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

[ECMO3]

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 would prefer a game where the only martials were Rogues. So the campaign only includes Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, Wizards, Warlocks and Rogues (or maybe Monks).

A highly magical world where everyone has access to magic and a few on the outside are trying to scrape by through their wits alone. You would also need to limit Rogue subclasses to Thief, Swashbuckler, Mastermind, Inquisitor and Assassin. If you went with the Monk theme instead, it is similar but the Monks are basically evil cultists fighting against magic. PCs who got trained as Monks somehow left the order to join civilization and they are the only citizens without magical abilities or spells.

 

[Ath'kethin]

I've run campaigns where the only full casters are warlocks for years. I often expand that idea to being the only casters at all are Warlocks. It works because Warlocks can fill any caster niche and have radically more dimension and flavor than other casters.

I started doing this when I ran a Primeval Thule campaign years ago, and it proved popular enough that I just kept it up.

I do make/allow the following changes, however:

1. I give them the Ritual Caster feat, which provides a little more diversity and range without a big power boost. I also add the Ritual tag to magic circle, which it lacks for some reason.

2. Allow them to use a martial weapon if they want. This change has had absolutely no impact on game balance but allows for cool visuals IME.

3. Reflavor eldritch blast. It's such a dull power, and reskinning it to match the Warlock's patron theme just makes it way cooler. For example, a Warlock dedicated to a Great Old One representing unfettered growth and untamed nature might cause a quick burst of tree branches and foliage to burst from the target's body. Same mechanical effect, but less laser-gun-y.

4. Allow invocations that formerly affected only eldritch blast to affect any spell, like the OP.

5. The Primeval Thule Player Companion customized the GOO Warlock base on which specific Great Old One the Warlock pacts with. This choice affects the bonus spell list as well as the 14th level feature, and completely changes the feel of the class. I love it and broadly use this approach with all Warlocks.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think you'll find that typical adventure design principles may run into issues, in that Warlocks are not really geared for utility/buff casting, and very quickly have to fall back on cantrips.

The thing is there isn't that much buff casting in 5e anyway thanks to the concentration rules and warlocks IME are much better utility casters than sorcerers due to how short the sorcerer spells known list is.

Moreover, I think the theme might not turn out as powerful as you might think. The Warlock's cool comes from the basic setup that most people do "acceptable" stuff, but the warlock chooses to do something outside the norm, and often of questionable wisdom, to get power.

The warlock's thematic cool does, at least in part. But the warlock is also mechanically cool due to the spellcasting method, the variety of invocations, just how varied the subclasses are, and a few other things. And the mechanical cool stays while showing a lot about this world in specific.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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?

To me the problem is that we'd then only have four other classes (fighter, barbarian, rogue and monk) and that to me feels meh.

I'd much rather allow the partial casters to allow seven other classes (by allowing ranger, paladin, and artificer) - and it also means that the demon-dealers are both the most powerful casters and can be overwhelmed in volume of spells by supposedly weaker casters. It really gives a "quick road to power" feel.

Also of course Celestial Warlocks cover the role of clerics, Tome Warlocks collecting rituals cover the role of wizards, Archfey should be more bardish (although this is a statement of intent if they ever rework the subclass), and sorcerers aren't that needed. No druids of course.

Edited due to somehow forgetting the rogue.

 

[jmartkdr2]

To me the problem is that we'd then only have three other classes (fighter, barbarian, and monk) and that to me feels meh.

I'd much rather allow the partial casters to allow six other classes (by allowing ranger, paladin, and artificer) - and it also means that the demon-dealers are both the most powerful casters and can be overwhelmed in volume of spells by supposedly weaker casters. It really gives a "quick road to power" feel.

Also of course Celestial Warlocks cover the role of clerics, Tome Warlocks collecting rituals cover the role of wizards, Archfey should be more bardish (although this is a statement of intent if they ever rework the subclass), and sorcerers aren't that needed. No druids of course.

Also rogues. Druids would be a new patron.

You could probably roll the half-casters into a single class with a patron and more non-magic options, or a fixed Bladelock sort of thing. You'd probably also want to roll (nonmagic) barbarians into the fighter and think hard about whether monks are a thing.

So you'd land at four classes, most likely. Which is few but still enough for a cromulent game.

 

[Baron Opal II]

It seems that most of the higher level invocations add additional spells known rather than powers. Given how few spells warlocks can cast at a time, does that balance out for people?

 

[Laurefindel]

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.

Came here to say essentially what @Dausuul succinctly said.

Warlock as only magic user is a bit much, but warlock as only (full)spellcaster works well in a high-fantasy setting (à la Lord of the Ring) where magic is everywhere but subtle, or in a sword-and-sorcery setting (à la Fafhrd and Grey Mouser) where magic is widespread but suspicious and oftentimes corrupted.

I'd be tempted to cut the paladin out as well, but it could work in a Middle-Earth-like setting refluffing paladins as charismatic leaders rather than religious zealots*. Otherwise I wouldn't change anything about the warlock, their spell list, or their patrons (except in fluff, perhaps).

* actually, I yearn more and more for a setting where gods and religion have nothing to do with paladins and clerics, at least not more than they have to do with fighters and rogues...

 

[Faolyn]

Also rogues. Druids would be a new patron.

You could probably roll the half-casters into a single class with a patron and more non-magic options, or a fixed Bladelock sort of thing. You'd probably also want to roll (nonmagic) barbarians into the fighter and think hard about whether monks are a thing.

So you'd land at four classes, most likely. Which is few but still enough for a cromulent game.

I still say use Level Up, which has nonmagical rangers, made adepts (monks) mostly non-magical, and has the nonmagical marshal class. And in Zeitgeist, there's going to be the nonmagical savant class.

 

[TheSword]

You could. Of course.

But why stop there? You might as well limit all martial classes to rogues.

Then when the angst reaches critical mass, you can end the campaign and start a normal game of D&D.

 

[Yora]

I am considering to maybe give 5th edition another chance in my next campaign (since people often say about my complaints that you don't need to run the game the way I did), and want to come back to this idea.

In the vague setting idea I have in mind, there's certainly room for barbarians, fighters, monks, and rogues, excluding the spellcasting variants of the later three. And of course warlocks.
But I've been thinking about ways to broaden the options for PCs some more, and I'm now wondering about the possibility of revamping the bard as a kind of half-caster warlock. The college of lore is already thematically about scholars of the arcane, and in a world without wizards, where warlocks take on a role more like cultists or priests, that could be an interesting aspect to focus on.

Druids could also be an interesting counterpoint to warlocks. With the circles of the land, the druids are implied to get their power directly from the minor spirits of the environment. This could be contrasted to warlocks having connections to powers from beyond. The only downside I see with that is that druids might outshine the warlocks as the main wielders of spells. However, if making long rests less easily and frequently accessible, the warlocks' ability to regain all their power at simply a short rest might rebalance that. Perhaps add more invocations to add spells that don't use slots and are effectively unlimited for warlocks.
(Not sure how much the typical Longer Rest variant would impact things, considering I am expecting fewer fights, but more potential uses for non-combat spells.)

My idea with that is that druids would really only be found as barbarian shamans, and as such perhaps come across as even more strange in civilized areas where people are somewhat used to warlock-priests using their kind of spells.