This discussion is reaching a crazy point. How can anyone deny that the class description is obviously intended for an int caster?
Quite easily. Warlocks are seekers of lore, yes, but they're bad at it. If they were good at it... they wouldn't need a pact.
Lore based statement, not applicable in general.
Apparently lore is applicable if we're citing passages from class descriptions. Unless there are subcategories of lore, in which case some definitions and examples would be helpful.
Of course, really we're all just arguing our head-canons, apparently just because no one wants to let someone else have the last word. [insert glib comment about the self referential nature of this observation below, and then ponder how you've just boomeranged that observation back on yourself]
In actual, practical game terms as opposed to "my character doesn't feel right to me because X number needs to be higher than Y number", CHA and INT are fairly interchangeable for utility. Sometimes players are able to use their meta-knowledge to the point that they rarely need to roll for INT; sometimes a table will either allow for roleplay to carry a social encounter without a roll or simply not have many social opportunities (I've never played myself, but I doubt there's many things in the Tomb of Annihilation that will leave you be if you just ask nicely). And as far as saves go, last I checked both INT and CHA crop up a lot less than WIS on spells. Can't speak to monster effects, there doesn't seem to be a good way to filter for those by type and I'm not ready to spend a few hours looking over even just every stat block in the MM.
And as far as saves go, last I checked both INT and CHA crop up a lot less than WIS on spells. Can't speak to monster effects, there doesn't seem to be a good way to filter for those by type and I'm not ready to spend a few hours looking over even just every stat block in the MM.
And as far as saves go, last I checked both INT and CHA crop up a lot less than WIS on spells. Can't speak to monster effects, there doesn't seem to be a good way to filter for those by type and I'm not ready to spend a few hours looking over even just every stat block in the MM.
Charisma saves in the mm
demilich (acecerak) trap soul
gold dragon lair action
fomorian evil eye
ghost possession
sprite heart sight
umber hulk confusing gaze
Intelligence saves in the mm
intellect devourer devour intellect
mind flayer tentacles and mind blast
psionic grey ooze psychic crush
I'd probably call that a wash.
Thank you for your service. And yeah, pretty sure WIS is once again gonna carry the mental saves by a wide margin. Charm effects and Frightful Presence alone match the full list here a few times over.
Thank you for your service. And yeah, pretty sure WIS is once again gonna carry the mental saves by a wide margin. Charm effects and Frightful Presence alone match the full list here a few times over.
I will note that the Charisma and Intelligence saves, while rare, are quite dire in their effects.
A pact is a pathway to power, someone can be intelligent but too lazy to sit the entrance exams, or think they are intelligent enough to outsmart their Patron and avoid the cost of a pact
there is zero thematic reason why a Warlock can’t have the option of using intelligence for spell casting
the actual question that needs to be answered is;
If warlocks have the option of using intelligence for their spell casting ability, what impact does that have on multiclass for possible OP combinations that would exceed current Cha multiclass situations?
However, there is nothing to suggest that the warlock is a very charismatic person.
I hate to undercut you a just a tiny bit, but there IS the recommendation in the Quick Build section to take the Charlatan background
But that is no longer the description of the class. If in the Quick Build they recommend that you invest in Int as your primary ability, and choose sage as your background (so to speak), it would kill them. It is clear that this description was written with in mind that the warlock's spell casting ability was going to be Int. But it was changed at the last minute, and the description was left as it was because it was too late to rethink the archetype they wanted to represent with the class. Changing the Quick Build takes 5 minutes.
I don't care if it has flexible casting or not. What I do think is that his spell casting ability should be Int. If he has other spell ability casting options, it will be for those rare warlocks who use Char or Wis.
Otherwise, what they should do is change the concept of the archetype to fit a character whose primary ability is char.
I feel like you are all too caught up in the question of whether CHA or INT are the better fit to how the warlock obtained their powers. Because that doesn't matter at all when it comes to how powerfull the application of those powers are.
So whether a warlock is a sage who studied hard and finally found a way to steal power from an otherworldly being or got himself a great bargain when dealing with the devil is not at all important for the question of whether intelligence or charisma define how good he is at wielding the powers he obtainded in this process.
Let's look at all four arcane casters and compare aquisition and application of magic for each of them:
* Wizard: Obtains his magic by study (INT). Uses his fundamental understanding of how the weave works to cast spells (INT).
* Bard: Obtains magic by collecting lore (mostly INT). Uses song and music to unleash the magic carried within those stories he collected (mostly CHA)
* Sorc: Is born with magic (no ability required). Channels the magic from within (I'd argue that self awareness (CHA) might be the best fit here. But physical ability (CON) fits just as well. So does INT when arguing that one could carefully analyze and study their innate magic until being able to fully controll it)
*Warlock: Using above examples either INT or CHA make sense for aquisition of power. But from the description it isn't all that clear how a warlock actually applies magic. Are they just channeling their patrons power? That would be WIS. Are they given instructions and just follow a recipe? That should then be analogous to using a spell scroll, i.e., either of the three mental stats works (INT/WIS/CHA) (or none requirred at all). Maybe they are being infused with the patron's power and must now channel it from within like a sorcerer (CHA).
So for the other casters, apparently it isn't how they obtain magic, but how they use it that defines their spellcasting stat. Same should be true for the warlock. Based on the above, this would lead me to either WIS or CHA as best fitting abilities. Given that it doesn't seem all that wise to make a pact with such a being, CHA ends up being the winner.
However, I also like the "spell scroll" explanation above which would lead to fully flexible choice. In a way this also fits the warlock thematically: Why should magic be the only thing you gain from such a pact? Why shouldn't you be able to bargain for something like "being smart enough to understand the weave" or "being as charming as that bard who always gets the girl/guy". Lag of ability is such a good motivator to engage in such a pact - why shouldn't this pact be a means to overcome said weakness?
I'd also like to add that flexibility of primary stat is not unprecedented: The Fighter gets to choose between STR and DEX. Why shouldn't there be one caster with a choice like that? There doesn't seem to be a mechanical reason. The casting stat distribution would be less skewed towards CHA. It would make some players happy without taking anything away from others. ...
EDIT: I just realized that my example about CHA being used to get laid once again feeds the weird assumption that high CHA ≡ being horny. Which was not intended. For the record: Being more charismatic doesn't mean you are always horny - if anything the opposite would make sense since low CHA should lead to getting laid less and therefore being sexually unsatisfied .
*Warlock: Using above examples either INT or CHA make sense for aquisition of power. But from the description it isn't all that clear how a warlock actually applies magic. Are they just channeling their patrons power? That would be WIS. Are they given instructions and just follow a recipe? That should then be analogous to using a spell scroll, i.e., either of the three mental stats works (INT/WIS/CHA) (or none requirred at all). Maybe they are being infused with the patron's power and must now channel it from within like a sorcerer (CHA).
I'd like to make a small observation here, just for the funsies of it. Divine casters were originally WIS based not because they're channeling their deity's power directly. Its because the gods directly download the spell pattern for casting a spell into the cleric/druid's mind. Wisdom was the ability to follow the instructions the god gave them when casting the spell instead of actually understanding how the spell worked.
These days, its more based on the weight of tradition and class fantasies than Jack Vance's original concepts. But that was the original reason. I'm not trying to make a point or anything, just talking out what I think is an interesting facet of D&D's history.
I think that what is being said is being somewhat misinterpreted here. I mean, the problem is not that a class called warlock uses char. The problem is that the character archetype that they propose for that class should have Int as its main attribute.
The archetype that the game proposes for the class called bard feels like someone who excels in char. And the mechanics accompany that.
The archetype that the game proposes for the class called druid feels like someone who stands out in wis. And the mechanics accompany.
And so we could continue with the Rogue, the Barbarian, etc... The big problem with the warlock is that in no case is he presented to you as someone who is a trickster, seducer, diplomatic or, in short, charismatic. He is introduced to you as a bookworm whose only goal in life is to gain knowledge and power. Could you introduce a Warlock archetype that is a mass leader, for example? Could. And that would be a logical character to have char as his main ability score. But that is not the warlock that the game proposes. And he's not the archetypal warlock of the collective subconscious either, to be frank.
If we use the class as a mechanical chassis empty of content, it does not matter what primary attribute it has. The most useful I guess. But if we want to give narrative meaning to our character, the warlock as he is now is a problem. Basically because he's anything but an archetypal warlock. And of course it is impossible to become the character that the class description suggests. At least do it and make it mechanically viable.
He is introduced to you as a bookworm whose only goal in life is to gain knowledge and power. Could you introduce a Warlock archetype that is a mass leader, for example? Could. And that would be a logical character to have char as his main ability score. But that is not the warlock that the game proposes. And he's not the archetypal warlock of the collective subconscious either, to be frank.
That is not at all what I took away from the description of the warlock, a bookworm that seeks to just gain knowledge and power is a Wizard. Warlocks always felt like the Goths of the D&D world, just really into crazy weird stuff because it makes them feel cool, and special, and powerful. They are cultists, cult-leaders, proselytizers for their patron. The people with pink mohawks, and too much eyeliner that you can't help staring at, just cause they're so weird and have to confidence to show their weirdness.
Really the only thing a Warlock should need to have is low Wisdom, though I personally favour the "I suck at everything, so begged a powerful being for power" type backstories for them. Warlock shouldn't use any ability attribute.
The archetype of the class is making a deal with some entity for magic. That’s why the first sentence of the description is “A Warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being”, and the subclasses are all about what that being is. Research might have led to the pact, but a pact does not require research or scholarship to be formed. Nor do Warlocks study their spells and commit them to memory, as indicated by both the fact that their spellcasting is expressly connected to the pact and does not involve preparation. There is mention of “knowledge” and “secrets”, but it seems to be framed more like learning cheat codes and exploits for a video game as opposed to learning the game’s mechanics and the bosses’ patterns in-depth. And they’re reliant on another being to provide this knowledge in any case.
Also, as has been repeatedly said, there is nothing about CHA that requires one to be a trickster, seducer, or diplomat. To a certain degree, you can argue that the mental stat reflects how the character handles and shapes magic. Wizards and Artificers have studied magic to the point that they can manage a wide repertoire of spells so readily that they don’t need to commit them to memory for more than a day at a time. Clerics and Druids regularly commune with a higher power to receive their magic; rangers honestly could stand to prep as well, but still work in the same general vibe, although since their disciplines are more varied, they can’t easily achieve the same communion. Bards use the magic of song and music supplemented by some magical studies. Paladins, Sorcerers, and Warlocks are all using something that has been internalized as the basis of their casting. With Paladins it crosses over with the harmonizing with a deity of Clerics, thus the list prepping, but they’re ultimately defined by their Oath, which is a matter of personal conduct, self-image, and ideals. Sorcerers are of course dealing with magic internalized either by heritage or exposure that is so much a part of them that they’re even able to manipulate the effects via Metamagic and are able to express other powers based on the “identity”- if you will- of that magic; dragon sorcerers become more like dragons, shadow sorcerers more like shadows, etc. And Warlocks are dealing with internalized power that is the result of another being implanting it in them, and while through acquiring Invocations they can express a variety of powers, they always manifest further powers and potential spells based on their patron, and thus their development likewise is tied to a sense of identity, in this case aligning it based on the patron.
So I suppose you could argue that CHA as a casting stat represents magic that is tied to a sense of identity. And no, that is not a “all Fiendlocks must be evil” model; a Good Warlock who made a pact with an archdevil might simply align themselves with concepts like structure, law, or the desire to rise in station. The patron types all cover a fairly broad area of personal concepts, and I doubt most people make a Warlock whose characterization has absolutely nothing in common with their patron.
If warlocks have the option of using intelligence for their spell casting ability, what impact does that have on multiclass for possible OP combinations that would exceed current Cha multiclass situations?
Assuming flexible casting score as the only change from 5e, then this would just give Wisdom and Intelligence casters access to most of the same exploits as Charisma characters. The big ones would probably still be Hexblade for a single level dip allowing you to use your casting ability for melee attacks, which helps reduce ability score dependency, or a two-level dip for Agonizing Blast because it's the best damage cantrip in the game, though there are other invocations you might want the two levels for.
While I'd love to use the melee dip for a Monk/Warlock who could then prioritise Wisdom, the bigger beneficiaries are probably Eldritch Knight and Ranger, and most potentially broken might be Blade Singer who would not only have solid defence via Blade Song, better melee offence via Hexblade and more spell slots for casting shield etc. Might not be that broken given the delay in Wizard progression, but it would make Warlock an easy multiclass to recommend on basically every class because there are very few builds that can't get something they'd like to have, and while pact magic slots are constraining on a pure Warlock, they're liberating on any other class.
Going by the two Warlock playtests, the earlier one (half-caster and choice of scores) it doesn't matter that sub-class is delayed until 3rd-level because you don't need Hexblade for the quick benefits, as you get them from Pact of the Blade at 1st-level instead (though without Hexblade's Curse so it's not quite so bad). The later playtest (back to pact magic, boons as invocations) you can also get Pact of the Blade at first level, and by 2nd-level you can get all three pact boons which is pretty silly (as they're so much better than other invocations) but I'm not sure that's going to survive as-is (I'd wager they go back to one boon as before, and maybe a later level invocation can grant an optional second).
So that problem of a single level dip to boost melee makes Warlock highly desirable for a melee build on any class. It's also a good way to gain access to spells you can't get any other way, include Warlock unique spells like armor of Agathys (long duration durability with possible automatic revenge damage), as well as features and free-castings you can pick up as invocations, and of course Agonizing Blast will suit any blaster build as puts out solid damage while saving spells. It's always been a very attractive multiclass thanks to how much great stuff you can get early on.
They could reign a bit of this in if they made Warlock pact slots only usable to cast Warlock spells and vice versa, i.e- only spell slots are shareable with other classes, while pact slots wouldn't be. The limited casting on the Warlock side is supposed to be why they can get free castings via invocations so I think it would make sense to limit that. Not sure of the best fix for boons, except maybe to delay the casting score for melee bonus of blade, to encourage more balanced scores at earlier levels so your casting score doesn't outpace until later. The issue with multiclassing is that your casting score is probably already high, which is what makes the single level dips so attractive when they give benefits that are better for higher level characters.
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.
Do a mental exercise. Read the class description again as if you didn't know what the class's main score ability is. Would you think it's Char? I highly doubt it, frankly. You would think it was Int.
Do a mental exercise. Read the class description again as if you didn't know what the class's main score ability is. Would you think it's Char? I highly doubt it, frankly. You would think it was Int.
It's as simple as that.
I mean, if we’re white rooming this I wouldn’t attribute any printed attributes to the class. If I’m familiar with D&D, then I wouldn’t see many parallels to Wizards or Artificers in “oh yeah, I called up something in a circle and made a deal for power”. Nor do the class feature descriptions of being given power or secrets evoke the image of a self-motivated intellect, as one would expect from a high INT score. But, then, I’m not reading it looking for confirmation that it should be INT, so that might be skewing my perception.
The archetype of the class is making a deal with some entity for magic. That’s why the first sentence of the description is “A Warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being”, and the subclasses are all about what that being is. Research might have led to the pact, but a pact does not require research or scholarship to be formed.
That's fine, none of us have argued that intelligence is required for the pact to be formed. If you'd take a moment to remember what the thread is about, it's about flexibility in choosing the warlocks casting stat...which alone implies that those in favor of it, are also in favor of NOT locking it down to intelligence. You seem to be continuously arguing against a point that was never really made.
Nor do Warlocks study their spells and commit them to memory,
Arguable. "More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf." The class description directly supports the character concept that the warlock learns its spells and powers exactly as a wizard would from its teacher. IMO, RaW, this is further supported by there being no way for the patron to take these powers back. If the patron simply "implanted" these powers in the warlock, I think it would be fair to expect they could remove them, but there is no way for them to do so. To me this implies the warlock learned these powers and they are their own now.
as indicated by both the fact that their spellcasting is expressly connected to the pact and does not involve preparation. There is mention of “knowledge” and “secrets”, but it seems to be framed more like learning cheat codes and exploits for a video game as opposed to learning the game’s mechanics and the bosses’ patterns in-depth. And they’re reliant on another being to provide this knowledge in any case.
Spell preparation does not inherently have anything to do with whether the individuals spells are their own committed to memory or not. Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster are both intelligence casters that learn their spells themselves and that have known spells rather than prepared. Further, there is actually nothing in the warlocks class, other than your predetermined bias, that frames the knowledge and secrets they are supported as researching and spending their own time discovering as like "learning cheat codes and exploits in a video game" ANY MORE than the wizards descriptions of of its class does. Should a wizard who finds and learns a new spell from a scroll or another wizard not use intelligence for that spell because they were shown how to do it?
Directly from the wizard class description: "They can also learn them from other wizards, from ancient tomes or inscriptions, and from ancient creatures (such as the fey) that are steeped in magic." That's inherently wizardly and an intelligent avenue, but apparently just because a warlock made that avenue of knowledge their primary one, it can no longer be so.
Wizards and Artificers have studied magic to the point that they can manage a wide repertoire of spells so readily that they don’t need to commit them to memory for more than a day at a time.
And an intelligent warlock studies, learns, and discovers paths to their patron then studies and learns the spells their patron teaches them. They don't learn as many as a wizard, so they don't swap out spells and instead just have the fewer number of spells they know always ready. Then they spend the rest of their time furthering their separate area of research and expertise (from a wizard's) by continuing their own studies and discovering and learning how to use more ancient powers to gain through their invocations, as well as continuing to be taught new powers from their patron. Spells aren't the only thing warlocks gain, and their time is spent gaining these powers completely separate from wizards; rather than ONLY learning new spells, they gain access to a litany of innate powers and alternative abilities that a wizard never does. INTELLIGENCE ≠ SPELL. Or even magic for that matter. Should a war advisor who is a genius of military tactics, logistics, and history be argued to not be intelligent because they didn't spend their time learning any spells?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Apparently lore is applicable if we're citing passages from class descriptions. Unless there are subcategories of lore, in which case some definitions and examples would be helpful.
Of course, really we're all just arguing our head-canons, apparently just because no one wants to let someone else have the last word. [insert glib comment about the self referential nature of this observation below, and then ponder how you've just boomeranged that observation back on yourself]
In actual, practical game terms as opposed to "my character doesn't feel right to me because X number needs to be higher than Y number", CHA and INT are fairly interchangeable for utility. Sometimes players are able to use their meta-knowledge to the point that they rarely need to roll for INT; sometimes a table will either allow for roleplay to carry a social encounter without a roll or simply not have many social opportunities (I've never played myself, but I doubt there's many things in the Tomb of Annihilation that will leave you be if you just ask nicely). And as far as saves go, last I checked both INT and CHA crop up a lot less than WIS on spells. Can't speak to monster effects, there doesn't seem to be a good way to filter for those by type and I'm not ready to spend a few hours looking over even just every stat block in the MM.
Charisma saves in the mm
Intelligence saves in the mm
I'd probably call that a wash.
Thank you for your service. And yeah, pretty sure WIS is once again gonna carry the mental saves by a wide margin. Charm effects and Frightful Presence alone match the full list here a few times over.
I will note that the Charisma and Intelligence saves, while rare, are quite dire in their effects.
So you think Warlocks can only be horny idiots, exactly like Yurei's been saying. Great.
Nah, there's nothing horny about it. They are, however, people who chose to get involved in a pact that's almost always a bad idea.
So you're choosing to put words in other peoples' mouths to demean their position. Great.
A warlock can be smart and lazy
A pact is a pathway to power, someone can be intelligent but too lazy to sit the entrance exams, or think they are intelligent enough to outsmart their Patron and avoid the cost of a pact
there is zero thematic reason why a Warlock can’t have the option of using intelligence for spell casting
the actual question that needs to be answered is;
If warlocks have the option of using intelligence for their spell casting ability, what impact does that have on multiclass for possible OP combinations that would exceed current Cha multiclass situations?
A tendency to get in over your head is lack of Wisdom, not Intelligence. Nobody is arguing that Warlocks should be known for being wise.
But that is no longer the description of the class. If in the Quick Build they recommend that you invest in Int as your primary ability, and choose sage as your background (so to speak), it would kill them.
It is clear that this description was written with in mind that the warlock's spell casting ability was going to be Int. But it was changed at the last minute, and the description was left as it was because it was too late to rethink the archetype they wanted to represent with the class. Changing the Quick Build takes 5 minutes.
I don't care if it has flexible casting or not. What I do think is that his spell casting ability should be Int. If he has other spell ability casting options, it will be for those rare warlocks who use Char or Wis.
Otherwise, what they should do is change the concept of the archetype to fit a character whose primary ability is char.
I feel like you are all too caught up in the question of whether CHA or INT are the better fit to how the warlock obtained their powers. Because that doesn't matter at all when it comes to how powerfull the application of those powers are.
So whether a warlock is a sage who studied hard and finally found a way to steal power from an otherworldly being or got himself a great bargain when dealing with the devil is not at all important for the question of whether intelligence or charisma define how good he is at wielding the powers he obtainded in this process.
Let's look at all four arcane casters and compare aquisition and application of magic for each of them:
* Wizard: Obtains his magic by study (INT). Uses his fundamental understanding of how the weave works to cast spells (INT).
* Bard: Obtains magic by collecting lore (mostly INT). Uses song and music to unleash the magic carried within those stories he collected (mostly CHA)
* Sorc: Is born with magic (no ability required). Channels the magic from within (I'd argue that self awareness (CHA) might be the best fit here. But physical ability (CON) fits just as well. So does INT when arguing that one could carefully analyze and study their innate magic until being able to fully controll it)
*Warlock: Using above examples either INT or CHA make sense for aquisition of power. But from the description it isn't all that clear how a warlock actually applies magic. Are they just channeling their patrons power? That would be WIS. Are they given instructions and just follow a recipe? That should then be analogous to using a spell scroll, i.e., either of the three mental stats works (INT/WIS/CHA) (or none requirred at all). Maybe they are being infused with the patron's power and must now channel it from within like a sorcerer (CHA).
So for the other casters, apparently it isn't how they obtain magic, but how they use it that defines their spellcasting stat. Same should be true for the warlock. Based on the above, this would lead me to either WIS or CHA as best fitting abilities. Given that it doesn't seem all that wise to make a pact with such a being, CHA ends up being the winner.
However, I also like the "spell scroll" explanation above which would lead to fully flexible choice. In a way this also fits the warlock thematically: Why should magic be the only thing you gain from such a pact? Why shouldn't you be able to bargain for something like "being smart enough to understand the weave" or "being as charming as that bard who always gets the girl/guy". Lag of ability is such a good motivator to engage in such a pact - why shouldn't this pact be a means to overcome said weakness?
I'd also like to add that flexibility of primary stat is not unprecedented: The Fighter gets to choose between STR and DEX. Why shouldn't there be one caster with a choice like that? There doesn't seem to be a mechanical reason. The casting stat distribution would be less skewed towards CHA. It would make some players happy without taking anything away from others. ...
EDIT: I just realized that my example about CHA being used to get laid once again feeds the weird assumption that high CHA ≡ being horny. Which was not intended. For the record: Being more charismatic doesn't mean you are always horny - if anything the opposite would make sense since low CHA should lead to getting laid less and therefore being sexually unsatisfied .
I'd like to make a small observation here, just for the funsies of it. Divine casters were originally WIS based not because they're channeling their deity's power directly. Its because the gods directly download the spell pattern for casting a spell into the cleric/druid's mind. Wisdom was the ability to follow the instructions the god gave them when casting the spell instead of actually understanding how the spell worked.
These days, its more based on the weight of tradition and class fantasies than Jack Vance's original concepts. But that was the original reason. I'm not trying to make a point or anything, just talking out what I think is an interesting facet of D&D's history.
I think that what is being said is being somewhat misinterpreted here. I mean, the problem is not that a class called warlock uses char. The problem is that the character archetype that they propose for that class should have Int as its main attribute.
The archetype that the game proposes for the class called bard feels like someone who excels in char. And the mechanics accompany that.
The archetype that the game proposes for the class called druid feels like someone who stands out in wis. And the mechanics accompany.
And so we could continue with the Rogue, the Barbarian, etc... The big problem with the warlock is that in no case is he presented to you as someone who is a trickster, seducer, diplomatic or, in short, charismatic. He is introduced to you as a bookworm whose only goal in life is to gain knowledge and power. Could you introduce a Warlock archetype that is a mass leader, for example? Could. And that would be a logical character to have char as his main ability score. But that is not the warlock that the game proposes. And he's not the archetypal warlock of the collective subconscious either, to be frank.
If we use the class as a mechanical chassis empty of content, it does not matter what primary attribute it has. The most useful I guess. But if we want to give narrative meaning to our character, the warlock as he is now is a problem. Basically because he's anything but an archetypal warlock. And of course it is impossible to become the character that the class description suggests. At least do it and make it mechanically viable.
That is not at all what I took away from the description of the warlock, a bookworm that seeks to just gain knowledge and power is a Wizard. Warlocks always felt like the Goths of the D&D world, just really into crazy weird stuff because it makes them feel cool, and special, and powerful. They are cultists, cult-leaders, proselytizers for their patron. The people with pink mohawks, and too much eyeliner that you can't help staring at, just cause they're so weird and have to confidence to show their weirdness.
Really the only thing a Warlock should need to have is low Wisdom, though I personally favour the "I suck at everything, so begged a powerful being for power" type backstories for them. Warlock shouldn't use any ability attribute.
The archetype of the class is making a deal with some entity for magic. That’s why the first sentence of the description is “A Warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being”, and the subclasses are all about what that being is. Research might have led to the pact, but a pact does not require research or scholarship to be formed. Nor do Warlocks study their spells and commit them to memory, as indicated by both the fact that their spellcasting is expressly connected to the pact and does not involve preparation. There is mention of “knowledge” and “secrets”, but it seems to be framed more like learning cheat codes and exploits for a video game as opposed to learning the game’s mechanics and the bosses’ patterns in-depth. And they’re reliant on another being to provide this knowledge in any case.
Also, as has been repeatedly said, there is nothing about CHA that requires one to be a trickster, seducer, or diplomat. To a certain degree, you can argue that the mental stat reflects how the character handles and shapes magic. Wizards and Artificers have studied magic to the point that they can manage a wide repertoire of spells so readily that they don’t need to commit them to memory for more than a day at a time. Clerics and Druids regularly commune with a higher power to receive their magic; rangers honestly could stand to prep as well, but still work in the same general vibe, although since their disciplines are more varied, they can’t easily achieve the same communion. Bards use the magic of song and music supplemented by some magical studies. Paladins, Sorcerers, and Warlocks are all using something that has been internalized as the basis of their casting. With Paladins it crosses over with the harmonizing with a deity of Clerics, thus the list prepping, but they’re ultimately defined by their Oath, which is a matter of personal conduct, self-image, and ideals. Sorcerers are of course dealing with magic internalized either by heritage or exposure that is so much a part of them that they’re even able to manipulate the effects via Metamagic and are able to express other powers based on the “identity”- if you will- of that magic; dragon sorcerers become more like dragons, shadow sorcerers more like shadows, etc. And Warlocks are dealing with internalized power that is the result of another being implanting it in them, and while through acquiring Invocations they can express a variety of powers, they always manifest further powers and potential spells based on their patron, and thus their development likewise is tied to a sense of identity, in this case aligning it based on the patron.
So I suppose you could argue that CHA as a casting stat represents magic that is tied to a sense of identity. And no, that is not a “all Fiendlocks must be evil” model; a Good Warlock who made a pact with an archdevil might simply align themselves with concepts like structure, law, or the desire to rise in station. The patron types all cover a fairly broad area of personal concepts, and I doubt most people make a Warlock whose characterization has absolutely nothing in common with their patron.
Assuming flexible casting score as the only change from 5e, then this would just give Wisdom and Intelligence casters access to most of the same exploits as Charisma characters. The big ones would probably still be Hexblade for a single level dip allowing you to use your casting ability for melee attacks, which helps reduce ability score dependency, or a two-level dip for Agonizing Blast because it's the best damage cantrip in the game, though there are other invocations you might want the two levels for.
While I'd love to use the melee dip for a Monk/Warlock who could then prioritise Wisdom, the bigger beneficiaries are probably Eldritch Knight and Ranger, and most potentially broken might be Blade Singer who would not only have solid defence via Blade Song, better melee offence via Hexblade and more spell slots for casting shield etc. Might not be that broken given the delay in Wizard progression, but it would make Warlock an easy multiclass to recommend on basically every class because there are very few builds that can't get something they'd like to have, and while pact magic slots are constraining on a pure Warlock, they're liberating on any other class.
Going by the two Warlock playtests, the earlier one (half-caster and choice of scores) it doesn't matter that sub-class is delayed until 3rd-level because you don't need Hexblade for the quick benefits, as you get them from Pact of the Blade at 1st-level instead (though without Hexblade's Curse so it's not quite so bad). The later playtest (back to pact magic, boons as invocations) you can also get Pact of the Blade at first level, and by 2nd-level you can get all three pact boons which is pretty silly (as they're so much better than other invocations) but I'm not sure that's going to survive as-is (I'd wager they go back to one boon as before, and maybe a later level invocation can grant an optional second).
So that problem of a single level dip to boost melee makes Warlock highly desirable for a melee build on any class. It's also a good way to gain access to spells you can't get any other way, include Warlock unique spells like armor of Agathys (long duration durability with possible automatic revenge damage), as well as features and free-castings you can pick up as invocations, and of course Agonizing Blast will suit any blaster build as puts out solid damage while saving spells. It's always been a very attractive multiclass thanks to how much great stuff you can get early on.
They could reign a bit of this in if they made Warlock pact slots only usable to cast Warlock spells and vice versa, i.e- only spell slots are shareable with other classes, while pact slots wouldn't be. The limited casting on the Warlock side is supposed to be why they can get free castings via invocations so I think it would make sense to limit that. Not sure of the best fix for boons, except maybe to delay the casting score for melee bonus of blade, to encourage more balanced scores at earlier levels so your casting score doesn't outpace until later. The issue with multiclassing is that your casting score is probably already high, which is what makes the single level dips so attractive when they give benefits that are better for higher level characters.
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.
Do a mental exercise. Read the class description again as if you didn't know what the class's main score ability is. Would you think it's Char? I highly doubt it, frankly. You would think it was Int.
It's as simple as that.
I mean, if we’re white rooming this I wouldn’t attribute any printed attributes to the class. If I’m familiar with D&D, then I wouldn’t see many parallels to Wizards or Artificers in “oh yeah, I called up something in a circle and made a deal for power”. Nor do the class feature descriptions of being given power or secrets evoke the image of a self-motivated intellect, as one would expect from a high INT score. But, then, I’m not reading it looking for confirmation that it should be INT, so that might be skewing my perception.
That's fine, none of us have argued that intelligence is required for the pact to be formed. If you'd take a moment to remember what the thread is about, it's about flexibility in choosing the warlocks casting stat...which alone implies that those in favor of it, are also in favor of NOT locking it down to intelligence. You seem to be continuously arguing against a point that was never really made.
Arguable. "More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf." The class description directly supports the character concept that the warlock learns its spells and powers exactly as a wizard would from its teacher. IMO, RaW, this is further supported by there being no way for the patron to take these powers back. If the patron simply "implanted" these powers in the warlock, I think it would be fair to expect they could remove them, but there is no way for them to do so. To me this implies the warlock learned these powers and they are their own now.
Spell preparation does not inherently have anything to do with whether the individuals spells are their own committed to memory or not. Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster are both intelligence casters that learn their spells themselves and that have known spells rather than prepared. Further, there is actually nothing in the warlocks class, other than your predetermined bias, that frames the knowledge and secrets they are supported as researching and spending their own time discovering as like "learning cheat codes and exploits in a video game" ANY MORE than the wizards descriptions of of its class does. Should a wizard who finds and learns a new spell from a scroll or another wizard not use intelligence for that spell because they were shown how to do it?
Directly from the wizard class description: "They can also learn them from other wizards, from ancient tomes or inscriptions, and from ancient creatures (such as the fey) that are steeped in magic." That's inherently wizardly and an intelligent avenue, but apparently just because a warlock made that avenue of knowledge their primary one, it can no longer be so.
And an intelligent warlock studies, learns, and discovers paths to their patron then studies and learns the spells their patron teaches them. They don't learn as many as a wizard, so they don't swap out spells and instead just have the fewer number of spells they know always ready. Then they spend the rest of their time furthering their separate area of research and expertise (from a wizard's) by continuing their own studies and discovering and learning how to use more ancient powers to gain through their invocations, as well as continuing to be taught new powers from their patron. Spells aren't the only thing warlocks gain, and their time is spent gaining these powers completely separate from wizards; rather than ONLY learning new spells, they gain access to a litany of innate powers and alternative abilities that a wizard never does. INTELLIGENCE ≠ SPELL. Or even magic for that matter. Should a war advisor who is a genius of military tactics, logistics, and history be argued to not be intelligent because they didn't spend their time learning any spells?