Even putting Lovecraftian weirdness aside though, GOOs are not the only example; Archfey also can initiate pacts without a formal agreement, and that's purely in keeping with their fantasy archetype. (Insert the old fey "Hey, can I have your names??" joke here.) Can their pacts involve charismatic dealmaking and negotiation? Absolutely. Can their pacts instead be driven by seeking knowledge from the far corners of the cosmology or interpreting sigils in ancient tomes and ruins instead? YES! And we deserve Warlocks that can represent both archetypes, not just the narrow one we've been stuck with for a decade.
Why do you insist on calling that class a warlock? In any case, the archetypical seeker of forbidden knowledge isn't either smart or wise, they're insane, and charisma works as well as anything for that.
Honestly, the background for GoO needs cleaning up; GoO is awkwardly crammed in there, because, separate from 'pact', there's also references to the patron 'bestowing' magic, and having 'demands', and neither of those make sense without some sort of awareness.
Not every pact will use every aspect; sometimes the patron wants you as an active agent, sometimes it’s a classical Faustian and the patron is just waiting to collect, and sometimes the Warlock performs acts that serve the patron in some way, be it slaying the righteous in the name an archfiend or performing bizarre rituals based on one criteria or the other. The “the patron isn’t aware of you” goolock is an example of that last one; it’s aware that something positive has occurred for it and that feeding back some power and/or knowledge makes it more likely to get the positive again, but it might not be aware of your entire plane, let alone one particular speck on that plane.
In any case, the archetypical seeker of forbidden knowledge isn't either smart or wise, they're insane, and charisma works as well as anything for that.
For the eleventy-hundredth time, I agree Charisma fits them too.
Why do you insist on calling that class a warlock?
...Because I can read? The Warlock class description, specifically?
Which is no way specifies that the warlock is good at what they're studying. It might be nice for warlocks to have options, but they don't need it, and there's nothing about their play style that calls for them being particularly analytic -- they don't have prepared spells, their known spells are pretty limited. A warlock being bad at arcana is just like a cleric being bad at religion or a druid being bad at nature (both of which happen all the time) -- academic skill is apparently unnecessary for how they practice magic.
In any case, the archetypical seeker of forbidden knowledge isn't either smart or wise, they're insane, and charisma works as well as anything for that.
For the eleventy-hundredth time, I agree Charisma fits them too.
And WIS fits Wizards, WIS and INT both fit Bards, INT fits Rangers and several flavors of Cleric, etc. Whether you like it or not, classes having a single casting attribute has been a fixed point for as long as we’ve had classes, and apparently hasn’t stifled roleplay to the point that people don’t enjoy the game. If you want to homebrew INTlocks at your table, go ahead and enjoy yourself. But aside from the Watsonian explanations for it, Warlocks were created to be a kind of non-Wizard arcane caster. Part of that distinction is that they handle the magic itself in a different manner, as reflected by the casting stat. And since they likewise want to distinguish the source of the power from Divine/Primal sources- who use WIS- that leaves CHA as the only remaining design option.
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.
By the way, I've cone to the same conclusion about stats. Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma are very, very vague terms. Redefining them would do good. Although I'd name them Knowledge (society, arcana, nature, mechanics, medicine), Perception (senses, analysis, and insight), and Influence (persuasion, acting, intimidation). Though Presence or Personality would work for the latter as well.
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.
By the way, I've cone to the same conclusion about stats. Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma are very, very vague terms. Redefining them would do good. Although I'd name them Knowledge (society, arcana, nature, mechanics, medicine), Perception (senses, analysis, and insight), and Influence (persuasion, acting, intimidation). Though Presence or Personality would work for the latter as well.
IMO those are far too related to skills rather than innate abilities, Knowledge isn't innate it is learned, Noticing things can be trained, Influencing people is about rhetoric and argumentation skill and debate strategy. In contrast, Charisma is that undefinable quality that makes someone so compelling that people just listen to them without even thinking about it, Wisdom is that intuitive common sense, Intelligence is how some people can just learn stuff faster that others.
Which is no way specifies that the warlock is good at what they're studying. It might be nice for warlocks to have options, but they don't need it, and there's nothing about their play style that calls for them being particularly analytic -- they don't have prepared spells, their known spells are pretty limited. A warlock being bad at arcana is just like a cleric being bad at religion or a druid being bad at nature (both of which happen all the time) -- academic skill is apparently unnecessary for how they practice magic.
None of this is "needed," it's a hobby game we play in our very privileged spare time. But I posit that warlocks getting both Int and Cha would be (gasp) fun.
And WIS fits Wizards, WIS and INT both fit Bards, INT fits Rangers and several flavors of Cleric, etc. Whether you like it or not, classes having a single casting attribute has been a fixed point for as long as we’ve had classes, and apparently hasn’t stifled roleplay to the point that people don’t enjoy the game. If you want to homebrew INTlocks at your table, go ahead and enjoy yourself. But aside from the Watsonian explanations for it, Warlocks were created to be a kind of non-Wizard arcane caster. Part of that distinction is that they handle the magic itself in a different manner, as reflected by the casting stat. And since they likewise want to distinguish the source of the power from Divine/Primal sources- who use WIS- that leaves CHA as the only remaining design option.
We have five other non-Wizard Arcane Casters, two others if you only count full casters, and both of those two others only use Cha. Our cup runneth over with Cha Arcane Casters.
Which is no way specifies that the warlock is good at what they're studying. It might be nice for warlocks to have options, but they don't need it, and there's nothing about their play style that calls for them being particularly analytic -- they don't have prepared spells, their known spells are pretty limited. A warlock being bad at arcana is just like a cleric being bad at religion or a druid being bad at nature (both of which happen all the time) -- academic skill is apparently unnecessary for how they practice magic.
None of this is "needed," it's a hobby game we play in our very privileged spare time. But I posit that warlocks getting both Int and Cha would be (gasp) fun.
And WIS fits Wizards, WIS and INT both fit Bards, INT fits Rangers and several flavors of Cleric, etc. Whether you like it or not, classes having a single casting attribute has been a fixed point for as long as we’ve had classes, and apparently hasn’t stifled roleplay to the point that people don’t enjoy the game. If you want to homebrew INTlocks at your table, go ahead and enjoy yourself. But aside from the Watsonian explanations for it, Warlocks were created to be a kind of non-Wizard arcane caster. Part of that distinction is that they handle the magic itself in a different manner, as reflected by the casting stat. And since they likewise want to distinguish the source of the power from Divine/Primal sources- who use WIS- that leaves CHA as the only remaining design option.
We have five other non-Wizard Arcane Casters, two others if you only count full casters, and both of those two others only use Cha. Our cup runneth over with Cha Arcane Casters.
And? Bards already had CHA since whenever they were first introduced, and the point of Sorcerers and Warlocks was to not be Wizards; ergo different casting stats to reflect a different use of magic. WIS is already being used by Divine and Primal casters, and they also want to distinguish Warlocks from Clerics, so they're left with CHA. Imo, would be better to try and create a whole other INT user, if the numerical distribution of casting stats needs to be addressed at all.
And? Bards already had CHA since whenever they were first introduced.
Actually they didn't. In AD&D 1e they were a class with a bunch of weird prerequisites that cast spells as a druid and thus needed wisdom. In AD&D 2e they were a core class that cast spells as a wizard (probably closest to calling it 2/3 caster, 1/3 thief, plus some weird stuff).
And? Bards already had CHA since whenever they were first introduced.
Actually they didn't. In AD&D 1e they were a class with a bunch of weird prerequisites that cast spells as a druid and thus needed wisdom. In AD&D 2e they were a core class that cast spells as a wizard (probably closest to calling it 2/3 caster, 1/3 thief, plus some weird stuff).
And? Bards already had CHA since whenever they were first introduced.
Actually they didn't. In AD&D 1e they were a class with a bunch of weird prerequisites that cast spells as a druid and thus needed wisdom. In AD&D 2e they were a core class that cast spells as a wizard (probably closest to calling it 2/3 caster, 1/3 thief, plus some weird stuff).
2e was my favorite version, up to 6th level spells they acquired spells fairly quick due to using thief XP tables. Had a decent selection of thief skills, some of their own abilities, they were a lot of fun.
Even putting Lovecraftian weirdness aside though, GOOs are not the only example; Archfey also can initiate pacts without a formal agreement, and that's purely in keeping with their fantasy archetype. (Insert the old fey "Hey, can I have your names??" joke here.) Can their pacts involve charismatic dealmaking and negotiation? Absolutely. Can their pacts instead be driven by seeking knowledge from the far corners of the cosmology or interpreting sigils in ancient tomes and ruins instead? YES! And we deserve Warlocks that can represent both archetypes, not just the narrow one we've been stuck with for a decade.
Why do you insist on calling that class a warlock? In any case, the archetypical seeker of forbidden knowledge isn't either smart or wise, they're insane, and charisma works as well as anything for that.
No it does not. What you are describing there is basically a mad scientist, who guess what are smart. Insane sure, but also smart.
Even putting Lovecraftian weirdness aside though, GOOs are not the only example; Archfey also can initiate pacts without a formal agreement, and that's purely in keeping with their fantasy archetype. (Insert the old fey "Hey, can I have your names??" joke here.) Can their pacts involve charismatic dealmaking and negotiation? Absolutely. Can their pacts instead be driven by seeking knowledge from the far corners of the cosmology or interpreting sigils in ancient tomes and ruins instead? YES! And we deserve Warlocks that can represent both archetypes, not just the narrow one we've been stuck with for a decade.
Why do you insist on calling that class a warlock? In any case, the archetypical seeker of forbidden knowledge isn't either smart or wise, they're insane, and charisma works as well as anything for that.
No it does not. What you are describing there is basically a mad scientist, who guess what are smart. Insane sure, but also smart.
No, because mad scientists make their own devices, do their own research. We have a class for that, it's called the Artificer.
Even putting Lovecraftian weirdness aside though, GOOs are not the only example; Archfey also can initiate pacts without a formal agreement, and that's purely in keeping with their fantasy archetype. (Insert the old fey "Hey, can I have your names??" joke here.) Can their pacts involve charismatic dealmaking and negotiation? Absolutely. Can their pacts instead be driven by seeking knowledge from the far corners of the cosmology or interpreting sigils in ancient tomes and ruins instead? YES! And we deserve Warlocks that can represent both archetypes, not just the narrow one we've been stuck with for a decade.
Why do you insist on calling that class a warlock? In any case, the archetypical seeker of forbidden knowledge isn't either smart or wise, they're insane, and charisma works as well as anything for that.
No it does not. What you are describing there is basically a mad scientist, who guess what are smart. Insane sure, but also smart.
No, because mad scientists make their own devices, do their own research. We have a class for that, it's called the Artificer.
Gee really, never knew that. Completely unrelated to a insane person seeking forbidden knowledge on its own. But hey keep thinking charisma makes sense despite all available evidence pointing towards intelligence.
And? Bards already had CHA since whenever they were first introduced, and the point of Sorcerers and Warlocks was to not be Wizards; ergo different casting stats to reflect a different use of magic. WIS is already being used by Divine and Primal casters, and they also want to distinguish Warlocks from Clerics, so they're left with CHA. Imo, would be better to try and create a whole other INT user, if the numerical distribution of casting stats needs to be addressed at all.
So you'll stop at nothing to keep Int Warlocks out of the game. I don't know why you've chosen this hill to die on but clearly there's no point in discussing anything with you.
IMO those are far too related to skills rather than innate abilities, Knowledge isn't innate it is learned, Noticing things can be trained, Influencing people is about rhetoric and argumentation skill and debate strategy. In contrast, Charisma is that undefinable quality that makes someone so compelling that people just listen to them without even thinking about it, Wisdom is that intuitive common sense, Intelligence is how some people can just learn stuff faster that others.
Well, all of ability scores can be trained, they increase with feats. Stats exist to describe the character, and the more precise and clear they are, the better. Knowledge is a very self-explanatory term - it's a sum of education and erudition, the information that your character already possesses. Perception is your ability to find new information from observation, and influence is your ability to influence others. It clearly describes the purpose of each stat.
Besides, that's when metagaming plays a role - a character's Int is not player's Int. You can have a very smart, studied player play a barbarian with 6 Int, and that player will come up with ideas, solutions and tactics that a dumb 6 Int barbarian wouldn't even understand at first try.
And? Bards already had CHA since whenever they were first introduced, and the point of Sorcerers and Warlocks was to not be Wizards; ergo different casting stats to reflect a different use of magic. WIS is already being used by Divine and Primal casters, and they also want to distinguish Warlocks from Clerics, so they're left with CHA. Imo, would be better to try and create a whole other INT user, if the numerical distribution of casting stats needs to be addressed at all.
This argument is just grasping. Aside from being wrong about bards, if the only goal is to distinguish the class from wizards then the casting stat is irrelevant. Even if the warlock used intelligence for casting no one could argue in good faith that as a class they would be, or would even play the same as, a wizard; just as no one could argue that a bard, paladin, or sorcerer are indistinguishable due to using charisma.
And? Bards already had CHA since whenever they were first introduced, and the point of Sorcerers and Warlocks was to not be Wizards; ergo different casting stats to reflect a different use of magic. WIS is already being used by Divine and Primal casters, and they also want to distinguish Warlocks from Clerics, so they're left with CHA. Imo, would be better to try and create a whole other INT user, if the numerical distribution of casting stats needs to be addressed at all.
This argument is just grasping. Aside from being wrong about bards, if the only goal is to distinguish the class from wizards then the casting stat is irrelevant. Even if the warlock used intelligence for casting no one could argue in good faith that as a class they would be, or would even play the same as, a wizard; just as no one could argue that a bard, paladin, or sorcerer are indistinguishable due to using charisma.
I mean, by that basis they could just use one casting stat for everyone. But, as people have amply demonstrated here, many players will read a great deal into what casting stat is used.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why do you insist on calling that class a warlock? In any case, the archetypical seeker of forbidden knowledge isn't either smart or wise, they're insane, and charisma works as well as anything for that.
Not every pact will use every aspect; sometimes the patron wants you as an active agent, sometimes it’s a classical Faustian and the patron is just waiting to collect, and sometimes the Warlock performs acts that serve the patron in some way, be it slaying the righteous in the name an archfiend or performing bizarre rituals based on one criteria or the other. The “the patron isn’t aware of you” goolock is an example of that last one; it’s aware that something positive has occurred for it and that feeding back some power and/or knowledge makes it more likely to get the positive again, but it might not be aware of your entire plane, let alone one particular speck on that plane.
...Because I can read? The Warlock class description, specifically?
For the eleventy-hundredth time, I agree Charisma fits them too.
Which is no way specifies that the warlock is good at what they're studying. It might be nice for warlocks to have options, but they don't need it, and there's nothing about their play style that calls for them being particularly analytic -- they don't have prepared spells, their known spells are pretty limited. A warlock being bad at arcana is just like a cleric being bad at religion or a druid being bad at nature (both of which happen all the time) -- academic skill is apparently unnecessary for how they practice magic.
And WIS fits Wizards, WIS and INT both fit Bards, INT fits Rangers and several flavors of Cleric, etc. Whether you like it or not, classes having a single casting attribute has been a fixed point for as long as we’ve had classes, and apparently hasn’t stifled roleplay to the point that people don’t enjoy the game. If you want to homebrew INTlocks at your table, go ahead and enjoy yourself. But aside from the Watsonian explanations for it, Warlocks were created to be a kind of non-Wizard arcane caster. Part of that distinction is that they handle the magic itself in a different manner, as reflected by the casting stat. And since they likewise want to distinguish the source of the power from Divine/Primal sources- who use WIS- that leaves CHA as the only remaining design option.
By the way, I've cone to the same conclusion about stats. Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma are very, very vague terms. Redefining them would do good. Although I'd name them Knowledge (society, arcana, nature, mechanics, medicine), Perception (senses, analysis, and insight), and Influence (persuasion, acting, intimidation). Though Presence or Personality would work for the latter as well.
IMO those are far too related to skills rather than innate abilities, Knowledge isn't innate it is learned, Noticing things can be trained, Influencing people is about rhetoric and argumentation skill and debate strategy. In contrast, Charisma is that undefinable quality that makes someone so compelling that people just listen to them without even thinking about it, Wisdom is that intuitive common sense, Intelligence is how some people can just learn stuff faster that others.
None of this is "needed," it's a hobby game we play in our very privileged spare time. But I posit that warlocks getting both Int and Cha would be (gasp) fun.
We have five other non-Wizard Arcane Casters, two others if you only count full casters, and both of those two others only use Cha. Our cup runneth over with Cha Arcane Casters.
And? Bards already had CHA since whenever they were first introduced, and the point of Sorcerers and Warlocks was to not be Wizards; ergo different casting stats to reflect a different use of magic. WIS is already being used by Divine and Primal casters, and they also want to distinguish Warlocks from Clerics, so they're left with CHA. Imo, would be better to try and create a whole other INT user, if the numerical distribution of casting stats needs to be addressed at all.
Actually they didn't. In AD&D 1e they were a class with a bunch of weird prerequisites that cast spells as a druid and thus needed wisdom. In AD&D 2e they were a core class that cast spells as a wizard (probably closest to calling it 2/3 caster, 1/3 thief, plus some weird stuff).
I stand corrected.
Yeah, bards in 1e were very, very odd.
2e was my favorite version, up to 6th level spells they acquired spells fairly quick due to using thief XP tables. Had a decent selection of thief skills, some of their own abilities, they were a lot of fun.
No it does not. What you are describing there is basically a mad scientist, who guess what are smart. Insane sure, but also smart.
No, because mad scientists make their own devices, do their own research. We have a class for that, it's called the Artificer.
Gee really, never knew that. Completely unrelated to a insane person seeking forbidden knowledge on its own. But hey keep thinking charisma makes sense despite all available evidence pointing towards intelligence.
So you'll stop at nothing to keep Int Warlocks out of the game. I don't know why you've chosen this hill to die on but clearly there's no point in discussing anything with you.
Well, all of ability scores can be trained, they increase with feats. Stats exist to describe the character, and the more precise and clear they are, the better. Knowledge is a very self-explanatory term - it's a sum of education and erudition, the information that your character already possesses. Perception is your ability to find new information from observation, and influence is your ability to influence others. It clearly describes the purpose of each stat.
Besides, that's when metagaming plays a role - a character's Int is not player's Int. You can have a very smart, studied player play a barbarian with 6 Int, and that player will come up with ideas, solutions and tactics that a dumb 6 Int barbarian wouldn't even understand at first try.
This argument is just grasping. Aside from being wrong about bards, if the only goal is to distinguish the class from wizards then the casting stat is irrelevant. Even if the warlock used intelligence for casting no one could argue in good faith that as a class they would be, or would even play the same as, a wizard; just as no one could argue that a bard, paladin, or sorcerer are indistinguishable due to using charisma.
I mean, by that basis they could just use one casting stat for everyone. But, as people have amply demonstrated here, many players will read a great deal into what casting stat is used.