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.
I'd say you are the one cherry picking examples and not looking at the over arching trend but you don't even really have examples past you don't think intelligence fits therefore charisma. Like 80% of the class description is clearly intelligence focused so I'd say that is the over arching trend you seem hellbent on ignoring.
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 love this point. People seem obsessed with making intelligence a super narrow stat of just book learning while at the same time turning charisma into some god stat that does everything.
I could take or leave Wis-based Warlocks. If WotC is too hesitant about free choice of all three mental stats, that's the one I'd give up without hesitation.
But I really don't want to go another 10 years with only one Int-based 9th-level caster in the entire game. Let Warlocks be both.
Psyren, sorry if you feel like I was singling you out as against Charisma as a Warlock casting stat, but you did say in a previous post (which I quoted), "No, it doesn't make sense to use a different score. Their power comes from knowledge." Maybe you didn't mean for that statement to sound as sweeping as it did to me, and I certainly may have forgotten other points you have made through the discussion, so yet again I am sorry if I misrepresented your stance.
I hope (but am not entirely sure) that the Study Action really will be something that boosts the usefulness of Intelligence in actual play, and thus affect how people distribute their ability scores.
Crzyhawk, thank you for your measured response. The issue of primary ability scores and multiclassing is a difficult one. I'd certainly agree that the abundance of Charisma-based classes makes some combinations too easy and abusable. However, I am wary that Warlock multiclassing with the Wizard in particular, may have problems since it seems very many people are of the opinion that the latter is already the most powerful class in the game without that possible advantage. I'm not deeply into theorycrafting, so this fear may be unfounded, and I hope that it is.
Wizard/warlock multiclassing won't cause any real problems. A wizard's strength comes purely from their spell progression; even a single level of warlock dilutes that. The warlock's features don't mesh with the wizard the same way they do with sorcerer or paladin. The builds would be good, but they wouldn't be the Munchkin Nonsense everybody's scared of.
And even if they were, who cares. Let munchkins munch in their own games. Saying "warlocks all have to be oblivious morons because multiclassing is bad!" is myopic and pointless. If you just hate multiclassing that much, ban it at your tables and tell players they'll play completely unmodified, worn-out, overplayed and annoying fantasy tropes whether they like it or not.
Psyren, sorry if you feel like I was singling you out as against Charisma as a Warlock casting stat, but you did say in a previous post (which I quoted), "No, it doesn't make sense to use a different score. Their power comes from knowledge." Maybe you didn't mean for that statement to sound as sweeping as it did to me, and I certainly may have forgotten other points you have made through the discussion, so yet again I am sorry if I misrepresented your stance
I hope (but am not entirely sure) that the Study Action really will be something that boosts the usefulness of Intelligence in actual play, and thus affect how people distribute their ability scores.
If people want to dump Int, so what? Let them, it's their character. All WotC needs to do is create class options that make someone want to try a character that focuses on any stat, save maybe Con which has no skills tied to it.
However, I am wary that Warlock multiclassing with the Wizard in particular, may have problems since it seems very many people are of the opinion that the latter is already the most powerful class in the game without that possible advantage. I'm not deeply into theorycrafting, so this fear may be unfounded, and I hope that it is.
A straight classed wizard is more powerful than any multiclass combination. Creating more viable multiclass options for wizard is a good thing because it means more variety and less raw power.
With that said, whether they reintroduce Intlocks or not, Blade Pact needs to be toned down from its UA7 incarnation.
If you just hate multiclassing that much, ban it at your tables and tell players they'll play completely unmodified, worn-out, overplayed and annoying fantasy tropes whether they like it or not.
There are valid reasons for banning (or limiting) multiclassing, you know. It's not always because the DM hates fun.
If you just hate multiclassing that much, ban it at your tables and tell players they'll play completely unmodified, worn-out, overplayed and annoying fantasy tropes whether they like it or not.
There are valid reasons for banning (or limiting) multiclassing, you know. It's not always because the DM hates fun.
Absolutely there are. It's not why anyone does it, though. Even in this thread, people are arguing against flexible casting because it enables more multiclassing, on the assumption that multiclassing is just intrinsically bad and only of value/interest to munchkins. And the further assumption that munchkins are also intrinsically bad and need to be prevented from doing their thing as much as possible.
I've seen almost no arguments focusing on specific reasons broader multiclassing compatibility is bad for balance. Au contraire, it's been stated and largely borne out that Charisma focus on the warlock already enabled the most egregious possible mechanical combinations and opening the casting stat up would do nothing to make warlock dips worse. The argument is instead the idea that dips in general are just intrinsically bad and everybody obviously knows it, so literally anything that forces more single-class character building is automatically good while anything that aids multiclassing at all is automatically bad.
What it amounts to is the idea that the one or two level dip offends people's sensibilities; they feel like there's no proper story justification for it and if you multiclass at all you need to fo it to the nines because of a fundamentally character-altering event. You can't simply cross-train on useful skills with your party, or accept a lesser warlock bargain from entities keen to earn a service from influential and powerful adventurers in a position to hold up their end immediately rather than nameless nobodies who need years of training before they're useful.
If that's what you want at your table, go for it. But don't pretend you're better or somehow more pure than people who freely allow multiclassing to let players realize their vision for their character, both narratively AND mechanically.
Just for the record, I never said I was against multiclassing, just that it is an issue that should also be considered along with the flexible stat for Warlocks. Both Yurei and Psyren have provided sound reasoning for why it really shouldn't be a concern for Wizard/Warlock combos, and at least I am satisfied by this.
Just for the record, I never said I was against multiclassing, just that it is an issue that should also be considered along with the flexible stat for Warlocks. Both Yurei and Psyren have provided sound reasoning for why it really shouldn't be a concern for Wizard/Warlock combos, and at least I am satisfied by this.
If someone could explain why Sorlock is so evil aside from Coffeelock, I’d appreciate it. And what’s so bad about a Warlock dip on a Paladin. A dip for Paladin gives them maybe one or two extra 1st level smites a day, and Sorlock suffers the same progression setback as Wizards. The only examples of “abuse” of a dip for either comes from a Sorcerer feature which I think they’re already patching in 1D&D or a specific Warlock subclass feature for Paladins (Hex Warrior). Even if we weren’t getting a system overhaul fairly soon, one is a case of making an errata to cover the interaction, and the other is honestly just a case of live and learn on subclass features. Yes, Paladins and gish Bards can dip Warlock to be slightly less MAD. Considering how many people go on about how unfair and limiting it is that some classes are MAD in the first place, it honestly seems up for debate if that’s even really a bad thing. Is there something else I’m missing here?
I mean, I'm arguing FOR flexible casting (insofar as I understand it) for the warlock but I'm strongly against quick dips for specific abilities. A walking contradiction, I am!
At the risk of reviving an age-old argument, in my experience, the vast majority of people who want to multiclass are optimizers/min-maxers; there are either no or paper-thin narrative reasons for the dip. It's all about rolling the most dice possible.
(Cue all the people VOCIFEROUSLY insisting they're master-class RPers who WOULD NEVER just dip for the dice.)
And to be clear: optimizing or min-maxing is a valid way to play. But it's an approach that, as both player and DM, holds exactly zero interest for me, and I dislike what I've seen IRL where the game tends to go when played with folks who really want to multiclass. Because it's never been about an organic decision or growth for the actual character - and it's certainly not something they've been interested in role-playing out. It's about getting a very specific ability, spell, or trait to move them forward in becoming an invincible superhero.
Which, as I said, if that's your thing: fine. Just not the kind of game I'm interested in playing.
I mean, I'm arguing FOR flexible casting (insofar as I understand it) for the warlock but I'm strongly against quick dips for specific abilities. A walking contradiction, I am!
At the risk of reviving an age-old argument, in my experience, the vast majority of people who want to multiclass are optimizers/min-maxers; there are either no or paper-thin narrative reasons for the dip. It's all about rolling the most dice possible.
(Cue all the people VOCIFEROUSLY insisting they're master-class RPers who WOULD NEVER just dip for the dice.)
And to be clear: optimizing or min-maxing is a valid way to play. But it's an approach that, as both player and DM, holds exactly zero interest for me, and I dislike what I've seen IRL where the game tends to go when played with folks who really want to multiclass. Because it's never been about an organic decision or growth for the actual character - and it's certainly not something they've been interested in role-playing out. It's about getting a very specific ability, spell, or trait to move them forward in becoming an invincible superhero.
Which, as I said, if that's your thing: fine. Just not the kind of game I'm interested in playing.
I think the issue with optimizers/min maxers is that they are less table friendly unless the whole table is in on it. And when the expected balance of a party gets heavily skewed outside the norm it does make the DMs job harder. Unless you are making aggressively bad choices most other styles of play will fall into a pretty narrow range of power in 5e. Heck even the martial/caster divide outside a few standout spells while it exists isn't a vast gulf its a fairly easily cross-able stream. So while I support multi classing I do think steps can be made so that when people multi class it keeps the balance within a certain range. I support people getting something out of optimizing, but lets try to keep it within one standard deviation of power.
That being said I don't think the casting stat is the issue with it but how certain low level features are designed. So go ahead and make it multi stat, though I still think int is more thematic and appropriate stat. But I just don't care if other people can take charisma, i care that people who want it can't take int.
Just for the record, I never said I was against multiclassing, just that it is an issue that should also be considered along with the flexible stat for Warlocks. Both Yurei and Psyren have provided sound reasoning for why it really shouldn't be a concern for Wizard/Warlock combos, and at least I am satisfied by this.
If someone could explain why Sorlock is so evil aside from Coffeelock, I’d appreciate it. And what’s so bad about a Warlock dip on a Paladin. A dip for Paladin gives them maybe one or two extra 1st level smites a day, and Sorlock suffers the same progression setback as Wizards. The only examples of “abuse” of a dip for either comes from a Sorcerer feature which I think they’re already patching in 1D&D or a specific Warlock subclass feature for Paladins (Hex Warrior). Even if we weren’t getting a system overhaul fairly soon, one is a case of making an errata to cover the interaction, and the other is honestly just a case of live and learn on subclass features. Yes, Paladins and gish Bards can dip Warlock to be slightly less MAD. Considering how many people go on about how unfair and limiting it is that some classes are MAD in the first place, it honestly seems up for debate if that’s even really a bad thing. Is there something else I’m missing here?
Sorcerer I never got outside coffee lock and I've never seen anyone try to actually do that in a game. For them the same arguments about why its not a big deal for the wizard applies. Though I have seen many people argue that having consistent cantrip damage on a full caster like a sorcerer is game breaking, not being a hard core optimizer I can say I doubt it, but maybe i am wrong. Bard/paladin I think it was because it was a one level dip that hooked them up so much for classes that were already in the top tier. Both easily S class classes as the youtubers say and a easy one level dip provided a high level of optimization(assuming gish bard). As for MAD being bad, I don't think its necessarily a universal issue. The paladin is still a S tier class with it being MAD. The monk on the other hand is D tier so being MAD really hurts it.
For me the easy fix is make eldritch blast based on class level.(personally I'd make it a cantrip modifier, so at level 5 you could freely modify all your cantrips so they got multiple attacks instead of multiple beams) and id change pact of the blade into a melee version of eldritch blast with maybe one baked in invocation around pact of the blade.
I think the issue with optimizers/min maxers is that they are less table friendly unless the whole table is in on it. And when the expected balance of a party gets heavily skewed outside the norm it does make the DMs job harder.
Well said, and yes. In addition to my own experience being that optimizers/min maxers view RP was tertiary, at best, this is an excellent summation of the issue. If the entire group takes that approach, the DM can adapt. But if it's just one or two out of a group of four or more, it makes DMing much more difficult (and, IMNSHO, play far less enjoyable for the other players).
Honestly, I’m just going to say this for flexible casting stats: there’s no reason only Warlocks should have them if they go for it. I’d say this debate has collectively proven that the description of how every caster uses magic is flexible enough to justify at least two options, particularly with the soft nature of what the mental stats represent. I’m sure everyone here will be shocked to know I prefer each class stick with a single stat, but regardless I don’t see why Warlocks should be the only flexible caster if you go for it.
Just for the record, I never said I was against multiclassing, just that it is an issue that should also be considered along with the flexible stat for Warlocks. Both Yurei and Psyren have provided sound reasoning for why it really shouldn't be a concern for Wizard/Warlock combos, and at least I am satisfied by this.
If someone could explain why Sorlock is so evil aside from Coffeelock, I’d appreciate it. And what’s so bad about a Warlock dip on a Paladin. A dip for Paladin gives them maybe one or two extra 1st level smites a day, and Sorlock suffers the same progression setback as Wizards. The only examples of “abuse” of a dip for either comes from a Sorcerer feature which I think they’re already patching in 1D&D or a specific Warlock subclass feature for Paladins (Hex Warrior). Even if we weren’t getting a system overhaul fairly soon, one is a case of making an errata to cover the interaction, and the other is honestly just a case of live and learn on subclass features. Yes, Paladins and gish Bards can dip Warlock to be slightly less MAD. Considering how many people go on about how unfair and limiting it is that some classes are MAD in the first place, it honestly seems up for debate if that’s even really a bad thing. Is there something else I’m missing here?
Sorcerer I never got outside coffee lock and I've never seen anyone try to actually do that in a game. For them the same arguments about why its not a big deal for the wizard applies. Though I have seen many people argue that having consistent cantrip damage on a full caster like a sorcerer is game breaking, not being a hard core optimizer I can say I doubt it, but maybe i am wrong. Bard/paladin I think it was because it was a one level dip that hooked them up so much for classes that were already in the top tier. Both easily S class classes as the youtubers say and a easy one level dip provided a high level of optimization(assuming gish bard). As for MAD being bad, I don't think its necessarily a universal issue. The paladin is still a S tier class with it being MAD. The monk on the other hand is D tier so being MAD really hurts it.
For me the easy fix is make eldritch blast based on class level.(personally I'd make it a cantrip modifier, so at level 5 you could freely modify all your cantrips so they got multiple attacks instead of multiple beams) and id change pact of the blade into a melee version of eldritch blast with maybe one baked in invocation around pact of the blade.
Really, imo the only instance of Warlocks really being front-loaded is Hexblade; the other 1st level features I’m seeing are minor and/or scale based on Warlock level. Now, Hexblade itself is certainly a bit overdone on 1st level features, but that’s a live and learn design note, not justification for a major alteration of the core class.
And I’m not sure EB alone tips the numbers on cantrip damage much without AB on top of it. Firebolt uses larger die while Chill Touch gives Sorcs a rarely resisted type for ranged attack rolls, and while I’d need to crunch numbers to be sure, I suspect the damage difference between staggered attacks and single burst ones is marginal. AB does widen the disparity, but that also puts the caster a full level of spells behind the curve, so it’s hardly an unalloyed gain.
Just for the record, I never said I was against multiclassing, just that it is an issue that should also be considered along with the flexible stat for Warlocks. Both Yurei and Psyren have provided sound reasoning for why it really shouldn't be a concern for Wizard/Warlock combos, and at least I am satisfied by this.
If someone could explain why Sorlock is so evil aside from Coffeelock, I’d appreciate it. And what’s so bad about a Warlock dip on a Paladin. A dip for Paladin gives them maybe one or two extra 1st level smites a day, and Sorlock suffers the same progression setback as Wizards. The only examples of “abuse” of a dip for either comes from a Sorcerer feature which I think they’re already patching in 1D&D or a specific Warlock subclass feature for Paladins (Hex Warrior). Even if we weren’t getting a system overhaul fairly soon, one is a case of making an errata to cover the interaction, and the other is honestly just a case of live and learn on subclass features. Yes, Paladins and gish Bards can dip Warlock to be slightly less MAD. Considering how many people go on about how unfair and limiting it is that some classes are MAD in the first place, it honestly seems up for debate if that’s even really a bad thing. Is there something else I’m missing here?
I certainly don't think Sorlock or multiclassing is bad, but Coffeelock is a non-starter for me, since it just doesn't work how I interpret the rules. Knowing it is difficult, I would be happier if ridiculous theoretical rules exploits such as the Coffeelock (and its variants) or other unintended, overpowered synergies were made impossible. I'll admit that when I build a character, it is important to me how it functions mechanically, as that is part of the fun for me. However, it would not be fun for me at all if I by some freak occurrence one of my amateurish builds happens to completely overshadow the rest of the characters.
If someone could explain why Sorlock is so evil aside from Coffeelock, I’d appreciate it. And what’s so bad about a Warlock dip on a Paladin.
There's nothing wrong with Sorlock and Lockadin, but come on; forget the last decade, we've been dealing with those Warlock combinations since 3e! If nothing else, aren't you bored?
We have no less than 4 options in core for an effective Cha-primary character and only one for Int. We then got one more, which was not only setting-specific originally, but is a giant pain in the posterior to get allowed at a lot of tables because of perceived flavor clashes with most other settings as well as mechanical clashes with desired magic item availability. And even when you overcome both of those hurdles it turns out it's not really that powerful anyway and most of the 1% of people actually playing it multiclass out.
So yes, I would like a second option in core. Sorlocks and Lockadins don't have to go anywhere, but Wizlocks and Tricklocks would be fun.
I generally don’t multiclass in the first place, so I’m not particularly invested in options. Besides, nothing in the 1st level or two grabs me as worth dipping Warlock on Wizard or Artificer in the first place. If I want to go all Wizard of the left-handed path or Percival Fredrickstein Von Musel Klossowski de Rolo III, I’ll take an appropriate feat and/or just work that from roleplay and backstory (which, notably, is what was actually done for Percy). Dips are hardly needed for characterization; all the pantheons certainly know characterization can be quite absent from dips.
Edit: Oh, you meant Arcane Trickster for the second one. Still, see above. If I want to go Faustian while playing another class, I’d rather just roleplay it than jump through any mechanical hoops.
I'd say you are the one cherry picking examples and not looking at the over arching trend but you don't even really have examples past you don't think intelligence fits therefore charisma. Like 80% of the class description is clearly intelligence focused so I'd say that is the over arching trend you seem hellbent on ignoring.
I love this point. People seem obsessed with making intelligence a super narrow stat of just book learning while at the same time turning charisma into some god stat that does everything.
I could take or leave Wis-based Warlocks. If WotC is too hesitant about free choice of all three mental stats, that's the one I'd give up without hesitation.
But I really don't want to go another 10 years with only one Int-based 9th-level caster in the entire game. Let Warlocks be both.
Psyren, sorry if you feel like I was singling you out as against Charisma as a Warlock casting stat, but you did say in a previous post (which I quoted), "No, it doesn't make sense to use a different score. Their power comes from knowledge." Maybe you didn't mean for that statement to sound as sweeping as it did to me, and I certainly may have forgotten other points you have made through the discussion, so yet again I am sorry if I misrepresented your stance.
I hope (but am not entirely sure) that the Study Action really will be something that boosts the usefulness of Intelligence in actual play, and thus affect how people distribute their ability scores.
Crzyhawk, thank you for your measured response. The issue of primary ability scores and multiclassing is a difficult one. I'd certainly agree that the abundance of Charisma-based classes makes some combinations too easy and abusable. However, I am wary that Warlock multiclassing with the Wizard in particular, may have problems since it seems very many people are of the opinion that the latter is already the most powerful class in the game without that possible advantage. I'm not deeply into theorycrafting, so this fear may be unfounded, and I hope that it is.
Wizard/warlock multiclassing won't cause any real problems. A wizard's strength comes purely from their spell progression; even a single level of warlock dilutes that. The warlock's features don't mesh with the wizard the same way they do with sorcerer or paladin. The builds would be good, but they wouldn't be the Munchkin Nonsense everybody's scared of.
And even if they were, who cares. Let munchkins munch in their own games. Saying "warlocks all have to be oblivious morons because multiclassing is bad!" is myopic and pointless. If you just hate multiclassing that much, ban it at your tables and tell players they'll play completely unmodified, worn-out, overplayed and annoying fantasy tropes whether they like it or not.
Please do not contact or message me.
Thanks for the response Yurei, point taken.
I was responding to The_Ace_Of_Rogues, who was ruling out Int entirely as a casting stat for Warlocks; that was the context of their "ergo, it makes sense to use a different score."
If people want to dump Int, so what? Let them, it's their character. All WotC needs to do is create class options that make someone want to try a character that focuses on any stat, save maybe Con which has no skills tied to it.
A straight classed wizard is more powerful than any multiclass combination. Creating more viable multiclass options for wizard is a good thing because it means more variety and less raw power.
With that said, whether they reintroduce Intlocks or not, Blade Pact needs to be toned down from its UA7 incarnation.
There are valid reasons for banning (or limiting) multiclassing, you know. It's not always because the DM hates fun.
Absolutely there are. It's not why anyone does it, though. Even in this thread, people are arguing against flexible casting because it enables more multiclassing, on the assumption that multiclassing is just intrinsically bad and only of value/interest to munchkins. And the further assumption that munchkins are also intrinsically bad and need to be prevented from doing their thing as much as possible.
I've seen almost no arguments focusing on specific reasons broader multiclassing compatibility is bad for balance. Au contraire, it's been stated and largely borne out that Charisma focus on the warlock already enabled the most egregious possible mechanical combinations and opening the casting stat up would do nothing to make warlock dips worse. The argument is instead the idea that dips in general are just intrinsically bad and everybody obviously knows it, so literally anything that forces more single-class character building is automatically good while anything that aids multiclassing at all is automatically bad.
What it amounts to is the idea that the one or two level dip offends people's sensibilities; they feel like there's no proper story justification for it and if you multiclass at all you need to fo it to the nines because of a fundamentally character-altering event. You can't simply cross-train on useful skills with your party, or accept a lesser warlock bargain from entities keen to earn a service from influential and powerful adventurers in a position to hold up their end immediately rather than nameless nobodies who need years of training before they're useful.
If that's what you want at your table, go for it. But don't pretend you're better or somehow more pure than people who freely allow multiclassing to let players realize their vision for their character, both narratively AND mechanically.
Please do not contact or message me.
Just for the record, I never said I was against multiclassing, just that it is an issue that should also be considered along with the flexible stat for Warlocks. Both Yurei and Psyren have provided sound reasoning for why it really shouldn't be a concern for Wizard/Warlock combos, and at least I am satisfied by this.
If someone could explain why Sorlock is so evil aside from Coffeelock, I’d appreciate it. And what’s so bad about a Warlock dip on a Paladin. A dip for Paladin gives them maybe one or two extra 1st level smites a day, and Sorlock suffers the same progression setback as Wizards. The only examples of “abuse” of a dip for either comes from a Sorcerer feature which I think they’re already patching in 1D&D or a specific Warlock subclass feature for Paladins (Hex Warrior). Even if we weren’t getting a system overhaul fairly soon, one is a case of making an errata to cover the interaction, and the other is honestly just a case of live and learn on subclass features. Yes, Paladins and gish Bards can dip Warlock to be slightly less MAD. Considering how many people go on about how unfair and limiting it is that some classes are MAD in the first place, it honestly seems up for debate if that’s even really a bad thing. Is there something else I’m missing here?
I mean, I'm arguing FOR flexible casting (insofar as I understand it) for the warlock but I'm strongly against quick dips for specific abilities. A walking contradiction, I am!
At the risk of reviving an age-old argument, in my experience, the vast majority of people who want to multiclass are optimizers/min-maxers; there are either no or paper-thin narrative reasons for the dip. It's all about rolling the most dice possible.
(Cue all the people VOCIFEROUSLY insisting they're master-class RPers who WOULD NEVER just dip for the dice.)
And to be clear: optimizing or min-maxing is a valid way to play. But it's an approach that, as both player and DM, holds exactly zero interest for me, and I dislike what I've seen IRL where the game tends to go when played with folks who really want to multiclass. Because it's never been about an organic decision or growth for the actual character - and it's certainly not something they've been interested in role-playing out. It's about getting a very specific ability, spell, or trait to move them forward in becoming an invincible superhero.
Which, as I said, if that's your thing: fine. Just not the kind of game I'm interested in playing.
I think the issue with optimizers/min maxers is that they are less table friendly unless the whole table is in on it. And when the expected balance of a party gets heavily skewed outside the norm it does make the DMs job harder. Unless you are making aggressively bad choices most other styles of play will fall into a pretty narrow range of power in 5e. Heck even the martial/caster divide outside a few standout spells while it exists isn't a vast gulf its a fairly easily cross-able stream. So while I support multi classing I do think steps can be made so that when people multi class it keeps the balance within a certain range. I support people getting something out of optimizing, but lets try to keep it within one standard deviation of power.
That being said I don't think the casting stat is the issue with it but how certain low level features are designed. So go ahead and make it multi stat, though I still think int is more thematic and appropriate stat. But I just don't care if other people can take charisma, i care that people who want it can't take int.
Sorcerer I never got outside coffee lock and I've never seen anyone try to actually do that in a game. For them the same arguments about why its not a big deal for the wizard applies. Though I have seen many people argue that having consistent cantrip damage on a full caster like a sorcerer is game breaking, not being a hard core optimizer I can say I doubt it, but maybe i am wrong. Bard/paladin I think it was because it was a one level dip that hooked them up so much for classes that were already in the top tier. Both easily S class classes as the youtubers say and a easy one level dip provided a high level of optimization(assuming gish bard). As for MAD being bad, I don't think its necessarily a universal issue. The paladin is still a S tier class with it being MAD. The monk on the other hand is D tier so being MAD really hurts it.
For me the easy fix is make eldritch blast based on class level.(personally I'd make it a cantrip modifier, so at level 5 you could freely modify all your cantrips so they got multiple attacks instead of multiple beams) and id change pact of the blade into a melee version of eldritch blast with maybe one baked in invocation around pact of the blade.
Well said, and yes. In addition to my own experience being that optimizers/min maxers view RP was tertiary, at best, this is an excellent summation of the issue. If the entire group takes that approach, the DM can adapt. But if it's just one or two out of a group of four or more, it makes DMing much more difficult (and, IMNSHO, play far less enjoyable for the other players).
Honestly, I’m just going to say this for flexible casting stats: there’s no reason only Warlocks should have them if they go for it. I’d say this debate has collectively proven that the description of how every caster uses magic is flexible enough to justify at least two options, particularly with the soft nature of what the mental stats represent. I’m sure everyone here will be shocked to know I prefer each class stick with a single stat, but regardless I don’t see why Warlocks should be the only flexible caster if you go for it.
Really, imo the only instance of Warlocks really being front-loaded is Hexblade; the other 1st level features I’m seeing are minor and/or scale based on Warlock level. Now, Hexblade itself is certainly a bit overdone on 1st level features, but that’s a live and learn design note, not justification for a major alteration of the core class.
And I’m not sure EB alone tips the numbers on cantrip damage much without AB on top of it. Firebolt uses larger die while Chill Touch gives Sorcs a rarely resisted type for ranged attack rolls, and while I’d need to crunch numbers to be sure, I suspect the damage difference between staggered attacks and single burst ones is marginal. AB does widen the disparity, but that also puts the caster a full level of spells behind the curve, so it’s hardly an unalloyed gain.
I certainly don't think Sorlock or multiclassing is bad, but Coffeelock is a non-starter for me, since it just doesn't work how I interpret the rules. Knowing it is difficult, I would be happier if ridiculous theoretical rules exploits such as the Coffeelock (and its variants) or other unintended, overpowered synergies were made impossible. I'll admit that when I build a character, it is important to me how it functions mechanically, as that is part of the fun for me. However, it would not be fun for me at all if I by some freak occurrence one of my amateurish builds happens to completely overshadow the rest of the characters.
There's nothing wrong with Sorlock and Lockadin, but come on; forget the last decade, we've been dealing with those Warlock combinations since 3e! If nothing else, aren't you bored?
We have no less than 4 options in core for an effective Cha-primary character and only one for Int. We then got one more, which was not only setting-specific originally, but is a giant pain in the posterior to get allowed at a lot of tables because of perceived flavor clashes with most other settings as well as mechanical clashes with desired magic item availability. And even when you overcome both of those hurdles it turns out it's not really that powerful anyway and most of the 1% of people actually playing it multiclass out.
So yes, I would like a second option in core. Sorlocks and Lockadins don't have to go anywhere, but Wizlocks and Tricklocks would be fun.
I generally don’t multiclass in the first place, so I’m not particularly invested in options. Besides, nothing in the 1st level or two grabs me as worth dipping Warlock on Wizard or Artificer in the first place. If I want to go all Wizard of the left-handed path or Percival Fredrickstein Von Musel Klossowski de Rolo III, I’ll take an appropriate feat and/or just work that from roleplay and backstory (which, notably, is what was actually done for Percy). Dips are hardly needed for characterization; all the pantheons certainly know characterization can be quite absent from dips.
Edit: Oh, you meant Arcane Trickster for the second one. Still, see above. If I want to go Faustian while playing another class, I’d rather just roleplay it than jump through any mechanical hoops.