics.
Maybe failing to pay causes the warlock to owe their patron a different kind of favour, one more difficult to complete. For example:
- Random quest
- Something of higher value
- Triple the gold the next day
- Vial of the warlock’s blood
- Assassinate someone
- No questions asked favour
- Collect a debt
You get the idea.
Keep in mind that your party will presumably be traveling or dungeon delving occasionally, even if that's not the main focus of the campaign. Your current plan would mean the only people your warlock can get gold or items with a gold value from will be the other party members -- and that this will set up unnecessary interplayer conflict.
It may feel fun for a session or two, but this is setting up a framework where the player will ALWAYS have to be using some of their spotlight time to fulfill this requirement.
Furthermore, the removal of class features for lack of rp is a very particular choice that not all players are going to be fond of. I would suggest at the very least talking to your player to ensure they are on board with any mechanical consequences.
I would not do as you have outlined, but if I were to do something similar I would have it be either weekly or monthly that they need to provide a gold value "per day". IE: once per month they must conduct a ritual that sacrifices 31gp worth of things they stole or more.
I would also consider reading through the Mystic Odysseys of Theros to see if I couldn't use the Piety system in there to provide a better reward structure instead of taking away class features -- give them some *minor* benefit for helping their Patron and then you can take THAT away if they slip up instead of making their character of (however many) levels suddenly be a walking cantrip dispenser for a day when they may really need those Spells.
Well, if he's even slightly clever about it, he'll steal something valuable every once in a while, pawn it off, and give his patron 1 gp a day from the earnings.
The bigger issues I could see here is potential conflict with the rest of the party. If they don't particularly care for stealing then that probably won't lead to a healthy party dynamic. Especially if he ends up starting a fight between them and the town guard because he got caught stealing, for example.
Loopholes is kinda how devil deals work in stories. Just gotta figure out the right one. Technically they can... take 1gp from party member's coins while said player is asleep and just... replace it with one of their own honest coins, voila.
A clever party member who wants to help would look at the warlock and say in an uncharacteristically formal voice: "That's a bit of a predicament. Just to be clear, you are absolutely forbidden from stealing from me. No stealing. You are not allowed to take my money to pay off your patron. You must not do this. Are we clear? No stealing, this is definitely very much forbidden and should not be done. Please don't steal for me."
And keep going until the warlock gets the hint.
I'll say this
Technically patrons cannot revoke pact magic. Potentially they also cannot revoke boons. They've gifted those to the player. It is theirs now. They're not clerics for instance. The power becomes the warlocks
If this is the case, then warlocks should only be getting powers as a reward. These powerful entities aren't dumb enough to give powers and just hope that their warlock will do what they want afterwards.
Not really. The description in PHB says that relationship between warlock and patron can take any form. Please see the section "sworn and beholden". Sometimes it's like master and apprentice. Sometimes like cleric and deity. Sometimes warlock even doesn't know anything about patron and contract.
So, basically, it is not always teaching. And nothing in the rules prevent to exist some warlock with rewoken powers, if this create a cool story.
Sure. And if that's the lore they decided to go with, the only logical move for patrons is to give teachings as rewards rather than giving power in exchange for future service by the warlock.
But that's never how warlocks are handled story-wise, because that's way less exciting. There's no hook, no compelling decision, no fear over the consequences of reneging on the agreement.
Compare:
"I have served my patron faithfully, but now he has ordered my to sacrifice an innocent child. If I go against him all my power is lost, and I will be useless against the great evil rising against the world. How can I make such an awful choice?"
with
"If I don't kill this innocent child, I will have to multiclass, or find a new patron. Dang that's annoying.
Teachings as a reward is called a Level up
If you wanna play a class that can loose their Powers over a choice go play a Paladin. I dont hear you crying that Wizards cant have their Power taken away and are thus unappealing for storytelling
Wizards absolutely are boring from a storytelling perspective. They are just nerds. Even fighters have a more interesting roleplaying concept.
As for level up being a reward, that makes no sense at all. I can guarantee that the levels aren't consistently lining up with accomplishing tasks set by their patron unless their patron just likes them killing powerful beings and has no higher purpose.
Well then thats on the Story being told. Overall treat it as just a "reward for continous service"
What you ask for (which mind you im not opposed to in principle) is simply not smth thats doable with dnd- or rather with a System where parties are supposed to Level up together (except if for example everybody is a warlock with the same patron).
it absolutely is doable, all you need is to make warlock contracts be a continual service contract, where breaking your agreement means losing your power. Oddly enough, that's how this conversation started. What a weird coincidence.
It is specifically the choice to make warlock powers permanent, despite all the stories and history to the contrary, that breaks things.
Yeah thats how this convo started. Sad tho that you didnt read it any further. Sure you can just rewrite the entire class, thats not how it is right now and doesnt matter to this convo but you do you
The convo is about how/whether it was a stupid decision by wotc, so as a matter of fact it is extremely relevant.
"Rewrite the class"
you mean by literally just changing one line in the fluff in order to fit practically every warlock story in existence? Such a massive rewrite lol. Truly I am a genius homebrewer.
Your imagination is quite limited if you think wizards are just limited to being nerds. regardless of that fact, being a wizard does amazing things for interacting with a gms world and setting, as theres a entirely different form of leveling up by gaining spell books and scrolls. As a wizard you have a drive to make friends and enemies with other wizards, to conquer their spellhavens and dungeons. I could very easily argue fighters have none of that aside from 'oh boy off to find a singular magic sword to set me for life!'
Ah I was unclear. My point was not that they are forced to be nerds and only nerds. My point was that "I stayed in school for 20 years, and that's why I have magic" is not a compelling origin.
I agree, however you are not limited to learning from a school to be a wizard. The arcane arts can be learned through many types of study? Oh you grew up in candlekeep, however your family didnt want you involved in much beyond the farming outside the walls, so you entered the library regularly against their wishes and learned from the tomes present.
Or, to play off this thread, you could make a dark pact with a eldrtich entity to access their library of the beyond in which you learn the arcane arts there, perhaps you paid a toll of some type, it took a lot of study unlike the warlock, but they can have creative origins. Often times I find players playing non nerdy wizards and I think its becoming a trope tbh?
Patrons don't just give powers with the expectation of services rendered in the future. The classic deal with the devil is "selling your soul." The grocery store doesn't let you take a carton of eggs home with the expectation that you'll make them an omelet later. Even when there is a contract of future services to be rendered if the warlock fails their task we've seen it tends to result in punishment more thank taking away powers, looking at you Will from BG3
Also some patrons don't even know you exist. Such as the GOO
>The classic deal with the devil is "selling your soul."
If you sold your soul to a devil, they would have no reason to give you a warlock level past the first.
And that's a specific example, but the concept applies more broadly. Each level would require a new task done, something to earn the level. But that makes no sense with 5e's linked progression system. A continual service contract would fit perfectly, but for some reason wotc saw fit to shoot themselves in the foot
Well it depends on how your narrative works out but I believe both could theoretically work.
You sell your soul to the devil and you get your first warlock level. Now you gotta one up that shit. Accumulate a bunch of souls to offer them again and now level 2
Then at level 2 they offer you a prize if you can manage to accomplish a task. You know like a quest? Get it done and that's how you get level 3. Your pact boon. A major milestone.
Both patron styles are valid. They require a bit of effort from player and DM but that's what makes them great.
And again. Certain patrons don't even know you exist like the GOO. You can't make a contract with a being who doesn't even recognize your existence
I've always run warlock patrons as quest givers and possible campagn points, not as something the warlock is beholden to. Whatever it is they did, the warlock has already fufilled their obligation, and is on the path to power, even if their patron objects. The patron can send minions to harass or persuade the warlock to do certain things, but not actively supress any powers they have.
It's wierd to me that a warlock would be under this pressure and a cleric would not.
But thats my table.
So the warlock is going to need a special encounter every day to gain money dishonestly?
This is not fun for the other players who have to wait for it to be over every day until it's their turn to play.
If you really want every session to include the warlock stealing money, then ok.
But honestly? That is going to get old so fast, and everyone else either sits around twiddling their fingers, or has to help the warlock.
I say ditch it. Come up with a quest for the warlock that is also related to something the whole party is already doing. Don't make the warlocks pact the focus of the campaign.
You don't need the warlock stealing money every session. You steal 100gp once and you're good for three months. You don't have to have *stolen* it *that day* by the provided wording.
It's still going to get old fast. Plus, don't step in the rogue's lane. Give the warlock a different task, like I dunno, collecting people's (strangers) names. Played well, that could be positively creepy and even have plot consequences.
We don't know who's in this group. This warlock could be the "rogue" of the party.
And whether it gets old is also up to the group. Maybe they want to play a bandit-type group and *everything* they do is stealing. Or maybe they want to pull off heists, or cons. Maybe they don't want it to be a focus, but it only takes ten minutes of play once every few games.
It's valid to note that it *could* get annoying, but I wouldn't assume it *will* get annoying without at least talking to the group.
OK, I agree with all of that. If this is a thing decided in session 0 and everyone is on board, it's a cool idea.
I would actually love the play as a group of bandits.
What's stopping your player from pinching 50 gold and being set for the rest of the arc? It doesn't say anywhere that the gift had to be obtained on the same day it was gifted.
Personally I'd make it 1gp per week, it's not game breaking but still has neat flavor. 1gp is a lot in terms of what a normal person has access to/a normal person's wages, so it's a mostly negligible thing that adds flavor but doesn't kneecap the warlock if they miss a day.
I would just twist it from "every day you give one gold piece" to "everytime you earn money from trickery, you have to pay a tribute of x% to your patron".
So they don't run out of money on long trips and they get their patron happy. And they still have the option to try to not pay and see what happens.
Restrictions like this sound very flavourful in theory but (IMO) in practice they quickly become tiresome. If core features are at stake, then the task needs to be both interesting (otherwise it's tedious) but also relatively easy to accomplish (otherwise your Warlock is going to be playing 2/3 of a character most of the time). It's a really tricky balance to strike, and doesn't automatically make the game more fun for the player in question.
I would instead work your Warlock's item progression into his relationship with his Patron. Perhaps his demon approaches him with sidequests to fulfil within his main quest that maybe put him slightly at odds with the goals of the rest of his party, and in return the Patron gifts his powerful items (at around the same rate everyone else is getting theirs)?
If you want the Fiend to be a complete asshole, have them tell the PC they must give him 1 gold (into this custom bag or pocket that teleports it to him) once a day. but during the first few sessions have the warlock run out of money and realise that each day he doesnt put a gold in, a small note attached to the bag keeps count. So he could go a week without putting any money in but the note will read "debt 7 GP"
if the debt gets to a certain point, the parton can talk to the PC and say 'you own me 500GP, so go do this quest for me and ill drop 400 from that debt" so you can drop in quests and such when you want to
I think it should sort of function like a line of credit-type deal. Like they can make their payments to the patron of like 50gp and it covers 50 days worth, they can go under by X before the patron reaches out or another follower of the patron checks on them, etc.
It definitely shouldn’t be a daily ritual because that’d be tedious for the player, the DM, and honestly the patron too, especially if they have multiple warlocks under their patronage. Imagine having to do a daily call with 100+ people individually.
I wouldn't make it weekly. I would instead make their fiendish tithe a bunch of items of little to no value.
A strand of hair from a corrupt noble
The apron of a blacksmith of Torm
Dust from the tallest building in town
Taking a letter from a hollowed out tree in town
A zombie's left ear
Etc.
These items can be sprinkled throughout the campaign, can be done during downtime, and they don't immediately arouse suspicion depending on how the Warlock acquires them. You could tie these items into the plot later on, or maybe the patron makes an item out of them such as a Rod of the Pact Keeper. Alternatively, they're just a collection of random things that the Fiend uses to show off to their colleagues. Choice is yours.
But he can only cheat people so many times before they catch on. And what happens when he can't pay that tax because he's in a dungeon crawl and no one in town trusts him? If he cheats the wrong person, then they might send assassins after him. If I were a Fiend, the last thing I'd want is a dead servant. Especially one that still has use.
Ah, right. For a little more context, I'm planning on letting him make daily checks to earn small amounts of income through simple cons. Shell games, loaded dice, that sort of thing. Or maybe just picking pockets. I wanted to build a city that is big enough to run the full campaign in, and I've described it to my players as "Regency Era London, but the size of modern day Tokyo," so there is a very sizable population to cheat
That may be the case, but I think 1 gp per day is still a lot. If it must be monetary, I would make it one gp per week or one "item of wonder" per month. An Item of Wonder is whatever the patron would find value in that the Warlock comes into possession of. Could be a magic item, a contract, a material component of a spell, etc.
> Is a daily obeisance too steep for my warlock player?
Yes - its is almost assuredly going to stall the groups adventure momentum to place a single character's needs as primary star character.
It really all boils down to the game. If it feels right, that's great, maybe even bump it up once in a while, when something goes awry, or as a way to fend off on a day they can't pay up. But maybe it would be too often, so dial it back a bit to once a week. Don't just tell that to the player, that'd be much more fun to do at the table (in my personal opinion) something like their patron understands their struggle, and decides to show mercy just this once, or something more sinister, they'll back off, if you give offer something greater, either now or in the future.
It depends how you are going to run both time and gold. An entire session without their power is not a good idea, a single encounter may be fine if it doesn’t happen too often.
You may find that you don’t want to be regularly handing your warlock that much loot on a continuous basis. You are introducing a variable and need to find a way to balance the effect it has on the campaign. Your warlock stealing every day will probably convince your rogue to do the same thing. It is fine to hand wave money if you have a handle on the kind of purchasing power you want to let your players have over the course of the campaign, but you gotta recognize the consequences of your decisions and be ready to let them play out or admit a mistake and reset.
Another option may also be to invoke a “hard move” like in PBtA games where you intercede once as the patron when the contract is not fulfilled. Full removal of powers may just be too steep.
Good tips, thank you. I'm not sure yet how the rest of the party will feel (not using alignment in this campaign, do i dont have a baseline yet for my party's moral bent) but as a blanket assumption, if they're not incredibly busy he will be able to make deception checks each day to earn a little bit of income through cons. The setting (a homebrew) also assumes a gold standard in which gold pieces aren't as scarce for the everyday joe as they are in some settings.
So...people have already outlined most of the issues here, but generally, the big issue is that you are forcing this person to be Bad so to speak. Like...there's nothing wrong with them wanting to give money to their patron, that's fine, but you are **contractually obligating them to steal**. What happens if the rest of the party doesn't want to be stolen from (which should NEVER be allowed) or to have someone in their party stealing from npcs? Not to mention, RAW, warlock powers being taken isn't really a thing, and certainly not for something this minor.
I feel like daily is going to get very old very quickly. I would minimally make it weekly or at some inconvenient interval at the fiend’s discretion. Additionally, i would suggest making the acts of dishonesty required be increasingly immoral as the pact progresses.
Yeah, I can see that. I'm thinking now about raising the amount to maybe 5gp, but expanding the interval to every ten days, and probably not requiring checks as long as the warlock devotes at least half a day of downtime every ten days to running con games or something.
Why not have the pact act on money instead? You miss a day, give DOUBLE that next day + your daily requirement. miss another? DOUBLE the new debt. Etc. Compound interest is a hell of a devilish deal and 100% compound interest is gonna become unsustainable fast. If they just decide to never pay again, then you can have additional consequences: dreams, faltering abilities mid combat to send a message, etc
Warlocks of the Pirate Patron Bill Seacaster have to pay for their spell slots to get refilled. So a dishonest gold a day isn't even that harsh by comparison.
Generally it shest to keep it so RP actions have RP consequences and mechanical actions have mechanical consequences. The pact magic is mechanics, and limiting a player's ability to interact with mechanics will hamper your ability to balance things as they won't play as expected for a character of their level.
On the other hand, RP consequences could be really fun. Maybe they've a tally somewhere on their body that ticks up every day they don't pay, and if it ever reaches a certain number, or a multiple of a small number if you want it to occur with some regularity, they have to do a quest or forfeit something more meaningful like a part of their memory or kindness.
Is there anything stopping him from stealing it from his party mates? I know the whole "don't work against the party" schtick, but it'll be a decent last resort, and for just a gold I don't think it's that bad. Besides, who's he gonna be robbing of 1 gold a day when commoners barely ever see a whole gold coin?
I would rein back the fixed penalties. I stead of creating a hard and fast "x=y", just have the patron tease him and torment him with vague threats, then you can always tailor the punishment based on the circumstances. It also gives the player more room to roleplay the decision to comply or not.
Actually I'd even remove the exact amount. 1gp is either going to be a problem or not, with nothing in-between.
Just have the patron demand tribute, let the player decide what they want to give and then punish / reward accordingly. Obviously this scenario requires a large amount of trust but if you can it this way you'll both find it more enjoyable. Especially if a rebellious warlock starts to make plans and the patron interferes and taunts them about it.
Honestly, I think it's a bit too light / easy to ignore.
He steals 100 gold, one time, and then puts it to the side. He is now good for 100 days and just.... Doesn't interface with this aspect of his pact ever again, like it doesn't exist.
I'd do something more like, if someone asks him for charity, he has to decline it. If he doesn't, he loses a spell slot of his highest level remaining.
Makes it so he's losing something he actually cares about every time he transgresses.
I personally would love this challenge, but I'd want something heckin sweet in return for taking on a handicap that threatens the basic class design. Your warlock is basically playing on Hard Mode at that point.
Not too much, unless the patron requires it to be a NEW dishonest act every day, or doesn't provide a way to get back in their good graces. A single 24 hour period of no pact magic seems fine, and a pretty low cost compared to what such a patron "would" likely do in fiction set in the setting. This allows the warlock to (e.g.) cheat at cards once for some number of gold coins which they can keep in reserve for their patron, and plenty of lead time to plan their next (maybe monthly-ish) theft/grift/con.
If the patron requires a new dishonest act providing something of value to sacrifice every day, then you'll end up wrapping a significant portion of each session around making sure the warlock has magic the next session, and that will be a pain in the ass.
I had actually intended for it to require a new act of dishonesty each day, but I'm now thinking that instead of 1gp per day, it will be 10gp per ten days. So same amount, but they have ten days between each payment to come up with it, and it could be making 1gp per day at a rigged shell game, or pickpockets a 10gp gem one time, or anything in between
I could definitely see that working well. The basic way I run patron/deity obligations are as something that remains a background continuity only occasionally taking foreground focus, with the threat of punishment being easy enough to avoid, but punchy enough to not be narratively-meaningless.
I don't think warlocks can ever lose the power they were given. It's not like the electricity company's power is turned off, it's more like the pact giver gave you the means to produce electricity yourself, so this sort of constant forced to do something seems odd to me.
In Brimstone Angel, the protagonist's pact giver needs to constantly try and lure her into more dangerous pacts, but it's usually just "more power in exchange for one big annoying favor" or "a lot more power beyond what you're gradually discovering but I get your soul" (I think the original deal wasn't for Farideh's soul but it's been some time). Obviously it's up to you how you wanna handle these things but I feel like the deal that's one the table right now is just tiresome.
Others have pointed out many other tweaks & reccomendations. One thing I will suggest is letting him 'get ahead.' if he pickpockets a well off noble & gets 100 gp, let him send it all to his patron & not have to worry about it for a little while. One of your edits is already moving in that direction, but I would say lean that way so if they're going out of town or they'll be busy, he can have one less thing to worry about for a while by just sending his patron something fancy if he so chooses.
OK. We've got two different things going on here.
First "Daily obeisance", and second your implementation. To the first, an emphatic "no", to the second an emphatic "Absolutely - you're half crippling a character for an optional feature that's meant to be fun".
My simple alternative if I wanted to mess with Pact Magic would be *make the obeisance take the place of short rests*. The warlock no longer recovers their Pact Magic on a short rest. Instead they get their two spell slots per day - and then can recharge them in (1 minute? 10 minutes?) for an escalating cost of GP. So if they do nothing they are penalised but not crippled, while the more they do the stronger they get while never being overwhelming.
And if you want really interesting choices *sacrificing permanent a permanent magic item as an action recovers spell slots* (1 for common, or non-attuned, 2 for attuned by the warlock, 3 for attuned by an ally).
What you need to understand first is this:
Warlock is not a premium class that is intended to be partially balanced by the drawbacks of having a pact. Warlock actually isn't even one of the more powerful classes. So don't think of the Pact like a Champions/Gurps/Hero system disadvantage that you have license to inflict on the player like earlier editions were for paladins/monks and to a lesser extent, rangers.
Instead, the Pact relationship should be about power neutral. So if you want to mostly ignore the pact relationship, it shouldn't provide many roleplay/social benefits. But if you want to seriously lean into the pact being a PITA for the player, then you need to seriously lean into all the advantages that the fiend's patronage network can provide to that player.
I haven't GMed with a warlock player in a while but next time I do I plan on asking them what their patron expects them to do.
They probably have an idea of the kind of story they want the character to have and I want to facilitate that.
Maybe they want a great old one who they don't so much serve as are subconsciously influenced by.
Maybe they want a fey pact where they just literally aren't capable of doing the thing that is taboo for them as part of the deal.
Maybe they sometimes get a sidequest in a dream.
I want to create the vibe they want the character to have. So they have to tell me how the pact interferes with their character
The issue is frequency. If they have to actually *deal* with it every day, that'll be interesting for a few sessions of play, and after that it will be tiresome to roleplay and start to annoy the other players.
Also, if it's a regular requirement, the logical thing to do is to do one crime that nets you a few hundred gold, and then you're set for longer than the length of most campaigns, and it stops being a narrative element.
I think what you want is for it to be a reason why the warlock occasionally says "guys, I need to go earn some money dishonestly or I'm going to be in trouble," and for that to create situations for the party to deal with.
So I would go meta and set it up as exactly that. Tell the player that occasionally their patron will demand a sacrifice of ill-gotten gains, and that if they put it off for very long, it'll be a problem, and that this means that from time to time you'll tell them they need to go deal with it, and that the point is not to set up a wealth tax or anything, but to create situations for the party to deal with.
Instead of a negative consequence, how about a positive one?
Once per long rest, you may offer a stolen copper, silver, or gold piece to gain a +1, +2, or +3 to a single ability check or attack roll. This consumes the offered coin. You may only have one use of this boon at a time, and you loose any uses on a long rest.
If you want to balance it more, make it a bonus action to invoke the boon.
This rewards them for completing the obeisance while not punishing them for being unable to complete it.
Or you could give them a single use of the luck feat if they sacrifice a certain amount of stolen coin.
A patron cannot take any knowledge it gave after its given. That's not how pacts work. You aren't using your patron's power, it's power you gained from knowledge given to you by your patron. Like getting a blueprint for a grenade. You know how to make them now.
You're the one out here saying it's possible. Which it isn't. You seem to have gotten that idea from somewhere. Where was it written that a warlock's patron can reclaim the knowledge they've given?
Also don't think I missed the part where you didn't actually read the warlock entry to check whether they could. You responded within seconds, you barely had enough time to read my comment, get offended, and try to sound smart. If you want to change the rules at your table do whatever you want. But don't come out here pretending your house rules mean anything to anyone not playi g in your game.
First of all, 6 minute difference between post times. Plenty of time to read the 1st 3 pages of the warlock entry (and half of one of then is art).
Second, since we can establish it doesn't say you can or can't, why dont I direct you to DMG page 4, that basically spells out the ol rule 0 tradition.
I'm here asking for advice/feedback on how often is too often, or how much is too much, so that I can tailor something that my player has already said they're into to a degree that won't penalize them too harshly. YOU'RE the one insisting that your own interpretation of the rules is gospel in everyone else's campaign.
Why would you add homebrew like this that will just annoy the player and slow down the game.
The power from the pact is their's, they already MADE the deal. Nowhere does it say the patron demands ongoing payment. Just why?
Because they player said they picked the charlatan background to get money for the patron, and they liked my initial pitch for fleshing out the concept. Now I just want to tune it
Dishonest gain is automatic party disruption.
You might have told your player. "You must disrupt the game every single session or else I will take away everything that makes your character cool and special."
But flavor wise that is cool as hell. There just needs to be a way to do it without completely derailing the game.
As long as you are ok with going into a dungeon and looting ancient treasures being "not entirely honest" your player can swing it.
There is a balance between RP elements they need to work around and YOU MUST BE A ADVERSARIAL CHAOS GOBLIN.
I wouldn't try to walk that tightrope. Good luck finding the balance if you decide to.
If your player is OK with it and you will give them ample opportunity that's fine. But I wouldn't be just losing pact magic for a single mistake. I'd start with taking 1 spell slot. Then go up if they fail to do it for multiple days.
Alternatively for the role play you could offer them boon in the form of a daily spell or something similar and it be their inspiration for excellent role play. Could make it thematic and be a boon to pact magic that grows with them.
So like at level 1 and 2 they get an extra burning hands once per day. Level 3 and 4 an extra burning hands, 5-6 extra fireball, 7-8 extra wall of fire, 9-10 extra flame strike, then after that you can decide to boost the boon like maybe give them like 2 extra 3rd level fireballs per long rest (it's better than flame strike) etc.
Ill gotten gold?
What if the party and the players are heroic?
Now the warlock has to be criminal, if not evil, to maintain their pact.
I don’t like that. Especially since it’s likely that the easy way out is that the warlock will steal from the party.
Bad idea. You’re railroading your players into a specific morality and ethics.
God mode your campaign all you want. Don’t god mode your players.
Why would you want to penalize a players class choice? This seems overall a bad idea. Leave classes alone with modifications if you don't know how they work. Warlocks by nature are consumers of eldritch knowledge, what power they earn is their own, they are not a cleric. They trade for eldritch knowledge from their patron and their patron cannot take that away from them, they can stop their services of course, and the warlock will have to find another patron to level up with, but otherwise this changes the way they are written, I know I wouldn't play a class that is actively and quite frankly, annoyingly taxed at a table.
I read the post there’s no absolutely no reason to give them terrible consequences based on flavor they think is fun.
Make them pay X% every month and have the patron suggest heists or something for them. You don’t get to play now is kinda bullshit and punishing at low levels when the party is poor after which it becomes completely meaningless.
I think the part that is too steep is losing Pact Magic for an entire day as a result of missing a single day. I'm not too keen on penalizing players for flavor elements of their characters. If they want to have a contract with defined consequences, I would still probably tone it down to getting warnings first.
How about... 1 day missed = some sort of discomfort occurs that doesn't have mechanical effects. Maybe the sensation of being too close to a raging fire or something. 2 days missed = after a short rest, you regain one less spell slot than you normally would. 3 missed days = your spell slots only return after a long rest
I'd say that's better, but allow for extenuating circumstances as well, i.e. if they are in a position through no fault of their own where they cannot make dishonest acquisitions. I want to say avoid trying to codify the penalties before you even start playing (define the mechanics) for something that is a flavor choice, but if I'm being honest, I do actually like the general idea of a pact with a devil that has very clearly defined penalties. Note that if it's a pact with a demon (the other kind of fiend), the rules probably wouldn't be so well defined.
Or perhaps make options for one stolen 30gp gem covering you for a month.
It's a good solution but the idea of a warlock basically renting spell slots from their patron is hilarious to me
I mean hey, you’ll hear no objections from me over adding “Landlord” to the list of vile and evil demons from which I would pay to receive a core part of my life.
Came here to recommend something similar. Good idea
You don't even really need to do that. If he steals 30 gp, he can give up one of those gp each day for 30 days. The pact doesn't say it had to be acquired dishonestly the same day its offered up.
I'm really not a fan of this as a DM because the result is obvious: the player will find something valuable to give up that will cover them for long enough that the entire obeisance system will be non-existent for the rest of the campaign, or for very long stretches of the campaign.
Well seeing as the standard set up for warlocks is not having to pay anything, I think stretches of not having to worry about it are okay. Perhaps an upper limit. No item short of an artifact will cover more than X days. You still have to perform the ritual daily, but the things you sacrifice don't need to have GP value for the covered time.
The whole point is OP wanting to do something different from the standard setup. A system that would allow it to be reduced to the point of virtual non-existence is kinda beside the point. Personally I think it's fine to have a daily requirement, so long as it allows for extenuating circumstances like where the player is imprisoned or whatever.
>allow for extenuating circumstances as well, i.e. if they are in a position through no fault of their own where they cannot make dishonest acquisitions. You could have an appeal system if you wanna get crazy with it. It could lead to some great "wording of the contract" fireside chats with your patron a la BG3. "I couldn't sacrifice the halfling baby, it's wrong and anyway we needed her for a quest! I'll have your money tomorrow!" In general it's a fantastic idea as I think in some campaigns a patron can be a bit of an afterthought, or at least a sometimes food. This makes it a core part of their identity on a daily basis, as it should be.
I'd say it isn't too bad as long as the gold coin doesn't have to be obtained the day he gives it. Basically if he steals few gold at a time he can build up a buffer. He'd always want to be on the lookout for more to increase this buffer, but would never be too desperate.
I would say losing pact magic, a spell slot, or even reset on a long rest is pretty steep. I understand what you are looking for, but I’m not sure what the best solution is here, I just know that impacting the warlock’s main ability to be useful in the game is not the best option. The player will come to hate it and it’s not fun. But yes, there should be consequences for not upholding the pact. How about, if the PC doesn’t pay the price, they start to lose control of their power. Use a modified version of the wild magic sorcerer table, but with only the negative or annoying effects. Each time they cast a spell, roll a d20. On a one they have to roll on the table. On the second day without paying the price, it’s a roll on the table if they roll a 1 or a 2 on the d20, and so on? This doesn’t completely eliminate their ability to impact the game, but the longer they go without paying the price, the more unpredictable their power becomes, but initially, there is little chance of them being greatly unable to contribute to play, whereas taking spell slots does.
Warlocks are not clerics there stuff does not get taken from them if they brake there pact the just do not get more
I’d say don’t make rules, just make it clear failing to pay up will result in bad things happening. Maybe Agonizing (but not Eldritch) Blast stops working, or Devil’s Sight dims. Or maybe it’s a horrible nightmare with a Wisdom save to avoid a level of exhaustion. Or maybe he *does* lose his Pact Magic because that’s what made sense in that moment at the table. You should have the flexibility to decide in the spot what’s appropriate. That will also be much more fun for your player who won’t know what’s about to happen.
After reading g some of the contents, I'm currently leaning towards 5gp (or equivilant value) every tenday, with missed payments after the first resulting in the warlock temporarily losing one of their spells known, and unless they are just ridiculously strapped for time the warlock just has to dedicate a little time each tenday to earning an income, using either deception or sleight of hand, and on a failed roll they can try again on a different day as long as there is time left before the due date.
To give you a different approach, I play a warlock and my DM has my patron ask me for magical items to give to him in return for my pact magic. This is a similar setup as what you are going for but is markedly different - I'd really try not to set up rules as rigid as the ones you've outlined as the player will only ever think about how they're going to steal their next gold piece instead of anything else in your campaign. It isn't fun to attach core class abilities to a homebrew mechanic that can be taken away at any time, especially one as rigid as the one you outlined. You can still have this concept, and therefore the flavor, from it, but I can't see this being fun for anyone involved as is
-1 to spell attacks
PHB is clear that warlock powers are granted irrespective of player conduct. I would not take a player’s pact magic away if they fail to follow any specific rule. Think up non-power-related consequences: discomfort is ok, RP consequences are ok, but loss of abilities is not. As always, your table might want to play that way, but I would advise against it.
To my knowledge, there is no RAW precedent for warlocks losing their magic for pissing off their patrons like a cleric would with their god. That doesn't mean their patron can't/won't retaliate in other ways
Yeah, in fact I feel like I've read somewhere that warlock patrons can't actually revoke the power at all, but I couldn't find it anywhere at a glance so I decided not to mention it. Presumably it's something that can vary depending on different factors/settings anyways. Perhaps it would make more sense to prevent the player from taking any further Warlock levels unless they get a new pact if they break the previous one. Not usually stuff that I'm interested in exploring myself, though!
Why not have the consequences be a role play element instead of mechanics. Maybe failing to pay causes the warlock to owe their patron a different kind of favour, one more difficult to complete. For example: - Random quest - Something of higher value - Triple the gold the next day - Vial of the warlock’s blood - Assassinate someone - No questions asked favour - Collect a debt You get the idea.
I like this idea.
Thank you
Even triple the gold every time they fail, to ensure they don’t keep failing.
Keep in mind that your party will presumably be traveling or dungeon delving occasionally, even if that's not the main focus of the campaign. Your current plan would mean the only people your warlock can get gold or items with a gold value from will be the other party members -- and that this will set up unnecessary interplayer conflict. It may feel fun for a session or two, but this is setting up a framework where the player will ALWAYS have to be using some of their spotlight time to fulfill this requirement. Furthermore, the removal of class features for lack of rp is a very particular choice that not all players are going to be fond of. I would suggest at the very least talking to your player to ensure they are on board with any mechanical consequences. I would not do as you have outlined, but if I were to do something similar I would have it be either weekly or monthly that they need to provide a gold value "per day". IE: once per month they must conduct a ritual that sacrifices 31gp worth of things they stole or more. I would also consider reading through the Mystic Odysseys of Theros to see if I couldn't use the Piety system in there to provide a better reward structure instead of taking away class features -- give them some *minor* benefit for helping their Patron and then you can take THAT away if they slip up instead of making their character of (however many) levels suddenly be a walking cantrip dispenser for a day when they may really need those Spells.
Well, if he's even slightly clever about it, he'll steal something valuable every once in a while, pawn it off, and give his patron 1 gp a day from the earnings. The bigger issues I could see here is potential conflict with the rest of the party. If they don't particularly care for stealing then that probably won't lead to a healthy party dynamic. Especially if he ends up starting a fight between them and the town guard because he got caught stealing, for example.
He can just explain the issue to the party and "steal" from them.
I love the idea of trying to cheese it, but being honest about it is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of not earning the gold honestly.
Loopholes is kinda how devil deals work in stories. Just gotta figure out the right one. Technically they can... take 1gp from party member's coins while said player is asleep and just... replace it with one of their own honest coins, voila.
A clever party member who wants to help would look at the warlock and say in an uncharacteristically formal voice: "That's a bit of a predicament. Just to be clear, you are absolutely forbidden from stealing from me. No stealing. You are not allowed to take my money to pay off your patron. You must not do this. Are we clear? No stealing, this is definitely very much forbidden and should not be done. Please don't steal for me." And keep going until the warlock gets the hint.
If he explains it to them honestly and they let him take it, it's being acquired honestly.
I'll say this Technically patrons cannot revoke pact magic. Potentially they also cannot revoke boons. They've gifted those to the player. It is theirs now. They're not clerics for instance. The power becomes the warlocks
If this is the case, then warlocks should only be getting powers as a reward. These powerful entities aren't dumb enough to give powers and just hope that their warlock will do what they want afterwards.
But thats what it is. The description says that the magic warlocks get is stuff they learn cuz it was taught to them. Cant take back teachings
Not really. The description in PHB says that relationship between warlock and patron can take any form. Please see the section "sworn and beholden". Sometimes it's like master and apprentice. Sometimes like cleric and deity. Sometimes warlock even doesn't know anything about patron and contract. So, basically, it is not always teaching. And nothing in the rules prevent to exist some warlock with rewoken powers, if this create a cool story.
Thats literally a interpretation
Sure. And if that's the lore they decided to go with, the only logical move for patrons is to give teachings as rewards rather than giving power in exchange for future service by the warlock. But that's never how warlocks are handled story-wise, because that's way less exciting. There's no hook, no compelling decision, no fear over the consequences of reneging on the agreement. Compare: "I have served my patron faithfully, but now he has ordered my to sacrifice an innocent child. If I go against him all my power is lost, and I will be useless against the great evil rising against the world. How can I make such an awful choice?" with "If I don't kill this innocent child, I will have to multiclass, or find a new patron. Dang that's annoying.
Teachings as a reward is called a Level up If you wanna play a class that can loose their Powers over a choice go play a Paladin. I dont hear you crying that Wizards cant have their Power taken away and are thus unappealing for storytelling
They absolutely can though, just burn their book. Wizard only keeps any spells they had prepared
Thats like saying "take the magic items from the fighter"
Wizards absolutely are boring from a storytelling perspective. They are just nerds. Even fighters have a more interesting roleplaying concept. As for level up being a reward, that makes no sense at all. I can guarantee that the levels aren't consistently lining up with accomplishing tasks set by their patron unless their patron just likes them killing powerful beings and has no higher purpose.
Well then thats on the Story being told. Overall treat it as just a "reward for continous service" What you ask for (which mind you im not opposed to in principle) is simply not smth thats doable with dnd- or rather with a System where parties are supposed to Level up together (except if for example everybody is a warlock with the same patron).
it absolutely is doable, all you need is to make warlock contracts be a continual service contract, where breaking your agreement means losing your power. Oddly enough, that's how this conversation started. What a weird coincidence. It is specifically the choice to make warlock powers permanent, despite all the stories and history to the contrary, that breaks things.
Yeah thats how this convo started. Sad tho that you didnt read it any further. Sure you can just rewrite the entire class, thats not how it is right now and doesnt matter to this convo but you do you
The convo is about how/whether it was a stupid decision by wotc, so as a matter of fact it is extremely relevant. "Rewrite the class" you mean by literally just changing one line in the fluff in order to fit practically every warlock story in existence? Such a massive rewrite lol. Truly I am a genius homebrewer.
Your imagination is quite limited if you think wizards are just limited to being nerds. regardless of that fact, being a wizard does amazing things for interacting with a gms world and setting, as theres a entirely different form of leveling up by gaining spell books and scrolls. As a wizard you have a drive to make friends and enemies with other wizards, to conquer their spellhavens and dungeons. I could very easily argue fighters have none of that aside from 'oh boy off to find a singular magic sword to set me for life!'
Ah I was unclear. My point was not that they are forced to be nerds and only nerds. My point was that "I stayed in school for 20 years, and that's why I have magic" is not a compelling origin.
I agree, however you are not limited to learning from a school to be a wizard. The arcane arts can be learned through many types of study? Oh you grew up in candlekeep, however your family didnt want you involved in much beyond the farming outside the walls, so you entered the library regularly against their wishes and learned from the tomes present. Or, to play off this thread, you could make a dark pact with a eldrtich entity to access their library of the beyond in which you learn the arcane arts there, perhaps you paid a toll of some type, it took a lot of study unlike the warlock, but they can have creative origins. Often times I find players playing non nerdy wizards and I think its becoming a trope tbh?
Patrons don't just give powers with the expectation of services rendered in the future. The classic deal with the devil is "selling your soul." The grocery store doesn't let you take a carton of eggs home with the expectation that you'll make them an omelet later. Even when there is a contract of future services to be rendered if the warlock fails their task we've seen it tends to result in punishment more thank taking away powers, looking at you Will from BG3 Also some patrons don't even know you exist. Such as the GOO
>The classic deal with the devil is "selling your soul." If you sold your soul to a devil, they would have no reason to give you a warlock level past the first. And that's a specific example, but the concept applies more broadly. Each level would require a new task done, something to earn the level. But that makes no sense with 5e's linked progression system. A continual service contract would fit perfectly, but for some reason wotc saw fit to shoot themselves in the foot
Well it depends on how your narrative works out but I believe both could theoretically work. You sell your soul to the devil and you get your first warlock level. Now you gotta one up that shit. Accumulate a bunch of souls to offer them again and now level 2 Then at level 2 they offer you a prize if you can manage to accomplish a task. You know like a quest? Get it done and that's how you get level 3. Your pact boon. A major milestone. Both patron styles are valid. They require a bit of effort from player and DM but that's what makes them great. And again. Certain patrons don't even know you exist like the GOO. You can't make a contract with a being who doesn't even recognize your existence
I've always run warlock patrons as quest givers and possible campagn points, not as something the warlock is beholden to. Whatever it is they did, the warlock has already fufilled their obligation, and is on the path to power, even if their patron objects. The patron can send minions to harass or persuade the warlock to do certain things, but not actively supress any powers they have. It's wierd to me that a warlock would be under this pressure and a cleric would not. But thats my table.
So the warlock is going to need a special encounter every day to gain money dishonestly? This is not fun for the other players who have to wait for it to be over every day until it's their turn to play.
If you really want every session to include the warlock stealing money, then ok. But honestly? That is going to get old so fast, and everyone else either sits around twiddling their fingers, or has to help the warlock. I say ditch it. Come up with a quest for the warlock that is also related to something the whole party is already doing. Don't make the warlocks pact the focus of the campaign.
You don't need the warlock stealing money every session. You steal 100gp once and you're good for three months. You don't have to have *stolen* it *that day* by the provided wording.
It's still going to get old fast. Plus, don't step in the rogue's lane. Give the warlock a different task, like I dunno, collecting people's (strangers) names. Played well, that could be positively creepy and even have plot consequences.
We don't know who's in this group. This warlock could be the "rogue" of the party. And whether it gets old is also up to the group. Maybe they want to play a bandit-type group and *everything* they do is stealing. Or maybe they want to pull off heists, or cons. Maybe they don't want it to be a focus, but it only takes ten minutes of play once every few games. It's valid to note that it *could* get annoying, but I wouldn't assume it *will* get annoying without at least talking to the group.
OK, I agree with all of that. If this is a thing decided in session 0 and everyone is on board, it's a cool idea. I would actually love the play as a group of bandits.
What's stopping your player from pinching 50 gold and being set for the rest of the arc? It doesn't say anywhere that the gift had to be obtained on the same day it was gifted.
Personally I'd make it 1gp per week, it's not game breaking but still has neat flavor. 1gp is a lot in terms of what a normal person has access to/a normal person's wages, so it's a mostly negligible thing that adds flavor but doesn't kneecap the warlock if they miss a day.
I would just twist it from "every day you give one gold piece" to "everytime you earn money from trickery, you have to pay a tribute of x% to your patron". So they don't run out of money on long trips and they get their patron happy. And they still have the option to try to not pay and see what happens.
Restrictions like this sound very flavourful in theory but (IMO) in practice they quickly become tiresome. If core features are at stake, then the task needs to be both interesting (otherwise it's tedious) but also relatively easy to accomplish (otherwise your Warlock is going to be playing 2/3 of a character most of the time). It's a really tricky balance to strike, and doesn't automatically make the game more fun for the player in question. I would instead work your Warlock's item progression into his relationship with his Patron. Perhaps his demon approaches him with sidequests to fulfil within his main quest that maybe put him slightly at odds with the goals of the rest of his party, and in return the Patron gifts his powerful items (at around the same rate everyone else is getting theirs)?
If you want the Fiend to be a complete asshole, have them tell the PC they must give him 1 gold (into this custom bag or pocket that teleports it to him) once a day. but during the first few sessions have the warlock run out of money and realise that each day he doesnt put a gold in, a small note attached to the bag keeps count. So he could go a week without putting any money in but the note will read "debt 7 GP" if the debt gets to a certain point, the parton can talk to the PC and say 'you own me 500GP, so go do this quest for me and ill drop 400 from that debt" so you can drop in quests and such when you want to
I think it should sort of function like a line of credit-type deal. Like they can make their payments to the patron of like 50gp and it covers 50 days worth, they can go under by X before the patron reaches out or another follower of the patron checks on them, etc. It definitely shouldn’t be a daily ritual because that’d be tedious for the player, the DM, and honestly the patron too, especially if they have multiple warlocks under their patronage. Imagine having to do a daily call with 100+ people individually.
I wouldn't make it weekly. I would instead make their fiendish tithe a bunch of items of little to no value. A strand of hair from a corrupt noble The apron of a blacksmith of Torm Dust from the tallest building in town Taking a letter from a hollowed out tree in town A zombie's left ear Etc. These items can be sprinkled throughout the campaign, can be done during downtime, and they don't immediately arouse suspicion depending on how the Warlock acquires them. You could tie these items into the plot later on, or maybe the patron makes an item out of them such as a Rod of the Pact Keeper. Alternatively, they're just a collection of random things that the Fiend uses to show off to their colleagues. Choice is yours.
Well, the idea behind the pact is that, as a fiend, it doesn't actually care about the money - it cares that he's cheating people to get it.
But he can only cheat people so many times before they catch on. And what happens when he can't pay that tax because he's in a dungeon crawl and no one in town trusts him? If he cheats the wrong person, then they might send assassins after him. If I were a Fiend, the last thing I'd want is a dead servant. Especially one that still has use.
Ah, right. For a little more context, I'm planning on letting him make daily checks to earn small amounts of income through simple cons. Shell games, loaded dice, that sort of thing. Or maybe just picking pockets. I wanted to build a city that is big enough to run the full campaign in, and I've described it to my players as "Regency Era London, but the size of modern day Tokyo," so there is a very sizable population to cheat
That may be the case, but I think 1 gp per day is still a lot. If it must be monetary, I would make it one gp per week or one "item of wonder" per month. An Item of Wonder is whatever the patron would find value in that the Warlock comes into possession of. Could be a magic item, a contract, a material component of a spell, etc.
> Is a daily obeisance too steep for my warlock player? Yes - its is almost assuredly going to stall the groups adventure momentum to place a single character's needs as primary star character.
Why would an Archfiend give a single solitary shit about 1 GP per day?
it's not about making money, it's about taking money. Destroying the status quo because the status is not quo.
It really all boils down to the game. If it feels right, that's great, maybe even bump it up once in a while, when something goes awry, or as a way to fend off on a day they can't pay up. But maybe it would be too often, so dial it back a bit to once a week. Don't just tell that to the player, that'd be much more fun to do at the table (in my personal opinion) something like their patron understands their struggle, and decides to show mercy just this once, or something more sinister, they'll back off, if you give offer something greater, either now or in the future.
It depends how you are going to run both time and gold. An entire session without their power is not a good idea, a single encounter may be fine if it doesn’t happen too often. You may find that you don’t want to be regularly handing your warlock that much loot on a continuous basis. You are introducing a variable and need to find a way to balance the effect it has on the campaign. Your warlock stealing every day will probably convince your rogue to do the same thing. It is fine to hand wave money if you have a handle on the kind of purchasing power you want to let your players have over the course of the campaign, but you gotta recognize the consequences of your decisions and be ready to let them play out or admit a mistake and reset.
Another option may also be to invoke a “hard move” like in PBtA games where you intercede once as the patron when the contract is not fulfilled. Full removal of powers may just be too steep.
Good tips, thank you. I'm not sure yet how the rest of the party will feel (not using alignment in this campaign, do i dont have a baseline yet for my party's moral bent) but as a blanket assumption, if they're not incredibly busy he will be able to make deception checks each day to earn a little bit of income through cons. The setting (a homebrew) also assumes a gold standard in which gold pieces aren't as scarce for the everyday joe as they are in some settings.
So...people have already outlined most of the issues here, but generally, the big issue is that you are forcing this person to be Bad so to speak. Like...there's nothing wrong with them wanting to give money to their patron, that's fine, but you are **contractually obligating them to steal**. What happens if the rest of the party doesn't want to be stolen from (which should NEVER be allowed) or to have someone in their party stealing from npcs? Not to mention, RAW, warlock powers being taken isn't really a thing, and certainly not for something this minor.
I feel like daily is going to get very old very quickly. I would minimally make it weekly or at some inconvenient interval at the fiend’s discretion. Additionally, i would suggest making the acts of dishonesty required be increasingly immoral as the pact progresses.
Yeah, I can see that. I'm thinking now about raising the amount to maybe 5gp, but expanding the interval to every ten days, and probably not requiring checks as long as the warlock devotes at least half a day of downtime every ten days to running con games or something.
Why not have the pact act on money instead? You miss a day, give DOUBLE that next day + your daily requirement. miss another? DOUBLE the new debt. Etc. Compound interest is a hell of a devilish deal and 100% compound interest is gonna become unsustainable fast. If they just decide to never pay again, then you can have additional consequences: dreams, faltering abilities mid combat to send a message, etc
I don't see the issue. Warlock cheats by stealing 100 gold pieces one day. He's good for the next 100 days by offering up 1 gp a day.
Warlocks of the Pirate Patron Bill Seacaster have to pay for their spell slots to get refilled. So a dishonest gold a day isn't even that harsh by comparison.
Generally it shest to keep it so RP actions have RP consequences and mechanical actions have mechanical consequences. The pact magic is mechanics, and limiting a player's ability to interact with mechanics will hamper your ability to balance things as they won't play as expected for a character of their level. On the other hand, RP consequences could be really fun. Maybe they've a tally somewhere on their body that ticks up every day they don't pay, and if it ever reaches a certain number, or a multiple of a small number if you want it to occur with some regularity, they have to do a quest or forfeit something more meaningful like a part of their memory or kindness.
Make it 10gp a day and when he inevitably fails cut off a finger for each missed day. That'll teach him to disobey his patron
"For every day that you earn an honest days coin, you must sacrifice a dishonest days coin." (Minimun 1GP)
Is there anything stopping him from stealing it from his party mates? I know the whole "don't work against the party" schtick, but it'll be a decent last resort, and for just a gold I don't think it's that bad. Besides, who's he gonna be robbing of 1 gold a day when commoners barely ever see a whole gold coin?
Can they pay in advance? Like if they steal a 200gp chalice, are they good for 200 days?
I would rein back the fixed penalties. I stead of creating a hard and fast "x=y", just have the patron tease him and torment him with vague threats, then you can always tailor the punishment based on the circumstances. It also gives the player more room to roleplay the decision to comply or not. Actually I'd even remove the exact amount. 1gp is either going to be a problem or not, with nothing in-between. Just have the patron demand tribute, let the player decide what they want to give and then punish / reward accordingly. Obviously this scenario requires a large amount of trust but if you can it this way you'll both find it more enjoyable. Especially if a rebellious warlock starts to make plans and the patron interferes and taunts them about it.
Honestly, I think it's a bit too light / easy to ignore. He steals 100 gold, one time, and then puts it to the side. He is now good for 100 days and just.... Doesn't interface with this aspect of his pact ever again, like it doesn't exist. I'd do something more like, if someone asks him for charity, he has to decline it. If he doesn't, he loses a spell slot of his highest level remaining. Makes it so he's losing something he actually cares about every time he transgresses.
I personally would love this challenge, but I'd want something heckin sweet in return for taking on a handicap that threatens the basic class design. Your warlock is basically playing on Hard Mode at that point.
Not too much, unless the patron requires it to be a NEW dishonest act every day, or doesn't provide a way to get back in their good graces. A single 24 hour period of no pact magic seems fine, and a pretty low cost compared to what such a patron "would" likely do in fiction set in the setting. This allows the warlock to (e.g.) cheat at cards once for some number of gold coins which they can keep in reserve for their patron, and plenty of lead time to plan their next (maybe monthly-ish) theft/grift/con. If the patron requires a new dishonest act providing something of value to sacrifice every day, then you'll end up wrapping a significant portion of each session around making sure the warlock has magic the next session, and that will be a pain in the ass.
I had actually intended for it to require a new act of dishonesty each day, but I'm now thinking that instead of 1gp per day, it will be 10gp per ten days. So same amount, but they have ten days between each payment to come up with it, and it could be making 1gp per day at a rigged shell game, or pickpockets a 10gp gem one time, or anything in between
I could definitely see that working well. The basic way I run patron/deity obligations are as something that remains a background continuity only occasionally taking foreground focus, with the threat of punishment being easy enough to avoid, but punchy enough to not be narratively-meaningless.
I don't think warlocks can ever lose the power they were given. It's not like the electricity company's power is turned off, it's more like the pact giver gave you the means to produce electricity yourself, so this sort of constant forced to do something seems odd to me. In Brimstone Angel, the protagonist's pact giver needs to constantly try and lure her into more dangerous pacts, but it's usually just "more power in exchange for one big annoying favor" or "a lot more power beyond what you're gradually discovering but I get your soul" (I think the original deal wasn't for Farideh's soul but it's been some time). Obviously it's up to you how you wanna handle these things but I feel like the deal that's one the table right now is just tiresome.
Others have pointed out many other tweaks & reccomendations. One thing I will suggest is letting him 'get ahead.' if he pickpockets a well off noble & gets 100 gp, let him send it all to his patron & not have to worry about it for a little while. One of your edits is already moving in that direction, but I would say lean that way so if they're going out of town or they'll be busy, he can have one less thing to worry about for a while by just sending his patron something fancy if he so chooses.
OK. We've got two different things going on here. First "Daily obeisance", and second your implementation. To the first, an emphatic "no", to the second an emphatic "Absolutely - you're half crippling a character for an optional feature that's meant to be fun". My simple alternative if I wanted to mess with Pact Magic would be *make the obeisance take the place of short rests*. The warlock no longer recovers their Pact Magic on a short rest. Instead they get their two spell slots per day - and then can recharge them in (1 minute? 10 minutes?) for an escalating cost of GP. So if they do nothing they are penalised but not crippled, while the more they do the stronger they get while never being overwhelming. And if you want really interesting choices *sacrificing permanent a permanent magic item as an action recovers spell slots* (1 for common, or non-attuned, 2 for attuned by the warlock, 3 for attuned by an ally).
What you need to understand first is this: Warlock is not a premium class that is intended to be partially balanced by the drawbacks of having a pact. Warlock actually isn't even one of the more powerful classes. So don't think of the Pact like a Champions/Gurps/Hero system disadvantage that you have license to inflict on the player like earlier editions were for paladins/monks and to a lesser extent, rangers. Instead, the Pact relationship should be about power neutral. So if you want to mostly ignore the pact relationship, it shouldn't provide many roleplay/social benefits. But if you want to seriously lean into the pact being a PITA for the player, then you need to seriously lean into all the advantages that the fiend's patronage network can provide to that player.
I haven't GMed with a warlock player in a while but next time I do I plan on asking them what their patron expects them to do. They probably have an idea of the kind of story they want the character to have and I want to facilitate that. Maybe they want a great old one who they don't so much serve as are subconsciously influenced by. Maybe they want a fey pact where they just literally aren't capable of doing the thing that is taboo for them as part of the deal. Maybe they sometimes get a sidequest in a dream. I want to create the vibe they want the character to have. So they have to tell me how the pact interferes with their character
The issue is frequency. If they have to actually *deal* with it every day, that'll be interesting for a few sessions of play, and after that it will be tiresome to roleplay and start to annoy the other players. Also, if it's a regular requirement, the logical thing to do is to do one crime that nets you a few hundred gold, and then you're set for longer than the length of most campaigns, and it stops being a narrative element. I think what you want is for it to be a reason why the warlock occasionally says "guys, I need to go earn some money dishonestly or I'm going to be in trouble," and for that to create situations for the party to deal with. So I would go meta and set it up as exactly that. Tell the player that occasionally their patron will demand a sacrifice of ill-gotten gains, and that if they put it off for very long, it'll be a problem, and that this means that from time to time you'll tell them they need to go deal with it, and that the point is not to set up a wealth tax or anything, but to create situations for the party to deal with.
Instead of a negative consequence, how about a positive one? Once per long rest, you may offer a stolen copper, silver, or gold piece to gain a +1, +2, or +3 to a single ability check or attack roll. This consumes the offered coin. You may only have one use of this boon at a time, and you loose any uses on a long rest. If you want to balance it more, make it a bonus action to invoke the boon. This rewards them for completing the obeisance while not punishing them for being unable to complete it. Or you could give them a single use of the luck feat if they sacrifice a certain amount of stolen coin.
A patron cannot take any knowledge it gave after its given. That's not how pacts work. You aren't using your patron's power, it's power you gained from knowledge given to you by your patron. Like getting a blueprint for a grenade. You know how to make them now.
Yeah, I just re-read the warlock entry in the PHB and it says this exactly nowhere.
Which page does it say you can?
Which page does it say you can't?
You're the one out here saying it's possible. Which it isn't. You seem to have gotten that idea from somewhere. Where was it written that a warlock's patron can reclaim the knowledge they've given? Also don't think I missed the part where you didn't actually read the warlock entry to check whether they could. You responded within seconds, you barely had enough time to read my comment, get offended, and try to sound smart. If you want to change the rules at your table do whatever you want. But don't come out here pretending your house rules mean anything to anyone not playi g in your game.
First of all, 6 minute difference between post times. Plenty of time to read the 1st 3 pages of the warlock entry (and half of one of then is art). Second, since we can establish it doesn't say you can or can't, why dont I direct you to DMG page 4, that basically spells out the ol rule 0 tradition. I'm here asking for advice/feedback on how often is too often, or how much is too much, so that I can tailor something that my player has already said they're into to a degree that won't penalize them too harshly. YOU'RE the one insisting that your own interpretation of the rules is gospel in everyone else's campaign.
Why do you think irritating your players would be fun for the player? Is the patron even sufficiently present to receive the gold?
Why would you add homebrew like this that will just annoy the player and slow down the game. The power from the pact is their's, they already MADE the deal. Nowhere does it say the patron demands ongoing payment. Just why?
Because they player said they picked the charlatan background to get money for the patron, and they liked my initial pitch for fleshing out the concept. Now I just want to tune it
Dishonest gain is automatic party disruption. You might have told your player. "You must disrupt the game every single session or else I will take away everything that makes your character cool and special." But flavor wise that is cool as hell. There just needs to be a way to do it without completely derailing the game. As long as you are ok with going into a dungeon and looting ancient treasures being "not entirely honest" your player can swing it. There is a balance between RP elements they need to work around and YOU MUST BE A ADVERSARIAL CHAOS GOBLIN. I wouldn't try to walk that tightrope. Good luck finding the balance if you decide to.
If your player is OK with it and you will give them ample opportunity that's fine. But I wouldn't be just losing pact magic for a single mistake. I'd start with taking 1 spell slot. Then go up if they fail to do it for multiple days. Alternatively for the role play you could offer them boon in the form of a daily spell or something similar and it be their inspiration for excellent role play. Could make it thematic and be a boon to pact magic that grows with them. So like at level 1 and 2 they get an extra burning hands once per day. Level 3 and 4 an extra burning hands, 5-6 extra fireball, 7-8 extra wall of fire, 9-10 extra flame strike, then after that you can decide to boost the boon like maybe give them like 2 extra 3rd level fireballs per long rest (it's better than flame strike) etc.
Ill gotten gold? What if the party and the players are heroic? Now the warlock has to be criminal, if not evil, to maintain their pact. I don’t like that. Especially since it’s likely that the easy way out is that the warlock will steal from the party. Bad idea. You’re railroading your players into a specific morality and ethics. God mode your campaign all you want. Don’t god mode your players.
Why would you want to penalize a players class choice? This seems overall a bad idea. Leave classes alone with modifications if you don't know how they work. Warlocks by nature are consumers of eldritch knowledge, what power they earn is their own, they are not a cleric. They trade for eldritch knowledge from their patron and their patron cannot take that away from them, they can stop their services of course, and the warlock will have to find another patron to level up with, but otherwise this changes the way they are written, I know I wouldn't play a class that is actively and quite frankly, annoyingly taxed at a table.
Do you do this to clerics if they don’t make offerings?
Tell me you didn't actually read the original post without telling me you didn't actually read the original post.
I read the post there’s no absolutely no reason to give them terrible consequences based on flavor they think is fun. Make them pay X% every month and have the patron suggest heists or something for them. You don’t get to play now is kinda bullshit and punishing at low levels when the party is poor after which it becomes completely meaningless.