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

[Tales and Chronicles]

That's also a really cool setting idea.

I like it, you either master the power of one-self (psionics) to gain magic or, for those unable or to weak to make that painful inner journey, you make a seemingly two-way deal with an outer power to gain magic (warlock). The key word being ''seemingly''.

Being born with magic in your veins, seeing magic in nature's patterns, devoting your magic to divine service, exploring the limits of magic through research or using magic as a communal performance...its all background really. How you develop those potentials is what matters in this setting.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why not take it a step further? Only three classes: warrior (fighter) rogue, and mage (warlock).

 

[NotQuiteANoble]

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?

I'd be okay with it. Magic would be a lot rarer and mystical, and it would have to come with a cost. That and martials in my opinion struggle to keep up with casters later game

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Why not take it a step further? Only three classes: warrior (fighter) rogue, and mage (warlock).

Have I ever mentioned Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures on this forum?.....

Anyway, I can imagine a 5e Basic grim version where the only possible classes are Merc, Delver or Warlock.

 

[Dausuul]

Why not take it a step further? Only three classes: warrior (fighter) rogue, and mage (warlock).

I can't speak for @Yora, but that would be slicing things down a bit too far for my taste.

There are supernatural aspects to barbarians, monks, and rangers, but in each case, it's tightly focused and thematic. As a matter of fact, I think the removal of the full caster classes allows these three to shine in a way they previously could not. The ranger and the barbarian tap into primal mysteries; the monk masters space and energy; and because there are no longer full casters (druid, wizard, sorcerer) doing these things on a much greater scale, these smaller abilities stand out.

I'm on the fence about paladins. In theory, they're in the same boat as rangers; but their magical abilities are more overt and flashy, and their existence suggests the direct involvement of divine powers in the world, which clashes with the sword-and-sorcery atmosphere. Paladins might need to be cut as well. Or they might not... would have to ponder that for a while.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'm not exactly sure then what your point is heading towards then? I think I must be missing what you are emphasizing in how you're thinking about this?

Are you saying that you'd think it'd be fine to run the game and have a setting where the only caster class is the warlock, but the reason it's the only one is because it is already thematically about making pacts and thus there is no refluffing necessary? But other than that, the game's magical level or societal impact is not really any different than any other generic fantasy world?

I think they're just disagreeing on the balance point.

I agree warlocks should be seen as a big deal, but that doesn't require them to be rare. Just uncommon enough that the average person doesn't know one.

Which is where a lot of people try to run their regular DnD games, but then they need to include a bard college and a few wizard schools and several seminaires and a circle of druids and a couple paladin orders and some ranger conclaves and then there's also warlocks and psions and artificers (oh my) running around the city. If there's only warlocks, then the city might only have one or a hundred, and they'd still be rare enough to be special, but if each city has a hundred the appearance of one more isn't necessarily big news.

Warlocks-only gives a lot of flexibility here (in terms of how common magic-users are), especially because warlocks don't need other warlocks in their backstories.

 

[Mordhau]

Eh. I think the problem is that Eldritch blast would be being used all the time and it's just boring.

Warlock players often complain of lack of variety.

I like the idea of spellcasters being shortrest, but I'd rather just use spell points and then drop their allocation by 1/3 with a short rest refresh.

That would provide a bit more flexibility than the warlock that only ever has it's highest level of spell slots.

 

[Yora]

I actually had not thought about eldritch blast at all. Its such a lame power thematically, that it never comes to my mind when thinking about what I could do with warlocks in my campaigns.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I actually had not thought about eldritch blast at all. Its such a lame power thematically, that it never comes to my mind when thinking about what I could do with warlocks in my campaigns.

In a past thread, I transformed/refluffed the warlock as a more generic Mage, where all the Invocations boosting EB instead gave a bonus to all Cantrips that dealt damage.

 

[Fenris-77]

The Warlock class is one of my favorite things about 5E. Both to play and to hack.