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

My issue is that fundamentally, it's no more possible now than it was at the beginning of early access. All we actually know is that patrons will for sure be acknowledge in-game, which frankly I'd think was assumed before now but not guaranteed. Larian's confirmation doesn't really mean anything in that regard. My theory was always that they'd be as undefined as the narrator, and Larian hasn't given any information that suggests this has changed. We're both baselessly speculating, you're just more optimistic about it.

Provided the currency is soul coins, sure.

What makes you think the narrator is undefined?

I wouldn't say it's about being optimistic/pessimistic. I'm sure some players would prefer patrons left completely to their imaginations, whereas other players would prefer patrons to be highly detailed NPCs with lots of plot attached.

From my observations of the way Larian do things and other suggestive elements, I would be willing to bet a few soul coins on the later, but I have no skin in this race: I don't intend to play a warlock anyway.

Because they're a narrator? They speak in the present tense describing what we're seeing and feeling and they have, as yet, not been defined. And I don't believe that Larian are such elegant storytellers that they're going to subvert our expectations and have the narrator be an actual character who exists. If they do, then it'd probably be a fourth-wall breaking gag.

Means nothing. Stories are frequently narrated by a character, even when it isn't written in 1st person, and it's not an uncommon literary device to only reveal it at the end. Ever played Icewind Dale?

Larian took on a bunch of extra writers for BG3, it's not being written by the same people who wrote the DOS games. There is an awful lot of nuance in the narrator's voice performance for it to be a completely neutral narrator.

Take it easy. It's literally written in the subclass description. "Your patron may not be aware of your existence at all." I like to think of it like creating a YouTube channel. You just press a button and the rest is up to you. At the same time, Google is a giant corporation and Google's board of directors is unaware of your existence.

And this has nothing to do with the discussion at all. Whether the patron is aware of your existence is not related to how the magic works and it does not change the fact the power is given, not learned. Whether something as the great old one does it subconsciously or through a more generic feeling of intent does not change the fact it is given.

D&D rules for learning of magic are VERY specific...it involves having a spell book and you need to write spells on high quality paper with ink. The warlock does not do any of that, nor is the warlock required to have even average intelligence or any innate ability to use magic as Sorcerers do. Warlock magic is given to them, not learned.

Then she's being a good narrator. You're suggestion is based on little more than quality voice performance and giving Larian a lot of credit that in my opinion isn't really earned, even having played through EA. Mine is at least based on established narrative and writing conventions. But going back to the point of the conversation, if the warlock patrons are as defined as the narrator then that still means they're basically absent voices that maybe show up once. That certainly doesn't make them major NPCs.

Also I've never played Icewind Dale. What I've heard of it makes it sound like a pretty straight-forward dungeon crawler without much roleplay, which doesn't interest me.

This is not true either, as monks can use their supernatural abilities without a spellbook. Also, you should know that there is no canonical precedent for stripping a warlock of his powers. Because it is believed that the patron teaches the warlock how to use his powers. He can't make him forget what he's learned. In any case, the discussion does not make much sense, since in the next version of the board game, the warlock will choose his own mental characteristic, which, it seems to me, is very logical. It is a pity that the Larian will not introduce this innovation proactively.

This is true. But it does have a pretty good story, and the narrator is... brilliantly executed by David Ogden Stiers.

Anyway, if you think convention is absolute, look here for a multitude of exceptions: Narrator All Along

In 5e there are no rules for stripping ANY PC of their powers. Not Paladins, not clerics, and not warlocks. Such things are dealt with at table by the DM with consent from the player.

As for canon, WotC's current position is there isn't any.

Monks receive their powers from their faith...technically from their deities but more hands off than with Paladins who can actually call on their deities. Monk powers are in a way similar to warlocks whose patrons aren't consciously aware of them using the power.

As for warlock pact policing that is left entirely to the DMs...but the point remains warlock power is given. But in terms of a patron who isn't aware of the warlock using the power...that's probably a case where the warlock could do whatever without risking repercussions. And patrons like fiends who give power in exchange for the soul probably wouldn't care what you do as they are only interested to collect when you die...though if they become aware the warlock could realistically have a chance at becoming a deity they might object as that would essentially nullify the contract and they'd never be able to collect.

Feels like we're going round in circles a bit here. If you find yourself saying the same thing again, please refrain from clicking "Post"! It probably means it's time to agree to disagree, at least until someone new makes a different point to examine.

It looks like some people here are still having trouble understanding how Warlock's abilities work.
A warlock does not need intelligence or wisdom, learning or magical books and scrolls.
His power comes from himself.

Mages tap into an external source of power, but in the case of a warlock, that source is himself.
Warlock a little similar to the sorcerers, but much more similar to dragons, demons and all outsiders.
Their magic is innate and they all use charisma as their casting stat.

In order for a Warlock to use his powers, his patron must fundamentally change him.
It is not something that can be reversed.

It's kind of like a demon lord power-pumping his favorite demon to transform it into a higher-level demon.
Warlock was also transformed.

Everyone knows Warlock patrons come in two types:
Sugar daddy and landlord.

I see Warlocks as learning secrets.

Sorcerers begin to display their powers as those powers begin to manifest.

Wizards learn spells through dedicated study and experimentation.

Clerics pray for spells and are granted favor.

But Warlocks make a deal for some secret knowledge. And once they know the secret... the secret can't be taken away. They're now in on the secret.

Secrets implies knowledge that has to be learned...I seriously doubt an 8 INT warlock has the mental acumen to learn advanced spells. And it seems that pretty much every person in this thread describes the precise method in which the warlock is given power in a different way. The precise details are unspecified, all we really know is that it is magic given, not learned by a warlock(ie he didn't sign a contract to go to warlock school) and it's not innate ability as it is with Sorcerers. Added details there are all just headcanon...people trying to say that the sorcerer is irreversably changed, or that the spells are "told secrets", etc. are all speculation. Additionally enforcement of warlock contracts is also entirely 1000% left to the DMs. So if the DM says that every one of your warlock spells is magic channeled through you by your patron then that is what they are. I have seen DMs strip warlocks of their powers, reducing them to level 0 no class characters, and that is a very valid way of enforcing pact breach.

I don't play tabletop games anymore. Haven't played in years. I played the original box set and first edition, which was Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, and then I played second edition, and for a while I tried third/threepointfive. Fourth was where I just stopped.

But if I did, I would certainly only play with folks who were on the same page.

D&D tabled are generally brought on the same page by the DM...DM ruling is final. So unless you have someone who wants to argue with the DM too much it's not really an issue. But really, depending on how your DM plays your patron you generally can ask for clarification...for example if your warlock just signed to trade his soul for power the patron shouldn't be making demands or getting involved unless the warlock is taking action that could lead to nullification of the pact...like trying to achieve godhood. That kind of stuff. It could also be worth discussing this stuff a bit when you first create the character and see where the DM's thinking is at.