Pact of the Blade is already an Invocation, and if it only ever gets two attacks then no, it shouldn't require a second whole-ass invocation tax just to barely keep pace with Agonizing Doink.
The key problem is that there are no magic items that boost the damage of eldritch blast, and pretty much every magic weapon in the book boosts weapon damage. A level 11 blastlock using eldritch blast and hex does 3d10+3d6+15 (42) damage per round, a bladelock (lifedrinker, thirsting blade) using a greatsword and hex does 12d6+15 (57) + 3E -- which is okay until he's using a flame tongue and is doing 18d6+15 (78). Plus of course his 3 uses per short rest of eldritch smite for 6d8 damage.
There's a reason getting more than two attacks is unique to the fighter.
Honestly not sure if that works on EB; it doesn't have an M component.
I know that technically RAW that you can’t use a focus to cast a spell that doesn’t have an M component, but honestly any DM that would actually forbid it is not a DM I would wish to play with.
I know that technically RAW that you can’t use a focus to cast a spell that doesn’t have an M component, but honestly any DM that would actually forbid it is not a DM I would wish to play with.
The other problem is that it adds to only one damage roll, and thus it doesn't get multiplied for having multiple beams.
I know that technically RAW that you can’t use a focus to cast a spell that doesn’t have an M component, but honestly any DM that would actually forbid it is not a DM I would wish to play with.
The other problem is that it adds to only one damage roll, and thus it doesn't get multiplied for having multiple beams.
I don't think there was ever true agreement, really. I know I just got tired of being accused of trying to run everyone else's tables and characters because I felt a class who is explicitly defined by a deal made by one means or another generally fits CHA more than INT, and that classes should have boundaries and fixed points rather than being "just do whatever".
And don't @ me over this, I have no interest in rehashing the same argument yet again. As I said, I'm tired of going over it.
Not all pacts are deals. That is the conflation you keep wrongly making. The PHB even gives multiple examples:
"Sometimes a traveler in the wilds comes to a strangely beautiful tower, meets its fey lord or lady, and stumbles into a pact without being fully aware of it."
"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."
"The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it."
You don't have to be a wheeling and dealing salesman or negotiator to be a Warlock; that is such an unnecessary limitation on what the class can be.
Sure but you still have to be daring and brash (which is CHA), to seek out & read strange forbidden mysterious tomes and try to use the secrets within to draw power from an eldritch being who could squash you like a bug.
You not a careful, studious, methodological academic like an Artificer or Wizard.
daring and brash is chaotic alignment. i'll admit that 'confidence' is right in the charisma description, but 'easily bored' or 'sloppy' is not. an example of lawful high-CHA would be the trope of the tall, prim, narrow-eyed secondary anime guy as a secretary of some sort with the clipboard and always pushing their small eyeglasses back up the bridge of their nose, beloved by many but fending off all offers that are not strictly business related. a more neutral high-CHA might be a merchant, often dealing but never pulling [social] levers just to see what happens.
also, plenty of artificers are played as lego-master tornadoes. i think it's a failed wisdom check (not even low wisdom, necessarily) that leads someone to talk to the disembodied voices past the caution tape, the nailed boards, the locks, and the pleading ghosts of weaker-willed mages in the library's restricted section.
However, the entire point of the Warlock is that you aren’t using power you’ve methodically conducted independent studies to acquire, as with a Wizard or Artificer. You have made contact with a being of power and- generally speaking because casting stats are general concepts- entered into a transactional relationship to ensure continued access to and development of the power. Which, despite certain strawman assertions to the contrary, does not compel anyone to play a village idiot. It’s just a matter of the fact that when taken as an archetype, the concepts for the class do not favor the interpretation that your proficiency with magic comes from rigorous study and research; they come from your relationship with another being and CHA is the stat most commonly associated with relationships. And not just the horny kind, so let’s please not invoke that strawman again either.
You aren't using your powers through the power of conning people either. It never describes how magic is powered for well any class.But virtually the entire class description revolves around intelligence, so i am going with it actually what does power your magic at least it would be far far far more likely to than charisma.
And now we've gone from strawmanning CHA as horny to strawmanning it as a con man. Do Paladins con people? Or Sorcerers? If you're going to attack the casting stat, please try to come up with a better argument than "CHA only means this one single thing and nothing else and it doesn't fit my headcanon of what a Warlock is". And before you try and turn this around on me pigeonholing INT, let me be clear. INT covers areas such as recall, critical thinking, problem solving, and suchlike. It's multifaceted, but just reading stuff from a book is not a notable exercise in INT, anymore than plagiarizing someone else's work is.
I'll do that right after you stop strawmaning intelligence. Which is what what your weird it covers a bunch of things, just not the things that make sense when it comes to magic crap does. It is the same thing as relegating charisma to conning, persuasion, and intimidation. Whatever you want to call charisma there is 0 evidence it powers warlock spells. Force of personality whatever you want to call it there is nothing and i mean nothing in the class description that would indicate that would impact their magic at all. But if you are given some arcane abilities I'd say the ability that helps you control that most logically would be the stat tied to arcana, not the stat tied to con, persuasion etc. These are not super powers, they are expressly ARCANE secrets, forbidden lore. I wonder what skill and associated stat would help with that. Oh yeah charisma, that is what powers my forbidden knowledge and arcane secrets, charisma.
Pact magic, "Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells" yup research my way with charisma. Invocations, In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed eldritch invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability.Yup I studied my way through occult secrets with charisma. Even the more neutral mystic arcanum "your patron bestows upon you a magical secret called an arcanum." why would i think using a magical secret comes from charisma.
Charisma is the mechanically better stat but its not the stat the makes sense for warlock, its not even close.
I love how everybody's new favorite way to tell the whole board nothing I say matters at all is "hyperbole! Hyperbole!" As if my penchant for being colorful instead of boring in my descriptions somehow makes everything I say automatically wrong. I could just as easily say "your words are lukewarm and boring thus you're not worth paying attention to", and I'd be just as wrong as y'all always are with the constant accusations of High Per Bowl Yee
Also good job on proving my point. You are conclusively demonstrating an utter, utter disconnect between "Rules" and "Fluff". You didn't even recognize that I was working with the Invocation system as the only actual source of "esoteric tricks, powers, and abilities". Shadow sorcery? Divine sorcery? Every podunk two-cow farming village in D&D has half a dozen sorcerers in it. Bog-standard spellcasting is everywhere. And artificer? Really? The hell does the artificer chassis have to do with occultism and esoteric secrets? The artificer is specifically about inventiveness and mastery of 'secrets' the world already knows. It's an arcane engineer mastering the science of magic, not an occultist learning secrets and using powers no one can explain or understand.
Yes, if you're willing to attach any set of fluff to any rules framework with an absolute lack of regard for whether that fluff and that framework actually fit together, you can play a canny occultist as any class you want. You could play it as a fighter using Secret Sword Techniques it learned from the Outer Planes to....do the exact same thing every other fighter does. You could play it as a barbarian who learned the secrets of the universe, only to discover the secrets of the universe made them really angry. You could play them as a rogue who traded their hands to the Robot Devil in exchange for hands that were really good at rogue shit. That doesn't mean you're actually playing a canny, clever occultist - it just means you don't care what story you're actually telling so long as you're allowed to dress it up in whatever lame surface-level Halloween costume floats your boat.
People keep saying you use too much hyperbole because you do. Either it’s hyperbole when you called the game “dogsh!t” or you like dogsh!t. There is no in between. If your stance is that invocations are special things that no other magic user can replicate and can be given the occultist fluff, then infusions are equally as usable for the occultist fluff. Actually since the occult often has physical objects attached to it I would argue a reflavored Artificer has more occult RP interactions than Warlock. Invocations themselves mostly mimic other spells. Infusions do things no spells do, and create items no spell can replicate.
Yes yes, the classic 2014 Pact Magic Enjoyer refrain of "we want ALL the spellpower of the wizard, and we want it ALL to come back on a short rest, and we want it to ALWAYS cast at maximum level, and we want armor/weapon proficiencies and a d8 hit die and Invocations and Pact boons too, and now we're somehow upset when that means super unfun limitations on slot count that basically mean we don't have spellcasting! We're unwilling to accept ANY reasonable limitation whatsoever on Pact Magic because then we couldn't abuse free zero-minute short rests to outperform every other spellcasting class in the game!"
Half-casting was, is, and always will be a fundamentally better framework than 2014 Pact Magic.
You can barely play your Occultist Warlock as a half caster since all your invocations are used for MA. And again if you separate MA from invocations you have to drastically lower the number of Invocations.
The amount of work they'd have to do to make Chain equivalent to Blade and Tome would cause the playerbase to erupt in infinite unstoppable nerdrage. After all, look at the sheer, mindless fury people are spewing everywhere when they just tried to make Blade equivalent to Tome.
They didn’t make Blade equal to Tome, they made it too good and then gave tome a spell slot to make it equal to Blade. It’s not even a lot of work to make Chain equal. First fix Blade and bring it back down to the appropriate power level. Then give Chain the 20 minutes of thought to make it equal to the others. Honestly all chain is missing is a way to make your familiar a proper pet.
And that's a dumb stance to take. Yes, a well built Blade warlock absolutely should be able to keep up damage-wise with the strongest martial classes. Because the Blade warlock has weaker armor, a weaker hit die, and zero defensive/melee-supportive class features outside taking Invocations or using its two whole spells per day to patch up its weaknesses for one single fight per spell. if the Blade warlock also deals drastically less damage, the way idiots keep demanding it does, then there is zero reason whatsoever to take it. And no, demanding that the warlock give up EVERY Invocation slot to make Blade Pact only just slightly weaker than a fighter is by just ****in' existing is not "balance".
Blade Pact by itself should be able to keep up reasonably well with the damage of a melee-focused character, with Invocations making them better at what they do. Not "you need to take Blade Pact and then eight other Invocations just to get to slightly below the offensive level of a basic fighter using absolutely no resources whatsoever while having less than half the defensive/survival potential and no ability to address that because your two whole spell slots a day are forcibly utilized to patch up your weak offense." No other Pact Boon is nonfunctional until you take half a dozen other Invocations, Blade Pact does NOT merit being crippled until well into Tier 3.
This is dumb stance to take. You shouldn’t be able to stand next to Fighter doing what it does and then drop a 9th level spell. What kind of balance is that. I don’t care is you have lower AC and HP. You still have Spells. Also I’m not one of the people who want nerf Blade back to the 2014 version. I want Blade to give one attack using Cha. Thirsting Blade to give two attacks, and Lifedrinker to move to 12th and deal 1d12 damage. That lines up especially since it can be further modified with spells. It also blocks the Paladin from wanting the 1 level dip.
And now we've gone from strawmanning CHA as horny to strawmanning it as a con man. Do Paladins con people? Or Sorcerers? If you're going to attack the casting stat, please try to come up with a better argument than "CHA only means this one single thing and nothing else and it doesn't fit my headcanon of what a Warlock is". And before you try and turn this around on me pigeonholing INT, let me be clear. INT covers areas such as recall, critical thinking, problem solving, and suchlike. It's multifaceted, but just reading stuff from a book is not a notable exercise in INT, anymore than plagiarizing someone else's work is.
Cha isn't one of those things, it's ALL of them. If you have high Cha, you're invariably at least decent at seducing and conning and browbeating people. If you want to roleplay an individual who seeks shortcuts to power who happens to be bad at those things, or better yet seeks it out because they're bad at those things, the 2014 Warlock is of no help to you and neither is any other class. But that's an archetype many of us want to play, which an Intlock would enable.
The core concept of the warlock is that they have a bargain. Bargaining skill is charisma in 5e. Warlocks have been charisma casters since they were introduced in 3.x
I don't personally care what casting stat they use, they just need to not have broken mechanics.
I don't think there was ever true agreement, really. I know I just got tired of being accused of trying to run everyone else's tables and characters because I felt a class who is explicitly defined by a deal made by one means or another generally fits CHA more than INT, and that classes should have boundaries and fixed points rather than being "just do whatever".
And don't @ me over this, I have no interest in rehashing the same argument yet again. As I said, I'm tired of going over it.
Not all pacts are deals. That is the conflation you keep wrongly making. The PHB even gives multiple examples:
"Sometimes a traveler in the wilds comes to a strangely beautiful tower, meets its fey lord or lady, and stumbles into a pact without being fully aware of it."
"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."
"The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it."
You don't have to be a wheeling and dealing salesman or negotiator to be a Warlock; that is such an unnecessary limitation on what the class can be.
Sure but you still have to be daring and brash (which is CHA), to seek out & read strange forbidden mysterious tomes and try to use the secrets within to draw power from an eldritch being who could squash you like a bug.
You not a careful, studious, methodological academic like an Artificer or Wizard.
daring and brash is chaotic alignment. i'll admit that 'confidence' is right in the charisma description, but 'easily bored' or 'sloppy' is not. an example of lawful high-CHA would be the trope of the tall, prim, narrow-eyed secondary anime guy as a secretary of some sort with the clipboard and always pushing their small eyeglasses back up the bridge of their nose, beloved by many but fending off all offers that are not strictly business related. a more neutral high-CHA might be a merchant, often dealing but never pulling [social] levers just to see what happens.
also, plenty of artificers are played as lego-master tornadoes. i think it's a failed wisdom check (not even low wisdom, necessarily) that leads someone to talk to the disembodied voices past the caution tape, the nailed boards, the locks, and the pleading ghosts of weaker-willed mages in the library's restricted section.
However, the entire point of the Warlock is that you aren’t using power you’ve methodically conducted independent studies to acquire, as with a Wizard or Artificer. You have made contact with a being of power and- generally speaking because casting stats are general concepts- entered into a transactional relationship to ensure continued access to and development of the power. Which, despite certain strawman assertions to the contrary, does not compel anyone to play a village idiot. It’s just a matter of the fact that when taken as an archetype, the concepts for the class do not favor the interpretation that your proficiency with magic comes from rigorous study and research; they come from your relationship with another being and CHA is the stat most commonly associated with relationships. And not just the horny kind, so let’s please not invoke that strawman again either.
You aren't using your powers through the power of conning people either. It never describes how magic is powered for well any class.But virtually the entire class description revolves around intelligence, so i am going with it actually what does power your magic at least it would be far far far more likely to than charisma.
And now we've gone from strawmanning CHA as horny to strawmanning it as a con man. Do Paladins con people? Or Sorcerers? If you're going to attack the casting stat, please try to come up with a better argument than "CHA only means this one single thing and nothing else and it doesn't fit my headcanon of what a Warlock is". And before you try and turn this around on me pigeonholing INT, let me be clear. INT covers areas such as recall, critical thinking, problem solving, and suchlike. It's multifaceted, but just reading stuff from a book is not a notable exercise in INT, anymore than plagiarizing someone else's work is.
I'll do that right after you stop strawmaning intelligence. Which is what what your weird it covers a bunch of things, just not the things that make sense when it comes to magic crap does. It is the same thing as relegating charisma to conning, persuasion, and intimidation. Whatever you want to call charisma there is 0 evidence it powers warlock spells. Force of personality whatever you want to call it there is nothing and i mean nothing in the class description that would indicate that would impact their magic at all. But if you are given some arcane abilities I'd say the ability that helps you control that most logically would be the stat tied to arcana, not the stat tied to con, persuasion etc. These are not super powers, they are expressly ARCANE secrets, forbidden lore. I wonder what skill and associated stat would help with that. Oh yeah charisma, that is what powers my forbidden knowledge and arcane secrets, charisma.
Pact magic, "Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells" yup research my way with charisma. Invocations, In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed eldritch invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability.Yup I studied my way through occult secrets with charisma. Even the more neutral mystic arcanum "your patron bestows upon you a magical secret called an arcanum." why would i think using a magical secret comes from charisma.
Charisma is the mechanically better stat but its not the stat the makes sense for warlock, its not even close.
Except the whole point of your study and research is to find someone else who actually worked out the mechanics of whatever effect you're looking to achieve, and you're just following the instructions they left behind. And again, literally the first sentence describing the Warlock class says "A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being." Also, regarding the description and role of looking stuff up "Once a pact is made, a warlock’s thirst for knowledge and power can’t be slaked with mere study and research." If you were content with doing your own research, you'd be a Wizard. The thing about "oh, I'm a great intellectual because I looked up a ritual to gain power" is that what you've described is the equivalent of a cosmic vending machine, to borrow from Jim Butcher. You meet X, Y, and Z requirements and out drops a nice refreshing can of arcane power. Also, from your own quote, your Pact Magic comes at least as much from your Patron as from your own studies. It literally says "Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells." Oh yes, you absolutely became a caster by your own works and with absolute no inside information or shortcuts shown to you by someone else. You know what, let's just count how many features reference the Patron vs how many reference research:
Pact Magic
Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells.
Patron: 1 Research: 1
Eldritch Invocations
In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed eldritch invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability.
Patron: 1 Research: 2
Pact Boon
At 3rd level, your otherworldly patron bestows a gift upon you for your loyal service.
Patron: 2 Research: 2
Mystic Arcanum
At 11th level, your patron bestows upon you a magical secret called an arcanum
Patron 3: Research: 2
Eldritch Master
At 20th level, you can draw on your inner reserve of mystical power while entreating your patron to regain expended spell slots.
Patron: 4 Research: 2
And would you look at that; of the five core class features, 4 of them reference the patron as a source of the feature, while only two reference your studies.
As I've said before, if you want to play an erudite Warlock who's always poring over old tomes, go for it. Unless you will only play with an absolutely optimized stat array, there's nothing stopping you from having a solid INT score. But there's no reason that Warlocks specifically deserve to have multiple choice casting stats, and both the general archetype of the class and the various descriptions printed in the book emphasize the relationship dynamic between Warlock and Patron over studies. Which does not mean that you personally are locked into that singular path, but given that it's highly unlikely they're going to toss out the class demarcations provided by single fixed casting stats for each class, it does mean that the broad theme of the class supports CHA over INT.
The core concept of the warlock is that they have a bargain. Bargaining skill is charisma in 5e. Warlocks have been charisma casters since they were introduced in 3.x
I don't personally care what casting stat they use, they just need to not have broken mechanics.
Woo, and that is tied to how they use magic how? The descriptions of where their power comes from uses descriptive text that fits intelligence. And yes it was charisma before, that does not mean it was the right stat for it. It is a different class now anyways. The logic seems to me I made a deal once in my life therefore charisma fuels my being. Sure every other part of my description talks about studying and researching. But one time in my life I made a deal, so who cares about the day to day study and research.
The core concept of the warlock is that they have a bargain. Bargaining skill is charisma in 5e. Warlocks have been charisma casters since they were introduced in 3.x
I don't personally care what casting stat they use, they just need to not have broken mechanics.
Woo, and that is tied to how they use magic how? The descriptions of where their power comes from uses descriptive text that fits intelligence. And yes it was charisma before, that does not mean it was the right stat for it. It is a different class now anyways. The logic seems to me I made a deal once in my life therefore charisma fuels my being. Sure every other part of my description talks about studying and researching. But one time in my life I made a deal, so who cares about the day to day study and research.
See above regarding the ratio study to patron references in the class features.
Another issue with "Always CHA, never anything but CHA ever" for warlocks is that it also contradicts a couple of other common warlock archetypes.
The Tricked: Warlocks aren't always the one who initiates the pact. Many warlock characters, heck even Wyll from BG3, get tricked into the pact by the more cunning and charismatic devil or fey creature. In this form, the warlock is more or less a slave to their patron, working with scraps of power gifted to them because it makes them useful to the patron. They can choose to use this power for their own aims in between doing the patron's will, but they're usually looking for a way out of the pact to save their soul. There's really no reason the warlock must be charismatic for this to work. In fact, one would expect a charismatic warlock to be better at bargaining with a devil so they don't get such a raw deal.
This style of warlock doesn't really lend itself to any of the three stats, but a weak argument could be made for any of them. INT, because the warlock has to memorize the spells and rituals taught to them by their patron to invoke the patron's power, WIS because you're invoking the power of another entity and that requires a level of intuitive understanding of your patron similar to a cleric with their god or a druid with nature, or CHA if that power was somehow infused into the warlock's being and they access it like a sorcerer, does (though I am personally pro-CON Sorcerer, so even that argument feels shaky to me).
The Pariah: Not all warlocks become charismatic cult leaders. A lot of them end up the cult followers. People who've been rejected by society because they don't quite fit in. The warlock, in this case, was a lonely, uncharismatic individual who found a means of seeking out power for themselves through dangerous channels. Perhaps they were shown the secrets to accessing that power through a cult leader, or maybe something on the other side of the veil reached out to manipulate them into doing their bidding.
This one would require the player to ignore that their warlock has a smile that can light up a room and that people are naturally drawn to their confidence, as that all completely goes against the character concept. Beyond it very much not warranting CHA it's hard to say if INT or WIS would be the preferred stat. I'd likely lean toward INT if it's a situation of an otherworldly magical tutor earning the warlock's trust by showing them secrets beyond the veil, but WIS could work too if it's more of an "I am befriending this demon" situation where the patron isn't necessarily antagonistic to the warlock but genuinely wants to help.
As I've said before, if you want to play an erudite Warlock who's always poring over old tomes, go for it.
I. CAN'T.
People like you will never allow it.
Even if you weren't going to scorn, denigrate, and bar from the table anyone who wants to play a canny occultist instead of an oblivious horny moron, the opportunity cost for taking a high Intelligence score halfway cripples this class. You can maybe - MAYBE - squeak a 14 without leaving yourself unable to warlock effectively, and no one in the history of D&D has ever (seriously) said "I have an Intelligence of 14, I know what I'm doing". The "ten is an average stat!" thing is utter tripe and everybody knows it. It's factually untrue and perpetuating it is ******* stupid. The actual "Average" stat at level one is 12.5 (72-point Standard Array, +3 for species/background adjustment, divided by six scores: 12.5), and the reality is that any score lower than 14 generally may as well be an 8. Or a 6. 14 is the bare minimum for basic competence in a given area, it is not some hugely amazeballs Super Number just because ****in' commoners don't get above 10. Commoners don't count for averages. They've never counted for averages. If you're comparing your Adventurer to a 4hp sack of meat confetti, you're doing it wrong.
But there's no reason that Warlocks specifically deserve to have multiple choice casting stats, and both the general archetype of the class and the various descriptions printed in the book emphasize the relationship dynamic between Warlock and Patron over studies. Which does not mean that you personally are locked into that singular path, but given that it's highly unlikely they're going to toss out the class demarcations provided by single fixed casting stats for each class, it does mean that the broad theme of the class supports CHA over INT.
Why do you hate Intelligence so much?
Why does Charisma deserve four entire classes, plus more than half a dozen subclasses, while players who want an "I know what I'm doing" level intelligence score get ONE class and TWO subclasses - and both subclasses are generally told "leave your Intelligence at 8 and just take spells that don't care about your casting mod!" The game's fundamental rules structure makes it agonizingly clear that Horny > Smart, and some people are fed up to ******* here with it.
I don't care what 3.x did. I don't care that everybody else thinks every last single stupid ******* warlock is an oblivious moron that stumble****ed their way into a catastrophically bad deal and is basically owned outright by their patron because they're so unbelievably stupid they don't even know what a "deal" is, let alone possess the capacity to tell a good one from a bad one. I care that the structure of the game says every single character with an Intelligence score higher than 8 needs to be an archetropal Weak Snobby Wizard.
I have HAD IT with this game, and every goddamn player in it, telling me that intelligence and mental acuity is actively detrimental and undesireable in an Adventurer.
Having a high CHA doesn't make you automatically likeable; that's why both Persuasion and Deception are their own skills. Without the skills, then you can have decent "stage presence" to attract attention, but aren't necessarily going to know what to say, how to say it, or how to control your body language to make people receptive to it.
The core concept of the warlock is that they have a bargain. Bargaining skill is charisma in 5e. Warlocks have been charisma casters since they were introduced in 3.x
I don't personally care what casting stat they use, they just need to not have broken mechanics.
I'm totally fine with them keeping Charisma too. I want both stats as options for Warlock. (Not on the same character obviously.)
Having a high CHA doesn't make you automatically likeable; that's why both Persuasion and Deception are their own skills. Without the skills, then you can have decent "stage presence" to attract attention, but aren't necessarily going to know what to say, how to say it, or how to control your body language to make people receptive to it.
Thanks to bounded accuracy this is codswallop. Somebody who starts the game skilled at Persuasion but average Charisma is exactly as good at persuasion as somebody with no training in Persuasion and good Charisma, mathematically.
The core concept of the warlock is that they have a bargain. Bargaining skill is charisma in 5e. Warlocks have been charisma casters since they were introduced in 3.x
I don't personally care what casting stat they use, they just need to not have broken mechanics.
if you're bargaining, wouldn't you need wisdom for insight into the other party's motives? otherwise how do you know if you passed your persuasion check or if you were just played like the proverbial golden fiddle? one 'failed' wisdom check in the face of great power on offer doesn't indicate wisdom dump stat any more than one 'successful' deal indicates "a commanding presence" indicative of high charisma.
I'm fine with CHA casting if INT is an option, but it does take some mental adjustment to reckon. mostly I'm hoping against hope for some new subclasses in 2024 that lean in on deals, trading, and collecting: why should wizards and their pokeball spellbooks get all the scavenger hunt fun?
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!
The core concept of the warlock is that they have a bargain. Bargaining skill is charisma in 5e. Warlocks have been charisma casters since they were introduced in 3.x
I don't personally care what casting stat they use, they just need to not have broken mechanics.
I'm totally fine with them keeping Charisma too. I want both stats as options for Warlock. (Not on the same character obviously.)
Having a high CHA doesn't make you automatically likeable; that's why both Persuasion and Deception are their own skills. Without the skills, then you can have decent "stage presence" to attract attention, but aren't necessarily going to know what to say, how to say it, or how to control your body language to make people receptive to it.
Thanks to bounded accuracy this is codswallop. Somebody who starts the game skilled at Persuasion but average Charisma is exactly as good at persuasion as somebody with no training in Persuasion and good Charisma, mathematically.
Yeah, mediocre. +2 or 3 as the sum total of your bonuses is not a significant modifier.
As I've said before, if you want to play an erudite Warlock who's always poring over old tomes, go for it.
I. CAN'T.
People like you will never allow it.
Even if you weren't going to scorn, denigrate, and bar from the table anyone who wants to play a canny occultist instead of an oblivious horny moron, the opportunity cost for taking a high Intelligence score halfway cripples this class. You can maybe - MAYBE - squeak a 14 without leaving yourself unable to warlock effectively, and no one in the history of D&D has ever (seriously) said "I have an Intelligence of 14, I know what I'm doing". The "ten is an average stat!" thing is utter tripe and everybody knows it. It's factually untrue and perpetuating it is ******* stupid. The actual "Average" stat at level one is 12.5 (72-point Standard Array, +3 for species/background adjustment, divided by six scores: 12.5), and the reality is that any score lower than 14 generally may as well be an 8. Or a 6. 14 is the bare minimum for basic competence in a given area, it is not some hugely amazeballs Super Number just because ****in' commoners don't get above 10. Commoners don't count for averages. They've never counted for averages. If you're comparing your Adventurer to a 4hp sack of meat confetti, you're doing it wrong.
But there's no reason that Warlocks specifically deserve to have multiple choice casting stats, and both the general archetype of the class and the various descriptions printed in the book emphasize the relationship dynamic between Warlock and Patron over studies. Which does not mean that you personally are locked into that singular path, but given that it's highly unlikely they're going to toss out the class demarcations provided by single fixed casting stats for each class, it does mean that the broad theme of the class supports CHA over INT.
Why do you hate Intelligence so much?
Why does Charisma deserve four entire classes, plus more than half a dozen subclasses, while players who want an "I know what I'm doing" level intelligence score get ONE class and TWO subclasses - and both subclasses are generally told "leave your Intelligence at 8 and just take spells that don't care about your casting mod!" The game's fundamental rules structure makes it agonizingly clear that Horny > Smart, and some people are fed up to ******* here with it.
I don't care what 3.x did. I don't care that everybody else thinks every last single stupid ******* warlock is an oblivious moron that stumble****ed their way into a catastrophically bad deal and is basically owned outright by their patron because they're so unbelievably stupid they don't even know what a "deal" is, let alone possess the capacity to tell a good one from a bad one. I care that the structure of the game says every single character with an Intelligence score higher than 8 needs to be an archetropal Weak Snobby Wizard.
I have HAD IT with this game, and every goddamn player in it, telling me that intelligence and mental acuity is actively detrimental and undesireable in an Adventurer.
Again nothing but hyperbole from you. You keep bring up horny, but I know there is no skill check for that in the game. Being horny is 100% player choice. As far as Intellegence, that covers Arcana, History, and Investigation. Having proficiency in a skill becomes more important than having a high stat as the game progresses. Also 12 Int plus proficiency isn’t an idiot. You could even get expertise in 5e via a feat. And 5eR has a feats that give expertise as well. It will be easier to have a Warlock with 12 Int that passes most Arcana or History checks easily.
Also there are 4 Cha classes because that how WotC designed the game. Why does Warlock deserve flexible casting? That’s a much better question. Every argument you make for Warlock being an Intelligence caster can be made for Clerics, Druids and Sorcerers being Intelligence casters. Let’s just give everyone flexible casting. But that starts to feel less like D&D and the multiclass shenanigans would be crazy.
Also there are 4 Cha classes because that how WotC designed the game.
WotC also designed cross-class skills and THAC0, should we never have tried improving that either? What terrible logic.
It's better than nothing, but you ain't gonna be getting a standing ovation for loquacity without a nat 20 like that. Again, in this hypothetical you either have decent personal presence but lack the understanding of how to choose your words, or you know how to manage the words and gestures of your presentation but lack the- well, charisma- to make a strong impression. Yes, mathematically having the skill is as good as having a moderate ability mod to the roll, but with just CHA you're literally only about half as good at a social roll as if you have CHA and the skill. Yes, either way is "equally good', but in comparative terms of all three scenario you've got one "very good" and two "eh, they're okay I guess".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I know that technically RAW that you can’t use a focus to cast a spell that doesn’t have an M component, but honestly any DM that would actually forbid it is not a DM I would wish to play with.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The other problem is that it adds to only one damage roll, and thus it doesn't get multiplied for having multiple beams.
Ahh, 💩! Oh well.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes. They very much do. Never trust a tin can.
They might be. No one knows what a sorcerer is or what they do. Its all a mystery!
I'll do that right after you stop strawmaning intelligence. Which is what what your weird it covers a bunch of things, just not the things that make sense when it comes to magic crap does. It is the same thing as relegating charisma to conning, persuasion, and intimidation. Whatever you want to call charisma there is 0 evidence it powers warlock spells. Force of personality whatever you want to call it there is nothing and i mean nothing in the class description that would indicate that would impact their magic at all. But if you are given some arcane abilities I'd say the ability that helps you control that most logically would be the stat tied to arcana, not the stat tied to con, persuasion etc. These are not super powers, they are expressly ARCANE secrets, forbidden lore. I wonder what skill and associated stat would help with that. Oh yeah charisma, that is what powers my forbidden knowledge and arcane secrets, charisma.
Pact magic, "Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells" yup research my way with charisma. Invocations, In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed eldritch invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability.Yup I studied my way through occult secrets with charisma. Even the more neutral mystic arcanum "your patron bestows upon you a magical secret called an arcanum." why would i think using a magical secret comes from charisma.
Charisma is the mechanically better stat but its not the stat the makes sense for warlock, its not even close.
People keep saying you use too much hyperbole because you do. Either it’s hyperbole when you called the game “dogsh!t” or you like dogsh!t. There is no in between.
If your stance is that invocations are special things that no other magic user can replicate and can be given the occultist fluff, then infusions are equally as usable for the occultist fluff. Actually since the occult often has physical objects attached to it I would argue a reflavored Artificer has more occult RP interactions than Warlock. Invocations themselves mostly mimic other spells. Infusions do things no spells do, and create items no spell can replicate.
You can barely play your Occultist Warlock as a half caster since all your invocations are used for MA. And again if you separate MA from invocations you have to drastically lower the number of Invocations.
They didn’t make Blade equal to Tome, they made it too good and then gave tome a spell slot to make it equal to Blade. It’s not even a lot of work to make Chain equal. First fix Blade and bring it back down to the appropriate power level. Then give Chain the 20 minutes of thought to make it equal to the others. Honestly all chain is missing is a way to make your familiar a proper pet.
This is dumb stance to take. You shouldn’t be able to stand next to Fighter doing what it does and then drop a 9th level spell. What kind of balance is that. I don’t care is you have lower AC and HP. You still have Spells. Also I’m not one of the people who want nerf Blade back to the 2014 version. I want Blade to give one attack using Cha. Thirsting Blade to give two attacks, and Lifedrinker to move to 12th and deal 1d12 damage. That lines up especially since it can be further modified with spells. It also blocks the Paladin from wanting the 1 level dip.
Cha isn't one of those things, it's ALL of them. If you have high Cha, you're invariably at least decent at seducing and conning and browbeating people. If you want to roleplay an individual who seeks shortcuts to power who happens to be bad at those things, or better yet seeks it out because they're bad at those things, the 2014 Warlock is of no help to you and neither is any other class. But that's an archetype many of us want to play, which an Intlock would enable.
The core concept of the warlock is that they have a bargain. Bargaining skill is charisma in 5e. Warlocks have been charisma casters since they were introduced in 3.x
I don't personally care what casting stat they use, they just need to not have broken mechanics.
Except the whole point of your study and research is to find someone else who actually worked out the mechanics of whatever effect you're looking to achieve, and you're just following the instructions they left behind. And again, literally the first sentence describing the Warlock class says "A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being." Also, regarding the description and role of looking stuff up "Once a pact is made, a warlock’s thirst for knowledge and power can’t be slaked with mere study and research." If you were content with doing your own research, you'd be a Wizard. The thing about "oh, I'm a great intellectual because I looked up a ritual to gain power" is that what you've described is the equivalent of a cosmic vending machine, to borrow from Jim Butcher. You meet X, Y, and Z requirements and out drops a nice refreshing can of arcane power. Also, from your own quote, your Pact Magic comes at least as much from your Patron as from your own studies. It literally says "Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells." Oh yes, you absolutely became a caster by your own works and with absolute no inside information or shortcuts shown to you by someone else. You know what, let's just count how many features reference the Patron vs how many reference research:
Pact Magic
Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells.
Patron: 1 Research: 1
Eldritch Invocations
In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed eldritch invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability.
Patron: 1 Research: 2
Pact Boon
At 3rd level, your otherworldly patron bestows a gift upon you for your loyal service.
Patron: 2 Research: 2
Mystic Arcanum
At 11th level, your patron bestows upon you a magical secret called an arcanum
Patron 3: Research: 2
Eldritch Master
At 20th level, you can draw on your inner reserve of mystical power while entreating your patron to regain expended spell slots.
Patron: 4 Research: 2
And would you look at that; of the five core class features, 4 of them reference the patron as a source of the feature, while only two reference your studies.
As I've said before, if you want to play an erudite Warlock who's always poring over old tomes, go for it. Unless you will only play with an absolutely optimized stat array, there's nothing stopping you from having a solid INT score. But there's no reason that Warlocks specifically deserve to have multiple choice casting stats, and both the general archetype of the class and the various descriptions printed in the book emphasize the relationship dynamic between Warlock and Patron over studies. Which does not mean that you personally are locked into that singular path, but given that it's highly unlikely they're going to toss out the class demarcations provided by single fixed casting stats for each class, it does mean that the broad theme of the class supports CHA over INT.
Woo, and that is tied to how they use magic how? The descriptions of where their power comes from uses descriptive text that fits intelligence. And yes it was charisma before, that does not mean it was the right stat for it. It is a different class now anyways. The logic seems to me I made a deal once in my life therefore charisma fuels my being. Sure every other part of my description talks about studying and researching. But one time in my life I made a deal, so who cares about the day to day study and research.
See above regarding the ratio study to patron references in the class features.
Another issue with "Always CHA, never anything but CHA ever" for warlocks is that it also contradicts a couple of other common warlock archetypes.
The Tricked: Warlocks aren't always the one who initiates the pact. Many warlock characters, heck even Wyll from BG3, get tricked into the pact by the more cunning and charismatic devil or fey creature. In this form, the warlock is more or less a slave to their patron, working with scraps of power gifted to them because it makes them useful to the patron. They can choose to use this power for their own aims in between doing the patron's will, but they're usually looking for a way out of the pact to save their soul. There's really no reason the warlock must be charismatic for this to work. In fact, one would expect a charismatic warlock to be better at bargaining with a devil so they don't get such a raw deal.
This style of warlock doesn't really lend itself to any of the three stats, but a weak argument could be made for any of them. INT, because the warlock has to memorize the spells and rituals taught to them by their patron to invoke the patron's power, WIS because you're invoking the power of another entity and that requires a level of intuitive understanding of your patron similar to a cleric with their god or a druid with nature, or CHA if that power was somehow infused into the warlock's being and they access it like a sorcerer, does (though I am personally pro-CON Sorcerer, so even that argument feels shaky to me).
The Pariah: Not all warlocks become charismatic cult leaders. A lot of them end up the cult followers. People who've been rejected by society because they don't quite fit in. The warlock, in this case, was a lonely, uncharismatic individual who found a means of seeking out power for themselves through dangerous channels. Perhaps they were shown the secrets to accessing that power through a cult leader, or maybe something on the other side of the veil reached out to manipulate them into doing their bidding.
This one would require the player to ignore that their warlock has a smile that can light up a room and that people are naturally drawn to their confidence, as that all completely goes against the character concept. Beyond it very much not warranting CHA it's hard to say if INT or WIS would be the preferred stat. I'd likely lean toward INT if it's a situation of an otherworldly magical tutor earning the warlock's trust by showing them secrets beyond the veil, but WIS could work too if it's more of an "I am befriending this demon" situation where the patron isn't necessarily antagonistic to the warlock but genuinely wants to help.
I. CAN'T.
People like you will never allow it.
Even if you weren't going to scorn, denigrate, and bar from the table anyone who wants to play a canny occultist instead of an oblivious horny moron, the opportunity cost for taking a high Intelligence score halfway cripples this class. You can maybe - MAYBE - squeak a 14 without leaving yourself unable to warlock effectively, and no one in the history of D&D has ever (seriously) said "I have an Intelligence of 14, I know what I'm doing". The "ten is an average stat!" thing is utter tripe and everybody knows it. It's factually untrue and perpetuating it is ******* stupid. The actual "Average" stat at level one is 12.5 (72-point Standard Array, +3 for species/background adjustment, divided by six scores: 12.5), and the reality is that any score lower than 14 generally may as well be an 8. Or a 6. 14 is the bare minimum for basic competence in a given area, it is not some hugely amazeballs Super Number just because ****in' commoners don't get above 10. Commoners don't count for averages. They've never counted for averages. If you're comparing your Adventurer to a 4hp sack of meat confetti, you're doing it wrong.
Why do you hate Intelligence so much?
Why does Charisma deserve four entire classes, plus more than half a dozen subclasses, while players who want an "I know what I'm doing" level intelligence score get ONE class and TWO subclasses - and both subclasses are generally told "leave your Intelligence at 8 and just take spells that don't care about your casting mod!" The game's fundamental rules structure makes it agonizingly clear that Horny > Smart, and some people are fed up to ******* here with it.
I don't care what 3.x did. I don't care that everybody else thinks every last single stupid ******* warlock is an oblivious moron that stumble****ed their way into a catastrophically bad deal and is basically owned outright by their patron because they're so unbelievably stupid they don't even know what a "deal" is, let alone possess the capacity to tell a good one from a bad one. I care that the structure of the game says every single character with an Intelligence score higher than 8 needs to be an archetropal Weak Snobby Wizard.
I have HAD IT with this game, and every goddamn player in it, telling me that intelligence and mental acuity is actively detrimental and undesireable in an Adventurer.
Please do not contact or message me.
Having a high CHA doesn't make you automatically likeable; that's why both Persuasion and Deception are their own skills. Without the skills, then you can have decent "stage presence" to attract attention, but aren't necessarily going to know what to say, how to say it, or how to control your body language to make people receptive to it.
I'm totally fine with them keeping Charisma too. I want both stats as options for Warlock. (Not on the same character obviously.)
Thanks to bounded accuracy this is codswallop. Somebody who starts the game skilled at Persuasion but average Charisma is exactly as good at persuasion as somebody with no training in Persuasion and good Charisma, mathematically.
if you're bargaining, wouldn't you need wisdom for insight into the other party's motives? otherwise how do you know if you passed your persuasion check or if you were just played like the proverbial golden fiddle? one 'failed' wisdom check in the face of great power on offer doesn't indicate wisdom dump stat any more than one 'successful' deal indicates "a commanding presence" indicative of high charisma.
I'm fine with CHA casting if INT is an option, but it does take some mental adjustment to reckon. mostly I'm hoping against hope for some new subclasses in 2024 that lean in on deals, trading, and collecting: why should wizards and their pokeball spellbooks get all the scavenger hunt fun?
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!
Yeah, mediocre. +2 or 3 as the sum total of your bonuses is not a significant modifier.
Again nothing but hyperbole from you. You keep bring up horny, but I know there is no skill check for that in the game. Being horny is 100% player choice. As far as Intellegence, that covers Arcana, History, and Investigation. Having proficiency in a skill becomes more important than having a high stat as the game progresses. Also 12 Int plus proficiency isn’t an idiot. You could even get expertise in 5e via a feat. And 5eR has a feats that give expertise as well. It will be easier to have a Warlock with 12 Int that passes most Arcana or History checks easily.
Also there are 4 Cha classes because that how WotC designed the game. Why does Warlock deserve flexible casting? That’s a much better question. Every argument you make for Warlock being an Intelligence caster can be made for Clerics, Druids and Sorcerers being Intelligence casters. Let’s just give everyone flexible casting. But that starts to feel less like D&D and the multiclass shenanigans would be crazy.
Starting the game with a +2/+3 is pretty common and not at all detrimental when we have limited proficiencies to choose from.
WotC also designed cross-class skills and THAC0, should we never have tried improving that either? What terrible logic.
It's better than nothing, but you ain't gonna be getting a standing ovation for loquacity without a nat 20 like that. Again, in this hypothetical you either have decent personal presence but lack the understanding of how to choose your words, or you know how to manage the words and gestures of your presentation but lack the- well, charisma- to make a strong impression. Yes, mathematically having the skill is as good as having a moderate ability mod to the roll, but with just CHA you're literally only about half as good at a social roll as if you have CHA and the skill. Yes, either way is "equally good', but in comparative terms of all three scenario you've got one "very good" and two "eh, they're okay I guess".