Maybe I was a bit hasty with my last post on the 5e warlock class, and recent comments from some folks have made me take a second look at the class. I do have to say this, though, anyone who utters or types the phrase "killing the players' fun" in response to any restrictions any DM has ever enacted in their game is probably not a DM themselves. Or not one who is brave enough to admit that the DM's fun is just as important as, if not more important than, the players' fun, and part of that is deciding, as DM, what makes you happy to see included or excluded in the fantasy world of your own creation. If the inclusion or exclusion of any part of the core rules, be it class, race, setting, feat, skill or rule is a deal breaker for a player, then that game or group is not the one they are looking for, and they will go their separate ways. If the same applies to a DM, then the game is not happening, and the group needs to find themselves a new DM, and the DM needs to find a new group, which is vastly more hassle than one player finding a new group and being replaced. Oh, the DM might fool themselves a few game sessions allowing one or more players getting their way, but it will eventually take the fun out of the game for that DM, and then it's no fun for anyone.
Having gotten that one out of the way, let us talk some more on the warlock. The mechanics of the class never bothered me, just the ingrained roleplaying aspects and story behind the class are what really gets to me. The whole "extraplanar benefactor" that drives the backstory of every warlock is what draws my ire. It does not help (though I too have been guilty of doing this in the past, though usually in games not D&D), I do not like backstories that are more interesting and involved than your first couple of levels of play. The classic example is the character with a backstory that "explains" how they are the "the best (WHATEVER) in the land", be it assassin, thief, warrior, or spellcaster, yet in the first couple of sessions that same player is hoping that lowly goblin misses their attack because they just don't have the HP to soak it. Not very impressive, and doesn't make the whole backstory terribly believable, either.
That is where I find myself with the warlock - it is a class that is overburdened with too much backstory. And that is what I tried to fix by making it a multiclass only instead of a pure, standalone class. But really, if you need to know that level of backstory on your warlock - and by that level, take a look at the last warlock post I did, and watch the video by Zee Bashew and his warlock backstory - you are also probably the same player who writes a novel about your wizard, Parry Hotter, and their time at the wizarding school, Wogharts, before joining their adventuring crew. Maybe it is not the warlock that needs a fix, but a decent set of rules for 5e concerning your character at level zero, actual training options to turn that backstory into something you play through. Enterprising DMs will turn it into an opportunity to get the party together before they really get their adventuring days going.
I am sure someone has not waited until this point to jump into the comments to tell me how much fun I am stealing from the players. Because I hate it, all that player fun, and want to see it perish (END SARCASM). I don't mind players writing a good backstory, it is always heartening to see any player taking an interest in knowing who their characters are and where they come from, but please, keep the backstory to yourself. With the warlock, you can't do that, because of the nature of that contract it is always in the party's way, in the story's way, out there for everyone to see and deal with. It is one thing if, during play, you get yourself wanted by the authorities, so that you and the rest of the party are hunted until you fix it or get caught. That happened at the table, the rest of the party let it happen by not stopping you or by not turning you in afterwards (and collecting your bounty, because, come on, why shouldn't they also get paid for it?), either way they got a say in it. Or the DM is framing you, or the party, to make it a part of the adventure, but if they are a good DM, they will give you a way to solve the problem. With a warlock though, you put this burden on the entire team because you liked the character concept, and they have to hear your backstory. And the party cannot solve the issue - you either follow your part of the bargain or you lose your powers, or the party finds and kills your benefactor, and you lose your powers.
Like I said a couple of paragraphs ago, the backstory, or overabundance thereof, is what bugs me about the warlock. That, and how much some DMs are willing to overlook the extraplanar benefactor aspect of the class. We are playing in fantasy worlds, and maybe not every NPC is as paranoid as I am about what that contract entails for innocent bystanders near the warlocks, but ignoring that it is there is just as bad as overreacting and asking the warlock for a grand betrayal every game session to appease their "sugar daddy/momma". I even had one commentor on the last warlock post tell me his warlock players make the contract and that is it, nothing further required from the benefactor, when the PHB clearly states there is more, always more, required of every warlock. No one gets all of the powers a warlock gets for free. Why even bother delineating who the benefactor is if the warlock owes nothing and does not have to work for it? And if more is owed, why wouldn't at least part of the population be leery of your character if what is owed could turn out to be a literal pound of flesh, their flesh?
The mechanics of the class are interesting, though. It is a bit of a light gish class, though with only simple weapons and light armor, they are more reliant on Dex builds or races that give them weapon and armor proficiencies to open up their options. I prefer a more tanky or physical damage focused gish, personally, but I could play a warlock after some further contemplation. Still can't bring myself to play a monk outside of an Oriental themed campaign, or a bard, minus one special case, but warlock would not be too bad. I would still make the DM run the contract negotiations as part of Session Zero, and expect to get a little more harassment from the NPCs when I reveal my warlock nature. Still not letting them into my current campaign, but my players are about a third of the way through where I am going to do a major restart, so this and a few other things will change. Or I could wipe the party next session and warlocks will show up a lot earlier, you never know.
Yes, yes, I have grown tired of PC backstories - as a fellow player, I want to know the basics and if your backstory becomes plot relevant ("my sister does happen to be the merchant we are rescuing from this band of orcs"), fine, let us hear that part; as a DM, I only want the juicy parts that I can use to push the story forward (and against you, duh). You call it "using that information against the PCs", I call it moving the plot along, hooking the players into the world and making the world more personal, and also my gawd given right as a DM to mess with any PC at my table. Otherwise, your backstory is interesting to you and you alone. Why do you think one of the most popular t-shirts ever sold at GenCon said "No, I don't want to hear about your character"?
I fully realize I am very down on backstories, I have been playing the game a mite too long to really care for any other PC's backstory. However, it may be that my players and those I have played with have not been doing backstories correctly. Some food for thought:
Enjoy!
No comments:
Post a Comment