FULL 3.5 to Pathfinder Warlock conversion. (PEACH)

[Yirrixees]

Below are 50+ pages of warlock-y goodness!

The warlock base class remains very similar to the 3.5 version. There are now, however, 10 different pacts to choose from each with unique flavor and properties (and perhaps more to come). Next is the invocations page, some are new, some are removed and many are changed. Last is the feats page, adding new feats, listing possibly useful feats and consolidating others.

While this is not a WIP, I am very eager to hear feedback, especially when it comes to adding more content or balance issues.

Please enjoy!

Warlock base class:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z2Ib8cslkjvQYmpyzh4EEfvbWaFUG6MIN_wZFd2p-S0/edit?usp=sharing

Warlock pacts:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d-lBrQxBZ2f-Q85gsL6Ak9B4OwAipRUrYoGQ3F3vN2c/edit?usp=sharing

Warlock invocations:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k1OmuH2El6jNnAX8_fPlX7rpODWlSVHSxiRVD5xIdto/edit?usp=sharing

Warlock feats:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SloLUG44vUqkUIIEgim5gwSAtqlHA-RByKnPF4CwxOk/edit?usp=sharing

[Knight Magenta]

Just skimmed the pacts and feats and here are some first impressions:

1 - I think the pacts have a little too much forced flavor. It forces your alignment and the idea that you must willingly serve those forces. What about the warlock who's father made a demonic pact? Or the warlock that was stolen away by the fey as a child.

2 - I think some of the sacrifices are lame.

The quest one basically distracts the whole party while the warlock putters about doing things that the party is not allowed to help him with, which is wacky.
The wealth one makes no sense; are you serving a specific dragon? So the DM is forced to bring an NPC in?

Consider how the warlock would play in a published adventure, like say Mummy's Mask:
party: hey warlock, we have to go explore this tomb!
warlock: sorry, have to spend a week doing chores for this Genie.
party: Yay! we gained 3 levels in a week!
warlock: man... I have so many chores backed up...

Also, how does the task work at level 1?

Contrast with the Shadow pact sacrifice. That just gives you a rule that reflects your changed nature and is kind of flavorful. That being said, light blindness is pretty brutal, just make it light sensitivity...

3 - Why are the sacrifices so big? The class does not seem like it warrants such a penalty...

4 - Unliving Toughness is a terrible feat. If you have 7 con and 18 charisma it is only about as good as Tribal Scars. (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Tribal%20Scars) You could probably roll it up with Unliving Fortitude, since they both replace your con score instead of letting them stack.

5 - I think that in 3.5 most warlocks spent all their feats on Extra Invocation (didn't play then; just what I've heard). Would it make more sense to not make a feat for that and just give them more invocations? I like gaining at least 1 new thing per level so going 2 at level 1 and +1 per level after would make sense I think.

[Yirrixees]

Just skimmed the pacts and feats and here are some first impressions:

1 - I think the pacts have a little too much forced flavor. It forces your alignment and the idea that you must willingly serve those forces. What about the warlock who's father made a demonic pact? Or the warlock that was stolen away by the fey as a child.

2 - I think some of the sacrifices are lame.

The quest one basically distracts the whole party while the warlock putters about doing things that the party is not allowed to help him with, which is wacky.
The wealth one makes no sense; are you serving a specific dragon? So the DM is forced to bring an NPC in?

Consider how the warlock would play in a published adventure, like say Mummy's Mask:
party: hey warlock, we have to go explore this tomb!
warlock: sorry, have to spend a week doing chores for this Genie.
party: Yay! we gained 3 levels in a week!
warlock: man... I have so many chores backed up...

Also, how does the task work at level 1?

Contrast with the Shadow pact sacrifice. That just gives you a rule that reflects your changed nature and is kind of flavorful. That being said, light blindness is pretty brutal, just make it light sensitivity...

3 - Why are the sacrifices so big? The class does not seem like it warrants such a penalty...

4 - Unliving Toughness is a terrible feat. If you have 7 con and 18 charisma it is only about as good as Tribal Scars. (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Tribal%20Scars) You could probably roll it up with Unliving Fortitude, since they both replace your con score instead of letting them stack.

5 - I think that in 3.5 most warlocks spent all their feats on Extra Invocation (didn't play then; just what I've heard). Would it make more sense to not make a feat for that and just give them more invocations? I like gaining at least 1 new thing per level so going 2 at level 1 and +1 per level after would make sense I think.

1: That is the idea, that to some extent you serve the forces that gave you the power. Powerful entities do not grant power without reason, so they either get the sacrifice you promised at worst or a servant at best. The child of a man that formed a demonic pact would be a sorcerer with that bloodline, not a warlock. As for a child whisked away to the Feywilds, i see no reason why they shouldn't be a warlock, the fey already claimed some of his luck in exchange for their power, what more do they need?

2: tasks are intended to be guidelines, i used that word specifically. If it is a published adventure, than use that adventure as a plot hook. and if you have a DM that allowed you to play a warlock and not take some downtime to fulfill it AND holds it against you, then that DM is kind of a ****.

Quests are optional, not mandatory, and why would the DM invite all the other players to a session when it only revolved around one? if there isn't time, don't do quests.

As for the wealth, yes, that is kind of the idea, a dragon is required to form a dragon pact. if a DM has a problem making or running an NPC he can always say no or underplay it. maybe all the dragon cares about is his growing horde thanks to the warlock?

As for what to do at level one, you do a task for a week? unless your character literally starts his adventuring less than a week after he forms his pact, it shouldn't even be a problem.

Light blindness isn't a huge hit. unless you have someone constantly casting daylight or you keep walking in and out into a midday sun. and considering you can get the darkness invocation at level 1 and can see thoguh any amount of darkness at level 2 i honestly think it is the LEAST brutal of the pact sacrifices.

3: honestly, without balance testing, i can't say if the sacrifices are too big or not. i choose to er on the side underpowered than overpowered to start.

4: um, only at level 1. in your example that is a difference of 6 HP EACH LEVEL (tribal scaring only grants the bonus once). which would make it 6x more powerful than toughness. added to the fact that you wont be penalized if you later turn into an undead creature, i'm happy with where it is unless playtesting shows otherwise.

5: they do get new things every level, they get a boost in eldritch damage, pact boon, pact resilience OR higher level invocations every levels. again, this requires playtesting. allowing at will abilities is a slippery slope that can get out of hand fast, if it needs a boost, my first response would just to allow pact invocations to be automatically known.

[Knight Magenta]

1: That is the idea, that to some extent you serve the forces that gave you the power. Powerful entities do not grant power without reason, so they either get the sacrifice you promised at worst or a servant at best. The child of a man that formed a demonic pact would be a sorcerer with that bloodline, not a warlock. As for a child whisked away to the Feywilds, i see no reason why they shouldn't be a warlock, the fey already claimed some of his luck in exchange for their power, what more do they need?

2: tasks are intended to be guidelines, i used that word specifically. If it is a published adventure, than use that adventure as a plot hook. and if you have a DM that allowed you to play a warlock and not take some downtime to fulfill it AND holds it against you, then that DM is kind of a ****.

Quests are optional, not mandatory, and why would the DM invite all the other players to a session when it only revolved around one? if there isn't time, don't do quests.

As for the wealth, yes, that is kind of the idea, a dragon is required to form a dragon pact. if a DM has a problem making or running an NPC he can always say no or underplay it. maybe all the dragon cares about is his growing horde thanks to the warlock?

As for what to do at level one, you do a task for a week? unless your character literally starts his adventuring less than a week after he forms his pact, it shouldn't even be a problem.

Light blindness isn't a huge hit. unless you have someone constantly casting daylight or you keep walking in and out into a midday sun. and considering you can get the darkness invocation at level 1 and can see thoguh any amount of darkness at level 2 i honestly think it is the LEAST brutal of the pact sacrifices.

3: honestly, without balance testing, i can't say if the sacrifices are too big or not. i choose to er on the side underpowered than overpowered to start.

4: um, only at level 1. in your example that is a difference of 6 HP EACH LEVEL (tribal scaring only grants the bonus once). which would make it 6x more powerful than toughness. added to the fact that you wont be penalized if you later turn into an undead creature, i'm happy with where it is unless playtesting shows otherwise.

5: they do get new things every level, they get a boost in eldritch damage, pact boon, pact resilience OR higher level invocations every levels. again, this requires playtesting. allowing at will abilities is a slippery slope that can get out of hand fast, if it needs a boost, my first response would just to allow pact invocations to be automatically known.


1. Sure, he could be a sorcerer, but what if I like the warlock mechanics and want to use that backstory. No reason to marry the class to one particular flavor. I say because the trope of "good man cursed with evil power" is a fantasy staple.

2. Generally, DMs run published adventures because they don't want to do tons of work. Your guidelines say to use the Quest task rarely and the tasks are supposed to be a balancing feature so why would the DM ignore them? It just seems like you are adding confusion and DM workload.

3. It just looks like Paladin code on steroids :) Honestly I feel that the sacrifices are better handled as a roleplaying hook that interested groups could use.

4. Oops, mental bloop. Might want to put a Con 10 requirement on it or something like that. Otherwise it sort of negates the pact sacrifice and possibly leads to some degeneracy.

5. I'm just pointing out that having an extra-invocation feat leads to this sort of behavior. A sort of anti-pattern. I like getting pact invocations for free; though some of the feel mutually exclusive. Like the horsemen invocations. Presumably you only serve one horseman.

I personally really like the warlock concept (mechanically) and was disappointed by Paizo's execution on the kineticist. I like the idea of different pacts as this adds some interesting customization. I may try your warlock out next time I make a new character.

[faustin]

In my opinion, the pact´s price would work best not as a downtime thing, but as part of the adventure.

For example, In the Shadowrun Dragonfall videogame, your character has the option to sing up with the Lodge, an ambiguosly evil Illuminaty-esque organization. In exchange for their patronadge, they demand certain services while completing main quests. Ex: In one mission involving bringing down an anti-metahuman group, your contact in the Lodge orders you to let their leader run away. Do it, and they will pay you generously and maybe send you an useful present. Do not, and they will not be...pleased.

Of course, these deals may push the warlock into conflicts of loyalty with his companions: can he afford keeping his word with his patron and making sacrifices for power, even if such power can be used in the party´s benefit? can he afford not keeping it and risking the ire of the patron over him and the party?

[Yirrixees]

1. Sure, he could be a sorcerer, but what if I like the warlock mechanics and want to use that backstory. No reason to marry the class to one particular flavor. I say because the trope of "good man cursed with evil power" is a fantasy staple.

2. Generally, DMs run published adventures because they don't want to do tons of work. Your guidelines say to use the Quest task rarely and the tasks are supposed to be a balancing feature so why would the DM ignore them? It just seems like you are adding confusion and DM workload.

3. It just looks like Paladin code on steroids :) Honestly I feel that the sacrifices are better handled as a roleplaying hook that interested groups could use.

4. Oops, mental bloop. Might want to put a Con 10 requirement on it or something like that. Otherwise it sort of negates the pact sacrifice and possibly leads to some degeneracy.

5. I'm just pointing out that having an extra-invocation feat leads to this sort of behavior. A sort of anti-pattern. I like getting pact invocations for free; though some of the feel mutually exclusive. Like the horsemen invocations. Presumably you only serve one horseman.

I personally really like the warlock concept (mechanically) and was disappointed by Paizo's execution on the kineticist. I like the idea of different pacts as this adds some interesting customization. I may try your warlock out next time I make a new character.

1: it is a very common staple, true. but for the warlock it is one i never really liked since it always seemed that forming a pact or a bind was very personal thing. You had to want it and work for it before you could have it. more over, i was never one who really liked 'sins of the father' tropes unless they were exceptionally well done. of course, this is all personal bias XD, feel free to work with what i've done and your DM.

2: hmm, that is not something i knew/thought of. I run as a DM most frequently these days and even when i was a player the DM usually had good opportunities for downtime (even with published adventures). The main focus of the task was to restrict some of your free time during down time (and to offer some good plot hook or RP opportunity), so like all sacrifices, it was supposed to be noticed without being too detrimental. As a DM myself, it seemed easy enough to work in. But i hear what you are saying an i am open to suggestions for how to refine/tweak it.

3: other than the task sacrifice, i really wanted to stay away from restricting a players actions. i always felt that if the warlock was going to feel as occult as it should, there should be a real price to pay. again, i tried not to make it crippling, but definitely a consideration.

4: yeah, that is why i spread it out across two feats. it might easily be too broken but i wanted to give them something, maybe 1/day use a reaction to gain that many temp HP for a minute?

5: indeed, but the problem with getting rid of the Extra Invocation feat and just compensating for it in the core stats block is that the feat costs something. having the feat means they need to decide if they are going for more versatility or direct damage, and i feel like that sort of decision making is healthy for balance and fun for the player. though, if they still need a boost i will definitely give them pact invocations for free.
As for the horsemen (and the other pacts), that is where i wanted some ambiguity as to 'who' exactly you became bound to. This would more RP and story options for player and DM. As for the horsemen specifically, they each desire the nihilistic end to all things, i don't see why they wouldn't grant a person there powers if they thought he would further that goal.

If you do try out this class, i would love more feedback! and thanks for the feedback already given.

[Yirrixees]

In my opinion, the pact´s price would work best not as a downtime thing, but as part of the adventure.

For example, In the Shadowrun Dragonfall videogame, your character has the option to sing up with the Lodge, an ambiguosly evil Illuminaty-esque organization. In exchange for their patronadge, they demand certain services while completing main quests. Ex: In one mission involving bringing down an anti-metahuman group, your contact in the Lodge orders you to let their leader run away. Do it, and they will pay you generously and maybe send you an useful present. Do not, and they will not be...pleased.

Of course, these deals may push the warlock into conflicts of loyalty with his companions: can he afford keeping his word with his patron and making sacrifices for power, even if such power can be used in the party´s benefit? can he afford not keeping it and risking the ire of the patron over him and the party?

that would be very similar to the quest task option and i very much wanted to leave that sort of option open, without making it mandatory. If it is mandatory, that is a huge workload on the DM. BUT if a DM is talented enough and has the time for it, it can make for an awesome dynamic.

[Yirrixees]

I have changed the task sacrifice to require only a day per warlock level, as after some thought, i realized a week was WAY to detrimental at high level. I also added some clarifications about the task guidelines itself.

[faustin]

that would be very similar to the quest task option and i very much wanted to leave that sort of option open, without making it mandatory. If it is mandatory, that is a huge workload on the DM. BUT if a DM is talented enough and has the time for it, it can make for an awesome dynamic.

If you want, you may take a look to this (http://gloomtrain.blogspot.com.es/2014/08/lets-make-deal.html?m=1)blog, and the author´s take of warlocks and the price they pay for their magic. Simple, yet flavorous.

[Yirrixees]

If you want, you may take a look to this (http://gloomtrain.blogspot.com.es/2014/08/lets-make-deal.html?m=1)blog, and the author´s take of warlocks and the price they pay for their magic. Simple, yet flavorous.

Oooh, i like. thanks, i might just add it!

edit: to be clear, i am not going to just copy paste (especially without giving credit), but i might use it as inspiration for my own randomized tasks.

[khadgar567]

I think quest can be used for any patron demon or devil wants coruption dragon wants particular item to add to hoard and gives nice way to dm to control story where party just railroaded again

[Yirrixees]

I think quest can be used for any patron demon or devil wants coruption dragon wants particular item to add to hoard and gives nice way to dm to control story where party just railroaded again

that can always be used through RP with the DM. but on the flipside, a DM needs to be careful to not railroad the campaign either.

[khadgar567]

that can always be used through RP with the DM. but on the flipside, a DM needs to be careful to not railroad the campaign either.
Just think party killed important npc and overall quest stuck since you need knowledge from dead npc here comes warlocks patron( aka dm) giving him clue to next step of quest as patron mission now party has new lead in old quest with out breaking game

[faustin]

I'm thinking in something more of The Witcher style, where a less than moral act have more repercussions on the world than on the PCs themselves. Obedient warlocks got the goddies and xp, but may have problems facing themselves in the mirror after the consequences of their "deals" are revealed.
What do you think?

[Yirrixees]

Just think party killed important npc and overall quest stuck since you need knowledge from dead npc here comes warlocks patron( aka dm) giving him clue to next step of quest as patron mission now party has new lead in old quest with out breaking game

it is absolutely in the realm of possibilities. it really isn't in the sphere of the sacrifices as a rule dynamic and more of being a DM being good at his job, but yeah, in that instance that is a great solution.

[Yirrixees]

I'm thinking in something more of The Witcher style, where a less than moral act have more repercussions on the world than on the PCs themselves. Obedient warlocks got the goddies and xp, but may have problems facing themselves in the mirror after the consequences of their "deals" are revealed.
What do you think?

that is a great way to tell a story, and i feel like that is more in the realm of the story teller. I think the most i can do is bring is create rules that encourage the creation of those sort of stories. It is really easy to make it heavy-handed and i am trying to avoid that.

on that note, i am working on a fourth form of a task: triviality (basically a list in the same vein of the link you shared)