One's class in D&D can come in very different forms. Most are about a player character developing some sort of expertise. A Monk, a Fighter, and a Wizard are all ultimately training and conditioning themselves to perform more effectively. One could say the same about every class. But the route to becoming that class in the first place can vary widely.
Clerics, for example, can come in different forms. Is a Cleric just someone who has tuned their faith with remarkable devotion to the point where they can channel the power of their deity, or are they chosen by their deity, with powers bestowed upon them in order to serve a great destiny?
While Bards are sort of the fourth in this category, generally three classes are considered the "Arcane Casters": namely Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks. When introducing new players to the game, it's important to break these down as the names don't make their differences entirely obvious. Essentially: Wizards gain their magic from study and practice. Sorcerers' magic is inherent to them either from their ancestry or some magical event that imbued them with power. Warlocks bargain for their magic with a powerful entity, forging a pact that grants them their abilities in exchange for some transactional service.
The reason I think Warlocks, and to an extent Clerics and Paladins, are the most inherently story-rich class is that this inherently sets up a potential conflict. The Warlock is forced to perform a duty in order to retain their powers.
Now, to be fair, you can run Warlocks in a less demanding way. In some cases, you can have it so that the Warlock's service has already been performed, and that the transaction is complete, and the patron no longer requiring any further service. I could also imagine running it such that the Warlock has not finished performing the service, but that the patron cannot actually take back the powers - perhaps using the threat of sending monsters after them or something to encourage compliance rather than taking powers away.
But if we assume that most players would find the more compelling story to be one in which the Warlock continually has to deal with their patron's demands, honoring the pact even as it may come into conflict with their own interests, there is a great potential for conflict and drama around the desire, and potentially the need, for the powers the patron grants, and the enormity of the services the patron demands.
I'm going to put up a general story spoiler warning, but I'm not going to say what I'm spoiling given that that would kind of give everything away.
In the two main D&D streams that I watch, Critical Role and Acquisitions Incorporated: The "C"-Team, both Warlocks have rejected their original patrons.
In both cases, the Warlocks, K'thriss Drowb for the C Team and Fjord for Critical Role, received their powers from powerful, apocalyptic monsters that could threaten to destroy the world. K'thriss' patron, the Sanguilith, is a massive interstellar crystalline creature that imprisons and seems to drain gods, and he thus has the Great Old One patron. Fjord's is Ukatoa, a eye-filled tentacle monster from beneath the waves, which in all honesty sounds a lot like a Great Old One as well, but Fjord has channeled that power through a Falchion Hexblade, taking that subclass.
And within, I think, less than a month, both warlocks have turned against their patrons, with K'thriss changing subclasses (going along with a change in gender after being Reincarnated by the party's druid and improbably remaining a Drow) to Hexblade (in this case a more benign weapon bestowed by one of the nature goddesses freed from the Sanguilith.) Fjord, having had his powers temporarily deactivated as Ukatoa demanded that Fjord return to break the final seal holding the monstrous titan locked away (sidenote: it's really funny that this plot really mirrors what's going on with Battle for Azeroth in World of Warcraft, with the Old God N'zoth playing a similar role to Ukatoa - and this expansion features Critical Role's Laura Bailey, wife of Fjord's player Travis Willingham, prominently as Jaina Proudmoore! I actually suspect this is truly a coincidence, given how good Blizzard is at preventing leaks.)
Fjord's rejection of Ukatoa, casting his falchion into a lake of lava, will surely have major consequences for the character. One wonders how much, exactly, will change.
I could see this going a couple ways:
First is that the pact still holds, regardless of what happened to the blade. But that's boring.
Another possibility is that Fjord is going to become a Warlock of a different patron. Given his interest Cadeuces' deity, the Wildmother, it's possible that he'll have her as either an Archfey or Celestial patron. This would mirror K'thriss' transformation into a Hexblade warlock, trading a malevolent patron for a benevolent one.
It's also possible this would be a route to multiclassing. On one hand, Fjord doesn't have the requisite strength to multiclass as a Paladin (though I see those minimum ability scores as more of a safety guardrail than a strict requirement,) but he could perhaps become a Divine Soul Sorcerer if the Wildmother chooses to imbue him with that power.
The most radical option would be a total character re-roll - keeping the backstory, but finding some way for Fjord to be remade (and made strong.) In this case, I think Fjord becoming a Paladin, perhaps taking the Oath of the Ancients or Oath of Redemption in service to the Wildmother, would be a great fit.
There is a question, though, as to whether you'd allow such a change at your table.
I'm inclined to think that players are always free to retire their characters and roll a new one, though I'd hope they'd have a good reason to do so. Technically, the rules basically say that once you've leveled up with a class, you've got those class levels and it means that you'll never be able to, say, have 20 levels of Fighter and get that fourth attack if you took a level of Warlock (Percy simply went with Magic Initiate to get Hex, so he's fine.)
I'm also the sort of DM who thinks that story should trump mechanics. It is, after all, a bit arbitrary that one cannot improve anymore after hitting level 20, even if they take up another class. This is clearly there for balance purposes and to prevent things from getting entirely out of hand. But for a player to change classes for good, story-based reasons, I think it's fine to bend the rules.
Changing subclasses, even, is not really supported by the rules, but despite this, there's an entire subclass that is built around this concept: the Oathbreaker Paladin. While this is primarily intended for villainous NPCs, being an Oathbreaker implies that you were once sworn to one of the other Oaths.
In fact, you could very easily imagine a character who goes from Oath of Devotion to Oathbreaker to Oath of Redemption - a great arc for a character.
And if we're talking about fickle Warlock patrons, it stands to reason that a Warlock might shop around.
But admittedly, changing subclasses usually doesn't change, for example, what proficiencies you have available (usually.) Would it be odd for someone who used to be a Fighter to no longer remember how to move in armor once they decided to become a Wizard instead?
And indeed, when classes are skill-based, like Wizards, Fighters, Bards, or Rangers, it's a little harder to justify the power going away to make room for your levels in a new class. This is probably why multiclassing is easier to justify than class-switching.
But again, in an RPG, mechanics exist to serve story (I'll admit that's a bit of a controversial statement, but the way I play them, that's the case.) And particularly in a tabletop RPG, it's important that players get to experience the story they want to.
Now, if your players are just swapping around classes purely for power reasons, with little investment in the reality of the characters or world, I'd say you have plenty of authority to say no. And indeed, a DM can also refuse this sort of thing if a player is just trying to make the campaign about their character's personal story at the expense of others'.
I think that, when possible, working within the bounds of the game's rules as they exist is probably best. Multiclassing, for example, can be an easier thing to handle than rewriting an entire character's skill set. But for a moment like Fjord's rejection of Ukatoa, I would encourage players and DMs to consider bold changes to mark the gravity of such character decisions.
Honestly, though, I'm really just excited to see what happens with Fjord! Also, doesn't the Mighty Nein need a tank now that Yasha's corrupted (...Blindspotted?) Paladin might be a good choice if they can somehow boost Fjord's strength...
No comments:
Post a Comment