Warlocks do not need to be ******* horny. HALF THE GAME'S CLASSES are Charisma-based. We have ONE, SINGLE Intelligence-based character in the 2024 books, since the artificer is being abandoned. Warlocks being allowed to vary their casting ability dependent on what the nature of their Pact is was one of the coolest ideas in the UA5 document, and it does nothing but enhance the game. There is no good reason to dispermit it.
I swear it feels like some kind of anti-intellectualism or something, or the geeks that design the game wish to play as jocks in the fantasy world and seduce all the barmaids.
Frankly, I loved the unified spell lists, it brought some consistency in the in-game world, you no longer had to ask why this arcane class has this spell, and other arcane class didn't. I'd aldo like it if the spellcasting stat was also unified - Int for arcane, Wis for primal, Cha for divine.
I'd be cool with them adding INT as an option, mostly agreeing with the conversation above... but I think that WIS should be off the table.
You can be book smart, and an idiot enough to make a Faustian bargain.
You can have intense force of personality, and be an idiot enough to make a Faustian bargain.
Anyone with any common sense (ie: Wisdom) would see that bargain for what it is and run for the hills...
Not all warlock bargains have to be painfully one-sided. A warlock's patron can easily be a fey spirit they out-witted in a game and now the fey spirit has to answer to the warlock. Or a genie who got tricked by the cunning hero to give them power. Or a celestial being who has no ill will toward their warlock at all and formed with them a fair and equitable deal that helps both further the cause of the Greater Good.
Heck, even with the evil patrons there should be room for the cunning and perceptive hero who tricked a devil into getting the better end of their Faustian pact and now the devil is trying to weasel out of their deal. A deal is a deal, even with a dirty dealer.
Honestly, INT and WIS aren't a good fit purely on the basis of a comparison of the basic archetypes. The baseline image of a Wizard or Artificer is someone who is meant to have spent years if not decades learning their craft from the ground up. The baseline for Clerics and Druids is to commune and harmonize with a higher power. The baseline for Warlocks is some kind of transactional relationship; they do X and get power in return, no inherent need for rigorous study or spiritual communion. Like, yes, you can attempt to justify how your particular backstory is more about learning the ancient rites or finding a way to commune with The Beast Who Was Behind the Door When the Vowels Were Handed Out, but by the same token you can have a Cleric who goes with the whole "my domain comes from a concept, not a deity" and/or generally is more a theologian than a member of the clergy or a Wizard who just got their spellbook a few weeks ago or is more an intuitive caster than a rigorous academic; learning to play music or sing and particularly memorizing a wide repertoire of songs is at least as much of a cerebral exercise as an emotive one. Casting stats are all somewhat arbitrary and aren't necessarily going to reflect how you make a character's backstory or play the character. If Warlocks can be flexible about it, there's really no reason why all the other classes can't too. Which is not a bad thing in and of itself, but then it might make it too easy for one casting stat to become mechanically dominant.
TLDR: Yes, you can justify INT or WIS with your particular Warlock backstory, but casting stats are sometimes an instance of Gameplay and Story Segregation.
The rest of your post can be summed up as "you're wrong and you shouldn't want this, but I guess it's okay." I considered it irrelevant to the point, which is that too many people believe being horny is an ironclad mandate for warlocks just because the word "bargain" is written somewhere in its class description.
Besides which, bargaining isn't even always Charisma and just trying to convince someone to take a bad deal through sheer force of horny. Sometimes a bargain is a highly intellectual exchange of terms, conditions, benefits, and obligations, a negotiation far more rooted in Intelligence than in Charisma.
Sorcerers, bards, and paladins are all already Charisma-focused, the former two to the exclusion of all else. We do not need a third Charisma-focused "full" caster. The warlock being flexible makes sense, more so than any other casting class. Why not? Realistically - why not?
It's super cool to be told that I didn't mean what I said, love being misquoted.
Speaking of putting words in people's mouths, what is your hang-up here? Charisma doesn't equate 1:1 with attractiveness or desire, it can alternatively be about understanding social cues, willpower, emotional intelligence, leadership, etc. A lot of this stuff is wrapped up in or intermingles with the other mental abilities, but that's just D&D having a foundational basis that doesn't have much time or interest in quantifying social or emotional understanding. If you want to narrow the current warlock or the charisma ability in general exclusively into seducing the wait staff at ye olde tavern that's a you problem.
And since I apparently have to say things thrice, I support a flexible casting stat on the warlock, I thought it was a good idea for the UA5 and support it being used in the 2024 rules. My complaint was about the post I was quoting that was claiming intelligence is more appropriate than charisma. You're ignoring the nuance because responding to what I actually said doesn't give you the soapbox to rant on.
Naaah... I don't buy it. I've read too much Lovecraft. None of those hapless fools had a high Wisdom score.
(to be clear - I see nothing with a Warlock of any sort having a high Wisdom - just not as the Primary Stat)
Sure, but 1920's pulp horror world is very different than your typical D&D setting. In the Mythos the scariest things in existence are those alien horrors beyond mortal understanding; in D&D you've also got rampaging monsters of every challenge rating and literal evil gods being worshipped with varying degrees of legitimacy or legality In the various settings of D&D there's a million reasons to come into an agreement (or barter/steal/swindle/etc) with any entity in existence for power because that power might be essential to survival right now. Sometimes the wises thing one can do in the moment is give up something later for power now, especially in the ludicrously high-stakes world that D&D adventurers live in. The game isn't a morality play, sometimes in very particular circumstances the wiser thing to do is to sacrifice a part of yourself for what you think is the greater good.
Honestly, INT and WIS aren't a good fit purely on the basis of a comparison of the basic archetypes. The baseline image of a Wizard or Artificer is someone who is meant to have spent years if not decades learning their craft from the ground up. The baseline for Clerics and Druids is to commune and harmonize with a higher power. The baseline for Warlocks is some kind of transactional relationship; they do X and get power in return, no inherent need for rigorous study or spiritual communion. Like, yes, you can attempt to justify how your particular backstory is more about learning the ancient rites or finding a way to commune with The Beast Who Was Behind the Door When the Vowels Were Handed Out, but by the same token you can have a Cleric who goes with the whole "my domain comes from a concept, not a deity" and/or generally is more a theologian than a member of the clergy or a Wizard who just got their spellbook a few weeks ago or is more an intuitive caster than a rigorous academic; learning to play music or sing and particularly memorizing a wide repertoire of songs is at least as much of a cerebral exercise as an emotive one. Casting stats are all somewhat arbitrary and aren't necessarily going to reflect how you make a character's backstory or play the character. If Warlocks can be flexible about it, there's really no reason why all the other classes can't too. Which is not a bad thing in and of itself, but then it might make it too easy for one casting stat to become mechanically dominant.
TLDR: Yes, you can justify INT or WIS with your particular Warlock backstory, but casting stats are sometimes an instance of Gameplay and Story Segregation.
There are FOUR Charisma-based character classes.
There is ONE Intelligence-based character class.
DMs are actively instructed by the book to undervalue and ignore Intelligence-based skill checks by simply awarding the knowledge anyways via "research", NPC exposition, or other random lore drops, essentially invalidating knowledge-based checks and Intelligence. Charisma-based skill checks, on the other hand, constitute the entire ******* social pillar. A whole-ass "third" of the game consists almost exclusively of Charisma-based skill checks.
Like Kamchat said, the current edition of the game honestly feels actively, deliberately anti-intellectual, as if the game is forcibly making the statement that intelligence is pointless and can be easily discarded. It sucks. I'm sick of it. I want Intelligence to matter more to an adventuring party, and I'd like the option to play an intelligent character that ISN'T a goddamn wizard, FOR ONCE.
I have respect for all those advocating for a flexible casting stat and wouldn't be against implementing the rule, and I certainly understand Yurei's distaste for an over-abundance of Charisma-based classes. Despite this, I see Charisma as an extremely logical choice for the class (especially if there is only one stat to choose from). From my perspective, Charisma is crucial for those entering into a pact, not to sway or convince the patron, but to be able to retain their own persona despite linking themselves to an ultra-powerful entity. Sure, a Warlock may have opened the gateway to great power through study (for the example of Intelligence), but they are only able to maintain their independent selves through the strength of their Charisma to avoid becoming a mindless minion. It has been stated many times that Charisma-based saves tend to be linked to a sense of self.
Honestly, INT and WIS aren't a good fit purely on the basis of a comparison of the basic archetypes. The baseline image of a Wizard or Artificer is someone who is meant to have spent years if not decades learning their craft from the ground up. The baseline for Clerics and Druids is to commune and harmonize with a higher power. The baseline for Warlocks is some kind of transactional relationship; they do X and get power in return, no inherent need for rigorous study or spiritual communion. Like, yes, you can attempt to justify how your particular backstory is more about learning the ancient rites or finding a way to commune with The Beast Who Was Behind the Door When the Vowels Were Handed Out, but by the same token you can have a Cleric who goes with the whole "my domain comes from a concept, not a deity" and/or generally is more a theologian than a member of the clergy or a Wizard who just got their spellbook a few weeks ago or is more an intuitive caster than a rigorous academic; learning to play music or sing and particularly memorizing a wide repertoire of songs is at least as much of a cerebral exercise as an emotive one. Casting stats are all somewhat arbitrary and aren't necessarily going to reflect how you make a character's backstory or play the character. If Warlocks can be flexible about it, there's really no reason why all the other classes can't too. Which is not a bad thing in and of itself, but then it might make it too easy for one casting stat to become mechanically dominant.
TLDR: Yes, you can justify INT or WIS with your particular Warlock backstory, but casting stats are sometimes an instance of Gameplay and Story Segregation.
There are FOUR Charisma-based character classes.
There is ONE Intelligence-based character class.
DMs are actively instructed by the book to undervalue and ignore Intelligence-based skill checks by simply awarding the knowledge anyways via "research", NPC exposition, or other random lore drops, essentially invalidating knowledge-based checks and Intelligence. Charisma-based skill checks, on the other hand, constitute the entire ******* social pillar. A whole-ass "third" of the game consists almost exclusively of Charisma-based skill checks.
Like Kamchat said, the current edition of the game honestly feels actively, deliberately anti-intellectual, as if the game is forcibly making the statement that intelligence is pointless and can be easily discarded. It sucks. I'm sick of it. I want Intelligence to matter more to an adventuring party, and I'd like the option to play an intelligent character that ISN'T a goddamn wizard, FOR ONCE.
Right, you've got a semi-legitimate fight here, just stop making me the center of by way of misquote.
As for the "pillars"... lol, ok. Dungeons and Dragons spends almost no time modeling anything other than a miniatures war game. One can certainly have interesting puzzle, investigation, or knowledge-based conflicts, but the game isn't set up to use any of the mental stats in a meaningful way to progress or interact with these kinds of conflicts outside of skill checks. The system for social interactions almost touches on this by pointing out how an npc's ideals/bonds/flaws can be leveraged in interactions, but even that system was so underused that the new UA rules take active steps to remove it from the game; and absolutely nobody has so much as mentioned it.
I would love there to be a genuine three pillar D&D game where a character's brain mattered for more than how well they could interact with a magic system, but this ain't it. There is one pillar of D&D, it's combat, and the value or depth of everything else in the game will only matter if a given DM is willing to do to fix it. I also despise this state of affairs, but let's not pretend that moving the casting stat for one class does anything to address the real problem.
Further, framing the problem as devs thinking "players just want to seduce npc's" is a weird way to see this. Charisma isn't a popular stat because "lol, nerds wanna bang in the game cuzz they can't get it IRL". Charisma is a popular stat because it's the ability that measures how likely an npc is to listen to you. There is a power fantasy element at work here but the element isn't "horniness" it's the power fantasy being listened to. The problem isn't "anti-intellectualism" the problem is that anything in the game that would attempt to model the mind of a character has almost no mechanical widgets to express it. Worse, the game devs have no idea what to do with rules like that beyond a pass/fail skill check. Since the ttrpgs that do attempt to model the minds of the characters you play are vastly less popular than D&D, I'd wager neither of us is likely to see the change we'd prefer in this game.
Look, I absolutely agree that all classes should have more they can do with their mental stats, that those character traits should be an equally valid way for characters to effect change on the game; but changing the combat bonus tie of a single class from one attribute to another does nada to address that issue. All of the game content for everything but combat is so underdeveloped as to not exist. That isn't a problem with which casters use what stat, it's a problem with the game period, and that isn't getting fixed in this edition or whatever editions are likely to follow.
Honestly, INT and WIS aren't a good fit purely on the basis of a comparison of the basic archetypes. The baseline image of a Wizard or Artificer is someone who is meant to have spent years if not decades learning their craft from the ground up. The baseline for Clerics and Druids is to commune and harmonize with a higher power. The baseline for Warlocks is some kind of transactional relationship; they do X and get power in return, no inherent need for rigorous study or spiritual communion. Like, yes, you can attempt to justify how your particular backstory is more about learning the ancient rites or finding a way to commune with The Beast Who Was Behind the Door When the Vowels Were Handed Out, but by the same token you can have a Cleric who goes with the whole "my domain comes from a concept, not a deity" and/or generally is more a theologian than a member of the clergy or a Wizard who just got their spellbook a few weeks ago or is more an intuitive caster than a rigorous academic; learning to play music or sing and particularly memorizing a wide repertoire of songs is at least as much of a cerebral exercise as an emotive one. Casting stats are all somewhat arbitrary and aren't necessarily going to reflect how you make a character's backstory or play the character. If Warlocks can be flexible about it, there's really no reason why all the other classes can't too. Which is not a bad thing in and of itself, but then it might make it too easy for one casting stat to become mechanically dominant.
TLDR: Yes, you can justify INT or WIS with your particular Warlock backstory, but casting stats are sometimes an instance of Gameplay and Story Segregation.
There are FOUR Charisma-based character classes.
There is ONE Intelligence-based character class.
DMs are actively instructed by the book to undervalue and ignore Intelligence-based skill checks by simply awarding the knowledge anyways via "research", NPC exposition, or other random lore drops, essentially invalidating knowledge-based checks and Intelligence. Charisma-based skill checks, on the other hand, constitute the entire ******* social pillar. A whole-ass "third" of the game consists almost exclusively of Charisma-based skill checks.
Like Kamchat said, the current edition of the game honestly feels actively, deliberately anti-intellectual, as if the game is forcibly making the statement that intelligence is pointless and can be easily discarded. It sucks. I'm sick of it. I want Intelligence to matter more to an adventuring party, and I'd like the option to play an intelligent character that ISN'T a goddamn wizard, FOR ONCE.
So the Artificer class doesn’t exist then? Also, research is a downtime activity, so to claim it impinges on the realm of skill checks doesn’t really track imo; a skill check is for an on the spot attempt, research is for when you can devote a whole week or more to the subject. Rather apples to oranges in terms of gameplay utility. As for exposition vs rolls, that’s up to the DM; I don’t know where you think the DMG says knowledge checks should be discarded and would appreciate a citation to review, but there is a fine balance between making use of different skill checks and making plot progression reliant on RNG. I suppose one could say the issue is that Intelligence’s strength is problem solving, an activity that is typically left to players themselves rather than the whims of a d20. Which would rather elevate intellectualism above social play, given that most social options still need a successful roll, while reasoning your way to an answer is often simply rewarded with progression. That’s my opinion, anyways, I’m sure you will be quite eager to speak up if you feel I’ve erred.
I'm of the opinion that Sorcerer should have flexible stats. Like, why should the person who gets their magic from going skinny dipping in a magic pond or from their mom bonking a dragon automatically be highly social or charismatic? If you go the Carrie route, its being unpopular and picked on that unlocks the girl's magic.
Heck, they even absorbed Psion as part of the sorcerer class, and that's traditionally an INT-based class. Sorcerers are traditionally CHA-based, sure, but that doesn't make a lot of sense in 5e - they were only CHA based in 3e because they were "innate magic" instead of divine or studied magic. That distinction doesn't hold true in 5e. If paladins are any example, it has more to do with their tropes (knight in shining armor) than anything in game.
WIS makes sense for clerics and druids to me, because its tied to how well you listen to your God or the spirits. CHA makes sense for bards, because it all ties back into music and how well you can play. INT for wizards, because its a matter of studying.
Warlocks? Sorcerers? There's a fundamental disagreement over how the former gets magic, and latter is just a giant question mark (birth? mutation? becoming a Chosen? carrying around an interplanar gem or a Deck of Many Things?) These are wildly different tropes the classes are trying to evoke.
There are things that should have been brought back from the UA warlock. Flexible casting, while interesting, probably is not on that list.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I'm of the opinion that Sorcerer should have flexible stats. Like, why should the person who gets their magic from going skinny dipping in a magic pond or from their mom bonking a dragon automatically be highly social or charismatic? If you go the Carrie route, its being unpopular and picked on that unlocks the girl's magic.
Heck, they even absorbed Psion as part of the sorcerer class, and that's traditionally an INT-based class. Sorcerers are traditionally CHA-based, sure, but that doesn't make a lot of sense in 5e - they were only CHA based in 3e because they were "innate magic" instead of divine or studied magic. That distinction doesn't hold true in 5e. If paladins are any example, it has more to do with their tropes (knight in shining armor) than anything in game.
WIS makes sense for clerics and druids to me, because its tied to how well you listen to your God or the spirits. CHA makes sense for bards, because it all ties back into music and how well you can play. INT for wizards, because its a matter of studying.
Warlocks? Sorcerers? There's a fundamental disagreement over how the former gets magic, and latter is just a giant question mark (birth? mutation? becoming a Chosen? carrying around an interplanar gem or a Deck of Many Things?) These are wildly different tropes the classes are trying to evoke.
Again, Charisma itself is not necessarily being a social butterfly, it’s more force of personality. Granted, that justification works better on Sorcerers than Warlocks for an “I just will the magic to be” explanation, but with Warlocks there is an element of “okay, you have the power, now make it work”, I’d say.
Part of it is also just a matter of CHA being what’s left. If you’ve learned magic through rigorous study, you use INT. If you learned magic through a spiritual communion with a higher power/force/concept you use WIS. If you got it some other way, then CHA is the only stat left. It’s a limit to the system, but one that’s too baked in for them to really alter. Keep in mind that Sorcerers and Warlocks weren’t a part of the original system; they got added in around 3rd edition and so there’s a certain amount of shoehorning and after the fact justification to their casting stat. I’d argue that they should consider making a seventh stat to more specifically reflect something like “willpower”, but as can be seen above we’ve already got complaints that INT is a dead stat, and I’m not sure adding another to the mix would do anything but make that perception worse.
In the 2024 redux? No. No, it specifically does not. The Artificer has been discarded and excluded from the One D&D testing cycle; at the current moment Wizards of the Coast has no plans to support the artificer in the next iteration of the game. It is a dead-end anomaly embedded within the 2014 rules with no future in the game.
Also, research is a downtime activity, so to claim it impinges on the realm of skill checks doesn’t really track imo; a skill check is for an on the spot attempt, research is for when you can devote a whole week or more to the subject. Rather apples to oranges in terms of gameplay utility.
"Research", at most tables, consists of someone say "I go to the local library and read for an hour, now gimme my info." Week-long downtime doesn't exist and everybody knows it.
As for exposition vs rolls, that’s up to the DM; I don’t know where you think the DMG says knowledge checks should be discarded and would appreciate a citation to review, but there is a fine balance between making use of different skill checks and making plot progression reliant on RNG.
Exactly. The book states outright not to block progression behind rolls or skills; if the players need to know something in order to move forward, it's the DM's job to make sure they know it. So-called "knowledge" skills are useless because it doesn't ******* matter how piss-poor your 'Knowledge' check is, the DM is obligated to give you whatever you're looking for regardless. It's absolutely ******* awful and I hate it.
... That’s my opinion, anyways, I’m sure you will be quite eager to speak up if you feel I’ve erred.
It's a forum, Rogue. "Speaking up" is the actual factual only thing to do on it, ne?
Honestly, INT and WIS aren't a good fit purely on the basis of a comparison of the basic archetypes. The baseline image of a Wizard or Artificer is someone who is meant to have spent years if not decades learning their craft from the ground up. The baseline for Clerics and Druids is to commune and harmonize with a higher power. The baseline for Warlocks is some kind of transactional relationship; they do X and get power in return, no inherent need for rigorous study or spiritual communion. Like, yes, you can attempt to justify how your particular backstory is more about learning the ancient rites or finding a way to commune with The Beast Who Was Behind the Door When the Vowels Were Handed Out, but by the same token you can have a Cleric who goes with the whole "my domain comes from a concept, not a deity" and/or generally is more a theologian than a member of the clergy or a Wizard who just got their spellbook a few weeks ago or is more an intuitive caster than a rigorous academic; learning to play music or sing and particularly memorizing a wide repertoire of songs is at least as much of a cerebral exercise as an emotive one. Casting stats are all somewhat arbitrary and aren't necessarily going to reflect how you make a character's backstory or play the character. If Warlocks can be flexible about it, there's really no reason why all the other classes can't too. Which is not a bad thing in and of itself, but then it might make it too easy for one casting stat to become mechanically dominant.
TLDR: Yes, you can justify INT or WIS with your particular Warlock backstory, but casting stats are sometimes an instance of Gameplay and Story Segregation.
I mean sure but you are wrong. There is almost 0 connection between the warlock and charisma. They made one damn contract which could or could not be tied to charisma based on how the contract was formed, everything else about the class is intelligence. People just like charisma because its better. Not just it covers the social pillar aspect but its a active vs reactive skill. You can go forth and choose to charm, intimidate, deceive etc. Unless the DM hands you a reason to you are not rolling arcana.
While I'm on Yurei's side with this one (we do need a second Int caster in core), I disagree that knowledge skills are useless. It's true you shouldn't gate plot progression behind skill checks that it's possible to fail, but failure at those checks can still have meaningful consequences - diminished rewards, inability to save certain NPCs allies, more frequent or difficult fights etc. Baldur's Gate 3 has some great examples of knowledge checks opening doors or granting dialogue options that speed up gameplay, give extra treasure, conserve resources and other benefits.
A key way to avoid single-point-of-failure adventure design is to follow the Three Clue Rule.
I kind of like the concept of Wisdom based Sorcerers. If you think about Merlin he was more similar to a D&D druid than a D&D sorcerer. And Wisdom is supposed to represent will-power and self-control (hence why it is associated with monks) which is thematically related to how sorcerers get control of their powers. Plus I find it narratively strange that people would be convinced by / trust a person with sparks of wild magic jumping around their finger tips.
Honestly, INT and WIS aren't a good fit purely on the basis of a comparison of the basic archetypes. The baseline image of a Wizard or Artificer is someone who is meant to have spent years if not decades learning their craft from the ground up. The baseline for Clerics and Druids is to commune and harmonize with a higher power. The baseline for Warlocks is some kind of transactional relationship; they do X and get power in return, no inherent need for rigorous study or spiritual communion. Like, yes, you can attempt to justify how your particular backstory is more about learning the ancient rites or finding a way to commune with The Beast Who Was Behind the Door When the Vowels Were Handed Out, but by the same token you can have a Cleric who goes with the whole "my domain comes from a concept, not a deity" and/or generally is more a theologian than a member of the clergy or a Wizard who just got their spellbook a few weeks ago or is more an intuitive caster than a rigorous academic; learning to play music or sing and particularly memorizing a wide repertoire of songs is at least as much of a cerebral exercise as an emotive one. Casting stats are all somewhat arbitrary and aren't necessarily going to reflect how you make a character's backstory or play the character. If Warlocks can be flexible about it, there's really no reason why all the other classes can't too. Which is not a bad thing in and of itself, but then it might make it too easy for one casting stat to become mechanically dominant.
TLDR: Yes, you can justify INT or WIS with your particular Warlock backstory, but casting stats are sometimes an instance of Gameplay and Story Segregation.
I mean sure but you are wrong. There is almost 0 connection between the warlock and charisma. They made one damn contract which could or could not be tied to charisma based on how the contract was formed, everything else about the class is intelligence. People just like charisma because its better. Not just it covers the social pillar aspect but its a active vs reactive skill. You can go forth and choose to charm, intimidate, deceive etc. Unless the DM hands you a reason to you are not rolling arcana.
See, yet again, this is where I think people are completely misunderstanding Charisma's role in the pact. As Ace of Rogues pointed out in another post, Charisma is not just looking good and smooth talking, it is force of personality and sense of self. Charisma is not used for some mortal to convince an enormously powerful being to share power with them, it is used to maintain one's self and control the power provided by the patron without being completely overwhelmed by it.
Honestly, INT and WIS aren't a good fit purely on the basis of a comparison of the basic archetypes. The baseline image of a Wizard or Artificer is someone who is meant to have spent years if not decades learning their craft from the ground up. The baseline for Clerics and Druids is to commune and harmonize with a higher power. The baseline for Warlocks is some kind of transactional relationship; they do X and get power in return, no inherent need for rigorous study or spiritual communion. Like, yes, you can attempt to justify how your particular backstory is more about learning the ancient rites or finding a way to commune with The Beast Who Was Behind the Door When the Vowels Were Handed Out, but by the same token you can have a Cleric who goes with the whole "my domain comes from a concept, not a deity" and/or generally is more a theologian than a member of the clergy or a Wizard who just got their spellbook a few weeks ago or is more an intuitive caster than a rigorous academic; learning to play music or sing and particularly memorizing a wide repertoire of songs is at least as much of a cerebral exercise as an emotive one. Casting stats are all somewhat arbitrary and aren't necessarily going to reflect how you make a character's backstory or play the character. If Warlocks can be flexible about it, there's really no reason why all the other classes can't too. Which is not a bad thing in and of itself, but then it might make it too easy for one casting stat to become mechanically dominant.
TLDR: Yes, you can justify INT or WIS with your particular Warlock backstory, but casting stats are sometimes an instance of Gameplay and Story Segregation.
I mean sure but you are wrong. There is almost 0 connection between the warlock and charisma. They made one damn contract which could or could not be tied to charisma based on how the contract was formed, everything else about the class is intelligence. People just like charisma because its better. Not just it covers the social pillar aspect but its a active vs reactive skill. You can go forth and choose to charm, intimidate, deceive etc. Unless the DM hands you a reason to you are not rolling arcana.
some people see the entire patronage as an ongoing conversation. some see the patron as something which might crush those of lesser strength of character. still others see every invocation, minor pact, and spell as having been bargained away from potentially many different Powers after the first "awakening" to the possibility of negotiation. high charisma stuff.
falling bass ackwards into a pact of convenience or stumbling upon the half-blood prince's margin notes are really over represented. it's a mystery why the ones that stick out have the least connection to personality.
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!
Honestly, INT and WIS aren't a good fit purely on the basis of a comparison of the basic archetypes. The baseline image of a Wizard or Artificer is someone who is meant to have spent years if not decades learning their craft from the ground up. The baseline for Clerics and Druids is to commune and harmonize with a higher power. The baseline for Warlocks is some kind of transactional relationship; they do X and get power in return, no inherent need for rigorous study or spiritual communion. Like, yes, you can attempt to justify how your particular backstory is more about learning the ancient rites or finding a way to commune with The Beast Who Was Behind the Door When the Vowels Were Handed Out, but by the same token you can have a Cleric who goes with the whole "my domain comes from a concept, not a deity" and/or generally is more a theologian than a member of the clergy or a Wizard who just got their spellbook a few weeks ago or is more an intuitive caster than a rigorous academic; learning to play music or sing and particularly memorizing a wide repertoire of songs is at least as much of a cerebral exercise as an emotive one. Casting stats are all somewhat arbitrary and aren't necessarily going to reflect how you make a character's backstory or play the character. If Warlocks can be flexible about it, there's really no reason why all the other classes can't too. Which is not a bad thing in and of itself, but then it might make it too easy for one casting stat to become mechanically dominant.
TLDR: Yes, you can justify INT or WIS with your particular Warlock backstory, but casting stats are sometimes an instance of Gameplay and Story Segregation.
I mean sure but you are wrong. There is almost 0 connection between the warlock and charisma. They made one damn contract which could or could not be tied to charisma based on how the contract was formed, everything else about the class is intelligence. People just like charisma because its better. Not just it covers the social pillar aspect but its a active vs reactive skill. You can go forth and choose to charm, intimidate, deceive etc. Unless the DM hands you a reason to you are not rolling arcana.
Everything is not INT; the feature descriptions frame the majority of them as being given or shown a new power. They aren’t independently growing and learning how to use magic, they’re receiving further installments from your deal. Plus, CHA is a better reflection of the underlying transactional nature of the relationship. The character in some way, shape, or form was handed power while skipping over the prerequisite steps; they did not study for it or attune themselves to the power. That’s the fundamental archetype used for designing the class, even if your personal backstory is framed differently. Ergo, they do not use the same stat as either of those paths, which also happens to leave only one mental stat left.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I swear it feels like some kind of anti-intellectualism or something, or the geeks that design the game wish to play as jocks in the fantasy world and seduce all the barmaids.
Frankly, I loved the unified spell lists, it brought some consistency in the in-game world, you no longer had to ask why this arcane class has this spell, and other arcane class didn't. I'd aldo like it if the spellcasting stat was also unified - Int for arcane, Wis for primal, Cha for divine.
Not all warlock bargains have to be painfully one-sided. A warlock's patron can easily be a fey spirit they out-witted in a game and now the fey spirit has to answer to the warlock. Or a genie who got tricked by the cunning hero to give them power. Or a celestial being who has no ill will toward their warlock at all and formed with them a fair and equitable deal that helps both further the cause of the Greater Good.
Heck, even with the evil patrons there should be room for the cunning and perceptive hero who tricked a devil into getting the better end of their Faustian pact and now the devil is trying to weasel out of their deal. A deal is a deal, even with a dirty dealer.
Honestly, INT and WIS aren't a good fit purely on the basis of a comparison of the basic archetypes. The baseline image of a Wizard or Artificer is someone who is meant to have spent years if not decades learning their craft from the ground up. The baseline for Clerics and Druids is to commune and harmonize with a higher power. The baseline for Warlocks is some kind of transactional relationship; they do X and get power in return, no inherent need for rigorous study or spiritual communion. Like, yes, you can attempt to justify how your particular backstory is more about learning the ancient rites or finding a way to commune with The Beast Who Was Behind the Door When the Vowels Were Handed Out, but by the same token you can have a Cleric who goes with the whole "my domain comes from a concept, not a deity" and/or generally is more a theologian than a member of the clergy or a Wizard who just got their spellbook a few weeks ago or is more an intuitive caster than a rigorous academic; learning to play music or sing and particularly memorizing a wide repertoire of songs is at least as much of a cerebral exercise as an emotive one. Casting stats are all somewhat arbitrary and aren't necessarily going to reflect how you make a character's backstory or play the character. If Warlocks can be flexible about it, there's really no reason why all the other classes can't too. Which is not a bad thing in and of itself, but then it might make it too easy for one casting stat to become mechanically dominant.
TLDR: Yes, you can justify INT or WIS with your particular Warlock backstory, but casting stats are sometimes an instance of Gameplay and Story Segregation.
It's super cool to be told that I didn't mean what I said, love being misquoted.
Speaking of putting words in people's mouths, what is your hang-up here? Charisma doesn't equate 1:1 with attractiveness or desire, it can alternatively be about understanding social cues, willpower, emotional intelligence, leadership, etc. A lot of this stuff is wrapped up in or intermingles with the other mental abilities, but that's just D&D having a foundational basis that doesn't have much time or interest in quantifying social or emotional understanding. If you want to narrow the current warlock or the charisma ability in general exclusively into seducing the wait staff at ye olde tavern that's a you problem.
And since I apparently have to say things thrice, I support a flexible casting stat on the warlock, I thought it was a good idea for the UA5 and support it being used in the 2024 rules. My complaint was about the post I was quoting that was claiming intelligence is more appropriate than charisma. You're ignoring the nuance because responding to what I actually said doesn't give you the soapbox to rant on.
Sure, but 1920's pulp horror world is very different than your typical D&D setting. In the Mythos the scariest things in existence are those alien horrors beyond mortal understanding; in D&D you've also got rampaging monsters of every challenge rating and literal evil gods being worshipped with varying degrees of legitimacy or legality In the various settings of D&D there's a million reasons to come into an agreement (or barter/steal/swindle/etc) with any entity in existence for power because that power might be essential to survival right now. Sometimes the wises thing one can do in the moment is give up something later for power now, especially in the ludicrously high-stakes world that D&D adventurers live in. The game isn't a morality play, sometimes in very particular circumstances the wiser thing to do is to sacrifice a part of yourself for what you think is the greater good.
There are FOUR Charisma-based character classes.
There is ONE Intelligence-based character class.
DMs are actively instructed by the book to undervalue and ignore Intelligence-based skill checks by simply awarding the knowledge anyways via "research", NPC exposition, or other random lore drops, essentially invalidating knowledge-based checks and Intelligence. Charisma-based skill checks, on the other hand, constitute the entire ******* social pillar. A whole-ass "third" of the game consists almost exclusively of Charisma-based skill checks.
Like Kamchat said, the current edition of the game honestly feels actively, deliberately anti-intellectual, as if the game is forcibly making the statement that intelligence is pointless and can be easily discarded. It sucks. I'm sick of it. I want Intelligence to matter more to an adventuring party, and I'd like the option to play an intelligent character that ISN'T a goddamn wizard, FOR ONCE.
Please do not contact or message me.
I have respect for all those advocating for a flexible casting stat and wouldn't be against implementing the rule, and I certainly understand Yurei's distaste for an over-abundance of Charisma-based classes. Despite this, I see Charisma as an extremely logical choice for the class (especially if there is only one stat to choose from). From my perspective, Charisma is crucial for those entering into a pact, not to sway or convince the patron, but to be able to retain their own persona despite linking themselves to an ultra-powerful entity. Sure, a Warlock may have opened the gateway to great power through study (for the example of Intelligence), but they are only able to maintain their independent selves through the strength of their Charisma to avoid becoming a mindless minion. It has been stated many times that Charisma-based saves tend to be linked to a sense of self.
Having 3 Spell Casting Status is the worse thing ever. Flexible casting is a mistake, just face it. Its a multiclass combo request.
Right, you've got a semi-legitimate fight here, just stop making me the center of by way of misquote.
As for the "pillars"... lol, ok. Dungeons and Dragons spends almost no time modeling anything other than a miniatures war game. One can certainly have interesting puzzle, investigation, or knowledge-based conflicts, but the game isn't set up to use any of the mental stats in a meaningful way to progress or interact with these kinds of conflicts outside of skill checks. The system for social interactions almost touches on this by pointing out how an npc's ideals/bonds/flaws can be leveraged in interactions, but even that system was so underused that the new UA rules take active steps to remove it from the game; and absolutely nobody has so much as mentioned it.
I would love there to be a genuine three pillar D&D game where a character's brain mattered for more than how well they could interact with a magic system, but this ain't it. There is one pillar of D&D, it's combat, and the value or depth of everything else in the game will only matter if a given DM is willing to do to fix it. I also despise this state of affairs, but let's not pretend that moving the casting stat for one class does anything to address the real problem.
Further, framing the problem as devs thinking "players just want to seduce npc's" is a weird way to see this. Charisma isn't a popular stat because "lol, nerds wanna bang in the game cuzz they can't get it IRL". Charisma is a popular stat because it's the ability that measures how likely an npc is to listen to you. There is a power fantasy element at work here but the element isn't "horniness" it's the power fantasy being listened to. The problem isn't "anti-intellectualism" the problem is that anything in the game that would attempt to model the mind of a character has almost no mechanical widgets to express it. Worse, the game devs have no idea what to do with rules like that beyond a pass/fail skill check. Since the ttrpgs that do attempt to model the minds of the characters you play are vastly less popular than D&D, I'd wager neither of us is likely to see the change we'd prefer in this game.
Look, I absolutely agree that all classes should have more they can do with their mental stats, that those character traits should be an equally valid way for characters to effect change on the game; but changing the combat bonus tie of a single class from one attribute to another does nada to address that issue. All of the game content for everything but combat is so underdeveloped as to not exist. That isn't a problem with which casters use what stat, it's a problem with the game period, and that isn't getting fixed in this edition or whatever editions are likely to follow.
So the Artificer class doesn’t exist then? Also, research is a downtime activity, so to claim it impinges on the realm of skill checks doesn’t really track imo; a skill check is for an on the spot attempt, research is for when you can devote a whole week or more to the subject. Rather apples to oranges in terms of gameplay utility. As for exposition vs rolls, that’s up to the DM; I don’t know where you think the DMG says knowledge checks should be discarded and would appreciate a citation to review, but there is a fine balance between making use of different skill checks and making plot progression reliant on RNG. I suppose one could say the issue is that Intelligence’s strength is problem solving, an activity that is typically left to players themselves rather than the whims of a d20. Which would rather elevate intellectualism above social play, given that most social options still need a successful roll, while reasoning your way to an answer is often simply rewarded with progression. That’s my opinion, anyways, I’m sure you will be quite eager to speak up if you feel I’ve erred.
I'm of the opinion that Sorcerer should have flexible stats. Like, why should the person who gets their magic from going skinny dipping in a magic pond or from their mom bonking a dragon automatically be highly social or charismatic? If you go the Carrie route, its being unpopular and picked on that unlocks the girl's magic.
Heck, they even absorbed Psion as part of the sorcerer class, and that's traditionally an INT-based class. Sorcerers are traditionally CHA-based, sure, but that doesn't make a lot of sense in 5e - they were only CHA based in 3e because they were "innate magic" instead of divine or studied magic. That distinction doesn't hold true in 5e. If paladins are any example, it has more to do with their tropes (knight in shining armor) than anything in game.
WIS makes sense for clerics and druids to me, because its tied to how well you listen to your God or the spirits. CHA makes sense for bards, because it all ties back into music and how well you can play. INT for wizards, because its a matter of studying.
Warlocks? Sorcerers? There's a fundamental disagreement over how the former gets magic, and latter is just a giant question mark (birth? mutation? becoming a Chosen? carrying around an interplanar gem or a Deck of Many Things?) These are wildly different tropes the classes are trying to evoke.
There are things that should have been brought back from the UA warlock. Flexible casting, while interesting, probably is not on that list.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Again, Charisma itself is not necessarily being a social butterfly, it’s more force of personality. Granted, that justification works better on Sorcerers than Warlocks for an “I just will the magic to be” explanation, but with Warlocks there is an element of “okay, you have the power, now make it work”, I’d say.
Part of it is also just a matter of CHA being what’s left. If you’ve learned magic through rigorous study, you use INT. If you learned magic through a spiritual communion with a higher power/force/concept you use WIS. If you got it some other way, then CHA is the only stat left. It’s a limit to the system, but one that’s too baked in for them to really alter. Keep in mind that Sorcerers and Warlocks weren’t a part of the original system; they got added in around 3rd edition and so there’s a certain amount of shoehorning and after the fact justification to their casting stat. I’d argue that they should consider making a seventh stat to more specifically reflect something like “willpower”, but as can be seen above we’ve already got complaints that INT is a dead stat, and I’m not sure adding another to the mix would do anything but make that perception worse.
In the 2024 redux? No. No, it specifically does not. The Artificer has been discarded and excluded from the One D&D testing cycle; at the current moment Wizards of the Coast has no plans to support the artificer in the next iteration of the game. It is a dead-end anomaly embedded within the 2014 rules with no future in the game.
"Research", at most tables, consists of someone say "I go to the local library and read for an hour, now gimme my info." Week-long downtime doesn't exist and everybody knows it.
Exactly. The book states outright not to block progression behind rolls or skills; if the players need to know something in order to move forward, it's the DM's job to make sure they know it. So-called "knowledge" skills are useless because it doesn't ******* matter how piss-poor your 'Knowledge' check is, the DM is obligated to give you whatever you're looking for regardless. It's absolutely ******* awful and I hate it.
It's a forum, Rogue. "Speaking up" is the actual factual only thing to do on it, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
I mean sure but you are wrong. There is almost 0 connection between the warlock and charisma. They made one damn contract which could or could not be tied to charisma based on how the contract was formed, everything else about the class is intelligence. People just like charisma because its better. Not just it covers the social pillar aspect but its a active vs reactive skill. You can go forth and choose to charm, intimidate, deceive etc. Unless the DM hands you a reason to you are not rolling arcana.
While I'm on Yurei's side with this one (we do need a second Int caster in core), I disagree that knowledge skills are useless. It's true you shouldn't gate plot progression behind skill checks that it's possible to fail, but failure at those checks can still have meaningful consequences - diminished rewards, inability to save certain NPCs allies, more frequent or difficult fights etc. Baldur's Gate 3 has some great examples of knowledge checks opening doors or granting dialogue options that speed up gameplay, give extra treasure, conserve resources and other benefits.
A key way to avoid single-point-of-failure adventure design is to follow the Three Clue Rule.
I kind of like the concept of Wisdom based Sorcerers. If you think about Merlin he was more similar to a D&D druid than a D&D sorcerer. And Wisdom is supposed to represent will-power and self-control (hence why it is associated with monks) which is thematically related to how sorcerers get control of their powers. Plus I find it narratively strange that people would be convinced by / trust a person with sparks of wild magic jumping around their finger tips.
See, yet again, this is where I think people are completely misunderstanding Charisma's role in the pact. As Ace of Rogues pointed out in another post, Charisma is not just looking good and smooth talking, it is force of personality and sense of self. Charisma is not used for some mortal to convince an enormously powerful being to share power with them, it is used to maintain one's self and control the power provided by the patron without being completely overwhelmed by it.
some people see the entire patronage as an ongoing conversation. some see the patron as something which might crush those of lesser strength of character. still others see every invocation, minor pact, and spell as having been bargained away from potentially many different Powers after the first "awakening" to the possibility of negotiation. high charisma stuff.
falling bass ackwards into a pact of convenience or stumbling upon the half-blood prince's margin notes are really over represented. it's a mystery why the ones that stick out have the least connection to personality.
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!
Everything is not INT; the feature descriptions frame the majority of them as being given or shown a new power. They aren’t independently growing and learning how to use magic, they’re receiving further installments from your deal. Plus, CHA is a better reflection of the underlying transactional nature of the relationship. The character in some way, shape, or form was handed power while skipping over the prerequisite steps; they did not study for it or attune themselves to the power. That’s the fundamental archetype used for designing the class, even if your personal backstory is framed differently. Ergo, they do not use the same stat as either of those paths, which also happens to leave only one mental stat left.