Part of a warlocks power is from ancient secrets and magic learned from their patron, and their possession of that knowledge isn't dependent on the pact (unless their mind gets wiped or something). The intellect devourer has all the warlock's memories, so their powers should carry over.
The warlock is dead, why are you allowing them to continue with the party? They serve the Elder Brain now, and should be treated as an NPC and thus have whatever powers/abilities you want them to have.
RAW, the host is not dead, because an intellect devourer is automatically ejected from a dead body. Agilemind's right, though - he's an NPC now. Unless the party happens to be owed a favor by a wizard with Wish, that warlock is gone.
That said, it's your campaign. If you want to have some fun side quest to help the warlock's spirit/soul battle for dominance of his body, go for it. Could be a fun twist on the Monster Within and Inside Man tropes.
RAW the host creature is referred to in the past tense in the intellect devourer's stat block. If that's not dead, then we're stuck in a Monty Python routine
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
RAW the host creature is referred to in the past tense in the intellect devourer's stat block. If that's not dead, then we're stuck in a Monty Python routine
My point was merely that the host body is technically alive. Lights are on, owner isn't home. It's up to the DM's discretion if devoured brain + living body = character is completely gone. What I did say was that said character should not be a PC. At best, it's an aberration's vessel.
My second point was that D&D is fantasy, and the character's soul/spirit could be adjudicated by a DM to exist independently of a brain and, therefore, mean the character is alive but unable to control or even indwell his own body.
RAW the host creature is referred to in the past tense in the intellect devourer's stat block. If that's not dead, then we're stuck in a Monty Python routine
My point was merely that the host body is technically alive. Lights are on, owner isn't home. It's up to the DM's discretion if devoured brain + living body = character is completely gone. What I did say was that said character should not be a PC. At best, it's an aberration's vessel.
My second point was that D&D is fantasy, and the character's soul/spirit could be adjudicated by a DM to exist independently of a brain and, therefore, mean the character is alive but unable to control or even indwell his own body.
Sure, magic, fantasy, DMs can take the story in the direction they want, yadda yadda yadda. No argument there
We just see an awful lot of "if you squint just so and parse the language in exactly the right way, the incredibly obvious and intuitive reading isn't actually RAW" posts on these forums
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
In terms of the rules of dieing to a intellect devourer
The warlock is dead meaning their soul is not in their body
The warlocks body is incomplete. The brain is gone and most resurrection spells require the body to be whole
The warlocks soul is free. They can be reincarnated , cloned or resurrected with true resurrection
Strictly speaking the spell wish isn't required to bring them back. Wish just allows you to eject the intellect devourer and resurrect the person at the same time where as otherwise those need to be done separately.
There are no real hard rules for pact mechanics. The effect on the warlocks pact will depend on the nature of the deal made. If the deal involved granting knowledge or modifying the warlocks body then those powers would persist. If it is instead an arrange where the patron is performing the ability then that may not carry over depending how the deal defines the warlock and when it says it ends. If the deal views the warlock as it's body instead of it's mind or soul then the deal would persist.
Sometimes though, it is fun to have a player collaborate with the DM as an undercover bad guy or otherwise before they begin to play with their new character. Matt Colville has a whole video about it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=I-nfsi6B8d4&t=848s), which is what sounds like the OP is looking for.
As far as the the Warlock and their pact goes, there is a way you can make sense of the player character retaining their powers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How would you address this with regards to his Pact?
I mean... he's actually dead, right? I'd think the Pact is at an end.
Would invocations carry over??
Part of a warlocks power is from ancient secrets and magic learned from their patron, and their possession of that knowledge isn't dependent on the pact (unless their mind gets wiped or something). The intellect devourer has all the warlock's memories, so their powers should carry over.
The warlock is dead, why are you allowing them to continue with the party? They serve the Elder Brain now, and should be treated as an NPC and thus have whatever powers/abilities you want them to have.
RAW, the host is not dead, because an intellect devourer is automatically ejected from a dead body. Agilemind's right, though - he's an NPC now. Unless the party happens to be owed a favor by a wizard with Wish, that warlock is gone.
That said, it's your campaign. If you want to have some fun side quest to help the warlock's spirit/soul battle for dominance of his body, go for it. Could be a fun twist on the Monster Within and Inside Man tropes.
RAW the host creature is referred to in the past tense in the intellect devourer's stat block. If that's not dead, then we're stuck in a Monty Python routine
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
My point was merely that the host body is technically alive. Lights are on, owner isn't home. It's up to the DM's discretion if devoured brain + living body = character is completely gone. What I did say was that said character should not be a PC. At best, it's an aberration's vessel.
My second point was that D&D is fantasy, and the character's soul/spirit could be adjudicated by a DM to exist independently of a brain and, therefore, mean the character is alive but unable to control or even indwell his own body.
Sure, magic, fantasy, DMs can take the story in the direction they want, yadda yadda yadda. No argument there
We just see an awful lot of "if you squint just so and parse the language in exactly the right way, the incredibly obvious and intuitive reading isn't actually RAW" posts on these forums
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
In terms of the rules of dieing to a intellect devourer
Strictly speaking the spell wish isn't required to bring them back. Wish just allows you to eject the intellect devourer and resurrect the person at the same time where as otherwise those need to be done separately.
There are no real hard rules for pact mechanics. The effect on the warlocks pact will depend on the nature of the deal made. If the deal involved granting knowledge or modifying the warlocks body then those powers would persist. If it is instead an arrange where the patron is performing the ability then that may not carry over depending how the deal defines the warlock and when it says it ends. If the deal views the warlock as it's body instead of it's mind or soul then the deal would persist.
Sometimes though, it is fun to have a player collaborate with the DM as an undercover bad guy or otherwise before they begin to play with their new character. Matt Colville has a whole video about it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=I-nfsi6B8d4&t=848s), which is what sounds like the OP is looking for.
As far as the the Warlock and their pact goes, there is a way you can make sense of the player character retaining their powers.