D&D 5E What if Warlocks were the only spellcasters?

[DEFCON 1]

We would need to look at your campaign setting from two different perspectives with only Warlocks. One being the game world's narrative, the other being player character functionality.

The assumption for only warlocks in this setting is that the ONLY way people in the world can access magic is to make a pact with some major entity. If that's the case... then narratively the pact and patron would need to be emphasized much more than it is in normal D&D. In normal D&D there is so much magic all over the place that the fact that every once in a while some dude made a deal with a fey creature and got access to magic is rather inconsequential to the story of the world. They are just one of thousands of people throwing magic around. And which is why players and DMs often just handwave the pact and its patron and the story never sees play.

But in this world... the story of the pact should be momentous. In a virtually magic-free world where a select few DO harness magic through arcane deals with extra-planar entities... that story should take center stage. A Warlock PC in this setting should be looked upon and dealt with differently almost all the time. It would be like having an adventuring party with an A-List celebrity walking among them... everyone's eyes would go to that character because that is how rare and amazing having a warlock walking amongst you would be.

This HAS to be a major part and influence on your game, should there be a warlock PC out in the open (assuming the PC isn't HIDING their power so as to avoid being noticed and harassed.) Because if it isn't... if this warlock PC just walks around town like any other person even though everyone knows they are someone who has made a deal with a literal devil... if everyone in these towns just ignores the PC and treats them like they are commonplace, then you basically have destroyed any vestige of narrative functionality for only having warlocks in the first place.

So that's the first thing-- warlocks need to be reacted to like they were A-list celebrities (either in awe or complete and utter terror). But second thing should you do this... is that you need to find a way to BALANCE the inter-party dynamic if you actually have a player who plays a warlock PC. Because the other PCs shouldn't just handwave the warlock and its power away either. If the party allows this warlock to accompany them (again, assuming the warlock player isn't hiding the character's status as a warlock)... then they are freely trucking with extra-planar entities and all the baggage that comes with that from regular society. PLUS... the players are freely allowing themselves to be second-fiddle to the warlock player more often than not. Like it or not, that warlock PC will be the center of attention just due to being a warlock in a magic-free world and the other players have to be okay with that.

So from a player-perspective... you'd want your most charitable player (the one most easily able to allow other players to have their moments) and the most creative player (the one most willing to actually play with the advantages and major disadvantages of having this power, authority, and influence) to be the warlock character. Because the warlock will draw the most attention narratively within the campaign... you can't give that character to one of your players who will take that ball and run with it roughshod over all the others at the table... nor someone who is just going to play the warlock like any other magical character in a standard D&D game. You need a really good player who will play up the dynamic of this warlock and the pact they have made in this world... the monumental deal they have made to gain this power... while at the same time having the ability to shine lights on the other players even though their character is the focus of the group.

Without that... you just have any other regular D&D game. And if that's the case... there's no reason why "only warlocks" matters in any way and you might as well not even bother.

 

[AtomicPope]

When I came up with an idea for my first 5e character I chose a Fey Patron Warlock. I wanted to have a Catfolk that learned magic secrets from the Catlord (the 1e MM2 special character). The DM was immediately on board with the idea. Everything was the same except we had a slightly different spell list that was more appropriate for that specific Patron. That's what makes the Warlock class homebrew friendly, almost like Clerics or Paladins with their spell lists. A homebrew subclass only needs to change a few spells and it's a very different theme with a different playstyle. The easiest way to change the spell list was to search for a thematic equivalent, like swapping an Infernal Patron's Fireball spell for Lightning Bolt, and making the Patron a Storm Giant. Just a few simple changes like that and you have your new Patron.

Edit: this was way before Tabaxi or any books besides the core trio were released.

 

[Krachek]

I would let PC choose their classes as usual.
NPCs casters are warlock. Period. That’s a key feature of the setting, or a good part of it.
Why let a PC be a Wizard, or other full caster. because it’s DnD, because PC are unusual heros. Of course Wizard PC will deal with warlock, usually tome warlock when he will need spells and scroll, but that´s not a problem.

A world of Warlock can imply a lot a good things, faction base on Patron, on Pact, a continual suspicion on magic users.
It throw away alignment restrictions we usually have in a faction of Paladin or Cleric.

The impact on a world would be nice, especially in a Sword and sorcery style.
The world can be in a state of decline and corruption, old ways of magic are almost lost, and most people use now Patron and Pact to access magic. Old gods are far away and distant from the world, and lesser being like Patron are now closer and more active in the world.
There can be a world shake event that produce that shift.

Other interesting question, how present are half caster? No More paladin? Or are they in a perpetual war with roaming Warlock?

Have now the various PC deal with that!

 

[TwoSix]

But in this world... the story of the pact should be momentous. In a virtually magic-free world where a select few DO harness magic through arcane deals with extra-planar entities... that story should take center stage. A Warlock PC in this setting should be looked upon and dealt with differently almost all the time. It would be like having an adventuring party with an A-List celebrity walking among them... everyone's eyes would go to that character because that is how rare and amazing having a warlock walking amongst you would be.

Or the other way to do it is that magic is still pretty common, and going out and making a pact with a magical creature to gain power is simply the way it's done. Having your master summon an imp to make a pact with, or going out in the forest to find a minor fey to bind, is simply the normal progression for a budding mage. Going out young and finding a rare creature or spirit to bind is a mark of distinction.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Or the other way to do it is that magic is still pretty common, and going out and making a pact with a magical creature to gain power is simply the way it's done. Having your master summon an imp to make a pact with, or going out in the forest to find a minor fey to bind, is simply the normal progression for a budding mage. Going out young and finding a rare creature or spirit to bind is a mark of distinction.

If magic is as common as it is in regular D&D... then the only reason to have only the warlock class is to have all spellcasters be on the "short rest" schedule. If that's what the OP wants, then that's fine. Use the mechanics of the warlock class so that they all work on short rests... but then the players can refluff their character's magic into all the standard class reasons for having magic. You have "druids" and "bards" and "clerics" and "wizards" as normal, but their mechanics are all the warlock chassis.

But it didn't sound like that was what they were going for. It sounded like they wanted pact magic to be the only way to acquire magic in this world. And from my perspective if that is indeed the case... to make magic STILL as commonplace as it is in D&D but only using the Warlock chassis is just pigeonholing class selection for no real gain. If magic is widespread but only gained through pacts... you might as well just let players select any of the classes in the game and just then refluff them as all being deals with other creatures. If you make a Cleric, then you've "made a pact with a celestial being" and that's why you have magic. If you make a Storm Sorcerer, then you've "made a pact with a storm giant" and that's why you have magic. If you make a Sun Soul Monk, then you've "made a pact with a coatl" and that's why you have magic. If you make a Divination Wizard, then you've "made a pact with a chrono-elemental" and that's why you have magic.

Making pacts to gain access to magic can be a thematic story for your setting and game world that doesn't require only using the Warlock class. You can just insert that story into all the classes, and thus the magic can be a widespread as it normally is in regular D&D.

 

[Blue Orange]

There's an often overlooked rule that makes this idea not really viable. For more info, google fiend warlock rule 34.

This was subtext in European/American historical lore about witches, and sometimes explicit. They were thought to gain their powers from deals with Satan, and there was a connotation of 'free sexuality' around witches' supposed sabbats.

 

[Blue Orange]

As to the OP's question...this is basically a sword-and-sorcery game, and consistent with mythology and folklore and a lot of pre-D&D fantasy fiction. In many of these magic is dangerous and obtained through dealings with evil supernatural powers.

D&D added the often-benevolent cleric and the scientist-of-magic magic-user->wizard.

 

[HammerMan]

Of course, lots of people would cry bitterly that they are not allowed to play their favorite pet class. That's obvious. But for the sake of this discussion, let's assume we're dealing only with groups of players who think it would be cool to have a campaign in which only barbarians, fighters, monks, rogues, and warlocks exist as classes for both PCs and NPCs.

The implementation of warlocks in 5th edition is one of the coolest things in the game, and there are plenty of people who are really big fans of the class, both for how it plays mechanically, and what the class represents in the game world.

If we had an otherwise typical D&D world in which magic is the domain of magical creatures and particularly outsiders, and the only way for mortals to gain magic powers is through warlock pacts, what would the consequences of that be? What implications could that have for society, and how would it impact parties of PCs?

Middle earth meets A Song of Ice and Fire... with some D&D flare.

I actually ran something similar about 2ish years ago.

I took the Middle earth book classes (some are just reskined fighter/rogue, and one is a spelless ranger with extra features and one is a rekin slightly tweeked barbarian, but they add in a noble/sage class that can do alchemy and make healing salves) then made a few spell like abilities as 'mystic gifts' and took old Bo9S maneuvers from 3.5 and some 4e powers (martial) and made those special tricks you could learn if you found a teacher... and you could make warlock pacts in game to multi into warlock...but you had to RP the bargain. I also made a divine soul type warlock pact and a psychic like warlock pact.

It was fun. We never got a PC to make a pact though, one considered it but was afraid to go through with it when it was an ingame moment.

In general it would make for a low magic campaign, you might need to adjust some bigger monsters for having a lack of spells

 

[TwoSix]

But it didn't sound like that was what they were going for. It sounded like they wanted pact magic to be the only way to acquire magic in this world. And from my perspective if that is indeed the case... to make magic STILL as commonplace as it is in D&D but only using the Warlock chassis is just pigeonholing class selection for no real gain. If magic is widespread but only gained through pacts... you might as well just let players select any of the classes in the game and just then refluff them as all being deals with other creatures. If you make a Cleric, then you've "made a pact with a celestial being" and that's why you have magic. If you make a Storm Sorcerer, then you've "made a pact with a storm giant" and that's why you have magic. If you make a Sun Soul Monk, then you've "made a pact with a coatl" and that's why you have magic. If you make a Divination Wizard, then you've "made a pact with a chrono-elemental" and that's why you have magic.

I mean, you definitely can do that. But a lot of people like mechanical differentiation that then feeds into a broader narrative distinction. (I know having the "board game" part impact the story is one of your pet peeves, but a lot of people don't necessarily separate the two as readily.)

Even with reskinning, a warlock with a "nature" pact will feel different than a druid, despite their thematic overlap.

 

[Ancalagon]

It would be good for the game. I had an entire thread about this:

D&D 5E - The warlock is a "better" wizard than a wizard

Hello Now before we start, I should state that I don't mean that the warlock is better at being a wizard than the wizard. At the very birth of D&D there were only 2 classes - the fighting man and the magic user. As more and more magic using classes appeared, even today the wizard remains the...

www.enworld.org

the tl,dr is that warlocks are better balanced than most spellcasters in D&D, and more like typical fantasy wizards.