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.
Except we don't have a choice. If we want to play an arcane spellcaster that isn't a "charismatic" oblivious moron, we get one and PRECISELY one choice - wizard. ALL THREE OTHER ARCANE CASTERS are Charisma.
That. Is. Not. Okay.
And again - if everybody else gets to dismiss intelligence as being utterly and completely useless save for the super narrow niche of book-based, university-style research and study? I get to dismiss Charisma as being the stat to take to get into the pants of anything with a pulse, and a number of things without one.
As far as Intellegence, that covers Arcana, History, and Investigation.
And?
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.
...and? Yes, it's possible to be a complete and total moron and yet be extensively knowledgable about one singular narrow subject. That is in fact how the vast majority of first-world people work - most people are complete ******* idiots save in the one skillset they need to do their job. Doesn't mean you can play a canny, clever occultist in D&D, or make an intelligent character that's more broadly capable without all the Charisma-obsessed players in this thread immediately banning it from their tables for "wasting" their stats and "trolling the group" by actively making a "teeeeeeerrible" character.
Also there are 4 Cha classes because that how WotC designed the game.
Well it's a shit ******* design choice, and now's the ONE TIME we have a chance to make a change.
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.
Yes yes, the whole "Multiclassing is EVIL!!!! Anything that makes multiclassing easier must be BURNED LIKE SIN!!!!!!" argument. Well. 'Argument.'
Personally? I'm a fan of the idea of each individual spell having its own innate casting modifier. Want to grind one stat like crazy, you're super good with a specific subset of spells and horrible with everything else. Fighters get to pick what to be good at (sort of) by deciding to focus on Strength or Dexterity; why should spellcasters be significantly different? Spellcasters can choose to go apeshit on one stat and be excellent with their specialty spells at the cost of being largely unable to cast anything else, or have two or three mostly-meh mental states and be vaguely mediocre with the entire spell list. It'd make planning out spellcasters much more interesting and instantly fix the 'Galactic Standard Spell Choice' issue.
But nah. We gotta keep making sure eeeeeeeeeevery character in D&D is horny.
The warlock 'deserves' flexible casting because it's already the Odd Man Out class that doesn't get normal anything else. It's got the loosest, least well-defined concept of any of the spellcasters. And the most egregious multiclass options, the thing that makes all the grognard diehards screech in fury, is already the default. If there was ever going to be a place where flexible casting would work and Intelligence could be made ever so slightly less of a universal, built-into-the-system dump stat, this is the place.
Besides. They don't get to dangle that golden dream in front of us and then take it away without anybody complaining. Y'all already ruined every other positive change in the warlock. Let us have this ONE positive change. Just ONE!!
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".
The point is that you're just as likeable either way. Not the bleeding edge, but good enough. And if you want to roleplay a Warlock that is neither (trained or naturally personable) but is also competent at magic, you get to eat poo. Just like we have for the last 10 years.
We have the chance to make that better for everyone now, but intractable Luddites keep cropping up and getting in the way of that progress every time WotC tries. It's beyond irritating.
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.
I read it, it made no hints at being charisma based at any point in that. It wasn't you woo your patron, you impress your patron with charm, your force of personality convinces your patron etc, you just happen to have a patron. At best you have something like your loyalty to your patron gets therm to give you X, let me guess loyalty is a indicator of charisma now.
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.
I read it, it made no hints at being charisma based at any point in that. It wasn't you woo your patron, you impress your patron with charm, your force of personality convinces your patron etc, you just happen to have a patron. At best you have something like your loyalty to your patron gets therm to give you X, let me guess loyalty is a indicator of charisma now.
And it had very little to do with being all studious and intellectual. 3 of 5 are explicitly handed to you, and a 4th is at best an even split for studies.
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.
I read it, it made no hints at being charisma based at any point in that. It wasn't you woo your patron, you impress your patron with charm, your force of personality convinces your patron etc, you just happen to have a patron. At best you have something like your loyalty to your patron gets therm to give you X, let me guess loyalty is a indicator of charisma now.
And it had very little to do with being all studious and intellectual. 3 of 5 are explicitly handed to you, and a 4th is at best an even split for studies.
Then you need to reread it. The class description included being studious, the sources of power included being studious. the argument is literally what is it that powers their magic. And the description of pact magic is based on research, and yes what is bestowed on you by your patron. But your patron could just as easily bestow things upon you due to intelligence as charm, in fact given its about research I'd say its more likely intelligence is why they would give you that boon. Invocations is based on studying occult lore, by the way there is not even a mention of your patron in how these are found, its just you studying occult lore.
So basically otherworldly patron I guess is one of your 5 even though it does nothing but say you have a patron. So you struck a deal maybe that could be charisma based, I'm willing to give you that. I don't think it makes sense, but I'll concede the point.
Pact magic is intelligence based more than charisma by far as while it comes fom a patron, there is no mention of charming it from them(stat nuetral) but it is gained through research(intelligence)
Invocations, research based, no mention of a patron intelligence.
Pact boon loyalty based, stat neutral.
Mystiuc Arcnaum your patron just bestows a secret upon you, stat neutral.
At every stage where they describe how you acquire power its either stat agnostic, or it mentions researching or being studious. And research and study are the core of D&D intelligence, not its only function but its core. With the majority of the class for most the levels people play it being intelligence based by and large, intelligence by a large margin makes the most sense.
Edit to add and even if it added some verbiage to indicate you persuade your way into all these perks, what makes more sense for using arcane secrets, intelligence..
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.
I read it, it made no hints at being charisma based at any point in that. It wasn't you woo your patron, you impress your patron with charm, your force of personality convinces your patron etc, you just happen to have a patron. At best you have something like your loyalty to your patron gets therm to give you X, let me guess loyalty is a indicator of charisma now.
And it had very little to do with being all studious and intellectual. 3 of 5 are explicitly handed to you, and a 4th is at best an even split for studies.
Then you need to reread it. The class description included being studious, the sources of power included being studious. the argument is literally what is it that powers their magic. And the description of pact magic is based on research, and yes what is bestowed on you by your patron. But your patron could just as easily bestow things upon you due to intelligence as charm, in fact given its about research I'd say its more likely intelligence is why they would give you that boon. Invocations is based on studying occult lore, by the way there is not even a mention of your patron in how these are found, its just you studying occult lore.
So basically otherworldly patron I guess is one of your 5 even though it does nothing but say you have a patron. So you struck a deal maybe that could be charisma based, I'm willing to give you that. I don't think it makes sense, but I'll concede the point.
Pact magic is intelligence based more than charisma by far as while it comes fom a patron, there is no mention of charming it from them(stat nuetral) but it is gained through research(intelligence)
Invocations, research based, no mention of a patron intelligence.
Pact boon loyalty based, stat neutral.
Mystiuc Arcnaum your patron just bestows a secret upon you, stat neutral.
At every stage where they describe how you acquire power its either stat agnostic, or it mentions researching or being studious. And research and study are the core of D&D intelligence, not its only function but its core. With the majority of the class for most the levels people play it being intelligence based by and large, intelligence by a large margin makes the most sense.
Edit to add and even if it added some verbiage to indicate you persuade your way into all these perks, what makes more sense for using arcane secrets, intelligence..
And exactly how many Druid or Cleric features reference the concept of Wisdom? You keep moving the goalposts and cherry picking a handful of quotes while ignoring the very explicitly spelled out larger picture; a Warlock can be very smart, that's fine. But Warlocks did not learn magic by being very smart, they learned it by building a relationship with another being. That's the archetype, that's what 4 of their five class features explicitly state, it's what the majority of the description states to anyone who hasn't already decided that they can only accept the INT stat.
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.
Except we don't have a choice. If we want to play an arcane spellcaster that isn't a "charismatic" oblivious moron, we get one and PRECISELY one choice - wizard. ALL THREE OTHER ARCANE CASTERS are Charisma.
That. Is. Not. Okay.
And again - if everybody else gets to dismiss intelligence as being utterly and completely useless save for the super narrow niche of book-based, university-style research and study? I get to dismiss Charisma as being the stat to take to get into the pants of anything with a pulse, and a number of things without one.
As far as Intellegence, that covers Arcana, History, and Investigation.
And?
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.
...and? Yes, it's possible to be a complete and total moron and yet be extensively knowledgable about one singular narrow subject. That is in fact how the vast majority of first-world people work - most people are complete ******* idiots save in the one skillset they need to do their job. Doesn't mean you can play a canny, clever occultist in D&D, or make an intelligent character that's more broadly capable without all the Charisma-obsessed players in this thread immediately banning it from their tables for "wasting" their stats and "trolling the group" by actively making a "teeeeeeerrible" character.
Also there are 4 Cha classes because that how WotC designed the game.
Well it's a shit ******* design choice, and now's the ONE TIME we have a chance to make a change.
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.
Yes yes, the whole "Multiclassing is EVIL!!!! Anything that makes multiclassing easier must be BURNED LIKE SIN!!!!!!" argument. Well. 'Argument.'
Personally? I'm a fan of the idea of each individual spell having its own innate casting modifier. Want to grind one stat like crazy, you're super good with a specific subset of spells and horrible with everything else. Fighters get to pick what to be good at (sort of) by deciding to focus on Strength or Dexterity; why should spellcasters be significantly different? Spellcasters can choose to go apeshit on one stat and be excellent with their specialty spells at the cost of being largely unable to cast anything else, or have two or three mostly-meh mental states and be vaguely mediocre with the entire spell list. It'd make planning out spellcasters much more interesting and instantly fix the 'Galactic Standard Spell Choice' issue.
But nah. We gotta keep making sure eeeeeeeeeevery character in D&D is horny.
The warlock 'deserves' flexible casting because it's already the Odd Man Out class that doesn't get normal anything else. It's got the loosest, least well-defined concept of any of the spellcasters. And the most egregious multiclass options, the thing that makes all the grognard diehards screech in fury, is already the default. If there was ever going to be a place where flexible casting would work and Intelligence could be made ever so slightly less of a universal, built-into-the-system dump stat, this is the place.
Besides. They don't get to dangle that golden dream in front of us and then take it away without anybody complaining. Y'all already ruined every other positive change in the warlock. Let us have this ONE positive change. Just ONE!!
And only more hyperbole. Well I hope it’s hyperbole if not you are one lonely genius in a world full of complete idiots.
Why does having Charisma make you a moron. Some of the most charismatic people in real life are highly intelligent. The game makes that build highly unlikely, but like I said you only need a 12 in Int to achieve skill checks that make you play as canny. Everything outside of actual checks is role play. Also I’ll point out that the games method of splitting mental acumen into three stats makes being truly canny impossible. As a canny person wouldn’t fall for deception, but that is handled by Wisdom in the game not Intelligence. There are highly intelligent Lawyers, but in D&D they need Charisma to win debates. In real life when we say someone is smart we don’t always mean just D&D Intelligence. Also Wisdom and Charisma aren’t measurable. Technically true intelligence isn’t measurable either, but that’s another topic. We are looking at game stats and what they mean for a character you create. And you can definitely be canny with a 12 Int and proficiencies in Int skills.
Another important question: why does it matter what others ban at their table? For the longest time my wife used the Eladrin from the DMG, because it was Int based. Now she switch over to the core Eladrin because it can be Int based as well. At home tables you can do whatever is fun for you and everyone at the table.
Important note I want to point out is that this isn’t a chance for drastic changes. This is 5eR playtest not 6e. We won’t get 6e until the 5e well is dry. This a just a massive Patch to the game and not the sequel. They can’t make any changes that would make their last few books obsolete. They still want to sell them.
Multiclassing is fine, but it shouldn’t be superior to single class.
Also why are you so horny, or rather why do you thing charisma is synonymous?
Finally I’ll state it again just give everyone flexible casting. Warlock does not deserve it more than anybody else. I can make the argument that Clerics especially Acrana and Knowlegde Domain Clerics should be Int caster. D&D Wisdom has never really worked for me because it’s not Wisdom it’s Sense. You can’t obtain Wisdom with Intelligence. They are interlocked in a way that the 3 mental stat system does not allow. In reality D&D 3 mental stats should be Knowledge, Sense, and Presence. That more accurately details what the stats do in game. Yes, having spells directly tied to the mental stats could be fun, but definitely no 5e D&D. With 5eR just being an update of 5e we won’t be seeing changes that drastic.
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.
There might be no relationship whatsoever, this is explicitly stated in the PHB, you might be leeching off an eldritch entity without it even knowing. Or you might be tricked into the pact. Warlocks are described as seekers of forbidden knowledge, not arcane gold diggers with eldritch sugar daddies. If a patron abandons the warlock, the warlock doesn't lose their class, because knowledge is their power, they don't just unlearn everything they learned from the patron. Wizards learn magic by the books. Sorcerers train to direct and shape their inner magic. Warlocks learn directly from the magical entity.
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.
There might be no relationship whatsoever, this is explicitly stated in the PHB, you might be leeching off an eldritch entity without it even knowing. Or you might be tricked into the pact. Warlocks are described as seekers of forbidden knowledge, not arcane gold diggers with eldritch sugar daddies. If a patron abandons the warlock, the warlock doesn't lose their class, because knowledge is their power, they don't just unlearn everything they learned from the patron. Wizards learn magic by the books. Sorcerers train to direct and shape their inner magic. Warlocks learn directly from the magical entity.
And Bards have to learn their spells some way, as do Sorcerers and Rangers. Yet I don't see people agitating for them to all be converted to INT as well. Just saying that a class needs to go through the basic process of acquiring new information to develop a skill does not mean that they're INT-based. It means they've got a human-type brain. As I previously outlined, four of the five class features for Warlock explicitly frame themselves as you being directly handed power and/or knowledge. That they "learned" from these experiences is not the product of high INT, it's the product of having a functioning brain.
Is there really anyone trying to deny that the UA7 bladelock is much better than anything else? In fact, UA7's bladelock is the best martial in the game.
I doubt we'll see many non-blade warlocks. Maybe someone clueless, or someone eccentric.
Except we don't have a choice. If we want to play an arcane spellcaster that isn't a "charismatic" oblivious moron, we get one and PRECISELY one choice - wizard. ALL THREE OTHER ARCANE CASTERS are Charisma.
That. Is. Not. Okay.
Why not? Charisma has always been a bit misnamed; it makes more sense to think of it as "presence" or "willpower" because that's what makes more sense for all the classes that have it. Bards don't need to be good at Performance or Persuasion, you can go around getting what you want with Intimidation just as easily, and you can take proficiency in a bunch of non-Charisma skills. Warlock's a bit more limited in skill selection by default but it's not limited to Charisma skills. While your stereotypical Bard might be a horny idiot, your stereotypical Paladin isn't a shagger, and nor is your stereotypical edgelord Warlock. Charisma can represent a bunch of different things.
And just because Intelligence isn't your top score doesn't mean you're terrible at it. Intelligence 10 isn't a "moron" it's just average intelligence, so if you take an Intelligence skill or two that's someone educated. A 12 or a 14 in Intelligence is still a smart character. I played a Sorcerer, Dracarys Noir, a little while ago with Intelligence 14 and Charisma 16, and those scores never stopped me from being effective, or being able to play him as a ruthlessly intelligence neutral evil borderline sociopath (not overtly murderous, but not exactly what you'd describe as caring). He was about as far from "horny" as you could get (except in the literal sense, because horns); his default social stance was Intimidation just by being in a room, and when he spoke to anyone they were in no doubt how much danger they could very quickly be in (he may have very lightly implied to someone that he intended to peel them like a grape and dissolve them in acid if they didn't get out of his way, and he repeatedly insulted Strahd to his face. A charmer he is not).
Don't get me wrong, I'm disappointed by the loss of the ability score choices as well; it was my favourite proposed change for Warlock, but not being able to easily have a particular score as your highest doesn't stop you from having a good score and playing a character as smart or wise. "Only" having Charisma +3 was never a particular problem for me (albeit helped quite a bit by a bloodwell vial later on) as each point is only a 5% difference in practice; not being "optimal" rarely means unplayable though. I think people online often put too much stock in maxxing out one score, but the actual improvement is usually pretty minor in reality, and using points buy for character creation, getting a score as high as possible is actually less optimal (because higher scores cost more to get). I've played Bards without maxxed Charisma, the only reason it hurts them a bit more is because is because it also determines Bardic Inspiration uses.
Also there's a difference between mechanical Intelligence and knowledge; even a character with Intelligence 6-9 can still learn things, the lower Intelligence doesn't mean they can't learn, it just means that what knowledge they have probably required a little more work to retain. If a person wants to they can play an erudite, scholarly Barbarian, they just probably aren't going to be a genius level at quickly learning and memorising things, unless you shuffle scores around to get it a bit higher.
My disappointment at the loss of the choice of ability score for Warlock is because Warlock is pretty much explicitly the "shortcut spellcaster" class; they make a deal with an entity to gain more power, which could be an attractive choice from a wide variety of backgrounds. They may even have previously been a Cleric, Wizard or whatever and ended up making a pact instead because they were frustrated by slow progress or whatever. I've always justified Charisma on Warlock previously as being willpower on the basis that characters with low strength of will probably don't end up with a useful pact, because they'll be fully taken advantage of by the entity they're bargaining with, but I would still prefer to have the choice of scores mechanically because it seems reasonable that an intelligent or wise character could also ensure the terms of the pact are beneficial to them.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
And Bards have to learn their spells some way, as do Sorcerers and Rangers. Yet I don't see people agitating for them to all be converted to INT as well. Just saying that a class needs to go through the basic process of acquiring new information to develop a skill does not mean that they're INT-based. It means they've got a human-type brain. As I previously outlined, four of the five class features for Warlock explicitly frame themselves as you being directly handed power and/or knowledge. That they "learned" from these experiences is not the product of high INT, it's the product of having a functioning brain.
Barbarians have functioning brains. Why don't they have spells? Frankly, bards casting through Cha never made much sense as well. Bards are supposed to also be collectors of magical knowledge - hell, one of their signature abilities is called "magical secrets"; they're supposed to be troves of knowledge: legends, stories, songs, history and politics, all those skills and spells. They're a field analogy of academical wizards. And yet, they cast arcane spells with Cha because all barmaids must be seduced.
I mean, what purpose does Int even serve, what is it for? Let's just face it, Cha is a single stat that solves the entire social aspect of the game, and everyone wants that cheap power over NPCs. IMO unified spell lists were great for world building, they made universe and rulesof magic consistent. And I would go one step further - I'd make it do that each spell list is governed by its own stat, according to its nature. Arcane requires comprehension of magical theory, so it's Int. Divine takes faith and conviction - Cha; it makes sense for a cleric to be social, it's their main job after all. And Primal spells should be governed by Wis, your attunement to your surroundings and natural world.
Barbarians have functioning brains. Why don't they have spells? Frankly, bards casting through Cha never made much sense as well. Bards are supposed to also be collectors of magical knowledge - hell, one of their signature abilities is called "magical secrets"; they're supposed to be troves of knowledge: legends, stories, songs, history and politics, all those skills and spells. They're a field analogy of academical wizards. And yet, they cast arcane spells with Cha because all barmaids must be seduced.
Intelligence isn't required to know things, I tend to think of the spellcasting ability as more about how you cast the spells rather than how you learn them. Because a Bard's magic is more performative, a Sorcerer's is innate, a Wizard's is Intelligence because theirs is all about learning and manipulating magical formulas. Warlock is actually a tricky one to define that way though which is why the choice made a reasonable amount of sense. If instead you go for the score being how a spell is learned, then you'll end up concluding that every caster should be Intelligence based.
That's actually not something I'd necessarily be opposed to; others have suggested on other threads that perhaps spellcasters should be made a bit more MAD, with Intelligence determining spells known/prepared, Wisdom for save DC and maybe Charisma for attack modifier? This would reduce the general strength of casters away from their superiority in 5e, because you'd need to get high scores in all three to fully maximise casting rather than only having to max out one score (which you can usually do by 4th- or 8th-level). Or you'd need to specialise in only the part(s) that matter to you.
This would also require players to think more about the type of caster you're building; if you want to focus on saving throw spells then you can prioritise Wisdom over Charisma, if you want to maximise versatility you can grab some more Intelligence etc. It would also mean that we'd have fewer dextrous and good Constitution spellcasters because currently you only need one score for casting, so there's room to pick up points in Dexterity and Constitution for defence/concentration. Under a more MAD scheme you'd now need to choose whether to pick up more Constitution (or War Caster) or you might instead avoid using concentration spells in combat so you can focus on save DC or spell attack for instants or non-concentration duration spells.
This would also make mixed martial/casters more balanced since you'd need to choose between physical and mental, probably taking a bit of a hit on some aspect(s) of casting to focus on what you really need to be a magical warrior, e.g- if you're focusing on defence, buffing yourself etc. then you may not need to invest much in any of the three because these spells don't need a high save DC or spell attack modifier, but the more mixed you go with blasting and fighting the more you might need to balance both.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
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.
There might be no relationship whatsoever, this is explicitly stated in the PHB, you might be leeching off an eldritch entity without it even knowing. Or you might be tricked into the pact. Warlocks are described as seekers of forbidden knowledge, not arcane gold diggers with eldritch sugar daddies. If a patron abandons the warlock, the warlock doesn't lose their class, because knowledge is their power, they don't just unlearn everything they learned from the patron. Wizards learn magic by the books. Sorcerers train to direct and shape their inner magic. Warlocks learn directly from the magical entity.
And Bards have to learn their spells some way, as do Sorcerers and Rangers. Yet I don't see people agitating for them to all be converted to INT as well. Just saying that a class needs to go through the basic process of acquiring new information to develop a skill does not mean that they're INT-based. It means they've got a human-type brain. As I previously outlined, four of the five class features for Warlock explicitly frame themselves as you being directly handed power and/or knowledge. That they "learned" from these experiences is not the product of high INT, it's the product of having a functioning brain.
i'm not sleeping on this. i'll take the excuse to reiterate that bards are rumor mongering espionage artists with receipts. they collect knowledge in colleges. they are wizards without spellbooks only because... no, really, why don't they have spellbooks?? even if they're somehow using performance (CHA) (which is distinct from performance (DEX), mind you!) to charm a Word of Creation out of thin air, aren't they going to write that down so they can do it again later? lack of music books, is that why there are so few cool 'music' related bard powers?? or maybe they've just got prodigious memories? oh, wait, recall of arcane knowledge would be which stat again...
sorcerers get their power from blood, from constitution. it's not an act or deception. sorcerers aren't leading armies or puffing themselves up to be intimidating to predators. no, the magic is inside them. sometimes they have to pull it out, other times they have trouble holding it in. it's a struggle that requires constitution. mechanically, if extra hp is a worry for multiclass dips, then half their hp in a level 1 feature and give it back in a level 5 feature.
rangers receive their power from the divine. much like playing musical instruments is generally attributed to charisma, prayer and channeling divine gifts is just a wisdom thing. is this a helpful thread to pull for your side of the conversation? the game is built off players building their own plausibility for why things are the way they are. in a remodel you don't knock down the load bearing walls. it might be time to put down the hammer.
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!
Well now we are heading down this rabbit hole. In truth D&D mental stats should be Knowledge, Sense, Presence. All Casters should be flexible or spells should have different casting stats possibly both.
Bards- Knowledge, Sense, Or Presence Clerics- Knowledge, Sense Druids- Knowledge, Sense Paladin- Sense, Presence Sorcerer- Constitution, Knowledge, Presence Warlock- Knowledge, Sense, Presence Wizard- Knowledge, Presence
Honestly it could be argued that all casters should have all 3 mental Stats available as casting a stat.
If I was completely redesigning things I'd make casting stats vary by spell, not by type of magic. Perhaps something like:
Conjuration, Enchantment, and Illusion use Charisma
Evocation, Necromancy, and Transmutation use Intelligence
Abjuration and Divination use Wisdom
i don't hate that breakdown. given my chance, i think i'd go for a two stat system where the spell has a stat and the caster has a stat (and you can assume there was also a clever way to adjust the dice as required to balance that). in this way you can have same-type attack bonus ('STAB') for specialists. so a CHA caster seeking to charm (CHA) would likely be more effective at it than another type of caster. this might have the additional 'benefit' of weakening non-specialized casters or generalists as a way to reduce the martial caster divide.
also, i would have no problem with there being CON casters but no/few CON spells to specialize in. shrug. quirks are encouraged.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
And exactly how many Druid or Cleric features reference the concept of Wisdom? You keep moving the goalposts and cherry picking a handful of quotes while ignoring the very explicitly spelled out larger picture; a Warlock can be very smart, that's fine. But Warlocks did not learn magic by being very smart, they learned it by building a relationship with another being. That's the archetype, that's what 4 of their five class features explicitly state, it's what the majority of the description states to anyone who hasn't already decided that they can only accept the INT stat.
You're joking right?
Cleric: "Harnessing divine magic doesn’t rely on study or training. A cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites, but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes." That's Wisdom.
Druid: "Whether calling on the elemental forces of nature or emulating the creatures of the animal world, druids are an embodiment of nature’s resilience, cunning, and fury. They claim no mastery over nature. Instead, they see themselves as extensions of nature’s indomitable will." That's Wisdom.
And yes, the bulk of a Warlock's power comes from an explicit entity - but they don't necessarily have to build an explicit relationship with that entity. You can explicitly stumble into pacts without your awareness, or be granted powers by the entity without their awareness. All that is needed for either is for you to make contact in some way. Pacts are not deals. They can be in some cases, but they also don't have to be.
They may not have been a choice, but they are always some kid of bargain, contract, or debt.
Even if it is "that person looks fun to screw with", and the subject is unwilling, the moment they use that power, they agree to terms and conditions. That's like, half the stories that rely on the same underlying trope.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Except we don't have a choice. If we want to play an arcane spellcaster that isn't a "charismatic" oblivious moron, we get one and PRECISELY one choice - wizard. ALL THREE OTHER ARCANE CASTERS are Charisma.
That. Is. Not. Okay.
And again - if everybody else gets to dismiss intelligence as being utterly and completely useless save for the super narrow niche of book-based, university-style research and study? I get to dismiss Charisma as being the stat to take to get into the pants of anything with a pulse, and a number of things without one.
And?
...and? Yes, it's possible to be a complete and total moron and yet be extensively knowledgable about one singular narrow subject. That is in fact how the vast majority of first-world people work - most people are complete ******* idiots save in the one skillset they need to do their job. Doesn't mean you can play a canny, clever occultist in D&D, or make an intelligent character that's more broadly capable without all the Charisma-obsessed players in this thread immediately banning it from their tables for "wasting" their stats and "trolling the group" by actively making a "teeeeeeerrible" character.
Well it's a shit ******* design choice, and now's the ONE TIME we have a chance to make a change.
Yes yes, the whole "Multiclassing is EVIL!!!! Anything that makes multiclassing easier must be BURNED LIKE SIN!!!!!!" argument. Well. 'Argument.'
Personally? I'm a fan of the idea of each individual spell having its own innate casting modifier. Want to grind one stat like crazy, you're super good with a specific subset of spells and horrible with everything else. Fighters get to pick what to be good at (sort of) by deciding to focus on Strength or Dexterity; why should spellcasters be significantly different? Spellcasters can choose to go apeshit on one stat and be excellent with their specialty spells at the cost of being largely unable to cast anything else, or have two or three mostly-meh mental states and be vaguely mediocre with the entire spell list. It'd make planning out spellcasters much more interesting and instantly fix the 'Galactic Standard Spell Choice' issue.
But nah. We gotta keep making sure eeeeeeeeeevery character in D&D is horny.
The warlock 'deserves' flexible casting because it's already the Odd Man Out class that doesn't get normal anything else. It's got the loosest, least well-defined concept of any of the spellcasters. And the most egregious multiclass options, the thing that makes all the grognard diehards screech in fury, is already the default. If there was ever going to be a place where flexible casting would work and Intelligence could be made ever so slightly less of a universal, built-into-the-system dump stat, this is the place.
Besides. They don't get to dangle that golden dream in front of us and then take it away without anybody complaining. Y'all already ruined every other positive change in the warlock. Let us have this ONE positive change. Just ONE!!
Please do not contact or message me.
The point is that you're just as likeable either way. Not the bleeding edge, but good enough. And if you want to roleplay a Warlock that is neither (trained or naturally personable) but is also competent at magic, you get to eat poo. Just like we have for the last 10 years.
We have the chance to make that better for everyone now, but intractable Luddites keep cropping up and getting in the way of that progress every time WotC tries. It's beyond irritating.
I read it, it made no hints at being charisma based at any point in that. It wasn't you woo your patron, you impress your patron with charm, your force of personality convinces your patron etc, you just happen to have a patron. At best you have something like your loyalty to your patron gets therm to give you X, let me guess loyalty is a indicator of charisma now.
And it had very little to do with being all studious and intellectual. 3 of 5 are explicitly handed to you, and a 4th is at best an even split for studies.
Then you need to reread it. The class description included being studious, the sources of power included being studious. the argument is literally what is it that powers their magic. And the description of pact magic is based on research, and yes what is bestowed on you by your patron. But your patron could just as easily bestow things upon you due to intelligence as charm, in fact given its about research I'd say its more likely intelligence is why they would give you that boon. Invocations is based on studying occult lore, by the way there is not even a mention of your patron in how these are found, its just you studying occult lore.
So basically otherworldly patron I guess is one of your 5 even though it does nothing but say you have a patron. So you struck a deal maybe that could be charisma based, I'm willing to give you that. I don't think it makes sense, but I'll concede the point.
Pact magic is intelligence based more than charisma by far as while it comes fom a patron, there is no mention of charming it from them(stat nuetral) but it is gained through research(intelligence)
Invocations, research based, no mention of a patron intelligence.
Pact boon loyalty based, stat neutral.
Mystiuc Arcnaum your patron just bestows a secret upon you, stat neutral.
At every stage where they describe how you acquire power its either stat agnostic, or it mentions researching or being studious. And research and study are the core of D&D intelligence, not its only function but its core. With the majority of the class for most the levels people play it being intelligence based by and large, intelligence by a large margin makes the most sense.
Edit to add and even if it added some verbiage to indicate you persuade your way into all these perks, what makes more sense for using arcane secrets, intelligence..
And exactly how many Druid or Cleric features reference the concept of Wisdom? You keep moving the goalposts and cherry picking a handful of quotes while ignoring the very explicitly spelled out larger picture; a Warlock can be very smart, that's fine. But Warlocks did not learn magic by being very smart, they learned it by building a relationship with another being. That's the archetype, that's what 4 of their five class features explicitly state, it's what the majority of the description states to anyone who hasn't already decided that they can only accept the INT stat.
And only more hyperbole. Well I hope it’s hyperbole if not you are one lonely genius in a world full of complete idiots.
Why does having Charisma make you a moron. Some of the most charismatic people in real life are highly intelligent. The game makes that build highly unlikely, but like I said you only need a 12 in Int to achieve skill checks that make you play as canny. Everything outside of actual checks is role play. Also I’ll point out that the games method of splitting mental acumen into three stats makes being truly canny impossible. As a canny person wouldn’t fall for deception, but that is handled by Wisdom in the game not Intelligence. There are highly intelligent Lawyers, but in D&D they need Charisma to win debates. In real life when we say someone is smart we don’t always mean just D&D Intelligence. Also Wisdom and Charisma aren’t measurable. Technically true intelligence isn’t measurable either, but that’s another topic. We are looking at game stats and what they mean for a character you create. And you can definitely be canny with a 12 Int and proficiencies in Int skills.
Another important question: why does it matter what others ban at their table? For the longest time my wife used the Eladrin from the DMG, because it was Int based. Now she switch over to the core Eladrin because it can be Int based as well. At home tables you can do whatever is fun for you and everyone at the table.
Important note I want to point out is that this isn’t a chance for drastic changes. This is 5eR playtest not 6e. We won’t get 6e until the 5e well is dry. This a just a massive Patch to the game and not the sequel. They can’t make any changes that would make their last few books obsolete. They still want to sell them.
Multiclassing is fine, but it shouldn’t be superior to single class.
Also why are you so horny, or rather why do you thing charisma is synonymous?
Finally I’ll state it again just give everyone flexible casting. Warlock does not deserve it more than anybody else. I can make the argument that Clerics especially Acrana and Knowlegde Domain Clerics should be Int caster. D&D Wisdom has never really worked for me because it’s not Wisdom it’s Sense. You can’t obtain Wisdom with Intelligence. They are interlocked in a way that the 3 mental stat system does not allow. In reality D&D 3 mental stats should be Knowledge, Sense, and Presence. That more accurately details what the stats do in game. Yes, having spells directly tied to the mental stats could be fun, but definitely no 5e D&D. With 5eR just being an update of 5e we won’t be seeing changes that drastic.
There might be no relationship whatsoever, this is explicitly stated in the PHB, you might be leeching off an eldritch entity without it even knowing. Or you might be tricked into the pact. Warlocks are described as seekers of forbidden knowledge, not arcane gold diggers with eldritch sugar daddies. If a patron abandons the warlock, the warlock doesn't lose their class, because knowledge is their power, they don't just unlearn everything they learned from the patron. Wizards learn magic by the books. Sorcerers train to direct and shape their inner magic. Warlocks learn directly from the magical entity.
And Bards have to learn their spells some way, as do Sorcerers and Rangers. Yet I don't see people agitating for them to all be converted to INT as well. Just saying that a class needs to go through the basic process of acquiring new information to develop a skill does not mean that they're INT-based. It means they've got a human-type brain. As I previously outlined, four of the five class features for Warlock explicitly frame themselves as you being directly handed power and/or knowledge. That they "learned" from these experiences is not the product of high INT, it's the product of having a functioning brain.
Is there really anyone trying to deny that the UA7 bladelock is much better than anything else? In fact, UA7's bladelock is the best martial in the game.
I doubt we'll see many non-blade warlocks. Maybe someone clueless, or someone eccentric.
Why not? Charisma has always been a bit misnamed; it makes more sense to think of it as "presence" or "willpower" because that's what makes more sense for all the classes that have it. Bards don't need to be good at Performance or Persuasion, you can go around getting what you want with Intimidation just as easily, and you can take proficiency in a bunch of non-Charisma skills. Warlock's a bit more limited in skill selection by default but it's not limited to Charisma skills. While your stereotypical Bard might be a horny idiot, your stereotypical Paladin isn't a shagger, and nor is your stereotypical edgelord Warlock. Charisma can represent a bunch of different things.
And just because Intelligence isn't your top score doesn't mean you're terrible at it. Intelligence 10 isn't a "moron" it's just average intelligence, so if you take an Intelligence skill or two that's someone educated. A 12 or a 14 in Intelligence is still a smart character. I played a Sorcerer, Dracarys Noir, a little while ago with Intelligence 14 and Charisma 16, and those scores never stopped me from being effective, or being able to play him as a ruthlessly intelligence neutral evil borderline sociopath (not overtly murderous, but not exactly what you'd describe as caring). He was about as far from "horny" as you could get (except in the literal sense, because horns); his default social stance was Intimidation just by being in a room, and when he spoke to anyone they were in no doubt how much danger they could very quickly be in (he may have very lightly implied to someone that he intended to peel them like a grape and dissolve them in acid if they didn't get out of his way, and he repeatedly insulted Strahd to his face. A charmer he is not).
Don't get me wrong, I'm disappointed by the loss of the ability score choices as well; it was my favourite proposed change for Warlock, but not being able to easily have a particular score as your highest doesn't stop you from having a good score and playing a character as smart or wise. "Only" having Charisma +3 was never a particular problem for me (albeit helped quite a bit by a bloodwell vial later on) as each point is only a 5% difference in practice; not being "optimal" rarely means unplayable though. I think people online often put too much stock in maxxing out one score, but the actual improvement is usually pretty minor in reality, and using points buy for character creation, getting a score as high as possible is actually less optimal (because higher scores cost more to get). I've played Bards without maxxed Charisma, the only reason it hurts them a bit more is because is because it also determines Bardic Inspiration uses.
Also there's a difference between mechanical Intelligence and knowledge; even a character with Intelligence 6-9 can still learn things, the lower Intelligence doesn't mean they can't learn, it just means that what knowledge they have probably required a little more work to retain. If a person wants to they can play an erudite, scholarly Barbarian, they just probably aren't going to be a genius level at quickly learning and memorising things, unless you shuffle scores around to get it a bit higher.
My disappointment at the loss of the choice of ability score for Warlock is because Warlock is pretty much explicitly the "shortcut spellcaster" class; they make a deal with an entity to gain more power, which could be an attractive choice from a wide variety of backgrounds. They may even have previously been a Cleric, Wizard or whatever and ended up making a pact instead because they were frustrated by slow progress or whatever. I've always justified Charisma on Warlock previously as being willpower on the basis that characters with low strength of will probably don't end up with a useful pact, because they'll be fully taken advantage of by the entity they're bargaining with, but I would still prefer to have the choice of scores mechanically because it seems reasonable that an intelligent or wise character could also ensure the terms of the pact are beneficial to them.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Barbarians have functioning brains. Why don't they have spells? Frankly, bards casting through Cha never made much sense as well. Bards are supposed to also be collectors of magical knowledge - hell, one of their signature abilities is called "magical secrets"; they're supposed to be troves of knowledge: legends, stories, songs, history and politics, all those skills and spells. They're a field analogy of academical wizards. And yet, they cast arcane spells with Cha because all barmaids must be seduced.
I mean, what purpose does Int even serve, what is it for? Let's just face it, Cha is a single stat that solves the entire social aspect of the game, and everyone wants that cheap power over NPCs. IMO unified spell lists were great for world building, they made universe and rulesof magic consistent. And I would go one step further - I'd make it do that each spell list is governed by its own stat, according to its nature. Arcane requires comprehension of magical theory, so it's Int. Divine takes faith and conviction - Cha; it makes sense for a cleric to be social, it's their main job after all. And Primal spells should be governed by Wis, your attunement to your surroundings and natural world.
Intelligence isn't required to know things, I tend to think of the spellcasting ability as more about how you cast the spells rather than how you learn them. Because a Bard's magic is more performative, a Sorcerer's is innate, a Wizard's is Intelligence because theirs is all about learning and manipulating magical formulas. Warlock is actually a tricky one to define that way though which is why the choice made a reasonable amount of sense. If instead you go for the score being how a spell is learned, then you'll end up concluding that every caster should be Intelligence based.
That's actually not something I'd necessarily be opposed to; others have suggested on other threads that perhaps spellcasters should be made a bit more MAD, with Intelligence determining spells known/prepared, Wisdom for save DC and maybe Charisma for attack modifier? This would reduce the general strength of casters away from their superiority in 5e, because you'd need to get high scores in all three to fully maximise casting rather than only having to max out one score (which you can usually do by 4th- or 8th-level). Or you'd need to specialise in only the part(s) that matter to you.
This would also require players to think more about the type of caster you're building; if you want to focus on saving throw spells then you can prioritise Wisdom over Charisma, if you want to maximise versatility you can grab some more Intelligence etc. It would also mean that we'd have fewer dextrous and good Constitution spellcasters because currently you only need one score for casting, so there's room to pick up points in Dexterity and Constitution for defence/concentration. Under a more MAD scheme you'd now need to choose whether to pick up more Constitution (or War Caster) or you might instead avoid using concentration spells in combat so you can focus on save DC or spell attack for instants or non-concentration duration spells.
This would also make mixed martial/casters more balanced since you'd need to choose between physical and mental, probably taking a bit of a hit on some aspect(s) of casting to focus on what you really need to be a magical warrior, e.g- if you're focusing on defence, buffing yourself etc. then you may not need to invest much in any of the three because these spells don't need a high save DC or spell attack modifier, but the more mixed you go with blasting and fighting the more you might need to balance both.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
i'm not sleeping on this. i'll take the excuse to reiterate that bards are rumor mongering espionage artists with receipts. they collect knowledge in colleges. they are wizards without spellbooks only because... no, really, why don't they have spellbooks?? even if they're somehow using performance (CHA) (which is distinct from performance (DEX), mind you!) to charm a Word of Creation out of thin air, aren't they going to write that down so they can do it again later? lack of music books, is that why there are so few cool 'music' related bard powers?? or maybe they've just got prodigious memories? oh, wait, recall of arcane knowledge would be which stat again...
sorcerers get their power from blood, from constitution. it's not an act or deception. sorcerers aren't leading armies or puffing themselves up to be intimidating to predators. no, the magic is inside them. sometimes they have to pull it out, other times they have trouble holding it in. it's a struggle that requires constitution. mechanically, if extra hp is a worry for multiclass dips, then half their hp in a level 1 feature and give it back in a level 5 feature.
rangers receive their power from the divine. much like playing musical instruments is generally attributed to charisma, prayer and channeling divine gifts is just a wisdom thing. is this a helpful thread to pull for your side of the conversation? the game is built off players building their own plausibility for why things are the way they are. in a remodel you don't knock down the load bearing walls. it might be time to put down the hammer.
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!
Well now we are heading down this rabbit hole. In truth D&D mental stats should be Knowledge, Sense, Presence. All Casters should be flexible or spells should have different casting stats possibly both.
Bards- Knowledge, Sense, Or Presence
Clerics- Knowledge, Sense
Druids- Knowledge, Sense
Paladin- Sense, Presence
Sorcerer- Constitution, Knowledge, Presence
Warlock- Knowledge, Sense, Presence
Wizard- Knowledge, Presence
Honestly it could be argued that all casters should have all 3 mental Stats available as casting a stat.
If I was completely redesigning things I'd make casting stats vary by spell, not by type of magic. Perhaps something like:
i don't hate that breakdown. given my chance, i think i'd go for a two stat system where the spell has a stat and the caster has a stat (and you can assume there was also a clever way to adjust the dice as required to balance that). in this way you can have same-type attack bonus ('STAB') for specialists. so a CHA caster seeking to charm (CHA) would likely be more effective at it than another type of caster. this might have the additional 'benefit' of weakening non-specialized casters or generalists as a way to reduce the martial caster divide.
also, i would have no problem with there being CON casters but no/few CON spells to specialize in. shrug. quirks are encouraged.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
You're joking right?
Cleric: "Harnessing divine magic doesn’t rely on study or training. A cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites, but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes." That's Wisdom.
Druid: "Whether calling on the elemental forces of nature or emulating the creatures of the animal world, druids are an embodiment of nature’s resilience, cunning, and fury. They claim no mastery over nature. Instead, they see themselves as extensions of nature’s indomitable will." That's Wisdom.
And yes, the bulk of a Warlock's power comes from an explicit entity - but they don't necessarily have to build an explicit relationship with that entity. You can explicitly stumble into pacts without your awareness, or be granted powers by the entity without their awareness. All that is needed for either is for you to make contact in some way. Pacts are not deals. They can be in some cases, but they also don't have to be.
Umm, yes they are. That is literally the definition of a pact. From the Oxford dictionary:
pact: noun; a formal agreement between individuals or parties
Um, Pacts are deals.
They may not have been a choice, but they are always some kid of bargain, contract, or debt.
Even if it is "that person looks fun to screw with", and the subject is unwilling, the moment they use that power, they agree to terms and conditions. That's like, half the stories that rely on the same underlying trope.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds