Making Warlocks the only full casters for a low magic campaign, good idea or no?

[supergoji18]

A low magic game I am designing, I want to make warlocks the only full caster class available to be played. I feel the warlock's design is best for such a campaign, with a greater focus on magical boons and gifts than on slinging spells. So essentially the class list would look like this:

- Barbarian
- Fighter
- Paladin
- Ranger
- Rogue
- Warlock

To increase build diversity of the Warlock in such a setting, I am making the following house rules for the class
- You can choose to use Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma as your spellcasting ability, but once chosen you cannot change it.
- You automatically learn the spells from your expanded spell list, and they don't count against your number of spells known.
- The invocations that buff Eldritch Blast are all removed.
- Thirsting Blade is part of the Blade Pact, unlocked at Warlock level 5, instead of being an Eldritch Invocation.

The intent of these changes is to increase build diversity for the class so that one can make it into a low magic version of a wizard, cleric, shaman, or whatever kind of role the player wants. Removing all the buffs to Eldritch Blast prevents everyone from playing a blastlock, and the inclusion of Thirsting Blade into the Blade Pact is so that more options can be opened up for Eldritch Invocations.

In addition to these house rules, I intend to come up with some new subclasses to make up for the loss of some of the more popular paths for the other classes, namely a storm and dragon based subclass.

Here is my concern: I feel that I may be missing something that will make this either unbalanced or, more importantly, not fun. I'm not sure what it is, which is why I am asking the forums for help. Is this a good idea, and why or why not?

[Blackbando]

Interesting idea? Yes.

Good idea? I'm not sure.

It would fit the idea of not slinging around spells much, but then, unless you have to go bladelock, chances are? You'll kinda suck. Warlocks are balanced around using E.B. to compensate for low spell slots, so removing the buffs to blast do nerf it quite a lot.

If you keep the E.B. buffs, I could see it working. At that point, it'd depend more so on if your players are cool with it, I'd say.

[Brutalitops]

Nerfing eldritch blast like that by banning agonizing invocation will lead to the warlock being weaker than normal. You could bann all buffs to eldritch blast except Agonizing blast and reflavour the blast as coming from an enchanted crossbow or some other ranged weapon that the warlock patron gifted the warlock. That way they are still useful in combat and they can fit in better in a low magic campaign.

[supergoji18]

Interesting idea? Yes.

Good idea? I'm not sure.

It would fit the idea of not slinging around spells much, but then, unless you have to go bladelock, chances are? You'll kinda suck. Warlocks are balanced around using E.B. to compensate for low spell slots, so removing the buffs to blast do nerf it quite a lot.

If you keep the E.B. buffs, I could see it working. At that point, it'd depend more so on if your players are cool with it, I'd say.


Nerfing eldritch blast like that by banning agonizing invocation will lead to the warlock being weaker than normal. You could bann all buffs to eldritch blast except Agonizing blast and reflavour the blast as coming from an enchanted crossbow or some other ranged weapon that the warlock patron gifted the warlock. That way they are still useful in combat and they can fit in better in a low magic campaign.

Something I was considering was instead applying the Agonizing Blast bonus to all offensive spells cast instead of just to eldritch blast.

But instead maybe I'll turn Eldritch Blast into a class feature and change the damage type to one of your choice that isn't force. And just keep the Agonizing Blast invocation. The others feel unnecessary to me.

[Blackbando]

Might I also suggest this lovely warlock rework (https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/8ntek7/demons_and_deities_a_revised_warlock_v112/)? It might seem more appealing, especially with how it can make warlocks fit more concepts.

[Davrix]

I actually like the idea of warlocks being the only caster allowed. But don't nerf them or re-work them. Let them be what they are just have them be FEARED. These are people that sold their souls or made pacts with creatures not of this earth. They are unnatural. Its something to be kept hidden and away. Use of power could lead to prison or death by the hands of the guards. This is a role for an experienced role player wanting the challenged and oh god I would relish the idea of doing it myself. Warlocks also have some great invocation for dealing with hiding and sneaking around. Agonizing blase would not be my first choice on this character. Not if you want to live.

If anything I would tweak them to be a tad more powerful then they are if you put them in a very hostile world. But that's my idea of it and perhaps not one your sold on right now.

[KorvinStarmast]

- Barbarian
- Fighter
- Paladin
- Ranger
- Rogue
- Warlock


Just make sure to have plenty of short rests.
That is all.
Swap to Int, or don't. (I recommend yes, but I am biased).
Do not swap to Wis. Utterly refutes the "seeking forbidden knowledge" bit of Warlock class character description.
make sure healer feat is available
Make sure they can buy healing potions
You don't have to do anything else.

[carrdrivesyou]

A low magic game I am designing, I want to make warlocks the only full caster class available to be played. I feel the warlock's design is best for such a campaign, with a greater focus on magical boons and gifts than on slinging spells. So essentially the class list would look like this:

- Barbarian
- Fighter
- Paladin
- Ranger
- Rogue
- Warlock

To increase build diversity of the Warlock in such a setting, I am making the following house rules for the class
- You can choose to use Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma as your spellcasting ability, but once chosen you cannot change it.
- You automatically learn the spells from your expanded spell list, and they don't count against your number of spells known.
- The invocations that buff Eldritch Blast are all removed.
- Thirsting Blade is part of the Blade Pact, unlocked at Warlock level 5, instead of being an Eldritch Invocation.

The intent of these changes is to increase build diversity for the class so that one can make it into a low magic version of a wizard, cleric, shaman, or whatever kind of role the player wants. Removing all the buffs to Eldritch Blast prevents everyone from playing a blastlock, and the inclusion of Thirsting Blade into the Blade Pact is so that more options can be opened up for Eldritch Invocations.

In addition to these house rules, I intend to come up with some new subclasses to make up for the loss of some of the more popular paths for the other classes, namely a storm and dragon based subclass.

Here is my concern: I feel that I may be missing something that will make this either unbalanced or, more importantly, not fun. I'm not sure what it is, which is why I am asking the forums for help. Is this a good idea, and why or why not?

1. Lack of in combat or even out of combat healing aside from spending Hit Dice are going to make things difficult. You'll see your game slow down to compensate for caution.

2a. Forcing players into the warlock for magic seems very not cool. This removes a lot of player options and flavor from the campaign. Sorcerers are typically born with their magic, which would make more sense to me than forcing people into making deals with eldritch creatures.

2b. If you are going to limit magic to this degree, why bother even having it? A Hexblade would be absolutely murderous with these rules. They could literally slice and dice with blades AND sling fireballs. Meanwhile any other warlock would be sub-par and likely not enjoy the game.

2c. What about Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights? Do those exist or are they banned also?

3. Having a paladin and no cleric seems odd. Paladins in this edition are less holy men and more oathbound warriors. So...no holy powers?

Overall, you will seriously want to discuss this with your players. The extreme limits you have put on characters will seriously hamper your game. Honestly, I would not play in a game like this. I can admire a low magic campaign, but the limits you have installed makes it rather unfair to your players. If you are a fledgling DM trying to find ways to deal with players that think differently and are creative, hampering them will only make you a worse DM. If you are an experienced DM and are just throwing curve balls, I'd expect a strike out on this one.

I once played a 3.5 low magic campaign. One of the players had to try for weeks to be able to take a single level of Bard. There was magic and enchanters, but we were banned from any magic class. Druids could either shape shift but not cast spells. And we were limited to the PHB. Still, it was one of the more enjoyable games I have played in.

[supergoji18]

1. Lack of in combat or even out of combat healing aside from spending Hit Dice are going to make things difficult. You'll see your game slow down to compensate for caution.

2a. Forcing players into the warlock for magic seems very not cool. This removes a lot of player options and flavor from the campaign. Sorcerers are typically born with their magic, which would make more sense to me than forcing people into making deals with eldritch creatures.

2b. If you are going to limit magic to this degree, why bother even having it? A Hexblade would be absolutely murderous with these rules. They could literally slice and dice with blades AND sling fireballs. Meanwhile any other warlock would be sub-par and likely not enjoy the game.

2c. What about Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights? Do those exist or are they banned also?

3. Having a paladin and no cleric seems odd. Paladins in this edition are less holy men and more oathbound warriors. So...no holy powers?

Overall, you will seriously want to discuss this with your players. The extreme limits you have put on characters will seriously hamper your game. Honestly, I would not play in a game like this. I can admire a low magic campaign, but the limits you have installed makes it rather unfair to your players. If you are a fledgling DM trying to find ways to deal with players that think differently and are creative, hampering them will only make you a worse DM. If you are an experienced DM and are just throwing curve balls, I'd expect a strike out on this one.

I once played a 3.5 low magic campaign. One of the players had to try for weeks to be able to take a single level of Bard. There was magic and enchanters, but we were banned from any magic class. Druids could either shape shift but not cast spells. And we were limited to the PHB. Still, it was one of the more enjoyable games I have played in.
1. A fair point that I shall consider.

2a. The idea is to make the warlock be suitable for any flavor of magic user. That's why I plan to give them the ability to use Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma as their casting ability. The subclasses could then be explained as being a result of having studied a type of magic extensively, having formed a pact with said creature, or having been descended from said creature and thus the magic is within you.

2b. Because its a low magic setting, not a no magic setting. There is still magic present, but its much more esoteric and harder for mortals to utilize. The way I see it, a full caster class wouldn't fit this setting because they would be able to cast too much magic.

2c. I think I will. Half-casters like Paladin and Ranger, and partial casters like Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight have a much slower spell-casting progression, so I think they'll fit the theme of the setting fine.

3. I didn't want clerics because I wanted the existence of the gods to be ambiguous. Having clerics just blows that possibility away.

I appreciate the comments you've made and will take them into consideration. I may keep druids to have one full caster that fits with the setting, and can provide healing if necessary.

EDIT: One thing I will say is that this game isn't going to be just constant combat, so one doesn't need to optimize for combat to have fun. Also, I've played as a warlock numerous times before the hexblade was even released and had lots of fun as one. So I don't think your claim that warlocks that aren't hexblade will not have as much fun isn't entirely correct. Do note that I am probably not going to follow through entirely with the removal of all the eldritch blast invocations. At the very least I'm keeping agonizing blast. Also, I think I'll add some new invocations to allow for more creative options and maybe add some of the features from the classes I scrapped.

[KorvinStarmast]

2a. Forcing players into the warlock for magic seems very not cool. This removes a lot of player options and flavor from the campaign. It's his campaign, his flavor. This also make the basis of magic consistent throughout the campaign; from these patrons only. The tone is IMO awesome.



3. Having a paladin and no cleric seems odd. Paladins in this edition are less holy men and more oathbound warriors. So...no holy powers?
Two words: Celestial pact (warlock)

and Paladin can have holy powers.

Also: Recommendatin for the OP

Yes, keep druids, and use "forces of nature" (or even the Archfey)rather than "gods of nature" as the source of their powers. (That's in the PHB in the section on the weave and on druids).

[Dr. Cliché]

If you want a low-magic campaign, would it not make more sense to just limit players to the half-casters (Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knights etc.)?

Failing that, my suggestion would be to leave the warlock the same (rather than making it an Int caster or removing some Invocations), but make the Patron thing a much bigger deal. Typically, in low-magic worlds, those with powerful magic pay a very heavy price for it. If, for example, a Fiend Warlock has to sacrifice one innocent every couple of days to retain his powers, it might emphasise the cost of powerful magic.

[KorvinStarmast]

I am going to revise my suggestion from my original answer. Here is draft 2 response:

1. Just make sure to have plenty of short rests.
2. Swap to Int, or don't. (I recommend yes, but I am biased). Possibly make it either or, tied to which patron is chosen.
3. Do not swap to Wis. That seems to me, style wise, at odds with the "seeking forbidden knowledge" bit of Warlock class character description. The Wise know better. :smallbiggrin:
4. Make sure healer feat is available for the party, even if no other feats are allowed in your campaign.
5. Make sure they can buy healing potions or get them. (Or craft them).
6. Recommend you do go with your gut and include druids who are not deity worshippers, but "force of nature" worshippers. (See PHB p. 205 side bar discussion on the Weave ...)

7. Option: make all spells on all spell lists discoverable by the warlock, but categorize them by patron. (That might be more work for you ... it's a thought).
For example, GOO spells would include stuff that induces insanity or illusion (Crown of Madness? Yeah!) ArchFey spells are where summoning fey or woodland creatures is possible, ensnare.
8. Ritual spells: Pact of Tome mostly has it covered. The tricky part is placing spells as treasures or rewards for faithful service to the patron. (For example, Pact of Tome might be able to, with a Celestial Patron, or an Undying Patron, get a ritual copy of raise dead ... if one has served the patron well, or finds an old scroll .... )

9. Wands: wands become very sought after treasures or rewards; if one has a wand, one tends to keep that fact hidden lest thieves be alerted ...

Anyway, I love your idea.

[Cynthaer]

The intent of these changes is to increase build diversity for the class so that one can make it into a low magic version of a wizard, cleric, shaman, or whatever kind of role the player wants.


2a. The idea is to make the warlock be suitable for any flavor of magic user. That's why I plan to give them the ability to use Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma as their casting ability. The subclasses could then be explained as being a result of having studied a type of magic extensively, having formed a pact with said creature, or having been descended from said creature and thus the magic is within you.

2b. Because its a low magic setting, not a no magic setting. There is still magic present, but its much more esoteric and harder for mortals to utilize. The way I see it, a full caster class wouldn't fit this setting because they would be able to cast too much magic.

If I may, I think you have one very large misunderstanding that makes your Warlock changes a bad idea for your design goals:

The Warlock is a full casting class.

I realize that the definition of "full caster" is contentious in theoretical debates around here, but for your design, where you're trying to get the feel of "low magic" by substituting Warlock mechanics for (say) Cleric mechanics to make a "half Cleric", I don't think it will work.

In all seriousness, I'm curious why you are fine with the Warlock's access to 9th-level spells by level 17 but not, for instance, the Wizard's?


3. I didn't want clerics because I wanted the existence of the gods to be ambiguous. Having clerics just blows that possibility away.

You're free to ban Clerics, of course, but since at least 3.5e, I think the "atheist Cleric" is pretty much the first thing people come up with when they start tweaking the fluff on their characters. (The next two are "a sorcerer who doesn't realize they're using magic" and "a barbarian, except 'rage' is activating power armor".)

The point being, wouldn't it be easier to just say "Clerics are a thing, but they either (A) serve a principle instead of a god, or (B) believe they get their power from a god but there's no real way to be sure"?

This kind of leads into a broader aspect of your design. Basically, I think there are easier ways to do whatever you're doing than to homebrew a massive set of changes to the Warlock class.

Why not just do one of these, and take advantage of the fact that the existing classes are basically balanced already?

Option 1: No full casters, including the Warlock. 1/2 and 1/3 casters are fine.

Option 1a: Specific classes are banned for story reasons (e.g., "there are no Clerics in this world"). Everything else is RAW.

Option 2: All classes are available, but characters may only take 10 levels in any full casting class.

Option 2a (if you don't want full casting progression): All classes are available, but characters can only take levels in a full casting class every other level.

Option 3: No restrictions, but you simply tell the players that this is a low-magic setting, and you would prefer that nobody take a full casting class. If one (or two, or whatever you're comfortable with) has a strong character concept, you may allow it, although of course they will have to deal with whatever story consequences you've set for magic in this world.

Option 3a: Same thing, but specific classes are banned for story reasons.

[MagneticKitty]

I'd be more inclined to limiting the levels of full caster they could take. Otherwise you're shoehorning a type of character. Or a source of magic.

[opaopajr]

Could be fun. I'd tie Patron to Attribute for diversity fun: INT for Old Ones, WIS for Fiends, CHA for Fae, etc. I also like the NERF to Eldritch Blast... but! I may have an even better idea.

So, my big issue is at-will Cantrips and Short Rest refreshed Spell Slots. That's a lot of spell spamming to really undo your Low Magic Setting. If you can answer those you may not have to NERF Eldritch Blast Convocations.

My advice:

Cantrips = Prof Bonus + Spell Mod, refresh on Short Rest. Short Rest = 1 hour. Magic use in public is presumed (rightly) to be in league with otherworldly patrons with malicious eyes upon Prime Material Plane Denizens, and thus hunted down with prejudice upon discovery.

Oh, and Patrons expect quests from Warlocks randomly, when least convenient. :smalltongue:

That'd be a very restrained Low Magic campaign that relies heavily on Convocations. Sure you could build a focused EB Warlock, but you'd reveal yourself for "the Inquisition" in a hurry! Short Rest Casting is still present, but the social pressure limits Short Rests available.

[JellyPooga]

While I can get behind the idea, I have three words for you;

Gritty. Realism. Variant.

Seriously. It puts such a cramp on traditional full-casters (a whole *week* of rest to replenish spells!) that they become almost unplayable in a game paced for non Gritty Realism, while Warlocks really shine by comparison. Rather than ban options, potentially giving your players cause to doubt whether they want in, give them free rein on choice with the caveat that certain options aren't going to live uo to their regular expectations. Add a setting that views magic in a largely negative light and you have your low-magic campaign.

[Sigreid]

Find out if your players are game. I wouldn't., not that my opinion should affect your game, but you need to find out if your caster players will be annoyed.

[Joe the Rat]

Switching stats can get you to different approaches to casting, different flavors of pacts, and different spell lists, potentially.
Thought: Open up other spell lists based on the casting stat. Int-locks, the sagacious studious delvers of lore, can pry some Wizard Classics from the universe. Wis-locks, being more in tune with monde and demimonde, truck with spirits and fey powers. They can dip into the Cleric or Druid lists (pick one). Warlock Classic, so he doesn't feel too bummed, gets Sorcerer and Bard as choices. Include the cantrips as well, if you like.

So Intlock is the too clever by half Faust/Herbert West type, Wislock is more Mako-from-the-Conan-Movies (the classics, not that Aquaman Prequel), and Chalock is the classic we all know and love.

If you have full access to the various pacts, healing is slightly less troublesome with Celestial Pact running about. On top of that, you have Rangers, Paladins, and the Healer Feat. But it will be a grittier game.


But instead maybe I'll turn Eldritch Blast into a class feature and change the damage type to one of your choice that isn't force. And just keep the Agonizing Blast invocation. The others feel unnecessary to me.Then you have missed a golden opportunity. Those "unnecessary invocations" are the difference between being a glorified archer and being a source of Strange Powers. Repelling and Grasp are incredibly useful. You can move creatures around the field and they can't do a damn thing about it. You can drag an enemy archer up to the frontlines. You can knock giants off of bridges. You can pull a kraken to the surface, if for some reason you needed it closer. No size limits on this. Lethargy turns the EB - or anything if you make the invocations any-cantruip - into Ray of Frost. And you can put them all together. Lance and repel one or more approaching attackers to take an effective 20 feet out of their movement, or apply selectively with a grasp in there to destroy a front line. If you were to drop something, I'd drop agonizing. It takes DPS out as a focus (which is a major motivator for blastlocking, aye?) and turns it into a control tool. Or throw in Kiss of Mephistopheles (from the UA) so you can turn a blast into a bomb. Change it to have the damage type match the chosen type of the blast or associated cantrip, and all sorts of craziness comes out.

If you really want to keep it in, push it up to a level 5 invocation so people get used to controlling or utility work, and putting the emphasis for hurting and killing on the petty fools who chose not to carve their names into the side of the pandimensional monstrosity circling in the void and waiting for someone to return the Horn of Dreaming to the statue so it can manifest and eat everything.

But that's just me.

[Rowan Wolf]

You could potentially add in druid, but remove the baseline spellcasting and replace it with wisdom based pact magic, the cache on druid should be strong enough to withstand this without adding invocations, though you will need to rework the spell recovery option on land druid.

[Cynthaer]

While I can get behind the idea, I have three words for you;

Gritty. Realism. Variant.

Seriously. It puts such a cramp on traditional full-casters (a whole *week* of rest to replenish spells!) that they become almost unplayable in a game paced for non Gritty Realism, while Warlocks really shine by comparison. Rather than ban options, potentially giving your players cause to doubt whether they want in, give them free rein on choice with the caveat that certain options aren't going to live uo to their regular expectations. Add a setting that views magic in a largely negative light and you have your low-magic campaign.

This is another good idea. It's an existing, balanced rule that gets across the feel of "low-magic" (really, "low-anything-extraordinary") without taking a hacksaw to the magic classes specifically.


You could potentially add in druid, but remove the baseline spellcasting and replace it with wisdom based pact magic, the cache on druid should be strong enough to withstand this without adding invocations, though you will need to rework the spell recovery option on land druid.

I guess I have the same question here that I have for the OP.

Standard Druid spellcasting:
- Many slots of different spell levels
- Recharge on long rest
- "Full caster" progression, reaching 9th-level spells at level 17

Warlock "Pact Magic" spellcasting:
- Few slots, all max-level
- Recharge on short rest
- Extra at-will and 1/day spells from invocations
- "Full caster" progression, reaching 9th-level spells at level 17

I don't really see how replacing the former with the latter actually makes it feel like more of a "low-magic" campaign, you know?

[supergoji18]

For those asking about why I'm okay with warlocks as full casters but not other classes, here's why:

- Warlocks have far fewer spell slots compared to other casters, but the few they do get are powerful (up to 5th level). This fits with the theme of the setting: magic is rare and hard to use, but when present it is powerful and dangerous.
- Warlock spell selection is not as subject to abuse as other classes at higher levels. The 9th level spells warlocks get are fitting for the setting, even in a low magic campaign. Astral projection, foresight, power word kill, etc., are all powerful spells that are more down to earth so to speak. Meanwhile, wizards, sorcerers and clerics get the likes of wish, meteor swarm, and true resurrection, which in my opinion would not fit with the setting.

Regarding the gritty realism variant rules... I can't believe I've never looked at this. I might use this in conjunction with some smaller changes than I had planned.

I will also consider other suggestions made in this thread.