One of the games I've seen that does Intelligence in an interesting way is the Fallout series. If you dump INT in those games, even your ability to socialize suffers because it becomes immediately obvious that you don't know anything and can hardly put together coherent sentences.
Yet you can have 6 INT in D&D, and still act like a scholar, and no-one questions this.
I circumvent this in my games by sometimes asking players to make Int checks with related skills in conversation instead of Cha (Persuasion) to actually prove their competence and make a compelling argument. Right now I'm playing a wizard and I'm using Int (History) as much as I can as knowledge of etiquette, culture and politics to sway people in conversation, and thankfully, the DM goes along with it if it's reasonable. Doesn't fully substitute Cha (Persuasion), but it works when I have to appeal to legislation, tradition, and things like that.
While I respect others opinions on Warlocks using Int instead of Cha, I think at best Int should be an alternative choice (like Dex or Str for fighters).
My personal idea of a Warlock (which I suspect others also hold) is more of someone who can't hack actually studying and learning the magic for themselves, so "cheats" to obtain their power through a pact with a powerful creature. Cha is the correct ability for them from my perspective because it gives them the mental toughness (for lack of a better phrase) to maintain their own identity without becoming a mindless minion of their patron.
I oppose the idea of Warlocks using INT, anybody who can learn and reason is highly unlikely to reason that selling their soul or services to a bunch of demons that want to convert them into worms and eat them, probably isn't a good idea, such as in the case of a fiend pact. Charisma does make more sense for Warlock and for Sorcerer since they did not get their powers from study and comprehension like a Wizard does, a sorcerer's power is innate and a Warlock is taught by their patron as well as being granted some level of power/alteration from their pact. A warlock as such is more likely to be a cult leader than somebody who reads tome after tome dedicated to learning the magical arts in the same way; as such a Warlock is actually closer to a cleric in how they obtain their magic and practice it but they lack the wisdom of a cleric in that warlocks often aren't making the most sensible deals either.
I oppose the idea of Warlocks using INT, anybody who can learn and reason is highly unlikely to reason that selling their soul or services to a bunch of demons that want to convert them into worms and eat them, probably isn't a good idea, such as in the case of a fiend pact. Charisma does make more sense for Warlock and for Sorcerer since they did not get their powers from study and comprehension like a Wizard does, a sorcerer's power is innate and a Warlock is taught by their patron as well as being granted some level of power/alteration from their pact. A warlock as such is more likely to be a cult leader than somebody who reads tome after tome dedicated to learning the magical arts in the same way; as such a Warlock is actually closer to a cleric in how they obtain their magic and practice it but they lack the wisdom of a cleric in that warlocks often aren't making the most sensible deals either.
Except not really because you don't have to be a socialite or even having any kind of force of personality to make a deal with the devil, so to speak.
Anyone can do that, and anyone can get powers from that. That shouldn't mean that you're automatically better at persuading people than some average joe who said no to Satan.
Having high charisma doesn't mean you're a socialite or even well liked, it means you have a strong force of will or personality, in other words you have a strong ego. generally speaking warlocks aren't meant to just be any old joe making a one-off contract with a patron, they are often in contact with such beings which does actually take some level of personality as they bargain and work their way up in their favor when they sign a pact but often the patron also wants something in return which usually means spreading the name or influence of that patron, which again is usually something done by people with charisma, such as a cult leader.
From PHB: "Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power, which compels them into their pacts and shapes their lives. [...] Once a pact is made, a warlock’s thirst for knowledge and power can’t be slaked with mere study and research."
Pact Magic feature: "Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells."
Eldritch Invocations feature: "In your study of occultlore, you have unearthed eldritch invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability."
Mystic Arcanum feature: "At 11th level, your patron bestows upon you a magical secret called an arcanum."
From XGtE: "Warlocks are finders and keepers of secrets. They push at the edge of our understanding of the world, always seeking to expand their expertise. Where sages or wizards might heed a clear sign of danger and end their research, a warlock plunges ahead, heedless of the cost. Thus, it takes a peculiar mixture of intelligence, curiosity, and recklessness to produce a warlock. Many folk would describe that combination as evidence of madness. Warlocks see it as a demonstration of bravery."
Well of course. They have high CHA instead of DEX and the bill alone will likely force you to sell your soul to their patron to cover the costs. And you KNOW insurance won't cover Tarrasque-inflicted wounds!
Haha, insurance rates are awful for self employed adventurers!
Warlocks should use the inverse of their Wisdom modifier. A -3 wisdom penalty should give them +3 to their spellcasting. Since making bad decisions is their whole thing. :)
Some games, like Trail of Cthulhu, offer benefits to having a low Sanity score. In Bloodborne, the more Insight you gain, the less your resistance to madness becomes - but you start seeing and hearing things. I love that kind of stuff.
From what I heard on this forum, WoTC did put forward the idea of INT-based Warlocks early on, but the playerbase said no, so they made them CHA-based in the end.
And some of the fluff for the class in the PHB does support that claim, since it doesn't read like something a Charisma-based character would be into.
That's because the playerbase doesn't know what to do with Int and related skills, but clearly knows that barmaids exist to be seduced.
I haven't played Bloodborne, but I have had it shown to me by someone explaining that exact mechanic. I do love the idea. Such a cool concept and execution.
From PHB: "Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power, which compels them into their pacts and shapes their lives. [...] Once a pact is made, a warlock’s thirst for knowledge and power can’t be slaked with mere study and research."
Pact Magic feature: "Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells."
Eldritch Invocations feature: "In your study of occultlore, you have unearthed eldritch invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability."
Mystic Arcanum feature: "At 11th level, your patron bestows upon you a magical secret called an arcanum."
From XGtE: "Warlocks are finders and keepers of secrets. They push at the edge of our understanding of the world, always seeking to expand their expertise. Where sages or wizards might heed a clear sign of danger and end their research, a warlock plunges ahead, heedless of the cost. Thus, it takes a peculiar mixture of intelligence, curiosity, and recklessness to produce a warlock. Many folk would describe that combination as evidence of madness. Warlocks see it as a demonstration of bravery."
meanwhile other stuff also in PHB:
With a pseudodragon curled on his shoulder, a young elf in golden robes smiles warmly, weaving a magical charm into his honeyed words and bending the palace sentinel to his will.
Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as fey nobles, demons, devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power.
Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods. A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entity—beings not typically served by clerics. More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf.
Unlike bookish wizards, warlocks supplement their magic with some facility at hand-to-hand combat.
So yeah, there is plenty in there that also suggests much less in regards to INT too. More so Warlocks are described as being different to "Bookish Wizards", so the knowledge and research of a Warlock isn't really coming from books but rather from their relationship with their patron.
I oppose the idea of Warlocks using INT, anybody who can learn and reason is highly unlikely to reason that selling their soul or services to a bunch of demons that want to convert them into worms and eat them, probably isn't a good idea, such as in the case of a fiend pact. Charisma does make more sense for Warlock and for Sorcerer since they did not get their powers from study and comprehension like a Wizard does, a sorcerer's power is innate and a Warlock is taught by their patron as well as being granted some level of power/alteration from their pact. A warlock as such is more likely to be a cult leader than somebody who reads tome after tome dedicated to learning the magical arts in the same way; as such a Warlock is actually closer to a cleric in how they obtain their magic and practice it but they lack the wisdom of a cleric in that warlocks often aren't making the most sensible deals either.
Except not really because you don't have to be a socialite or even having any kind of force of personality to make a deal with the devil, so to speak.
Anyone can do that, and anyone can get powers from that. That shouldn't mean that you're automatically better at persuading people than some average joe who said no to Satan.
Having high charisma doesn't mean you're a socialite or even well liked, it means you have a strong force of will or personality, in other words you have a strong ego. generally speaking warlocks aren't meant to just be any old joe making a one-off contract with a patron, they are often in contact with such beings which does actually take some level of personality as they bargain and work their way up in their favor when they sign a pact but often the patron also wants something in return which usually means spreading the name or influence of that patron, which again is usually something done by people with charisma, such as a cult leader.
So basically you liken warlocks to employees in a corporation, except the corporation is some otherworldly entity that eventually "promotes" the warlock over time.
It sounds more like a marketing contract/sponsership. Just imagine your warlock going 'This Eldritch Blast was sponsered by Razagath; Lord of a Thousand Swarms' every time they cast and you'd more or less be on-point.
From what I heard on this forum, WoTC did put forward the idea of INT-based Warlocks early on, but the playerbase said no, so they made them CHA-based in the end.
And some of the fluff for the class in the PHB does support that claim, since it doesn't read like something a Charisma-based character would be into.
That's because the playerbase doesn't know what to do with Int and related skills, but clearly knows that barmaids exist to be seduced.
My hypothesis is that a lot of people simply value being charming and charismatic much more highly than actually knowing things or being the loremaster in the room.
I have this hypothesis because of what I observe in the real world, especially in relation to politics and social interaction. People aren't drawn to the person who actually knows what they're talking about, or follow the person who actually demonstrates competence in their work. They are drawn to people who can talk real good and whisper sweet nothings into their ear. And this is a factor in our world having as many problems as it does.
This inevitably bleeds into how the game is operated, because many don't care if your character knows the history of the game world or the fundamentals of how magic works in the game world, and thus don't really think about how that knowledge can be applied to serve the party outside the bounds of class mechanics (it also doesn't help that a number of DMs just give out world info like candy for no discernible in-game reason). But they do care if you can fast talk your way out of situations or intimidate someone into submission.
Also also, Intelligence as it stands is incredibly roleplay-dependent, which makes it more difficult to discern its value. I've rarely come across someone who actually roleplays having 8 INT, considering that 10 is the INT score for a commoner, suggesting that 10 is the average INT of the humanoid populace in a standard D&D setting. Yet, you have players with 8 INT being incredibly eloquent and planning things out like someone with 18 INT would. And no-one calls this out because no-one cares at the end of the day; it's just a number on their sheet to them.
Int is a more mother may I attribute. Charisma is active on the players part I intimidate, persuade, deceive X. Int is I roll arcana what do i know about this. And usually what you know may be interesting but not particularly useful mechanically.
Int makes far more sense for the class, but charisma is just better at most tables and its not even close.
I hate the idea of all subclasses starting at 3rd level for the same reason I hate some of them doing it now. However, I also acknowledge that most of my concerns would be resolved if a PC had to choose their subclass at 1st level but didn't get abilities associated with it until 3rd, and I wonder how much that is fueling other players' resistance to the change.
For me, it is all about the narrative. 1st through 3rd level go by very quickly; the game does not treat subclasses like D&D4 used to treat paragon paths or epic destinies, where they were something your character grew into over the course of many levels. It's a decision you still have to make almost immediately after character creation, and affects your early build as well as the dungeon master's starting narrative, but you still spend two levels without it.
Particularly in cases where membership in a subclass explicitly indicates membership in some in-universe organization, like the cleric's church or the warlock's pact, this is pretty awkward during those early sessions when you're trying to establish your character and the dungeon master is trying to weave you into the campaign. There's this 'are you/aren't you' energy that feels very unnecessary.
Easily houseruled. But given how emotional people tend to get about their characters' stories, I do wonder how much of the pushback on the 3rd-level subclass start has more to do with identity than mechanics.
For me, my entire objection to moving Patrons and Sorcerous Origins to level 3 is Lore related. How can you be a warlock without a Patron? How can you decide after a couple of levels who your ancestors were. For pretty much every other class, the subclass the "You're an initiate/apprentice and at level three you chose your career path/take your orders/choose your specialization works. Warlocks get their power entirely from their patron. Sorcerers power is something they are born with (or in rare cases, I.e. aberrent mind or some storm sorcerers, stems from a specific event).
That said, I get why it's happening. Sometimes mechanical balance has to be put ahead of lore.
There is always a balance in the two, I have the sinking feeling they will be trashing the lore in far too many areas for the goal of having a unified rules mechanic. Whether its wizards knowing every arcane spell in the game or sorcerers not having a blood line until level 3. Lore is being sacrificed for that unified mechanic. I don't think its worth it, It is like they are forgetting the role playing part too much in favor of the game part. Both are important. Warlocks I'm willing to say can be argued away, if they go with int as a main stat at least. Levels 1 and 2 have be minor magics learned from studying lost realms things anyone could pick up if they looked deep enough, magic but not yet needing a pact. Minor tricks a arcanist picks up before fully diving in, the first taste is free after all.
They do this to avoid the famous dip to cleric, warlock or sorcerer. And it seems fine to me. It was a necessary change. Now everyone chooses to subclass to lvl 3. Perfect. Then we'll see how they justify it with the Warlocks, but it's not that complicated either. Up to level 3 you can be on trial by your patron, for example, and he doesn't give you his arcane gifts until you've proven your loyalty.
I oppose the idea of Warlocks using INT, anybody who can learn and reason is highly unlikely to reason that selling their soul or services to a bunch of demons that want to convert them into worms and eat them, probably isn't a good idea, such as in the case of a fiend pact. Charisma does make more sense for Warlock and for Sorcerer since they did not get their powers from study and comprehension like a Wizard does, a sorcerer's power is innate and a Warlock is taught by their patron as well as being granted some level of power/alteration from their pact. A warlock as such is more likely to be a cult leader than somebody who reads tome after tome dedicated to learning the magical arts in the same way; as such a Warlock is actually closer to a cleric in how they obtain their magic and practice it but they lack the wisdom of a cleric in that warlocks often aren't making the most sensible deals either.
Except not really because you don't have to be a socialite or even having any kind of force of personality to make a deal with the devil, so to speak.
Anyone can do that, and anyone can get powers from that. That shouldn't mean that you're automatically better at persuading people than some average joe who said no to Satan.
Having high charisma doesn't mean you're a socialite or even well liked, it means you have a strong force of will or personality, in other words you have a strong ego. generally speaking warlocks aren't meant to just be any old joe making a one-off contract with a patron, they are often in contact with such beings which does actually take some level of personality as they bargain and work their way up in their favor when they sign a pact but often the patron also wants something in return which usually means spreading the name or influence of that patron, which again is usually something done by people with charisma, such as a cult leader.
So basically you liken warlocks to employees in a corporation, except the corporation is some otherworldly entity that eventually "promotes" the warlock over time.
It sounds more like a marketing contract/sponsership. Just imagine your warlock going 'This Eldritch Blast was sponsered by Razagath; Lord of a Thousand Swarms' every time they cast and you'd more or less be on-point.
Don't forget to like, subscribe and share. It really helps the adventuring party out!
I hate the idea of all subclasses starting at 3rd level for the same reason I hate some of them doing it now. However, I also acknowledge that most of my concerns would be resolved if a PC had to choose their subclass at 1st level but didn't get abilities associated with it until 3rd, and I wonder how much that is fueling other players' resistance to the change.
For me, it is all about the narrative. 1st through 3rd level go by very quickly; the game does not treat subclasses like D&D4 used to treat paragon paths or epic destinies, where they were something your character grew into over the course of many levels. It's a decision you still have to make almost immediately after character creation, and affects your early build as well as the dungeon master's starting narrative, but you still spend two levels without it.
Particularly in cases where membership in a subclass explicitly indicates membership in some in-universe organization, like the cleric's church or the warlock's pact, this is pretty awkward during those early sessions when you're trying to establish your character and the dungeon master is trying to weave you into the campaign. There's this 'are you/aren't you' energy that feels very unnecessary.
Easily houseruled. But given how emotional people tend to get about their characters' stories, I do wonder how much of the pushback on the 3rd-level subclass start has more to do with identity than mechanics.
For me, my entire objection to moving Patrons and Sorcerous Origins to level 3 is Lore related. How can you be a warlock without a Patron? How can you decide after a couple of levels who your ancestors were. For pretty much every other class, the subclass the "You're an initiate/apprentice and at level three you chose your career path/take your orders/choose your specialization works. Warlocks get their power entirely from their patron. Sorcerers power is something they are born with (or in rare cases, I.e. aberrent mind or some storm sorcerers, stems from a specific event).
That said, I get why it's happening. Sometimes mechanical balance has to be put ahead of lore.
There is always a balance in the two, I have the sinking feeling they will be trashing the lore in far too many areas for the goal of having a unified rules mechanic. Whether its wizards knowing every arcane spell in the game or sorcerers not having a blood line until level 3. Lore is being sacrificed for that unified mechanic. I don't think its worth it, It is like they are forgetting the role playing part too much in favor of the game part. Both are important. Warlocks I'm willing to say can be argued away, if they go with int as a main stat at least. Levels 1 and 2 have be minor magics learned from studying lost realms things anyone could pick up if they looked deep enough, magic but not yet needing a pact. Minor tricks a arcanist picks up before fully diving in, the first taste is free after all.
They have also said that they're doing it because classes which take a subclass at level 1 can seem overwhelming to new players or experienced players who have never played the class before. I can see their point on that. Give the player a chance to feel out their class before picking a subclass. I also suspect what will happen is that a lot of experienced groups will just start at level 3 and avoid the issue entirely.
Having high charisma doesn't mean you're a socialite or even well liked, it means you have a strong force of will or personality, in other words you have a strong ego. generally speaking warlocks aren't meant to just be any old joe making a one-off contract with a patron, they are often in contact with such beings which does actually take some level of personality as they bargain and work their way up in their favor when they sign a pact but often the patron also wants something in return which usually means spreading the name or influence of that patron, which again is usually something done by people with charisma, such as a cult leader.
So basically you liken warlocks to employees in a corporation, except the corporation is some otherworldly entity that eventually "promotes" the warlock over time.
An interesting Metaphor, but sort of correct. But just like a corporation, you need to be able to butter up the right people and talk the right way to get a higher chance at getting those promotions and so the better your connections, the better you do.
Having high charisma doesn't mean you're a socialite or even well liked, it means you have a strong force of will or personality, in other words you have a strong ego. generally speaking warlocks aren't meant to just be any old joe making a one-off contract with a patron, they are often in contact with such beings which does actually take some level of personality as they bargain and work their way up in their favor when they sign a pact but often the patron also wants something in return which usually means spreading the name or influence of that patron, which again is usually something done by people with charisma, such as a cult leader.
So basically you liken warlocks to employees in a corporation, except the corporation is some otherworldly entity that eventually "promotes" the warlock over time.
An interesting Metaphor, but sort of correct. But just like a corporation, you need to be able to butter up the right people and talk the right way to get a higher chance at getting those promotions and so the better your connections, the better you do.
The other option to get that, and the same applies to patrons, is to simply prove to them you can be useful to them when they give you stuff to do. It's harder than simply sweet-talking your way into higher positions, but it does happen sometimes.
It's not uncommon for warlock characters to do what they do to serve the interests of their patron, whether they want to or not. And that, to me, doesn't necessarily require charisma. Also the fluff for Great Old One warlocks implies that their patrons (more often than not) don't even really care about the warlock's ability to butter them up, because they either don't notice the warlock taking stuff from them or don't really care.
Ultimately, if it were up to me, I'd allow for there to be a choice between Intelligence and Charisma as the casting stat. That way, someone who wants to play a more "bookish" "delved too deeply" type of warlock can without being penalized by the mechanics.
Mmm, having a choice actually isn't a bad idea, or even having it based more on pact. In example having pact of the tome as INT, Pact of the chain as CHA and Pact of the Blade as STR.
So yeah, there is plenty in there that also suggests much less in regards to INT too. More so Warlocks are described as being different to "Bookish Wizards", so the knowledge and research of a Warlock isn't really coming from books but rather from their relationship with their patron.
The excerpts that you quoted state that they serve tha patron, sometimes like a cleric... Well, yeah? Nobody denied that. Clerics, by the way, aren't known for their charisma as well. There's literally one mention of "honeyed words", while emphasis on lust for knowledge is in every second paragraph. The difference is that while wizard learns from the books, warlocks learns directly from the eldritch teacher.
Frankly, I find it almost frustrating that arcane spellcasting is Cha-based, and wizard casting spells using their Int is an anomaly. Also, why do clerics cast divine spells with Wis, and paladins with Cha?
So yeah, there is plenty in there that also suggests much less in regards to INT too. More so Warlocks are described as being different to "Bookish Wizards", so the knowledge and research of a Warlock isn't really coming from books but rather from their relationship with their patron.
The excerpts that you quoted state that they serve tha patron, sometimes like a cleric... Well, yeah? Nobody denied that. Clerics, by the way, aren't known for their charisma as well. There's literally one mention of "honeyed words", while emphasis on lust for knowledge is in every second paragraph. The difference is that while wizard learns from the books, warlocks learns directly from the eldritch teacher.
Frankly, I find it almost frustrating that arcane spellcasting is Cha-based, and wizard casting spells using their Int is an anomaly. Also, why do clerics cast divine spells with Wis, and paladins with Cha?
The difference is the source of their power, where Warlocks got their power from their patron, not from their study. A warlock's knowledge isn't the same thing as a wizard's book, and Paladins get their power from their oath while clerics from their faith, the source that they draw from is simply different.
I personally dislike how many spellcasters use Charisma. It's such a valuable ability that they get good skills and good magic with the same increases. It's lead to Intelligence being the most common dump stat. And while I love a good himbo, we've got whole parties full of them now.
I wish they'd change a few of them. Bard makes the most sense to stay Charisma. But the rest can easily have their lore justifications changed. They've done it for them before.
If not a total switch, I'd like to see some of them get at least an option for a different ability score. Just some quick possibilities:
Bard - Cha or Int or Dex
Sorcerer - Cha or Con or Int
Warlock - Cha or Str or Int
Paladin - Cha or Wis or Con
That way all the Arcane casters could have Intelligence as an option, and Paladin could use Wisdom again, with some love for Constitution in there.
I oppose the idea of Warlocks using INT, anybody who can learn and reason is highly unlikely to reason that selling their soul or services to a bunch of demons that want to convert them into worms and eat them, probably isn't a good idea, such as in the case of a fiend pact. Charisma does make more sense for Warlock and for Sorcerer since they did not get their powers from study and comprehension like a Wizard does, a sorcerer's power is innate and a Warlock is taught by their patron as well as being granted some level of power/alteration from their pact. A warlock as such is more likely to be a cult leader than somebody who reads tome after tome dedicated to learning the magical arts in the same way; as such a Warlock is actually closer to a cleric in how they obtain their magic and practice it but they lack the wisdom of a cleric in that warlocks often aren't making the most sensible deals either.
Except not really because you don't have to be a socialite or even having any kind of force of personality to make a deal with the devil, so to speak.
Anyone can do that, and anyone can get powers from that. That shouldn't mean that you're automatically better at persuading people than some average joe who said no to Satan.
Having high charisma doesn't mean you're a socialite or even well liked, it means you have a strong force of will or personality, in other words you have a strong ego. generally speaking warlocks aren't meant to just be any old joe making a one-off contract with a patron, they are often in contact with such beings which does actually take some level of personality as they bargain and work their way up in their favor when they sign a pact but often the patron also wants something in return which usually means spreading the name or influence of that patron, which again is usually something done by people with charisma, such as a cult leader.
So basically you liken warlocks to employees in a corporation, except the corporation is some otherworldly entity that eventually "promotes" the warlock over time.
It sounds more like a marketing contract/sponsership. Just imagine your warlock going 'This Eldritch Blast was sponsered by Razagath; Lord of a Thousand Swarms' every time they cast and you'd more or less be on-point.
Don't forget to like, subscribe and share. It really helps the adventuring party out!
...
I am totally doing that next time I play a warlock.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I circumvent this in my games by sometimes asking players to make Int checks with related skills in conversation instead of Cha (Persuasion) to actually prove their competence and make a compelling argument. Right now I'm playing a wizard and I'm using Int (History) as much as I can as knowledge of etiquette, culture and politics to sway people in conversation, and thankfully, the DM goes along with it if it's reasonable. Doesn't fully substitute Cha (Persuasion), but it works when I have to appeal to legislation, tradition, and things like that.
While I respect others opinions on Warlocks using Int instead of Cha, I think at best Int should be an alternative choice (like Dex or Str for fighters).
My personal idea of a Warlock (which I suspect others also hold) is more of someone who can't hack actually studying and learning the magic for themselves, so "cheats" to obtain their power through a pact with a powerful creature. Cha is the correct ability for them from my perspective because it gives them the mental toughness (for lack of a better phrase) to maintain their own identity without becoming a mindless minion of their patron.
I oppose the idea of Warlocks using INT, anybody who can learn and reason is highly unlikely to reason that selling their soul or services to a bunch of demons that want to convert them into worms and eat them, probably isn't a good idea, such as in the case of a fiend pact. Charisma does make more sense for Warlock and for Sorcerer since they did not get their powers from study and comprehension like a Wizard does, a sorcerer's power is innate and a Warlock is taught by their patron as well as being granted some level of power/alteration from their pact. A warlock as such is more likely to be a cult leader than somebody who reads tome after tome dedicated to learning the magical arts in the same way; as such a Warlock is actually closer to a cleric in how they obtain their magic and practice it but they lack the wisdom of a cleric in that warlocks often aren't making the most sensible deals either.
Having high charisma doesn't mean you're a socialite or even well liked, it means you have a strong force of will or personality, in other words you have a strong ego. generally speaking warlocks aren't meant to just be any old joe making a one-off contract with a patron, they are often in contact with such beings which does actually take some level of personality as they bargain and work their way up in their favor when they sign a pact but often the patron also wants something in return which usually means spreading the name or influence of that patron, which again is usually something done by people with charisma, such as a cult leader.
From PHB: "Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power, which compels them into their pacts and shapes their lives. [...] Once a pact is made, a warlock’s thirst for knowledge and power can’t be slaked with mere study and research."
Pact Magic feature: "Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells."
Eldritch Invocations feature: "In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed eldritch invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability."
Mystic Arcanum feature: "At 11th level, your patron bestows upon you a magical secret called an arcanum."
From XGtE: "Warlocks are finders and keepers of secrets. They push at the edge of our understanding of the world, always seeking to expand their expertise. Where sages or wizards might heed a clear sign of danger and end their research, a warlock plunges ahead, heedless of the cost. Thus, it takes a peculiar mixture of intelligence, curiosity, and recklessness to produce a warlock. Many folk would describe that combination as evidence of madness. Warlocks see it as a demonstration of bravery."
Haha, insurance rates are awful for self employed adventurers!
I haven't played Bloodborne, but I have had it shown to me by someone explaining that exact mechanic. I do love the idea. Such a cool concept and execution.
meanwhile other stuff also in PHB:
So yeah, there is plenty in there that also suggests much less in regards to INT too. More so Warlocks are described as being different to "Bookish Wizards", so the knowledge and research of a Warlock isn't really coming from books but rather from their relationship with their patron.
It sounds more like a marketing contract/sponsership. Just imagine your warlock going 'This Eldritch Blast was sponsered by Razagath; Lord of a Thousand Swarms' every time they cast and you'd more or less be on-point.
Int is a more mother may I attribute. Charisma is active on the players part I intimidate, persuade, deceive X. Int is I roll arcana what do i know about this. And usually what you know may be interesting but not particularly useful mechanically.
Int makes far more sense for the class, but charisma is just better at most tables and its not even close.
There is always a balance in the two, I have the sinking feeling they will be trashing the lore in far too many areas for the goal of having a unified rules mechanic. Whether its wizards knowing every arcane spell in the game or sorcerers not having a blood line until level 3. Lore is being sacrificed for that unified mechanic. I don't think its worth it, It is like they are forgetting the role playing part too much in favor of the game part. Both are important. Warlocks I'm willing to say can be argued away, if they go with int as a main stat at least. Levels 1 and 2 have be minor magics learned from studying lost realms things anyone could pick up if they looked deep enough, magic but not yet needing a pact. Minor tricks a arcanist picks up before fully diving in, the first taste is free after all.
They do this to avoid the famous dip to cleric, warlock or sorcerer. And it seems fine to me. It was a necessary change.
Now everyone chooses to subclass to lvl 3. Perfect. Then we'll see how they justify it with the Warlocks, but it's not that complicated either. Up to level 3 you can be on trial by your patron, for example, and he doesn't give you his arcane gifts until you've proven your loyalty.
Don't forget to like, subscribe and share. It really helps the adventuring party out!
They have also said that they're doing it because classes which take a subclass at level 1 can seem overwhelming to new players or experienced players who have never played the class before. I can see their point on that. Give the player a chance to feel out their class before picking a subclass. I also suspect what will happen is that a lot of experienced groups will just start at level 3 and avoid the issue entirely.
An interesting Metaphor, but sort of correct. But just like a corporation, you need to be able to butter up the right people and talk the right way to get a higher chance at getting those promotions and so the better your connections, the better you do.
Mmm, having a choice actually isn't a bad idea, or even having it based more on pact. In example having pact of the tome as INT, Pact of the chain as CHA and Pact of the Blade as STR.
The excerpts that you quoted state that they serve tha patron, sometimes like a cleric... Well, yeah? Nobody denied that. Clerics, by the way, aren't known for their charisma as well. There's literally one mention of "honeyed words", while emphasis on lust for knowledge is in every second paragraph. The difference is that while wizard learns from the books, warlocks learns directly from the eldritch teacher.
Frankly, I find it almost frustrating that arcane spellcasting is Cha-based, and wizard casting spells using their Int is an anomaly. Also, why do clerics cast divine spells with Wis, and paladins with Cha?
The difference is the source of their power, where Warlocks got their power from their patron, not from their study. A warlock's knowledge isn't the same thing as a wizard's book, and Paladins get their power from their oath while clerics from their faith, the source that they draw from is simply different.
I personally dislike how many spellcasters use Charisma. It's such a valuable ability that they get good skills and good magic with the same increases. It's lead to Intelligence being the most common dump stat. And while I love a good himbo, we've got whole parties full of them now.
I wish they'd change a few of them. Bard makes the most sense to stay Charisma. But the rest can easily have their lore justifications changed. They've done it for them before.
If not a total switch, I'd like to see some of them get at least an option for a different ability score. Just some quick possibilities:
Bard - Cha or Int or Dex
Sorcerer - Cha or Con or Int
Warlock - Cha or Str or Int
Paladin - Cha or Wis or Con
That way all the Arcane casters could have Intelligence as an option, and Paladin could use Wisdom again, with some love for Constitution in there.
...
I am totally doing that next time I play a warlock.