Then what's the "class differentiation" between warlocks and bards? Or warlocks and sorcerers? Or warlocks and paladins? Or warlocks and any of the other five thousand seven hundred and forty-three classes or subclasses that demand super high Charisma at the explicit expense of every other stat? Compared to the one and two-thirds mechanical character bases that are actually allowed to have an Intelligence score above 8 without being immediately banned from the table as a waste of time.
Every last single goddamn thing in the bloody game constantly, CONSTANTLY, demands Horny. I don't want to be forced to play a wizard every single time I want to run an Intelligence score above 8. And no, "just make INT high on whatever else then" is not an answer when the fundamental structure of the game actively punishes high Intelligence scores not used to fuel a class's mechanical engine. Like I said, the DMG explicitly instructs DMs to ignore the Intelligence-focused skills and simply award players any information they want/need anyways, so the ONE GODDAMN THING Intelligence is supposed to do in this godforsaken edition is taken away from it.
I'm so heartily sick of numbskull Gigachads being held up as The Ideal Hero in every single frickin' game at the explicit and intentional expense of anyone with a functioning brain. If people are allowed to be pissed that DX is a physical Supahstat that almost completely eclipses Strength, why aren't we allowed to be equally pissed that Charisma gets everything on the mental side and Intelligence is actively punished and discouraged?
They made a deal with some powerful being, and that being is directly telling them "this is how you do X, that is how you do Y". That is the premise behind how the class gains features.
There's a whole subclass that very explicitly doesn't need to have formed a contract with anything. GOOlocks don't have a magic tutor buddy telling them how to do the magic, they touch upon an unfathomable entity and tap into that entity's power. This is most likely done through observation and study. Learning how to tap into an Eldritch god's power because it would be faster than the long, arduous study at a wizard college is still definitely a power derived from INT. Charisma never even comes into the equation.
I'd also argue, concerning your point about transactional relationships, that a warlock who is learning the secrets of the cosmos from a devil or genie isn't, on a fundamental level, any different from a wizard learning from another wizard. How the relationship came to be shouldn't matter as much as how the relationship functions after the initial deal, and warlocks can have very, very varied relationships with their patrons that manifest in very different ways. Ways that express different primary stats from your typical "I negotiated a deal with a hag and must continue to negotiate additional powers as I go" style of warlock.
"And sometimes, while poring over tomes of forbidden lore, a brilliant student’s mind is opened to realities beyond the material world and to the alien beings that dwell in the outer void." From the class description of warlock right here on DnDBeyond.
A warlock being tutored in fey magic by a magic squirrel is just as much using their INT to gain new spells as a wizard being tutored by an old man with a magic book.
And, once again we return to the issue of cherry-picking narrow examples rather than looking at the overarching trend. Yes, a Warlock could be a studious individual, and yes not every pact necessarily must be a case of literal face-to-face bargaining, but that’s the archetype that was used for the broad strokes of the class, which is also what they base casting stat on. Most of the class features are framed as the warlock having their powers directly bestowed on them. Compared to a Wizard, who’s framed as requiring time and effort to learn a spell even when they’re working from someone else’s notes, while the archetype of the Warlock class is in no way presented as putting in the same kind of continuous personal work as their primary method of unlocking and growing their magical power. The pact is their primary source of those, and any additional research, education, etc is supplemental to that pact.
Now, Yurei, before you strawman this again, this is descriptive, not proscriptive, and in reference to the raw concept used to determine the casting stat. I am by no means against the concept of someone playing a studious Warlock, and in fact am currently playing one with 16 INT in a campaign right now. But in terms of class differentiation, the basic concept of Warlocks and their pacts and patrons is sufficiently divorced from the concept of Wizards and their studies and spellbooks that it seems more than reasonable the distance be reflected in different casting stats, and the fact that they would likewise wish to draw a distinction between Clerics with their deities/domains and Warlocks with their patrons pretty much leaves CHA as the best choice.
Dude, the argument "The stat is the only choice left" isnt great for this context. This argument you guys have been having has been going no where. How about we do something a bit more constructive with it and actually compile proof of the arguments with in the text. I'll start with an example of all 3.
Int: " 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." While not learning through study like a wizard being taught by a master is a form of learning and is represented in the training downtime activity in xanthars guide.
Wis: "Rather, the vast majority of warlocks spend their days in active pursuit of their goals, which typically means some kind of adventuring." Honestly a stretch but this type of pursuit does require a good deal of wisdom, to perceive lies, find truths, and to survive.
Cha: " A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entity—beings not typically served by clerics." Charisma is pretty valuable for leading a cult.
Then what's the "class differentiation" between warlocks and bards? Or warlocks and sorcerers? Or warlocks and paladins? Or warlocks and any of the other five thousand seven hundred and forty-three classes or subclasses that demand super high Charisma at the explicit expense of every other stat? Compared to the one and two-thirds mechanical character bases that are actually allowed to have an Intelligence score above 8 without being immediately banned from the table as a waste of time.
Honestly Why are there so many charisma spell casters.
Sorc get their power from inheritance or by mutation, it's almost always in a bodily way. So, they should be Constitution casters.
Paladins half to take others and what so Charisma makes sense, fair enough,
bard... no explanation needed
Warlocks.... are so arguable to every casting. It makes no since for them to be a single casting type.
I'm not saying a player can't give their Warlock character a high INT score, but the fundamental source of their magic is not the product of diligent research and study like it is for a Wizard, it's the product of going to someone else for the answers. Ergo it makes sense to use a different score, and since WIS is the province of most divine/primal casters and- as people have already gone over- the idea that making a pact is "wise" is rather suspect, that leaves CHA.
No, it doesn't make sense to use a different score. Their power comes from knowledge. They are looking for knowledge. Smart people use Cliffnotes and take shortcuts too. Not all of them get their power from any active negotiation (e.g. GOOlock). Even when they form an overt pact, understanding the terms and conditions of those to gain maximum benefit takes Int too. This is exactly the mindset that is setting Yurei off, and I don't blame her.
There's a whole subclass that very explicitly doesn't need to have formed a contract with anything. GOOlocks don't have a magic tutor buddy telling them how to do the magic, they touch upon an unfathomable entity and tap into that entity's power. This is most likely done through observation and study. Learning how to tap into an Eldritch god's power because it would be faster than the long, arduous study at a wizard college is still definitely a power derived from INT. Charisma never even comes into the equation.
I'd also argue, concerning your point about transactional relationships, that a warlock who is learning the secrets of the cosmos from a devil or genie isn't, on a fundamental level, any different from a wizard learning from another wizard. How the relationship came to be shouldn't matter as much as how the relationship functions after the initial deal, and warlocks can have very, very varied relationships with their patrons that manifest in very different ways. Ways that express different primary stats from your typical "I negotiated a deal with a hag and must continue to negotiate additional powers as I go" style of warlock.
"And sometimes, while poring over tomes of forbidden lore, a brilliant student’s mind is opened to realities beyond the material world and to the alien beings that dwell in the outer void." From the class description of warlock right here on DnDBeyond.
A warlock being tutored in fey magic by a magic squirrel is just as much using their INT to gain new spells as a wizard being tutored by an old man with a magic book.
Exactly this. Int makes exactly as much sense as Cha if not more.
Every last single goddamn thing in the bloody game constantly, CONSTANTLY, demands Horny.
Yurei, the only person in this conversation that says CHA = horny is you. If you’re going to keep strawmaning that point, then I’m going to just stop responding to you on this issue because it doesn’t feel like you are arguing in good faith.
Yurei, the only person in this conversation that says CHA = horny is you. If you’re going to keep strawmaning that point, then I’m going to just stop responding to you on this issue because it doesn’t feel like you are arguing in good faith.
No, you all are just insisting that Charisma encompasses anything and everything and no warlock could ever have a justification for having any mental score above an 8 except Charisma.
An intelligent, canny occultist delving into forbidden lore even wizards dare not disturb? Nooooooope, not allowed to make one of those - you HAVE to make a super charismatic idiot, no matter that it doesn't fit what you want to do at all.
A wanderer of the wild wood, in tune with nature and accepting a bargain from a Lord of the Fey to become something more than a deep-woods hermit? Nooooooooooope, can't make one of those either - you HAVE to be super charismatic but completely oblivious to everything around you.
If you're able to get away with dismissing Intelligence as being nothing but super narrow book-learning and research capacity, without any attachment to reason, mental acuity, quickness and sureness of thought, and argue that the only class that cares about being able to research is wizards and so wizards are the only characters that should ever have an Intelligence score above 8? I'm allowed to argue that Charisma is about how often you get laid and has no attachment to any of this Force Of personality and Strong Sense of Self drek people are using to argue that every single warlock EVARZ needs to be a super charismatic oblivious moron.
I'm not saying a player can't give their Warlock character a high INT score, but the fundamental source of their magic is not the product of diligent research and study like it is for a Wizard, it's the product of going to someone else for the answers. Ergo it makes sense to use a different score, and since WIS is the province of most divine/primal casters and- as people have already gone over- the idea that making a pact is "wise" is rather suspect, that leaves CHA.
No, it doesn't make sense to use a different score. Their power comes from knowledge. They are looking for knowledge. Smart people use Cliffnotes and take shortcuts too. Not all of them get their power from any active negotiation (e.g. GOOlock). Even when they form an overt pact, understanding the terms and conditions of those to gain maximum benefit takes Int too. This is exactly the mindset that is setting Yurei off, and I don't blame her.
There's a whole subclass that very explicitly doesn't need to have formed a contract with anything. GOOlocks don't have a magic tutor buddy telling them how to do the magic, they touch upon an unfathomable entity and tap into that entity's power. This is most likely done through observation and study. Learning how to tap into an Eldritch god's power because it would be faster than the long, arduous study at a wizard college is still definitely a power derived from INT. Charisma never even comes into the equation.
I'd also argue, concerning your point about transactional relationships, that a warlock who is learning the secrets of the cosmos from a devil or genie isn't, on a fundamental level, any different from a wizard learning from another wizard. How the relationship came to be shouldn't matter as much as how the relationship functions after the initial deal, and warlocks can have very, very varied relationships with their patrons that manifest in very different ways. Ways that express different primary stats from your typical "I negotiated a deal with a hag and must continue to negotiate additional powers as I go" style of warlock.
"And sometimes, while poring over tomes of forbidden lore, a brilliant student’s mind is opened to realities beyond the material world and to the alien beings that dwell in the outer void." From the class description of warlock right here on DnDBeyond.
A warlock being tutored in fey magic by a magic squirrel is just as much using their INT to gain new spells as a wizard being tutored by an old man with a magic book.
Exactly this. Int makes exactly as much sense as Cha if not more.
The knowledge and intelligence are two different things. Every caster must know the basic principles of magic through one lense or another to be able to cast in the first place. Intelligence is problem-solving, critical thinking, the synthesis of observations into conclusions. And no caster- or any class, really- is expected or required to be bad at these things. However, Wizards are the ones who need to be exceptional in these areas, because they are the only tool a Wizard has for utilizing magic. Divine and primal casters are connecting with higher forces and drawing on them. Sorcerers have magic as an innate part of their being. Bards- well, honestly by rights they should probably be in the same boat as Wizards, but they’ve got “the magic of music”, which is a bit prosaic but still valid fantasy. Warlocks have a patron who not only gives them a different base source for their powers (Pact Magic vs Spellcasting), but then can continue to bestow supernatural powers on an ongoing basis. Wizards have none of those support structures, and so they can do nothing but continuously work at and build upon and reason through their knowledge to expand their magical power. Wizards and Warlocks both have access to knowledge, but everything in their class descriptions highlights how that knowledge is applied in very different ways as it relates to the use and growth of their magic.
I want to say that I’ve already acknowledged several times that simply assigning each caster a single casting stat is an imperfect reflection of the faculties one would need as a caster. However, giving the amount of… lively debate that is already being generated when one stat is a hard requirement, implementing further requirements seems counterproductive to the design freedom being called for here, even if 5e hadn’t made simplicity a design pillar. So we’re left with picking a casting stat. I suppose in a vacuum choosing your casting stat is not an inherently problematic design option, but imo neither is giving the classes a little more hard definition by locking them in. Personally I like having a few hard things a class may not do/have, but that’s getting into a whole other issue, and I’d rather put a pin in that debate and focus on the topic at hand. Ultimately, I’d say the issue is just that the initial stat array was not built with this expanded array of arcane casters in mind, and the simple fact that mental attributes don’t actually divide themselves neatly into discrete subcategories. Possibly they could try renaming and/or reorganizing the stats, if only to counter the “CHA means horny!!” misconception, but ultimately I’d say that people just need to accept that a hard system of concepts so soft and interconnected will inevitably be imperfect.
I'm not saying a player can't give their Warlock character a high INT score, but the fundamental source of their magic is not the product of diligent research and study like it is for a Wizard, it's the product of going to someone else for the answers. Ergo it makes sense to use a different score, and since WIS is the province of most divine/primal casters and- as people have already gone over- the idea that making a pact is "wise" is rather suspect, that leaves CHA.
No, it doesn't make sense to use a different score. Their power comes from knowledge. They are looking for knowledge. Smart people use Cliffnotes and take shortcuts too. Not all of them get their power from any active negotiation (e.g. GOOlock). Even when they form an overt pact, understanding the terms and conditions of those to gain maximum benefit takes Int too. This is exactly the mindset that is setting Yurei off, and I don't blame her.
There's a whole subclass that very explicitly doesn't need to have formed a contract with anything. GOOlocks don't have a magic tutor buddy telling them how to do the magic, they touch upon an unfathomable entity and tap into that entity's power. This is most likely done through observation and study. Learning how to tap into an Eldritch god's power because it would be faster than the long, arduous study at a wizard college is still definitely a power derived from INT. Charisma never even comes into the equation.
I'd also argue, concerning your point about transactional relationships, that a warlock who is learning the secrets of the cosmos from a devil or genie isn't, on a fundamental level, any different from a wizard learning from another wizard. How the relationship came to be shouldn't matter as much as how the relationship functions after the initial deal, and warlocks can have very, very varied relationships with their patrons that manifest in very different ways. Ways that express different primary stats from your typical "I negotiated a deal with a hag and must continue to negotiate additional powers as I go" style of warlock.
"And sometimes, while poring over tomes of forbidden lore, a brilliant student’s mind is opened to realities beyond the material world and to the alien beings that dwell in the outer void." From the class description of warlock right here on DnDBeyond.
A warlock being tutored in fey magic by a magic squirrel is just as much using their INT to gain new spells as a wizard being tutored by an old man with a magic book.
Exactly this. Int makes exactly as much sense as Cha if not more.
No, the power does not come from knowledge, it comes from the patron. A Warlock explicitly searches for knowledge, but searching doesn't really necessitate intelligence, dumb people can be intellectually curious, they just are not able to effectively utilize what they find. Wizards also search for knowledge, and due to their intelligence, they are able to acquire it on their own. A Warlock (whether intelligent or not) does not use their intelligence to acquire knowledge/power, but instead somehow gain it from another entity. This means to me that in many cases, they do not necessarily need intelligence to gain said power. As I have said before, I'm not against Intelligence as an option for the Warlock, but some of you seem to be going way overboard to Intelligence being the only ability that fits a Warlock, which I believe is just plain wrong.
Of course the ability scores are highly abstracted and have no real ability to genuinely mirror the complexity of real world mental (or physical) abilities. I think sticking one's foot in the ground and saying due to this or that, only one specific ability score suits the Warlock is doomed to failure on either side, since there seem to be people with strong opinions at least on either Charisma or Intelligence. A far more persuasive argument is more along Yurei's lines, that the overemphasis on Charisma and the underemphasis on Intelligence in D&D is detrimental to the game. I think that this can be far better resolved by boosting the usefulness of Intelligence (and possibly reducing the usefulness of Charisma) in other parts of the game, whether or not the Warlock has a flexible casting stat.
Honestly, I would argue that INT suffering in utility is partially just an inevitable outcome of maintaining player agency. As I’ve gone over a few times, the major hallmarks of intelligence include critical thinking and problem solving. Unfortunately, these are also things that I believe most TTRPG players enjoy doing for themselves rather than rolling for. Frankly, I’m not sure how much 5e could do to “reward” high INT; PB has replaced skill points as the second skill modifier, and while additional languages was something I believe your starting INT mod gave you in previous editions that wouldn’t hurt to bring back, that’s a rather minor effect, all told. Honestly, I’m not sure what else INT could have as a secondary function, though I’d love to hear ideas. Regarding number of classes using what stat, my personal opinion is that trying to enforce a parity of numbers is pointless and would just appear to be some kind of odd performative gesture. Though I admit trying to work out an INT based “spellblade” type half caster class could be interesting, though there might be an issue of comparative balance/performance against Artificers. Still, something to think about.
Honestly, I would argue that INT suffering in utility is partially just an inevitable outcome of maintaining player agency. As I’ve gone over a few times, the major hallmarks of intelligence include critical thinking and problem solving. Unfortunately, these are also things that I believe most TTRPG players enjoy doing for themselves rather than rolling for. Frankly, I’m not sure how much 5e could do to “reward” high INT; PB has replaced skill points as the second skill modifier, and while additional languages was something I believe your starting INT mod gave you in previous editions that wouldn’t hurt to bring back, that’s a rather minor effect, all told. Honestly, I’m not sure what else INT could have as a secondary function, though I’d love to hear ideas. Regarding number of classes using what stat, my personal opinion is that trying to enforce a parity of numbers is pointless and would just appear to be some kind of odd performative gesture. Though I admit trying to work out an INT based “spellblade” type half caster class could be interesting, though there might be an issue of comparative balance/performance against Artificers. Still, something to think about.
I don't think INT needs a mechanical secondary function, when you can just make skills and saving throws using int more. Int = Knowledge seems just outdated, so cramming only those skills into INT just makes it feel weak. With some slight changes, you can balance INT and WIS.
1) Make more spells and effects require INT saving throws. It's super weird how most spells are WIS for no apparent reason.
2) Make INSIGHT an INT skill, maybe even have Passive Insight to boot. Wisdom already has Perception, it doesn't need yet another all-timer-useful-skill. You look for tells and use reasoning and deduction to see if the other person is truthful.
I agree saves feel weirdly skewed towards WIS, but Insight really could go either way. Spotting tells is arguably covered by the proficiency, whereas the primary ability reflects the intuitive “you get this feeling” aspect of WIS. Honestly Investigation, Perception, and Insight are rather arbitrarily split between INT and WIS. Personally, I wish skills took more from the prof than ability mod in typical play so people wouldn’t be arguing they’re “pressured” towards or against them so strongly by their class. Though if people can get expertise in even 1 skill with their level 1 background feat, that might help address that some.
Every last single goddamn thing in the bloody game constantly, CONSTANTLY, demands Horny.
Yurei, the only person in this conversation that says CHA = horny is you. If you’re going to keep strawmaning that point, then I’m going to just stop responding to you on this issue because it doesn’t feel like you are arguing in good faith.
the thing that's been worrying me about the "CHA = horny" repetition is how aggressive that 'horny' is being portrayed. if someone in the group is constantly holding the game hostage with predatory behaviors of a horny nature then call it out. there's a difference between hormones and harassment. i say this in general out into the cosmos, not making eye contact to anyone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
To be fair, fantasy also has lots of examples of very smart people who took shortcuts to power. An archetypical example of the Warlock could be Doctor Faustus, who was highly intelligent but very impatient. The Lovecraft mythos also contains very learned people who pursued Great Old Ones as a shortcut to power.
Certainly true, but as I have argued above, I don't believe their intelligence was the key factor in them controlling the power they received (although I am not well read enough to comment on the specifics of certain characters in fiction). In my experience, in stories of this type, people who make deals for power usually land up faring quite poorly in the end. This is often despite their great intelligence, and I would argue that their failure may come about due to their lack of Charisma as used in D&D.
The original design of the warlock in the original playtest WAS an int class. It was changed to charisma to placate people coming over from 4e who were used to charisma being the warlock's primary stat and didn't want to change it. The devs made a mistake (and it was a mistake by any reasonable argument) and caved to them. They should use this opportunity to fix it and make Warlocks into an INT class, but they are caving again to the people who don't want positive change by leaving it alone. At least they got rid of the flex because making warlock EVEN MORE dippable is a terrible, terrible idea.
(My emphasis) Do you have so little regard for anyone who doesn't share your opinion? I think some other of the folks here as well as I have made some reasonable arguments for why it makes sense. I played no D&D between 2e and 5e, but I certainly believe Charisma is the more logical choice for Warlocks, although not necessarily the only choice. I think the essential impossibility of having a Warlock who is also intelligent has less to do with the class and more to do with how irrelevant the Intelligence ability tends to be in current D&D.
No. Let me explain.
While I think that your arguments aren't strong for cha being the right choice, that's opinion. What's NOT opinion is that warlock being cha based allows for poor game balance interactions with other classes. Bard, Sorcerer and Paladin all benefit greatly from being able to dip into warlock. That is very poor for the game. INT would only allow Wizard (like they want to give up their level 20 capstone for anything a one level warlock dip provides) and artificer (not super popular, so the ability to screw with things is more limited)
Even if I were to grant you that THEMATICALLY cha was as logical as int (I do not agree), from a mechanical standpoint, cha over int is bad for the game.
EDIT: If bard, paladin, and sorcerer were not also cha based, I would be less militantly opposed to cha on warlocks. I'd still believe that thematically INT > CHA, but it wouldn't be too, too bad. When you start talking thematics though, Bard almost HAS to be cha. Sorc, you could make a strong argument for con...and I think that it probably /should/ be con based. Paladin...Int makes no sense, and wis doesn't make much sense...so cha works best.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Then what's the "class differentiation" between warlocks and bards? Or warlocks and sorcerers? Or warlocks and paladins? Or warlocks and any of the other five thousand seven hundred and forty-three classes or subclasses that demand super high Charisma at the explicit expense of every other stat? Compared to the one and two-thirds mechanical character bases that are actually allowed to have an Intelligence score above 8 without being immediately banned from the table as a waste of time.
Every last single goddamn thing in the bloody game constantly, CONSTANTLY, demands Horny. I don't want to be forced to play a wizard every single time I want to run an Intelligence score above 8. And no, "just make INT high on whatever else then" is not an answer when the fundamental structure of the game actively punishes high Intelligence scores not used to fuel a class's mechanical engine. Like I said, the DMG explicitly instructs DMs to ignore the Intelligence-focused skills and simply award players any information they want/need anyways, so the ONE GODDAMN THING Intelligence is supposed to do in this godforsaken edition is taken away from it.
I'm so heartily sick of numbskull Gigachads being held up as The Ideal Hero in every single frickin' game at the explicit and intentional expense of anyone with a functioning brain. If people are allowed to be pissed that DX is a physical Supahstat that almost completely eclipses Strength, why aren't we allowed to be equally pissed that Charisma gets everything on the mental side and Intelligence is actively punished and discouraged?
I think with the cha example you kinda have to think about how we got here. Back in the old 2e days, cha was 100% the dump stat. For all characters. The only people who cared really about their charisma were paladins, because you needed to have a 17 in charisma to BE a paladin. I do not know a single person who ever rolled stats good enough to play a paladin, ever actually did so. They played something where they could use stats that worked for them.
That's...bad. They just went a bit too far with making charisma something other than a dump stat. Now int's the dump stat. I tend to be stubborn and put my leftover points into int, and dump wis on my warlocks because in my mind, making a bargain with an eldritch entity is inherently unwise. Not dumb, generally, they know what they are doing. They are straight dealing for power. And also, everyone in my party puts their leftovers into wis for their almighty perception scores.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Every last single goddamn thing in the bloody game constantly, CONSTANTLY, demands Horny.
Yurei, the only person in this conversation that says CHA = horny is you. If you’re going to keep strawmaning that point, then I’m going to just stop responding to you on this issue because it doesn’t feel like you are arguing in good faith.
People don't need cha as an excuse to play thirsty characters. There's a chick in one of my groups who plays a lesbian rogue who tries to seduce every barmaid we come across. It's not just thirsty bards and warlocks out there making the DM sigh and roll persuasion...
if a player's going to go down that path, they don't need a high cha score to do it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
To be fair, fantasy also has lots of examples of very smart people who took shortcuts to power. An archetypical example of the Warlock could be Doctor Faustus, who was highly intelligent but very impatient. The Lovecraft mythos also contains very learned people who pursued Great Old Ones as a shortcut to power.
Certainly true, but as I have argued above, I don't believe their intelligence was the key factor in them controlling the power they received (although I am not well read enough to comment on the specifics of certain characters in fiction). In my experience, in stories of this type, people who make deals for power usually land up faring quite poorly in the end. This is often despite their great intelligence, and I would argue that their failure may come about due to their lack of Charisma as used in D&D.
The original design of the warlock in the original playtest WAS an int class. It was changed to charisma to placate people coming over from 4e who were used to charisma being the warlock's primary stat and didn't want to change it. The devs made a mistake (and it was a mistake by any reasonable argument) and caved to them. They should use this opportunity to fix it and make Warlocks into an INT class, but they are caving again to the people who don't want positive change by leaving it alone. At least they got rid of the flex because making warlock EVEN MORE dippable is a terrible, terrible idea.
(My emphasis) Do you have so little regard for anyone who doesn't share your opinion? I think some other of the folks here as well as I have made some reasonable arguments for why it makes sense. I played no D&D between 2e and 5e, but I certainly believe Charisma is the more logical choice for Warlocks, although not necessarily the only choice. I think the essential impossibility of having a Warlock who is also intelligent has less to do with the class and more to do with how irrelevant the Intelligence ability tends to be in current D&D.
No. Let me explain.
While I think that your arguments aren't strong for cha being the right choice, that's opinion. What's NOT opinion is that warlock being cha based allows for poor game balance interactions with other classes. Bard, Sorcerer and Paladin all benefit greatly from being able to dip into warlock. That is very poor for the game. INT would only allow Wizard (like they want to give up their level 20 capstone for anything a one level warlock dip provides) and artificer (not super popular, so the ability to screw with things is more limited)
Even if I were to grant you that THEMATICALLY cha was as logical as int (I do not agree), from a mechanical standpoint, cha over int is bad for the game.
I mean, arguably being dippable is a point because, you know, deal making. But even then, what exactly do most of these examples gain from Warlock as a whole? Warlock doesn’t count for spell slots in a a multi-class, and the adequacy of 1-2 slots per short rest has been debated here vigorously enough to highlight that it’s not really much more than 1-2 extra low-level slots. Okay, there is coffeelock, but I think they’ve already patched coffeelock in the UA and regardless that’s a matter of either a DM ruling or an errata patch on Flexible Casting more than changing one class’ casting stat, particularly since the multiclass requirements are too low for that to be a serious obstacle in the first place. Now, Hexblade specifically could make an attractive 1 level dip, but they’ve already bumped the subclasses up to 3 last I saw and again that’s not a case of a core Warlock feature being an issue.
Then what's the "class differentiation" between warlocks and bards? Or warlocks and sorcerers? Or warlocks and paladins? Or warlocks and any of the other five thousand seven hundred and forty-three classes or subclasses that demand super high Charisma at the explicit expense of every other stat? Compared to the one and two-thirds mechanical character bases that are actually allowed to have an Intelligence score above 8 without being immediately banned from the table as a waste of time.
Honestly Why are there so many charisma spell casters.
Sorc get their power from inheritance or by mutation, it's almost always in a bodily way. So, they should be Constitution casters.
Paladins half to take others and what so Charisma makes sense, fair enough,
bard... no explanation needed
Warlocks.... are so arguable to every casting. It makes no since for them to be a single casting type.
I'm not saying a player can't give their Warlock character a high INT score, but the fundamental source of their magic is not the product of diligent research and study like it is for a Wizard, it's the product of going to someone else for the answers. Ergo it makes sense to use a different score, and since WIS is the province of most divine/primal casters and- as people have already gone over- the idea that making a pact is "wise" is rather suspect, that leaves CHA.
No, it doesn't make sense to use a different score. Their power comes from knowledge. They are looking for knowledge. Smart people use Cliffnotes and take shortcuts too. Not all of them get their power from any active negotiation (e.g. GOOlock). Even when they form an overt pact, understanding the terms and conditions of those to gain maximum benefit takes Int too. This is exactly the mindset that is setting Yurei off, and I don't blame her.
There's a whole subclass that very explicitly doesn't need to have formed a contract with anything. GOOlocks don't have a magic tutor buddy telling them how to do the magic, they touch upon an unfathomable entity and tap into that entity's power. This is most likely done through observation and study. Learning how to tap into an Eldritch god's power because it would be faster than the long, arduous study at a wizard college is still definitely a power derived from INT. Charisma never even comes into the equation.
I'd also argue, concerning your point about transactional relationships, that a warlock who is learning the secrets of the cosmos from a devil or genie isn't, on a fundamental level, any different from a wizard learning from another wizard. How the relationship came to be shouldn't matter as much as how the relationship functions after the initial deal, and warlocks can have very, very varied relationships with their patrons that manifest in very different ways. Ways that express different primary stats from your typical "I negotiated a deal with a hag and must continue to negotiate additional powers as I go" style of warlock.
"And sometimes, while poring over tomes of forbidden lore, a brilliant student’s mind is opened to realities beyond the material world and to the alien beings that dwell in the outer void." From the class description of warlock right here on DnDBeyond.
A warlock being tutored in fey magic by a magic squirrel is just as much using their INT to gain new spells as a wizard being tutored by an old man with a magic book.
Exactly this. Int makes exactly as much sense as Cha if not more.
The knowledge and intelligence are two different things. Every caster must know the basic principles of magic through one lense or another to be able to cast in the first place. Intelligence is problem-solving, critical thinking, the synthesis of observations into conclusions. And no caster- or any class, really- is expected or required to be bad at these things. However, Wizards are the ones who need to be exceptional in these areas, because they are the only tool a Wizard has for utilizing magic. Divine and primal casters are connecting with higher forces and drawing on them. Sorcerers have magic as an innate part of their being. Bards- well, honestly by rights they should probably be in the same boat as Wizards, but they’ve got “the magic of music”, which is a bit prosaic but still valid fantasy. Warlocks have...
a patron who not only gives them a different base source for their powers (Pact Magic vs Spellcasting), but then can continue to bestow supernatural powers on an ongoing basis. Wizards have none of those support structures, and so they can do nothing but continuously work at and build upon and reason through their knowledge to expand their magical power. Wizards and Warlocks both have access to knowledge, but everything in their class descriptions highlights how that knowledge is applied in very different ways as it relates to the use and growth of their magic.
I want to say that I’ve already acknowledged several times that simply assigning each caster a single casting stat is an imperfect reflection of the faculties one would need as a caster. However, giving the amount of… lively debate that is already being generated when one stat is a hard requirement, implementing further requirements seems counterproductive to the design freedom being called for here, even if 5e hadn’t made simplicity a design pillar. So we’re left with picking a casting stat. I suppose in a vacuum choosing your casting stat is not an inherently problematic design option, but imo neither is giving the classes a little more hard definition by locking them in. Personally I like having a few hard things a class may not do/have, but that’s getting into a whole other issue, and I’d rather put a pin in that debate and focus on the topic at hand. Ultimately, I’d say the issue is just that the initial stat array was not built with this expanded array of arcane casters in mind, and the simple fact that mental attributes don’t actually divide themselves neatly into discrete subcategories. Possibly they could try renaming and/or reorganizing the stats, if only to counter the “CHA means horny!!” misconception, but ultimately I’d say that people just need to accept that a hard system of concepts so soft and interconnected will inevitably be imperfect.
briefly on the topic of bards: as has been said, individual bards and bard colleges collect information. "accuracy of recall" is a task related to intelligence in 5e. included in that stored gossip and reams of mental sheet music and spy stuff are arcane secrets. secrets the bard uses to cast spells. bards could easily be INT casters. there's even an argument to be said that DEX makes much more sense than some measure of affability when it comes to playing a damn flute. makes as much sense as accessing the primordial Words of Creation via "persuasiveness, personal magnetism, and ability to lead" (adnd 2e, glossary).
all i'm saying is CHA bards aren't most obvious thing. and charisma is over represented as a spellcasting stat. it's a pet peeve. sorry for the tangent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
And, once again we return to the issue of cherry-picking narrow examples rather than looking at the overarching trend. Yes, a Warlock could be a studious individual, and yes not every pact necessarily must be a case of literal face-to-face bargaining, but that’s the archetype that was used for the broad strokes of the class, which is also what they base casting stat on.
You claim I am cherry-picking to make a point, but from my point of view, you're ignoring large swaths of the class fantasy to support your argument. An entire subclass that explicitly doesn't involve negotiation but instead the deciphering of long-forgotten lore to make contact with an entity older than time to know the unknowable is as much INT-driven as studying in a college. But under the current system, you can't play that style of warlock. You can't be a brilliant occultist who uses their knowledge of secret lore to sneak a peak between the cracks of reality to discover what they're too afraid to teach you at Wizard College.
That, to me, speaks of a flaw in the system. Something that would function better if the mechanics supported that style of warlock more readily. You're treating this like a rogue breaking out an instruction manual to open a lock using INT. Something niche and not worth supporting in the rules. I disagree with that assessment. I think there are a LOT of warlock archetypes that don't fit the use of charisma all that well and that its a shame that those archetypes can't be expressed currently.
And, once again we return to the issue of cherry-picking narrow examples rather than looking at the overarching trend. Yes, a Warlock could be a studious individual, and yes not every pact necessarily must be a case of literal face-to-face bargaining, but that’s the archetype that was used for the broad strokes of the class, which is also what they base casting stat on.
You claim I am cherry-picking to make a point, but from my point of view, you're ignoring large swaths of the class fantasy to support your argument. An entire subclass that explicitly doesn't involve negotiation but instead the deciphering of long-forgotten lore to make contact with an entity older than time to know the unknowable is as much INT-driven as studying in a college. But under the current system, you can't play that style of warlock. You can't be a brilliant occultist who uses their knowledge of secret lore to sneak a peak between the cracks of reality to discover what they're too afraid to teach you at Wizard College.
That, to me, speaks of a flaw in the system. Something that would function better if the mechanics supported that style of warlock more readily. You're treating this like a rogue breaking out an instruction manual to open a lock using INT. Something niche and not worth supporting in the rules. I disagree with that assessment. I think there are a LOT of warlock archetypes that don't fit the use of charisma all that well and that its a shame that those archetypes can't be expressed currently.
The idea that GOOlocks categorically cannot have a direct relationship is not outlined anywhere. The description only says that it “might” not be aware of you, which is arguably a valid dynamic for any pact, while at the same time not being at all relevant to my point that they are very clearly looking to a Faustian bargain as the archetypal example of the class.
And you absolutely can do what you describe; one can easily hit 16 in two stats after race/background bonuses in point-buy without dumping any stats below 10. Heck, you can even dip into or out of Wizard if you want for the premise. Now, whichever side you don’t wish to level as much will lag 5-10% in casting oomph, but both mechanically and thematically that’s what happens when you diversify instead of specialize.
No, the power does not come from knowledge, it comes from the patron. A Warlock explicitly searches for knowledge, but searching doesn't really necessitate intelligence, dumb people can be intellectually curious, they just are not able to effectively utilize what they find. Wizards also search for knowledge, and due to their intelligence, they are able to acquire it on their own.A Warlock (whether intelligent or not) does not use their intelligence to acquire knowledge/power, but instead somehow gain it from another entity. This means to me that in many cases, they do not necessarily need intelligence to gain said power. As I have said before, I'm not against Intelligence as an option for the Warlock, but some of you seem to be going way overboard to Intelligence being the only ability that fits a Warlock, which I believe is just plain wrong.
Of course the ability scores are highly abstracted and have no real ability to genuinely mirror the complexity of real world mental (or physical) abilities. I think sticking one's foot in the ground and saying due to this or that, only one specific ability score suits the Warlock is doomed to failure on either side, since there seem to be people with strong opinions at least on either Charisma or Intelligence. A far more persuasive argument is more along Yurei's lines, that the overemphasis on Charisma and the underemphasis on Intelligence in D&D is detrimental to the game. I think that this can be far better resolved by boosting the usefulness of Intelligence (and possibly reducing the usefulness of Charisma) in other parts of the game, whether or not the Warlock has a flexible casting stat.
I don't know why you're quoting me when you say "some of you are going overboard to Intelligence being the only ability that fits a Warlock" because I never once said that 🤨
Let me emphasize this so there's no ambiguity: I want BOTH intelligence and charisma to be options for the Warlock casting stat in 2024. I said as much in my very first post in this thread that that's what I put in my UA7 survey as well. Hopefully that's clear now; if you're trying to argue with someone else about what they said, please reply to them instead.
As for the rest of your post, I color-coded the bits I wanted to address above for clarity:
1) I have no problem with "low intelligence = needs patron to effectively utilize what they find" (i.e. Charisma Warlock.) What I'm railing against is the reverse implication, that high intelligence must mean wizardry. Even if that's how it works in 2014, we're trying to get that changed, because it's an overly narrow and stifling interpretation of what a Warlock is / can be. An Intelligence-based Warlock would have a patron too.
2) The degree to which the power comes from the Patron directly, as opposed to being from arcane secrets that the Patron teaches/grants access to, and whether the power can be revoked once the knowledge has been granted etc, is unclear. What is clear, however, is that Warlocks are not Clerics.
3) Regarding making Intelligence more useful, WotC have already done that, it's called Study Action. Int-based classes have a significant advantage there, and the relevant subjects/use-cases being codified means it'll have a much higher chance of coming up in the average campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Then what's the "class differentiation" between warlocks and bards? Or warlocks and sorcerers? Or warlocks and paladins? Or warlocks and any of the other five thousand seven hundred and forty-three classes or subclasses that demand super high Charisma at the explicit expense of every other stat? Compared to the one and two-thirds mechanical character bases that are actually allowed to have an Intelligence score above 8 without being immediately banned from the table as a waste of time.
Every last single goddamn thing in the bloody game constantly, CONSTANTLY, demands Horny. I don't want to be forced to play a wizard every single time I want to run an Intelligence score above 8. And no, "just make INT high on whatever else then" is not an answer when the fundamental structure of the game actively punishes high Intelligence scores not used to fuel a class's mechanical engine. Like I said, the DMG explicitly instructs DMs to ignore the Intelligence-focused skills and simply award players any information they want/need anyways, so the ONE GODDAMN THING Intelligence is supposed to do in this godforsaken edition is taken away from it.
I'm so heartily sick of numbskull Gigachads being held up as The Ideal Hero in every single frickin' game at the explicit and intentional expense of anyone with a functioning brain. If people are allowed to be pissed that DX is a physical Supahstat that almost completely eclipses Strength, why aren't we allowed to be equally pissed that Charisma gets everything on the mental side and Intelligence is actively punished and discouraged?
Please do not contact or message me.
Dude, the argument "The stat is the only choice left" isnt great for this context. This argument you guys have been having has been going no where. How about we do something a bit more constructive with it and actually compile proof of the arguments with in the text. I'll start with an example of all 3.
Int: " 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." While not learning through study like a wizard being taught by a master is a form of learning and is represented in the training downtime activity in xanthars guide.
Wis: "Rather, the vast majority of warlocks spend their days in active pursuit of their goals, which typically means some kind of adventuring." Honestly a stretch but this type of pursuit does require a good deal of wisdom, to perceive lies, find truths, and to survive.
Cha: " A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entity—beings not typically served by clerics." Charisma is pretty valuable for leading a cult.
Honestly Why are there so many charisma spell casters.
Sorc get their power from inheritance or by mutation, it's almost always in a bodily way. So, they should be Constitution casters.
Paladins half to take others and what so Charisma makes sense, fair enough,
bard... no explanation needed
Warlocks.... are so arguable to every casting. It makes no since for them to be a single casting type.
No, it doesn't make sense to use a different score. Their power comes from knowledge. They are looking for knowledge. Smart people use Cliffnotes and take shortcuts too. Not all of them get their power from any active negotiation (e.g. GOOlock). Even when they form an overt pact, understanding the terms and conditions of those to gain maximum benefit takes Int too. This is exactly the mindset that is setting Yurei off, and I don't blame her.
Exactly this. Int makes exactly as much sense as Cha if not more.
Yurei, the only person in this conversation that says CHA = horny is you. If you’re going to keep strawmaning that point, then I’m going to just stop responding to you on this issue because it doesn’t feel like you are arguing in good faith.
No, you all are just insisting that Charisma encompasses anything and everything and no warlock could ever have a justification for having any mental score above an 8 except Charisma.
An intelligent, canny occultist delving into forbidden lore even wizards dare not disturb? Nooooooope, not allowed to make one of those - you HAVE to make a super charismatic idiot, no matter that it doesn't fit what you want to do at all.
A wanderer of the wild wood, in tune with nature and accepting a bargain from a Lord of the Fey to become something more than a deep-woods hermit? Nooooooooooope, can't make one of those either - you HAVE to be super charismatic but completely oblivious to everything around you.
If you're able to get away with dismissing Intelligence as being nothing but super narrow book-learning and research capacity, without any attachment to reason, mental acuity, quickness and sureness of thought, and argue that the only class that cares about being able to research is wizards and so wizards are the only characters that should ever have an Intelligence score above 8? I'm allowed to argue that Charisma is about how often you get laid and has no attachment to any of this Force Of personality and Strong Sense of Self drek people are using to argue that every single warlock EVARZ needs to be a super charismatic oblivious moron.
Please do not contact or message me.
The knowledge and intelligence are two different things. Every caster must know the basic principles of magic through one lense or another to be able to cast in the first place. Intelligence is problem-solving, critical thinking, the synthesis of observations into conclusions. And no caster- or any class, really- is expected or required to be bad at these things. However, Wizards are the ones who need to be exceptional in these areas, because they are the only tool a Wizard has for utilizing magic. Divine and primal casters are connecting with higher forces and drawing on them. Sorcerers have magic as an innate part of their being. Bards- well, honestly by rights they should probably be in the same boat as Wizards, but they’ve got “the magic of music”, which is a bit prosaic but still valid fantasy. Warlocks have a patron who not only gives them a different base source for their powers (Pact Magic vs Spellcasting), but then can continue to bestow supernatural powers on an ongoing basis. Wizards have none of those support structures, and so they can do nothing but continuously work at and build upon and reason through their knowledge to expand their magical power. Wizards and Warlocks both have access to knowledge, but everything in their class descriptions highlights how that knowledge is applied in very different ways as it relates to the use and growth of their magic.
I want to say that I’ve already acknowledged several times that simply assigning each caster a single casting stat is an imperfect reflection of the faculties one would need as a caster. However, giving the amount of… lively debate that is already being generated when one stat is a hard requirement, implementing further requirements seems counterproductive to the design freedom being called for here, even if 5e hadn’t made simplicity a design pillar. So we’re left with picking a casting stat. I suppose in a vacuum choosing your casting stat is not an inherently problematic design option, but imo neither is giving the classes a little more hard definition by locking them in. Personally I like having a few hard things a class may not do/have, but that’s getting into a whole other issue, and I’d rather put a pin in that debate and focus on the topic at hand. Ultimately, I’d say the issue is just that the initial stat array was not built with this expanded array of arcane casters in mind, and the simple fact that mental attributes don’t actually divide themselves neatly into discrete subcategories. Possibly they could try renaming and/or reorganizing the stats, if only to counter the “CHA means horny!!” misconception, but ultimately I’d say that people just need to accept that a hard system of concepts so soft and interconnected will inevitably be imperfect.
No, the power does not come from knowledge, it comes from the patron. A Warlock explicitly searches for knowledge, but searching doesn't really necessitate intelligence, dumb people can be intellectually curious, they just are not able to effectively utilize what they find. Wizards also search for knowledge, and due to their intelligence, they are able to acquire it on their own. A Warlock (whether intelligent or not) does not use their intelligence to acquire knowledge/power, but instead somehow gain it from another entity. This means to me that in many cases, they do not necessarily need intelligence to gain said power. As I have said before, I'm not against Intelligence as an option for the Warlock, but some of you seem to be going way overboard to Intelligence being the only ability that fits a Warlock, which I believe is just plain wrong.
Of course the ability scores are highly abstracted and have no real ability to genuinely mirror the complexity of real world mental (or physical) abilities. I think sticking one's foot in the ground and saying due to this or that, only one specific ability score suits the Warlock is doomed to failure on either side, since there seem to be people with strong opinions at least on either Charisma or Intelligence. A far more persuasive argument is more along Yurei's lines, that the overemphasis on Charisma and the underemphasis on Intelligence in D&D is detrimental to the game. I think that this can be far better resolved by boosting the usefulness of Intelligence (and possibly reducing the usefulness of Charisma) in other parts of the game, whether or not the Warlock has a flexible casting stat.
Honestly, I would argue that INT suffering in utility is partially just an inevitable outcome of maintaining player agency. As I’ve gone over a few times, the major hallmarks of intelligence include critical thinking and problem solving. Unfortunately, these are also things that I believe most TTRPG players enjoy doing for themselves rather than rolling for. Frankly, I’m not sure how much 5e could do to “reward” high INT; PB has replaced skill points as the second skill modifier, and while additional languages was something I believe your starting INT mod gave you in previous editions that wouldn’t hurt to bring back, that’s a rather minor effect, all told. Honestly, I’m not sure what else INT could have as a secondary function, though I’d love to hear ideas. Regarding number of classes using what stat, my personal opinion is that trying to enforce a parity of numbers is pointless and would just appear to be some kind of odd performative gesture. Though I admit trying to work out an INT based “spellblade” type half caster class could be interesting, though there might be an issue of comparative balance/performance against Artificers. Still, something to think about.
I don't think INT needs a mechanical secondary function, when you can just make skills and saving throws using int more. Int = Knowledge seems just outdated, so cramming only those skills into INT just makes it feel weak. With some slight changes, you can balance INT and WIS.
1) Make more spells and effects require INT saving throws. It's super weird how most spells are WIS for no apparent reason.
2) Make INSIGHT an INT skill, maybe even have Passive Insight to boot. Wisdom already has Perception, it doesn't need yet another all-timer-useful-skill. You look for tells and use reasoning and deduction to see if the other person is truthful.
I agree saves feel weirdly skewed towards WIS, but Insight really could go either way. Spotting tells is arguably covered by the proficiency, whereas the primary ability reflects the intuitive “you get this feeling” aspect of WIS. Honestly Investigation, Perception, and Insight are rather arbitrarily split between INT and WIS. Personally, I wish skills took more from the prof than ability mod in typical play so people wouldn’t be arguing they’re “pressured” towards or against them so strongly by their class. Though if people can get expertise in even 1 skill with their level 1 background feat, that might help address that some.
the thing that's been worrying me about the "CHA = horny" repetition is how aggressive that 'horny' is being portrayed. if someone in the group is constantly holding the game hostage with predatory behaviors of a horny nature then call it out. there's a difference between hormones and harassment. i say this in general out into the cosmos, not making eye contact to anyone.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
No. Let me explain.
While I think that your arguments aren't strong for cha being the right choice, that's opinion. What's NOT opinion is that warlock being cha based allows for poor game balance interactions with other classes. Bard, Sorcerer and Paladin all benefit greatly from being able to dip into warlock. That is very poor for the game. INT would only allow Wizard (like they want to give up their level 20 capstone for anything a one level warlock dip provides) and artificer (not super popular, so the ability to screw with things is more limited)
Even if I were to grant you that THEMATICALLY cha was as logical as int (I do not agree), from a mechanical standpoint, cha over int is bad for the game.
EDIT: If bard, paladin, and sorcerer were not also cha based, I would be less militantly opposed to cha on warlocks. I'd still believe that thematically INT > CHA, but it wouldn't be too, too bad. When you start talking thematics though, Bard almost HAS to be cha. Sorc, you could make a strong argument for con...and I think that it probably /should/ be con based. Paladin...Int makes no sense, and wis doesn't make much sense...so cha works best.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I think with the cha example you kinda have to think about how we got here. Back in the old 2e days, cha was 100% the dump stat. For all characters. The only people who cared really about their charisma were paladins, because you needed to have a 17 in charisma to BE a paladin. I do not know a single person who ever rolled stats good enough to play a paladin, ever actually did so. They played something where they could use stats that worked for them.
That's...bad. They just went a bit too far with making charisma something other than a dump stat. Now int's the dump stat. I tend to be stubborn and put my leftover points into int, and dump wis on my warlocks because in my mind, making a bargain with an eldritch entity is inherently unwise. Not dumb, generally, they know what they are doing. They are straight dealing for power. And also, everyone in my party puts their leftovers into wis for their almighty perception scores.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
People don't need cha as an excuse to play thirsty characters. There's a chick in one of my groups who plays a lesbian rogue who tries to seduce every barmaid we come across. It's not just thirsty bards and warlocks out there making the DM sigh and roll persuasion...
if a player's going to go down that path, they don't need a high cha score to do it.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I mean, arguably being dippable is a point because, you know, deal making. But even then, what exactly do most of these examples gain from Warlock as a whole? Warlock doesn’t count for spell slots in a a multi-class, and the adequacy of 1-2 slots per short rest has been debated here vigorously enough to highlight that it’s not really much more than 1-2 extra low-level slots. Okay, there is coffeelock, but I think they’ve already patched coffeelock in the UA and regardless that’s a matter of either a DM ruling or an errata patch on Flexible Casting more than changing one class’ casting stat, particularly since the multiclass requirements are too low for that to be a serious obstacle in the first place. Now, Hexblade specifically could make an attractive 1 level dip, but they’ve already bumped the subclasses up to 3 last I saw and again that’s not a case of a core Warlock feature being an issue.
briefly on the topic of bards: as has been said, individual bards and bard colleges collect information. "accuracy of recall" is a task related to intelligence in 5e. included in that stored gossip and reams of mental sheet music and spy stuff are arcane secrets. secrets the bard uses to cast spells. bards could easily be INT casters. there's even an argument to be said that DEX makes much more sense than some measure of affability when it comes to playing a damn flute. makes as much sense as accessing the primordial Words of Creation via "persuasiveness, personal magnetism, and ability to lead" (adnd 2e, glossary).
all i'm saying is CHA bards aren't most obvious thing. and charisma is over represented as a spellcasting stat. it's a pet peeve. sorry for the tangent.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
You claim I am cherry-picking to make a point, but from my point of view, you're ignoring large swaths of the class fantasy to support your argument. An entire subclass that explicitly doesn't involve negotiation but instead the deciphering of long-forgotten lore to make contact with an entity older than time to know the unknowable is as much INT-driven as studying in a college. But under the current system, you can't play that style of warlock. You can't be a brilliant occultist who uses their knowledge of secret lore to sneak a peak between the cracks of reality to discover what they're too afraid to teach you at Wizard College.
That, to me, speaks of a flaw in the system. Something that would function better if the mechanics supported that style of warlock more readily. You're treating this like a rogue breaking out an instruction manual to open a lock using INT. Something niche and not worth supporting in the rules. I disagree with that assessment. I think there are a LOT of warlock archetypes that don't fit the use of charisma all that well and that its a shame that those archetypes can't be expressed currently.
The idea that GOOlocks categorically cannot have a direct relationship is not outlined anywhere. The description only says that it “might” not be aware of you, which is arguably a valid dynamic for any pact, while at the same time not being at all relevant to my point that they are very clearly looking to a Faustian bargain as the archetypal example of the class.
And you absolutely can do what you describe; one can easily hit 16 in two stats after race/background bonuses in point-buy without dumping any stats below 10. Heck, you can even dip into or out of Wizard if you want for the premise. Now, whichever side you don’t wish to level as much will lag 5-10% in casting oomph, but both mechanically and thematically that’s what happens when you diversify instead of specialize.
I don't know why you're quoting me when you say "some of you are going overboard to Intelligence being the only ability that fits a Warlock" because I never once said that 🤨
Let me emphasize this so there's no ambiguity: I want BOTH intelligence and charisma to be options for the Warlock casting stat in 2024. I said as much in my very first post in this thread that that's what I put in my UA7 survey as well. Hopefully that's clear now; if you're trying to argue with someone else about what they said, please reply to them instead.
As for the rest of your post, I color-coded the bits I wanted to address above for clarity:
1) I have no problem with "low intelligence = needs patron to effectively utilize what they find" (i.e. Charisma Warlock.) What I'm railing against is the reverse implication, that high intelligence must mean wizardry. Even if that's how it works in 2014, we're trying to get that changed, because it's an overly narrow and stifling interpretation of what a Warlock is / can be. An Intelligence-based Warlock would have a patron too.
2) The degree to which the power comes from the Patron directly, as opposed to being from arcane secrets that the Patron teaches/grants access to, and whether the power can be revoked once the knowledge has been granted etc, is unclear. What is clear, however, is that Warlocks are not Clerics.
3) Regarding making Intelligence more useful, WotC have already done that, it's called Study Action. Int-based classes have a significant advantage there, and the relevant subjects/use-cases being codified means it'll have a much higher chance of coming up in the average campaign.