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

[jmartkdr2]

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.

If your players are into the ideas of the setting, they should be okay with a lack of wizards and clerics... because they should be excited to play something else.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

You could also take paladins and say they swear their oath to some entity.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I like the idea of balancing warlocks with druids. You could then have a game without any gods/pantheons. That keeps healing magic in the game (and reincarnation!). I don't think Druids would ever out-power anyone in terms of damage spells. Paladins could stay, but would be tapping some other plane, ;

That could still leave a range of classes:
Druids-Rangers-Barbarians offering a nature/earthy magic (all rooted in this plane)
Fighters-Rogues (with their arcane options -- those picking up small magic and not attracting too much attention from the beings beyond)
Warlocks (demanding attention from the beings beyond)

that would leave Paladins (providing another healing option): I see them as stealing the power from other planes -- it's not part of a contract, and that could attract any kind of attention. Monks probably exist too.

(I realize that takes us away from Warlocks as the only spellcasters; I do like the thoguht of a campagn with no bards, clerics, sorcerers, or wizards).

 

[Weiley31]

For more info, google fiend warlock rule 34.

I mean I would, but I just know that somewhere on Enworld, Morrus and the gang would judge me harshly for it.

So I'll have to keep my virgin eyes free from doing that.

...............................for now anyway.

 

[Weiley31]

Warlock/Druids would be the Witches. Just add on the potion brewing thingie from the UA Strixhaven Witherbloom College and there ya go!

 

[DND_Reborn]

What if all martials used the monk chassis?

Ki points become points to use for other classes' features, such as rage, second wind, superiority dice, cunning action, smites, or whatever.

Then, you would only need two class designs for all the classes.

IME, Warlock is a different design, certainly, and I know some people really like it, but not a class often chosen as a favorite. I recall in polls it never did well. It wasn't chosen as one of the top seven classes to keep (it was 9th), it barely beat out Rogue to make it in the top half of best classes, and was 5th on the list of classes that need the most help.

 

[Blue]

Of course, lots of people would cry bitterly that they are not allowed to play their favorite pet class. That's obvious.

When the first sentence of your whole post is just putting down a bunch of fellow players, it really comes across poorly.

You have an interesting premise, and I'm definitely one who will tailor available races and classes to a setting, theme or feel. But starting your by being insulting to a subset of gamers just isn't cool and doesn't make me want to contribute here.

 

[Yora]

Eh, I've been around D&D forums for 20 yeara now. I have no illusions about some people being violently opposed to any campaign premise that isn't exactly how they would run a game if they were the GM. And then still trying to sign on to your campaign with the stated parameters, and imediately trying to negotiate that exceptions should be made for their characters.
It's not like I am forcing anything on anyone, but I'm also not a public service with a duty to cater to everyone. I really can't be bothered to coddle all the people who don't really want to play in my campaigns anyway.

I'm not insulting. I'm dismissive.