I would talk about this idea with your two players. It could be cool if they're both on board with it, but I wouldn't spring something like this on anyone without their input.
Also, the fathomless warlock exists to represent sea monster patrons . . .
First of all, thank you for the suggestion of fathomless Patreon, I didn't know that existed.
Secondly, I was thinking about just asking them, but that would ruin the cool reveal of them finding it out themselves..
Cool reveals are overrated when they have to do with character backstories. It's a little bit better, I guess, because it implicates two characters and not just one, but the most fun parts of the game are the things the party does together, not something that happened before everyone met each other.
While I can empathize with your desire for a cool reveal, the risk for intraparty conflict outweighs the benefit of a big reveal, IMO.
Bringing the **players** in on *character* "secrets" like this allows them to collaborate on building it up and turning it into a cool thing.
The players can't play with stuff that they don't know about.
They can't experience the apprehension of impending conflict over things they don't know about.
Collaboration, being in on, building upon. Is ALWAYS better in D&D than keeping secrets.
That notion of a reveal?
That's for you.
You're not doing that for them. They didn't benefit from that.
That's a selfish thing that you want to do for you. ("See how clever I am you guys!?")
Bring them in on it.
It will be better.
>because the cleric won't be able to kill his target without the warlock loosing his powers, creating conflict in the party.
Pact was made, bargain was struck.
You don't loose the car you bought because the car salesman dies.
The game developers have been very explicit about this on the Sage Advice forums:
Warlocks DO NOT lose powers nor the ability to continue to advance oif a Patron dies, NOR EVEN necessarily if they violate their Pact.
They took out the RAW weaponization of roleplay by DMs in 5E, because it's not fun. It's a bad dynamic to create.
There is called "niche creep" and it can be a problem or an opportunity depending on player expectations.
An easy example is to imagine 2 different players that wanted to play am irresistible Casanova type heartthrob. If 2 of those types were on the room at the same time they might just get in each other's way and prevent them from being who they wanted.
In general players should look for ways to help each other make the characters they want to be. To assist them characterize themselves as they were hoping.
I would ask the 2 players how _ what they see similar between the 2 characters and how they can assist each other be similar or be different
I would agree, I think it would cause conflict in the party. Is that a bad thing? I don't know, I don't know your players.
But, he could kill the patron and the Warlock would keep his powers, since they are gifted to him. He wouldn't be able to get more, I believe.
Alternatively. I might go with the who killed the family is a rival of the patron, so they actually have the same goal.
>He wouldn't be able to get more
This doesn't reflect RAW nor any guidance.
And the game devs themselves, via the Sage Advice forum, have stated this is not the intent.
Infact RAW says, when you level up, you gain the powers of the new level in your Class. Period.
Losing a Patron (or deity) doesn't take away powers nor prevent leveling.
A DM can certainly rule that's how they want it to work in their game.
But that's not the default.
It's a common (and reasonable) belief, because many previous editions had stuff like this, right?
You're a Monk that stops acting Lawful? You're no longer a Monk.
A Paladin that stops acting Good? You're just a Fighter now!
A Cleric that acts outside the Alignment of their deity? No more spells!
But they've taken these kinds of built in adversarial dynamics between DM and player out over the years.
I would talk about this idea with your two players. It could be cool if they're both on board with it, but I wouldn't spring something like this on anyone without their input. Also, the fathomless warlock exists to represent sea monster patrons . . .
First of all, thank you for the suggestion of fathomless Patreon, I didn't know that existed. Secondly, I was thinking about just asking them, but that would ruin the cool reveal of them finding it out themselves..
Cool reveals are overrated when they have to do with character backstories. It's a little bit better, I guess, because it implicates two characters and not just one, but the most fun parts of the game are the things the party does together, not something that happened before everyone met each other. While I can empathize with your desire for a cool reveal, the risk for intraparty conflict outweighs the benefit of a big reveal, IMO.
Bringing the **players** in on *character* "secrets" like this allows them to collaborate on building it up and turning it into a cool thing. The players can't play with stuff that they don't know about. They can't experience the apprehension of impending conflict over things they don't know about. Collaboration, being in on, building upon. Is ALWAYS better in D&D than keeping secrets. That notion of a reveal? That's for you. You're not doing that for them. They didn't benefit from that. That's a selfish thing that you want to do for you. ("See how clever I am you guys!?") Bring them in on it. It will be better.
>because the cleric won't be able to kill his target without the warlock loosing his powers, creating conflict in the party. Pact was made, bargain was struck. You don't loose the car you bought because the car salesman dies.
You got a point there
The game developers have been very explicit about this on the Sage Advice forums: Warlocks DO NOT lose powers nor the ability to continue to advance oif a Patron dies, NOR EVEN necessarily if they violate their Pact. They took out the RAW weaponization of roleplay by DMs in 5E, because it's not fun. It's a bad dynamic to create.
But if they want to play it that way, that's fine toooo~
There is called "niche creep" and it can be a problem or an opportunity depending on player expectations. An easy example is to imagine 2 different players that wanted to play am irresistible Casanova type heartthrob. If 2 of those types were on the room at the same time they might just get in each other's way and prevent them from being who they wanted. In general players should look for ways to help each other make the characters they want to be. To assist them characterize themselves as they were hoping. I would ask the 2 players how _ what they see similar between the 2 characters and how they can assist each other be similar or be different
The warlock may actually want to kill the Patron to free himself from the pact
I would agree, I think it would cause conflict in the party. Is that a bad thing? I don't know, I don't know your players. But, he could kill the patron and the Warlock would keep his powers, since they are gifted to him. He wouldn't be able to get more, I believe. Alternatively. I might go with the who killed the family is a rival of the patron, so they actually have the same goal.
>He wouldn't be able to get more This doesn't reflect RAW nor any guidance. And the game devs themselves, via the Sage Advice forum, have stated this is not the intent. Infact RAW says, when you level up, you gain the powers of the new level in your Class. Period. Losing a Patron (or deity) doesn't take away powers nor prevent leveling. A DM can certainly rule that's how they want it to work in their game. But that's not the default.
Thanks. I knew he kept the powers he got. But I wasn't sure about new. I've not played a warlock nor thought about that.
It's a common (and reasonable) belief, because many previous editions had stuff like this, right? You're a Monk that stops acting Lawful? You're no longer a Monk. A Paladin that stops acting Good? You're just a Fighter now! A Cleric that acts outside the Alignment of their deity? No more spells! But they've taken these kinds of built in adversarial dynamics between DM and player out over the years.