If a player wanted to Multiclass as warlock: would you make them find a patron?

[Dragonkingofth]

You can argue that all other classes are 'self taught' to some degree. Wizard study a, sorceers are born, fighter just swing metal about and so on.

But warlocks need to find a patron to have any magic at all: so as a DM if a player wanted to be multi-class as a warlock: would you require that they had to find there patron? make a deal with a demon, fey or something to get there magic? Or would you hand wave it? Seems Like you could make it an interesting plot hook/side quest but I don't know, would it be more trouble then it was worth?

[bid]

Nah, you should have to find a wizard to teach two reed an right magic language. About as hard as finding how to invoke a patron.

[Dragonkingofth]

Nah, you should have to find a wizard to teach two reed an right magic language. About as hard as finding how to invoke a patron.

Well I Agree with you: but Volo's guide has that story of the urchin stealing a spell book and ending up this great ocean going wizard (pages 61-67 it's the captioned images) so in D&D it is canon that you can be a self taught wizard. Not saying it makes a lot of sense but: there you go.

[Nifft]

If you can make it awesome and fun, then hell yes.

If it's supposed to penalize the player for multi-classing, then no.

[GreyBlack]

So, I mean, I know what my campaign answer might be. Then again, I run a pretty low magic campaign, with any powerful magic in the world basically approaching eldritch horror.

To me, I would require that the player seek out a patron, but I would also design a side quest to allow the player to do so. I would maybe ask the player how they would try to find a patron, and maybe hash out the contract during this interaction.

ETA: Another option? If your player wants it, maybe talk to them about an unwilling contract? Maybe the PC did something that the patron didn't like and now will impress the PC into their service in exchange for, I don't know, not killing their family. Of course, the standard contract grants certain powers to be used to contribute to their service....

[Vogie]

You can argue that all other classes are 'self taught' to some degree. Wizard study a, sorceers are born, fighter just swing metal about and so on.

But warlocks need to find a patron to have any magic at all: so as a DM if a player wanted to be multi-class as a warlock: would you require that they had to find there patron? make a deal with a demon, fey or something to get there magic? Or would you hand wave it? Seems Like you could make it an interesting plot hook/side quest but I don't know, would it be more trouble then it was worth?

The same way someone would MC into sorcerer. Sorcerer's abilities are Blood-related by RAW, so if someone gains a level in sorcerer late in life it's because they didn't know they had the power/didn't manifest any power up until that point.

With warlocks, the choice may not have even been theirs -

• The PC's great great grandfather sold the soul of the third child of his third child to a fiend, to be collected at age X.
• The Celestial arrives at a location where the PC happens to be at the time.
• An Archfey arrives to collect on a debt that the PC evidently made as a child, thinking they were talking to their imaginary friends.
• The PC purchases or finds an old, well-used, and fairly unremarkable weapon, and once they clean it up & change the handle, it comes alive and the hexblade begins to whisper to them.
• The PC starts having nightmares of the Great Old One sleeping.
• The PC has a Near Death Experience and sees the Morrigan / Raven Queen striding over the field, choosing the slain.

And so on

[Belier]

You can argue that all other classes are 'self taught' to some degree. Wizard study a, sorceers are born, fighter just swing metal about and so on.

But warlocks need to find a patron to have any magic at all: so as a DM if a player wanted to be multi-class as a warlock: would you require that they had to find there patron? make a deal with a demon, fey or something to get there magic? Or would you hand wave it? Seems Like you could make it an interesting plot hook/side quest but I don't know, would it be more trouble then it was worth?

Is it so hard to make the player meet his patron? Hell as far as I know he could just find a contract stipulating the terms of the bond and he sign it without ever seeing the patron.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Is it so hard to make the player meet his patron? Hell as far as I know he could just find a contract stipulating the terms of the bond and he sign it without ever seeing the patron.

Touching the GOO's mind in meditation or in dreams and pulling power from that (without the patron's awareness) is a canonical GOO-lock backstory. Straight in the PHB IIRC.

And not all contracts are that formal. Fey, in particular, are known for meddling without anything so formal as a written contract. A touch, a smile, a kiss.

Devils are about the only ones that really go in for contracts, IMO. And no one says that the contract must be an ongoing thing--it could be fee for service--do X, get power Y, making a new limited contract each time you level in the class.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you can make it awesome and fun, then hell yes.

If it's supposed to penalize the player for multi-classing, then no.

This.

To answer the OP title question.
If a player wanted to Multiclass as warlock: would you make them find a patron?
How about this: the patrons finds them. (I am looking for someone to take care of some light work for me, and you seem to be a good fit ... *sly grin* ... )
Or use the old trope: spoken to during a dream.

[MilkmanDanimal]

I'd appreciate it if the player gave me some backstory of how it happened, but I'd just really throw it into the "and stuff happened in between adventures" bucket and go forward. A good player would throw me a hook or two for future endeavors, but, really, why would finding a patron require more explanation than, say, a wizard who suddenly multiclasses into cleric and can now walk around in heavy armor?

[Spiritchaser]

Warlock patrons can be amazing plot foils.

Figure out what the player wants, more or less, write in a patron that fits, that would be interested in the campaign, and has at least one mortality conflicting goal at stake (don’t add too many, that just gets tedious)

[JakOfAllTirades]

I'm not fond of "dipping" into one or two levels of a class just for mechanical reasons -- I'd prefer to see characters in my campaign have actual roleplaying reasons for multi-classing. So yes, I'd expect the Warlock to find a patron, but I'd also expect anyone else taking a new class to find a mentor or trainer of some sort. It's not fair to single out the Warlock for this treatment. As long as they've got any kind of reasonable roleplaying explanation for doing it, I'll work with them to make it happen in the campaign.

[Talionis]

I think any time anyone plays a Warlock the DM and the player need to have a conversation about how they agree to play the Pact, there are lots of options here, in books, and even in movies, etc. Its okay to play loose with the fluff here so that it makes sense in your campaign.

I dont think you role play the interaction....you negotiate the background... my player should come to me with a plausible backstory and as a DM, I would tweak it and negotiate.

After the DM and player negotiate you come up with an agreed upon flashback and the DM has fair game to role play future interaction with the Patron, which could cause campaign hooks etc.

[JoeJ]

My rule is that anybody who wants to multiclass has to let me know at least one level ahead of time, at which point we'll have a discussion about what should happen in the game to play out that transition. So yeah, I'd absolutely make acquiring a patron part of the game.

[Sinon]

Back in earlier editions, the paladin risked losing her powers at the slightest infraction of their alignment; and whether or not they had done so was exclusively the DM’s judgment call.

Though some people may have found that fun, I did not. And, truth be told, I’ve never met one of those people. I just can’t prove they don’t exist.

Sort of like I can’t prove Sasquatch exists, but, well…

Anyway, point is, it struck me as grossly unfair that the players of one class faced all sorts of restrictions and hoops when none of the others did.

The hint that the player who wants to run a warlock would have to face a bunch of hoops and restrictions elicits a bit of a knee-jerk reaction from me.

The only way I would do something like this is if the player asked for it, and would have to be a collaboration with the player taking the lead.

[Sigreid]

I would not. Admittedly only because I don't really like the whole patron aspect of warlock (it's why I don't play them) so I ignore it as much as I can.

[Finback]

Who says they have to meet their patron? What if the patron chose the PC, because that PC is inadvertently serving their purposes?

Case in point: my PC, Gerhart. Paladin of vengeance, mc'ed into warlock (Celestial). His anger manifests now as blazing light and fire. Hoar, the god of vengeance, saw this angry, angry man fighting to fix the world, and basically said "I'mma buff this guy". Gerhart didn't go asking, he doesn't know why, but now he's damn better at exacting vengeance on the guilty than ever before. Maybe it will come back to haunt him later*, but therein lies the fun.

Maybe the PC has a fey patron because they once met some fey as a child, and did them a kindness, and that has not been forgotten. Maybe a devil has grand plans, and putting a bit of fuel on the fire will tip the scales to their advantage later. Maybe some elder thing from beyond is just running an experiment on those weird three-dimensional beings.

[JoeJ]

The patron is, IMO, the only thing that makes warlocks interesting enough to even exist in a setting at all.

[Kane0]

You can argue that all other classes are 'self taught' to some degree. Wizard study a, sorceers are born, fighter just swing metal about and so on.

But warlocks need to find a patron to have any magic at all: so as a DM if a player wanted to be multi-class as a warlock: would you require that they had to find there patron? make a deal with a demon, fey or something to get there magic? Or would you hand wave it? Seems Like you could make it an interesting plot hook/side quest but I don't know, would it be more trouble then it was worth?

It's entirely dependent on the game and group. A hack n' slash adventure would be far more likely to gloss over such details where a more character and plot focused game could be all over that sort of thing. Tone also plays a part, as one might not be inclined to RP making a pact or finding that forbidden knowledge if the setting doesn't call for it. The DM and player should always discuss this sort of thing.
Also note that direct interaction is not necessary. One can become a warlock simply by stargazing, for example.

[GreyBlack]

Back in earlier editions, the paladin risked losing her powers at the slightest infraction of their alignment; and whether or not they had done so was exclusively the DM’s judgment call.

Though some people may have found that fun, I did not. And, truth be told, I’ve never met one of those people. I just can’t prove they don’t exist.

Sort of like I can’t prove Sasquatch exists, but, well…

Anyway, point is, it struck me as grossly unfair that the players of one class faced all sorts of restrictions and hoops when none of the others did.

The hint that the player who wants to run a warlock would have to face a bunch of hoops and restrictions elicits a bit of a knee-jerk reaction from me.

The only way I would do something like this is if the player asked for it, and would have to be a collaboration with the player taking the lead.

I enjoyed it, and I ran a paladin in 2e. I enjoyed the meaningful character interactions and choices that I had to make in order to maintain my alignment. That said, having to walk that fine line also meant that I had a certain amount of mechanical flexibility.

Walking that line made me feel special and heroic. Maybe the rules were harsh; I'll agree. But that feeling of being special can't be replicated without those hoops and restrictions.

[Sinon]

That said, having to walk that fine line also meant that I had a certain amount of mechanical flexibility.

I have to confess, I don’t understand how this works, but I don’t wish to derail the conversation.

Philosophically, I want to have fun, and I want everyone else playing to have fun. Part of that means I want everyone to feel free to explore whatever character concepts they wish, and while I’m a bit of a “strict constructionist” about the mechanics, fluff is fluff (within reason).

The key word in the title is making. I would never make a player do this. Likewise, I wouldn’t make the guy who wants to multiclass into a wizard buy a spellbook, find a mentor, and scribe his first six spells.

To me, making a player do something mechanically unnecessary to realize their character concept is less fun, even if it can be explained by the fluff. Doubly so if I do it for one concept (e.g. warlock multiclass) and not another (like a wizard multiclass).

But if the player asked for something and was willing to collaborate on getting it organized, that would be adding to the fun.

That’s what it is about.

To be clear though, this is how I approach the game. Others have different approaches.

[Jama7301]

Since I tend to use milestone leveling, I fit these things into the downtime period. I'll work with the player to craft a scene explaining how they came into their new abilities, and it adds a bit to the world. Maybe a new NPC gets added as a rescued mage who teaches some basics as payment for saving their lives, or someone finds a hidden spring blessed by the natural forces of the world. It helps add things to the world, and it lets players know their decisions fit into a larger world.

[JoeJ]

I have to confess, I don’t understand how this works, but I don’t wish to derail the conversation.

Philosophically, I want to have fun, and I want everyone else playing to have fun. Part of that means I want everyone to feel free to explore whatever character concepts they wish, and while I’m a bit of a “strict constructionist” about the mechanics, fluff is fluff (within reason).

The key word in the title is making. I would never make a player do this. Likewise, I wouldn’t make the guy who wants to multiclass into a wizard buy a spellbook, find a mentor, and scribe his first six spells.

To me, making a player do something mechanically unnecessary to realize their character concept is less fun, even if it can be explained by the fluff. Doubly so if I do it for one concept (e.g. warlock multiclass) and not another (like a wizard multiclass).

But if the player asked for something and was willing to collaborate on getting it organized, that would be adding to the fun.

That’s what it is about.

To be clear though, this is how I approach the game. Others have different approaches.

What do you mean by character concept? To me it sounds like you're not talking about the character at all, just their build.

The character concept for a warlock, as I would use that term, would be primarily about the relationship they have with their patron. Did they seek out a patron? Were they tricked? Are they supporting their patron's goals or trying to subvert them? Are they trying to con their patron into giving them something for nothing? The mechanical stuff is secondary; it needs to exist to support the character, but it's not what the character is all about.

[Daithi]

Nah, you should have to find a wizard to teach two reed an right magic language...

I'm assuming that was intentional, but either way, you get a thumbs up for making me laugh.

[Naanomi]

I would (probably, not always) *have* them find their patron, but I wouldn’t *make* them (I wouldn’t prevent or delay them from taking a level in Warlock because I hadn’t gotten to it yet); but I always try to have conversations about plans for leveling and feats to make it more organic if possible which generally lets me work it in

[mgshamster]

As a player, I wouldn't want to multiclass into warlock without bring in the "how" into the story somehow. It just feels wrong for it to be otherwise.

As a DM, I'm ok with them not having to actively seek one out, but I do say, "If you want to multiclass, please tell me in advance so we can make it an interesting part of the story. Tell me how you view this new class with your character so we can make it work."

If a player wants to say, "I've always had a deal with this patron, but my powers are just now coming to fruition," that's perfectly acceptable. If they say, "I want to find a patron by level 5, please make it happen in game," that works, too! If a player doesn't know, then I'll ask questions so we we can figure it out. Things like, "When did you want to have first learned of this patron - in the past (pre-game), during game, or you haven't yet?" From there, we can come up with a story that fits.

All is that we communicate, work together, and make it a fun story for all.

[alchahest]

I wouldn't require it at all. If a character wants their mechanics to fit a concept, then I want them to find the mechanics they're comfortable with and feel will reflect the concept they have in mind. It's not in any way reducing the role play, it's just shifting the role play to the campaign rather than the mechanics.

[Demonslayer666]

You can argue that all other classes are 'self taught' to some degree. Wizard study a, sorceers are born, fighter just swing metal about and so on.

But warlocks need to find a patron to have any magic at all: so as a DM if a player wanted to be multi-class as a warlock: would you require that they had to find there patron? make a deal with a demon, fey or something to get there magic? Or would you hand wave it? Seems Like you could make it an interesting plot hook/side quest but I don't know, would it be more trouble then it was worth?

Most likely no. But it depends on how they go about it. If it's too cheesy, then I won't allow it.

If it fits their character background and can work into the story, then sure.

Edit: I would make them be involved with a patron, not necessarily find theirs. It would not be more trouble than it was worth, as I'd make it pretty simple rather than derail the campaign.

[mephnick]

If "shooting laser-beams of magic" is part of the character concept, but being an actual warlock isn't, then I wouldn't make them do it.

I honestly don't want to go through the work of role-playing a patron if the player doesn't actually care about that conflict. I'd rather focus on stuff that matters to everyone.

[Lunali]

If a lvl 1 warlock doesn't have to know anything about their patron or why they're able to be a warlock, I don't see why a multiclass one would need to find one. I would just let them have some connection to the patron that they didn't know about.