Warlocks in Pathfinder

[Baran]

I've always enjoyed the way that warlocks play, but when my group moved on to Pathfinder, we did so as part of a total break from a bad GM/player relationship (The old GM quit, feeling "usurped," in his own words), and, as the major reason that all of this went down was hours and hours of unproductive rules bickering, the new GM wants absolutely nothing to do with the 3.5 rules. So my question is, is there any way to hack together something that plays like a warlock using only official Pathfinder material? The limited powerset/unlimited casting/"spell cannon" feel is what I'm looking for, and the general out-of-place/weirdo flavor would also be nice. The answer seems to be no, but I am just not the rules scholar that I once was. Any help in this endeavor would be much appreciated.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

This is more a group problem, than a rules problem.
The same thing can happen with PF Rules, or Monopoly Rules.

The easiest 3.PF Warlock would be the regular 3.X Warlock.

If the overall party strength is sub-tier 5 ish,
you can back off the gas pedal on a Warlock.
Not that you want to, but still.
 

[Amechra]

There is always this.

[X-Codes]

You're moving to Pathfinder to get away from rules bickering?  BWWWWWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHhhh...

*ahem*

Witch is quite good.  It's still mostly a spellcaster, but you do get hexes that emulate Warlock Invocations to some extent.

[xzyx]

I once had the same problem and, after digging the internet for a good adaptation, I found a nearly perfect one for my needs:

http://www.pathfinderdb.com/character-options/classes/full-class-list/1414-warlock

It's way better than the original warlock (which was cool but bad), it follows the pathfinder spirit of "choose your class abilities" and it still looks like a warlock (unlike the "official" adaptation). The only downside is that it is homebrew, but I suppose almost all adaptations are.

Alternatively, you can take a look at the alchemist base class in PF. It has a different fluff, but mechanically it is really similar to the warlock, and it can be refluffed if need be.

[Baran]

You're moving to Pathfinder to get away from rules bickering?  BWWWWWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHhhh...

Yeah, I know. We've been playing PF for about eight months now, and we still have rules disagreements fairly frequently, but we usually resolve them in a few minutes because the source of the bickering left in a huff when he couldn't be the GM anymore. Yet the wounds persist, and the new GM really hates the idea of mixing the rules revisions. I'm pretty happy with the alchemist and magus that I've run so far, and the harmony makes the RP more fun, so I'm not looking to rock the boat.

Thanks for the help everyone. I'll be passing that homebrewmajig on to my GM.

[Frogman55]

You're moving to Pathfinder to get away from rules bickering?  BWWWWWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHhhh...

Yeah, I know. We've been playing PF for about eight months now, and we still have rules disagreements fairly frequently, but we usually resolve them in a few minutes because the source of the bickering left in a huff when he couldn't be the GM anymore. Yet the wounds persist, and the new GM really hates the idea of mixing the rules revisions. I'm pretty happy with the alchemist and magus that I've run so far, and the harmony makes the RP more fun, so I'm not looking to rock the boat.

Thanks for the help everyone. I'll be passing that homebrewmajig on to my GM.

I do find that PF is nice with regards to the bickering because there often is a definitive answer to ambiguities in the FAQs or on Paizo's boards from a developer.

It's not always a good definitive answer, or even one that makes particular sense (see crane wing nerf), but it can cut down on table arguments. If only because we're arguing with SKR instead of each other.

[Amechra]

Well, you won't be able to argue with SKR for much longer; he's apparently leaving/has left Paizo.

[Power]

the new GM wants absolutely nothing to do with the 3.5 rules.

Maybe you shouldn't play Pathfinder then? There are other systems. Switching from 3.5 to PF as an attempt to get away from 3.5 rules is only a nominal effort with the side-effect of downgrading your play experience. Not to mention Paizo is bad at wording its shit so rules SNAFUs are pretty common ("Hey, how does a Bard's Versatile Performance work with prereqs, rank shifting, and perform vs. subskill skill bonuses?").

[Baran]

the new GM wants absolutely nothing to do with the 3.5 rules.

Maybe you shouldn't play Pathfinder then? There are other systems.

No there aren't. Don't be silly.

We're actually very happy with the current arrangement, and the switch along with the new GM was a symbolic gesture, but also because it's easy to find lots and lots of PF adventures at Half-Price Books while 3.5 stuff is getting more rare and expensive, and he finds it annoying to mix the rule sets.

[ZhonLord]

A few friends of mine have played pathfinder quite a bit, and according to them the Alchemist is surprisingly similar once you start using mutagens a la Jekyll & Hyde.  The self-buffs are similar to a warlock's 24-hour buff invocations, and then throwing bombs in place of eldritch blast.  Discoveries modify the potions similar to essence invocations too.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Oh there you go.  Refluff with warlock titles near in function.
Make sure the DM know these are alchemy thingies with an orange turtleneck.
The Dark powers showed me how to burn stuff.

... There are other systems.

No there aren't. Don't be silly. ...

  +1