Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Warlock patron involvement in BG3.

Because for most outsiders it is not that easy or allowed to go into our realm of being.
And when we see them here, it's usually just a projection of their avatar.

Plus, Devils in particular have tons of rules.
A lot of things they can't do and have to use agents.

Yeah I am very curious to see how the patrons will be implemented! Warlock was the first class I played in EA almost 3 years ago and it was so disappointing back then
But they nailed the Bard when that patch came along so I hope that Warlock received the same amount of love as the years went by.

Wish we could choose what fiend our Fiendlocks answers to, Fiend is a vague term that fits both Devils and Demons under an umbrella,

"Fiends powerful enough to forge a pact include demon lords such as Demogorgon, Orcus, Fraz'Urb-luu, and Baphomet; archdevils such as Asmodeus, Dispater, Mephistopheles, and Belial; pit fiends and balors that are especially mighty; and ultroloths and other lords of the yugoloths."

If I was a warlock personally I would rather have a Succubus patron who is more than willing to have my first born child than some dude in a goatee asking for my soul but that's just me.

Also curious about how Feylocks work in terms of Elves and Gnomes since both have Fey ancestry, is it like a family thing involving relatives that want to sit at the adult table or is it more of a caste thing?

I'm actually curious about that too.

Since there are three types of Warlock in the game, it is reasonable to assume that there will also be at least three types of patron.
I'd also like a succubus, but I don't know if Larian went so far as to even let us choose the gender of our patron...

There are two ways you can go: you can allow total player freedom to describe their patron any way they like. In which case, it's a few paragraphs on a written biography that has no actual effect on gameplay. Solasta works this way.

Or, the DM can create and run the patrons, in which case you have story and interactivity, but limited player choice. Given a fixed amount of development time, the more patrons you have the less story each one gets; the fewer patrons, the more story.

From the point of view of a writer, the more interesting stories stem from conflict between the warlock and their patron.

Well, they can also take the same voice and assign different bodies to it.
Let's say that there would be a few unique dialogues that would be specific to Fey, Fiend and Old One.
But the basis would always be the same. This would allow for maximum story gain.

That's basically "a couple of paragraphs in your biography" with added graphics. It doesn't allow for a character driven narrative to be attached to the patrons, which is what I'm sure floats Larian's boat.

Although, if Daisy/Champion is the GOO patron, there will be one with a customisable appearance.

I don't think we're going to get patrons that allow for character driven narrative. If you want character-driven narrative attatched to patrons, then play Wyll, is what I expect Larian's attitude is. The character driven narrative players get for a custom character is the main story. Attatching warlock patron drama is probably more than they wanted to do. I expect the patron to just be a distant figure who we can ask for help every now and then, and will MAYBE ask something of us in return at some point.

Have you met Larian?!

Yeah, and they've generally failed to impress me with their storytelling. I don't for a moment believe they're going to give warlocks conflict with their patrons because that's not the point of the game, it would just be a tangent unconnected to the main plot or side content. Larian has made a lot of content, but that doesn't make them miracle workers.

Well I mean we know Paladins can rather easily have issues with their oaths and someone shows up at camp to brand them oathbreakers so it's not out of the realm of possibility that Warlocks can have issues with their patrons because it is confirmed that we will be able to occasionally see and interact with our patrons like ask for advice and the sorts. And while that would be side content it could have rather important impact on your playthrough if you are blocked from taking further warlock levels or you lose powers or are punished in a way that you get a major debuff...those would impact the way you play the game in a significant way.

So firstly, patrons can't actually revoke the powers they've given to their warlocks. Secondly, while I applaud Larian's attempt, they've gone about paladins in the a way that's simultaneously overblown and unimaginative. But y'know, people have said that the Oathbreaker knight is closer to a warlock patron than anything reasonably associated with paladins so maybe Larian will surprise me and give me patron interactions thatactually allow me to express my character as a person through dialogues and not just have to play out what Larian thinks a warlock should be. I really don't care about gameplay, I care about interactions that let me demonstrate through dialogue the kind of person my character is. Oathbreaker paladins get to express why they broak their oath or if they feel like they broke it at all, so more of that and I'll not only be happy with warlock patrons but probably change my whole opinion on the game. As of now I expect there to be one stock patron for each subclass and they'll be pretty set and with only minor direct interactions where it doesn't matter which patron you chose. Except in areas where a patron would have unique expertise.

It's really not an issue of "patrons can't" as much as it's an undefines area in D&D...generally warlock-patron relations are left to the DMs as is the punishment for what happens should a warlock cross his patron. So Larian is free to handle the matter however they like. I have seen DMs who outrigs said ok, you now lost all of your powers to a warlock that crossed his patron one too many times. Will Larian handle it that way. probably not, it's more of an extreme edge case scenario. But regardless, that is not the point, the point is there might be serious issues with our patrons depending on how Larian handled this mechanic and how they make the pacts work for custom characters.

Warlocks are not Clerics. They don't draw their power directly from another entity. It's typically more of a learning thing; the Patron unlocks the power within the Warlock.

The have impressed me with the AMOUNT of storytelling the have tried to squeeze into the game. Whether or not you like the style is a different issue.

But a "generic" patron would not be in a position to offer "advice", and I wouldn't consider it worth the effort of adding an appearance for something that had no gameplay effect.

That's mostly up to how you role-play and DMs can alter the rules however they see fit or you can implement house rules at a D&D table but otherwise no, that is wrong. Warlocks are not required to have any magical aptitude and they are not wizards who learn their magic either...no, warlock powers are granted by their patrons. As a rule: wizards learn magic, hence intelligence and all the faffing about with spell books, paper, and ink. Sorcerers have magic as an inate ability and they discover their power as they use their natural gift. But warlocks are NOT learners or have natural talent for magic, they receive their magic from their patrons...and so it can be revoked.

This. there are widely different ways of playing D&D. At some tables I have seen warlock patrons developed into important NPCs, and even BBEG. At others I have seen warlocks refluffed to not have a patron at all and gain their powers from some other source. It's all a matter of gameplay style.

From what I have observed of Larian, their style seems to be of the type who would want to make a warlock patron a major NPC.

As a famous bard said: "Some are born magic, some achieve magic, and others have magic thrust upon them."

When I say generic, I mean that they'll be a set patron that won't change from playthrough to playthrough, and experience with them won't be much different from game to game beyond how much you choose to interact with them. They'll still be able to offer advice, but the advice will be for pre-set things that won't change game to game. Despite what you think of Larian's style, warlock patrons CAN'T be major NPCs because they'll only ever exist for warlock characters. Again, Larian has written a LOT of content and I do respect them for that (though I think that at its best points it's about as good as any other crpg and at times can be worse) and average quality content of reasonable quantity can have a quality all its own, but what I take away from Larian's style is that they have a stereotype of each class and class content plays to that stereotype. Which is why I assume patrons will work the way they have above.