How would you do a 3.5 edition Warlock in ACKS?

This is one of the more unusual player requests. They love the Warlock class because its like being a mage (sort of) but doesn’t require they track spells per day. I’ve toyed around with it some but it is always way overpowered. Nature of the edition its coming from I guess.

BUT, if you were to take the concept of the warlock and implement it to ACKS how would you do it? Any ideas out there? I am drawing a blank on the build the concept from the ground up. And since ACKS has the best version of the assassin out there yet, just maybe someone has an idea or two?

My experience of playing a warlock in 3.5 was basically roll to hit, choose some knock-on effects, roll damage. I think that the way to do this in ACKS would be to treat it like an archer. Go with the class feature that gives +1 to hit for ranged attacks, reskin it to be -1 to opponent's AC to feel like touch attacks. This is slighly less useful, but an eldrich blast is slightly more useful than a bow that could run out of ammo or be disarmed. (If your foes use disarm a lot that could make it require more balancing.)

I'd also build into the class some combat trickery proficiency reskinned as blast effects, like knock down = encases the foe in slippery ice and incapacitate = paralyzing lightning. Write up a bunch of these so that the player can choose new ones as class proficiencies, my warlock got cooler blasts with level.

The last thing I'd do is whip up some reskinned magic item creation rules to cover the things a magic bow and arrows could do. Price these as bow effects not arrows unless they're 1/day powers or whatever. Come up with flavor about how gold gets turned into these upgrades - my warlock worshipped a god so for him it would have been building shrines and getting the new power after a vigil in the new altar, for demonic ones it could be costly sacrifices, etc.

With respect to “managing expectations”: 1) 3.5, and the warlock, has a lot of fiddly bits that will need to be left behind, carrying forward only the core concepts of the class, and 2) although an at will blaster may be fine in a “dungeon fantasy” campaign, it may not be in a “swords and sorcery” campaign. The latter is the default assumption for ACKS, so, for example, the Player’s Companion custom power guidelines recommend against a blast (damage) power.

Given all of the above, I have some ideas. As a challenge, I will see what I can come up with, but I may need several days.

As the Player’s Companion already provides an excellent swords and sorcery Warlock, I will need to call the class another name. Maybe, Adept. Also, I like flexibility, so I will build in different Pact choices, as in Draconic Adept, Fey Adept, Infernal Adept, etc.

I’ll post in the House Rules forum when I finish.


Tavis, that is an interesting way to do it. I would be tempted to up the cost a little more than straight item creation, if only because you can’t disarm them of the item or steal it away, even if only temporarily. But that could be a very different way to do it.

Charles, can’t wait to see what you come up with.

And yeah, the warlock is high powered even by 3.5 standards. From her playing with it we came to the decision that people playing the melee focused aspect really missed out on the true potential of the class. Why engage in melee when you can fly invisibly and shoot enemies at a distance.