The point is that Warlocks aren't putting together dissertations, though. Wizards are putting together dissertations, that's why they have the book they record all their spells in and are able to learn spells from someone else's book. One of the Watsonian explanations for why Warlocks have a fixed number of known spells is because they're reliant on the knowledge their patron gives them, they don't/can't build up a larger repertoire from their own knowledge.
And "finding knowledge" is not a high IQ act; anyone can get on Google, plug in "what is X", and browse the Wiki page on the topic and repeat what they read there. That's the kind of "poring over tomes of forbidden lore" activity from the description. If they were synthesizing their own interpretations and conclusions and applying that to their spellcasting, they'd be Wizards.
I didn't say they were doing a dissertation, I said they were doing the research equivalent to that NEEDED for a dissertation. While a wizard would be doing their dissertation on how to cast or create a spell, if the warlock were to write one it would be on how to find and bind a being into granting you the ability to do so. You're weirdly equating knowledge 1:1 to spellcasting; I never implied the warlock gained their spells from any source other than their patron, but you're dismissing any other potential avenue of intelligence or knowledge as not intelligence or knowledge because they don't learn the spell themselves and instead are granted it from something else. A warlocks gathering of knowledge and intelligence is simply utilized in an alternative manner, and toward a different end, than a wizards. If a person beat a devil in a game of logic and wits with the reward being power (read: a spell of some kind) would we argue that person didn't use intelligence to gain that power simply because it was granted to them, despite being earned?
Further, you're being sadly dismissive of legitimate ability needed in properly researching knowledge and more importantly utilizing that knowledge. We're also (generally) talking about worlds where the ease of access to a resource like google doesn't exist, but even in a world where google DOES exist (i.e. ours) the number of people that just generally don't know how to use it to look up, let alone learn how to do, the most basic things just overwhelms your argument. And, I want to get ahead of this here, because you're again going to go "they're not actually utilizing or doing anything themselves with the knowledge because they're not learning the spells themselves" but I once again stress, as I have been VERY clear about, I'm talking about the knowledge and research used to contact and bind into a contract the beings that grant them those spells or powers.
Really? You think the people sending out those cards leave a way for the consumer to exploit them? The scenario you've described makes it pointless to have the card, if you've already got the means to pay it off. You can accumulate X amount of credit on the card in total before you have to pay it off. You haven't increased your purchasing power if you only use the card to make purchases you're capable of paying off. At that point the intelligent thing to do is get a debit card instead.
The entire purpose of those cards is that there is a way to exploit them but if you fail to do so you're screwed. The credit companies offering 0% interest for x months expect people that are not able to actually pay it off in time to be too tempted or to foolishly think that they can, and hence end up paying exorbitant interest on their debt. But yes, say the warlock and the wizard both want to "buy" a powerful spell. The wizard can save up enough money (or has the money but doesn't want to be without that large amount of money at that time) over a period of a year to buy that spell and does so; going the entire year without it and gaining it in the end when they have saved enough that they're willing to spend. The warlock could also save up enough money (or again, already has that money but doesn't want to be without it) over a period of a year to buy that spell, but they've just been offered that spell immediately, with the only string attached being that they NEED to pay for it in entirety before the year is up or the debt will compound with a high interest and be even greater. So the warlock takes the deal and gets the spell immediately, while the wizard is still waiting, and gradually pays it off over the year. If they do so, they achieved their goal of getting that spell quicker and paid absolutely nothing more, if they don't...well...they're not an intelligent warlock and suffer the consequences. So yes, those offers absolutely can be "exploited" for benefit, they simply rely on the greater number of people failing to properly do so, which generally tends to be true and hence they are profitable for the credit companies to offer them...plus even if the person signing up for it utilizes it without paying interest on the initial offer, they still have a new customer who is (likely) going to use that card on purchases that they will owe interest on in the future.
Desiring an easy path to power (or more broadly "results") is not in any way an indicator of whether someone is or is not academically talented.
A warlock pact is roughly the equivalent of passing a test by buying the answers to the test questions from some shady character. It's not impossible for a smart person to do that... but it's generally a sign that you lack the talent to answer the questions on your own.
Remember that how both pacts and patrons work is strictly lore, and so not a useful point of contention even within the published settings if two different DMs are involved.
next, imagine if all magic relied on the same ability score, but required multiple ones to be effective (Wis for those who serve, Int for those who learn, Cha for those who feel, Con for those who channel).
I mean, just as a thought.
I mean, if this is the "different stats affect different things like known spells, saves, to hit" then I'm picturing a system that ultimately nets out to one superior stat that gets prioritized by most everyone. Probably the DC one within the current array of spells. If you mean every caster is required to be MAD, then I'm picturing the same complaints you hear about Monks but multiplied tenfold.
Like, from a writing/lore perspective the "various mental disciplines" bit works, but from what I've seen when a game breaks things down into hard numbers like this it tends to encourage sticking to an optimum arrangement, particularly with how little wiggle room you get once you've set your initial stats.
well... -- it makes the "magic Stat" primary in any magic using build. But to learn spells or upcast them requires other scores, and other functions (features) of a class rely on the other ability scores. So, for example, a Druid's class features will all rely one other scores than magic -- it only applies to spell casting.
Absolutely a MAD set up -- and honestly, I think all the classes should be MAD and the monk whiners can bite me. TO make a spell points system work the way we (players and DMs) wanted it to work, we essentially did it this way.
We did eventually de-emphasize the Serve, Learn, Feel, and Channel portion post development and playtesting (because it works more for establishing an archetype and distinction and then structural aspects), but they are still there, just "under the hood" now. Grouping the classes in that manner (by how they access their magic) and crossing it with the kind of magic gave rise to the classes we use, so would essentially be a way to establish the boundaries of assorted sub-classes in regular 5e.
In this model, Sorcs are "feel" and 'locks are "channel". Since we have rules around multiclassing that are structurally present to limit and or reduce potential dipping (if the Dm even allows it), such an approach would mean significant effort and greater investment to get a Sorlock, because they learn their magic in two different ways.
But I mentioned it because a lot of the "it should be" x or it "could be Y" sort of stuff is really going to vary according to the nature of the archetype in use and how that archetype interfaces with the setting -- any ability score can be used if you have a concept for how it operates (con for channel, for example is the "physical hardship" of channeling the magic granted).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Desiring an easy path to power (or more broadly "results") is not in any way an indicator of whether someone is or is not academically talented.
A warlock pact is roughly the equivalent of passing a test by buying the answers to the test questions from some shady character. It's not impossible for a smart person to do that... but it's generally something they won't, because the rewards aren't worth the costs.
And those that see the capability for a warlock (which is written right into the descriptions of the class) to be an intelligent individual find this kind of argument disgustingly dismissive and dishonest. Would you consider a wizard apprentice being shown how to perform spells by his master as cheating the answers? Or as not performing a spell as a wizard because they were shown how to do it? I would presume not; yet the warlock class itself even describes the relationship as often that of a teacher and apprentice.
More to the point, the argument is that the warlock isn't just putting out an ad in the classifieds "Wanted: Powerful being with which to make bargain". The warlock is in the field doing hands on research and digging up incremental knowledge on how to perform the proper rituals, as well as what to be prepared for AND how to bend it to your benefit when you do; then piecing those bits of knowledge together and properly utlizing it.
They might learn knowledge of a ritual or how to contact a suitable being...and maybe it resulted in a poor outcome; but maybe, with this other bit of knowledge they learned elsewhere regarding this particular kind of being, they can formulate a different approach and be more successful than that last person. To be safe, maybe they should keep researching more somewhere else, see if they can't find other knowledge/evidence to reinforce their thinking, or maybe show it to be a mistake. They might make contact with lesser beings of the desired type, ones the warlock would be able to handle if things go wrong, but that they can use to gradually learn more about how to achieve their ultimate goal. Gradually they learn how to contact more and more powerful beings. Ultimately, maybe the warlock is even the first to learn, through their own experimentation and study, how to contact their particular sought after entity
Where a wizards knowledge is in the spell itself, an intelligent warlocks knowledge is in the occult or otherworldly; and in the learning how to contact, deal with, and exploit these beings for their benefit. Why should we accept that a wizard learning his magic by being shown how to do so by another wizard is innately more intelligent than the warlock pursuing impossibly hard to find or even priorly nonexistent knowledge on contacting and dealing with a more powerful entity to do the same?
lol, no. An intelligent person would be able to predict the possible long-term outcomes of each route to their end goal as well as understand how their decisions affect everything around them and realize that the most convenient solution may not be the most optimal in the long-term, and that they should consider the full ramifications of a choice rather than just instant gratification.
Intelligence is no guarantee of sensible decision making. Case in point, literally every high INT D&D character that gets even momentarily bored of being the only sensible one in the party. 😝
Also just because you're on the "better" path doesn't mean you won't get frustrated at others making faster progress, or that circumstances won't arise where you can longer afford to wait for the long term pay-off etc., there are a myriad reasons someone might turn to a Warlock pact that aren't simply that they're lazy good for nothings. There's also the arrogance that can come with intelligence; over-confidence can lead an intelligent person to think they're smart enough to "win" the bargain. After all, a contract with a devil is just a written set of conditions, and you're super good at studying so you'll definitely pick up on every shady loophole that's hidden in there… right?
It's never quite so simple as high INT = is smart, as it's entirely possible to be a learned fool; quick to pick things up, and even quicker to do exactly the wrong thing with them. 😉
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
This debate is getting stupid. There is one reason that Warlocks are Charisma casters in 5e. LEGACY!!! If anyone can tell me the Warlocks spell like ability DC stat in 3.5e and their Casting stat in 4e you win a prize of knowledge. Any mental stat has an argument for being the casting stat for any class. I could argue that Dex should be the casting stat attack roll spells and possibly spells with somatic components. We can have an infinite number of “valid” pros and cons for any stat because we are talking about fantasy and how to interpret an imaginary thing. Again there is one reason that Warlocks cast with Charisma and if you want flex casting for Warlock you should want it for all casters. It makes just as much sense for a Cleric to be an Int caster as it does for a Warlock to be one.
Because it's the easy path to power and should thus appeal to a wide variety of people.
It appeals to people who aren't inclined to do things the hard way. Which is not generally an indicator of academic success or talent (mechanically, of course, it's easier or harder than any other course to power, but since your argument is based on fluff, not mechanics, any response should be equally based on fluff).
Desiring an easy path to power (or more broadly "results") is not in any way an indicator of whether someone is or is not academically talented. In other words: academically successful or intelligent individuals don't do the things they do merely based on the difficulty of the task. Frankly though, this is just a weird argument to me; I get arguing that making a deal with questionable beings is a sign of questionable intelligence (though I think it also is a somewhat shaky argument to make), but just blankly stating that desiring the fastest or easiest path to results is a direct indicator that someone is not of bright intelligence is...well, simply unfounded and bizarre to me. Wouldn't an intelligent person look for the most direct route to their end goal?
lol, no. An intelligent person would be able to predict the possible long-term outcomes of each route to their end goal as well as understand how their decisions affect everything around them and realize that the most convenient solution may not be the most optimal in the long-term, and that they should consider the full ramifications of a choice rather than just instant gratification.
might as well say that high intelligence equals good every time. how could one be greedy when one could simply follow the chain of effect and see that luxury and excess of the ruling class disproportionately effects groups down the line? and if you fail the check to spot those possible long-term outcomes, it must have been the dice. the dice are evil, not my big brain and its plan to construct a phylactery!
Desiring an easy path to power (or more broadly "results") is not in any way an indicator of whether someone is or is not academically talented.
A warlock pact is roughly the equivalent of passing a test by buying the answers to the test questions from some shady character. It's not impossible for a smart person to do that... but it's generally a sign that you lack the talent to answer the questions on your own.
warlock is some guy who opened a door he wasn't supposed to and found a primitive automobile. some few elites ride horses and everyone else walks, but not this guy! sure, it might be smokey and rattly and scares the peasants, but you don't have to deal with those horse stable jerks. also, it caps out at a max speed and the shady things you have to do to fuel the damn thing in a world without standardized petrochemical infrastructure is regularly quite literally 'hellish,' but... the charm of it!
This debate is getting stupid. There is one reason that Warlocks are Charisma casters in 5e. LEGACY!!! If anyone can tell me the Warlocks spell like ability DC stat in 3.5e and their Casting stat in 4e you win a prize of knowledge. Any mental stat has an argument for being the casting stat for any class. I could argue that Dex should be the casting stat attack roll spells and possibly spells with somatic components. We can have an infinite number of “valid” pros and cons for any stat because we are talking about fantasy and how to interpret an imaginary thing. Again there is one reason that Warlocks cast with Charisma and if you want flex casting for Warlock you should want it for all casters. It makes just as much sense for a Cleric to be an Int caster as it does for a Warlock to be one.
You could even make a case for different subclasses of the same class to use different stats - such as the Divine Soul sorcerer to default to wisdom, but that would require subclasses to start at 1st level rather than 3rd. And while I would personally like that change, the developers have decided otherwise.
I always thought it made more sense for Warlocks, Sorcerers, and Clerics to start with their subclass right away. The bargain for power has to happen before you get spells at all in the case of Warlocks (and technically Clerics), and one's bloodline (for Sorcerers) is something they are born with, it isn't some choice you make later.
Because it's the easy path to power and should thus appeal to a wide variety of people.
It appeals to people who aren't inclined to do things the hard way. Which is not generally an indicator of academic success or talent (mechanically, of course, it's easier or harder than any other course to power, but since your argument is based on fluff, not mechanics, any response should be equally based on fluff).
Desiring an easy path to power (or more broadly "results") is not in any way an indicator of whether someone is or is not academically talented. In other words: academically successful or intelligent individuals don't do the things they do merely based on the difficulty of the task. Frankly though, this is just a weird argument to me; I get arguing that making a deal with questionable beings is a sign of questionable intelligence (though I think it also is a somewhat shaky argument to make), but just blankly stating that desiring the fastest or easiest path to results is a direct indicator that someone is not of bright intelligence is...well, simply unfounded and bizarre to me. Wouldn't an intelligent person look for the most direct route to their end goal?
lol, no. An intelligent person would be able to predict the possible long-term outcomes of each route to their end goal as well as understand how their decisions affect everything around them and realize that the most convenient solution may not be the most optimal in the long-term, and that they should consider the full ramifications of a choice rather than just instant gratification.
might as well say that high intelligence equals good every time. how could one be greedy when one could simply follow the chain of effect and see that luxury and excess of the ruling class disproportionately effects groups down the line? and if you fail the check to spot those possible long-term outcomes, it must have been the dice. the dice are evil, not my big brain and its plan to construct a phylactery
No, because intelligence =/= empathy. An intelligent person can know that luxury and excess of the ruling class disadvantages society as a whole down the line and just not care because they and their family will still be a net ahead even if society as a whole gets worse for everyone. (See: Prisoner's Dilemma or Tragedy of the Commons).
In fact many of our social / cultural / economic systems incentivize acting in a selfish way to the detriment of society & the world as a whole, because individual wealth & success is disconnected from broader social good. Thus, an intelligent but selfish actor will rationally act in an exploitative manner because that maximizes their personal success.
E.g. short-term-ism in the business world isn't because all business leaders are stupid and short thinking, it's because they aren't planning to stay at one company long-term so doing long-term damage to the company by extracting maximum profits now is the logical choice because they can put that short term success on their CV in order to get a better job at a different company and leave the long-term damage as someone else's problem (the average time a CEO stays in their job is only 5 years so why should they care about long-term consequences of their decisions?).
This debate is getting stupid. There is one reason that Warlocks are Charisma casters in 5e. LEGACY!!! If anyone can tell me the Warlocks spell like ability DC stat in 3.5e and their Casting stat in 4e you win a prize of knowledge.
Well, if you really, really want to go down that rabbit hole..
The modern warlock is actually a combination of three 3.x classes. Warlock, Binder, and Hexblade. While all three had magic that relied on Charisma, they also all relied on physical stats. Eldritch Blast was a ranged touch attack, which was a 1d20 + DEX bonus + BAB vs Touch AC, and a number of Invocations didn't use any stat. Hellfire warlocks were actually fairly well known for primarily ignoring CHA and going DEX and CON (as Hellfire caused damage to your CON score in exchange for increased damage). Many binder options relied on using weapons, which called for DEX or STR rolls instead of CHA. Hexblade was a half caster, like the paladin, and relied more on using regular attack rolls and Charisma was a secondary option. Physical stats were often regarded as more important than Charisma.
4e did merge the classes, but we had a weird quirk where every class had two stats it relied on. In the case of the warlock, you either relied on CON+INT or CHA+INT. At first, the inferno and star warlocks were CON+INT, though latter supplements gave into demand and made CHA+INT options, while there was no reciprocation to give the already CHA-based pacts CON-based magic. INT was always a secondary concern compared to CON or CHA, but a concern nonetheless.
5e started off as INT based to reflect the INT basis of 4e, but there was significant push for CHA during the playtest.
Things are a bit more complicated than "because tradition."
This debate is getting stupid. There is one reason that Warlocks are Charisma casters in 5e. LEGACY!!! If anyone can tell me the Warlocks spell like ability DC stat in 3.5e and their Casting stat in 4e you win a prize of knowledge. Any mental stat has an argument for being the casting stat for any class. I could argue that Dex should be the casting stat attack roll spells and possibly spells with somatic components. We can have an infinite number of “valid” pros and cons for any stat because we are talking about fantasy and how to interpret an imaginary thing. Again there is one reason that Warlocks cast with Charisma and if you want flex casting for Warlock you should want it for all casters. It makes just as much sense for a Cleric to be an Int caster as it does for a Warlock to be one.
Legacy is the only argument the "Cha-only" crowd have, and by argument I mean argumentum ad antiquitam, i.e. a logical fallacy.
Int proponents meanwhile have given reasons beyond legacy and novelty for Warlocks to have the option of being Int-based. We've pointed to the class description, we've pointed to the fact that it adds more variety and fun to core, and we've pointed to Warlocks whose pacts don't rely on charismatic negotiation or overt deals.
More to the point, the argument is that the warlock isn't just putting out an ad in the classifieds "Wanted: Powerful being with which to make bargain". The warlock is in the field doing hands on research and digging up incremental knowledge on how to perform the proper rituals, as well as what to be prepared for AND how to bend it to your benefit when you do; then piecing those bits of knowledge together and properly utlizing it.
Yeah, no, that's not a warlock. Why do you want to have that character be a warlock? There's nothing about the class design that encourages clever solving problem.
This debate is getting stupid. There is one reason that Warlocks are Charisma casters in 5e. LEGACY!!! If anyone can tell me the Warlocks spell like ability DC stat in 3.5e and their Casting stat in 4e you win a prize of knowledge. Any mental stat has an argument for being the casting stat for any class. I could argue that Dex should be the casting stat attack roll spells and possibly spells with somatic components. We can have an infinite number of “valid” pros and cons for any stat because we are talking about fantasy and how to interpret an imaginary thing. Again there is one reason that Warlocks cast with Charisma and if you want flex casting for Warlock you should want it for all casters. It makes just as much sense for a Cleric to be an Int caster as it does for a Warlock to be one.
Legacy is the only argument the "Cha-only" crowd have, and by argument I mean argumentum ad antiquitam, i.e. a logical fallacy.
Int proponents meanwhile have given reasons beyond legacy and novelty for Warlocks to have the option of being Int-based. We've pointed to the class description, we've pointed to the fact that it adds more variety and fun to core, and we've pointed to Warlocks whose pacts don't rely on charismatic negotiation or overt deals.
And there’s Clerics who don’t worship gods, but they still use WIS regardless of their alternate dynamic. The fact that you can frame your personal backstory as different from the major archetype of the class doesn’t mean the class needs to retool its features to fit your backstory.
And the INT argument is that much more supported by your ability to perform the magical equivalent of ordering from a vending machine? As has been repeatedly said, CHA reflects inner strength of personality alongside interpersonal skills. Or are you going to tell me that a target makes a CHA save against spells like Bane, Banishment, and Magic Jar by arguing against the spell?
I just want to say that this would be pretty hilarious. "I reject your curse because, as an avowed atheist, I don't believe in gods, ergo, your curse is just a psychological trick and..."
And the INT argument is that much more supported by your ability to perform the magical equivalent of ordering from a vending machine? As has been repeatedly said, CHA reflects inner strength of personality alongside interpersonal skills. Or are you going to tell me that a target makes a CHA save against spells like Bane, Banishment, and Magic Jar by arguing against the spell?
I just want to say that this would be pretty hilarious. "I reject your curse because, as an avowed atheist, I don't believe in gods, ergo, your curse is just a psychological trick and..."
Oh, great, now you just gave them the next version of Epic Boons!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
And there’s Clerics who don’t worship gods, but they still use WIS regardless of their alternate dynamic. The fact that you can frame your personal backstory as different from the major archetype of the class doesn’t mean the class needs to retool its features to fit your backstory.
Per the 5e description of the cleric class there really kind of aren't: "As you create a cleric, the most important question to consider is which deity to serve and what principles you want your character to embody". Clerics and gods go hand in hand, I'm pretty sure the closest you get in the 5e class description to a reference of not serving a god 100% directly is "Clerics are intermediaries between the mortal world and the distant planes of the gods" which is still serving at least the energies or power of some god. That said, I have no problem with a cleric not serving a god directly, and I imagine many dms don't as I imagine there are many that play in worlds without gods at all, but they generally still do need to serve some kind of energy or power of the universe. They might just serve the energies of life, death, chaos, justice, or balance rather than a deity directly, but their powers are derived directly from those forces. Which brings me to the point that you don't seem to understand why a cleric uses wisdom as their casting stat in 5e, or are just trying to change the entire description and foundation of both the cleric and wisdom in general. Clerics don't use wisdom as their stat "specifically" because they serve a god, else druids who have absolutely no presupposed connection to any specific deity would not use wisdom. They use wisdom because they are conduits for something else's power, be that a god, or a driving energy of the universe, or in the case of the druid from the force of nature itself if not a nature deity. Their wisdom represents their attunement to these forces and energies and their ability to intuit their wishes and channel their powers "the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes".
Ain_Undos isn't necessary wrong though, I'm sure arguments could be made for every casting class to use a different casting stat; and frankly, I think it could probably be beneficial. That said, clerics, druids, wizards, and artificers are probably the most strongly rooted to their existing casting stats due to the heavy handed wording of the official descriptions. Cleric's and druid's entire classes are quite strongly and directly tied in their descriptions and features to being conduits and servants to those greater forces, and hence, using wisdom "Harnessing divine magic doesn’t rely on study or training". Wizards and artificers the same for knowledge and intelligence. Still, I'm sure even those four can have ideas crafted for them using other mental stats that would make me want to see it played. Moving on to the other classes though, things definitely get more shaky. Paladins use charisma cause their power comes from the strength of their oath and hence from within themselves, but a paladin that serves a god could be argued to use wisdom as their casting stat instead, and I'm sure arguments could be made for intelligence. Rangers definitely could have arguments to be either charisma or intelligence casters instead of wisdom. Bard is frequently argued that it should have been intelligence, and there are plenty of people that feel sorcerer should have been constitution; let alone both easily have arguments for wisdom as well.
The warlock is probably easily the most fluid though. I would argue most specifically because the warlocks spellcasting stat actually has nothing to do with how they actually cast or interact with those spells/powers, but only how they went about obtaining access to another creature who can give them to them. Through this their spellcasting stat is seemingly more directly tied to the character's backstory. The warlock's spellcasting stat isn't like a cleric's where its representative more directly of their level of service and attunement to a greater force; for a warlock it's more broadly representative of HOW they came to serve that greater force in the force place. Did the warlock stumble onto something by accident and through the force of their personality seize the opportunity to forge a deal with something other? Were they contacted mysteriously from beyond with an offer of power as they were attuning to the world around them? Or did they perform countless hours of high level research both in tome and in the field to coax the mysteries of the other planes to reveal themselves to them? This is what a flexible casting stat for a warlock could be used to represent; and it's supported strongly in the official descriptions by the broad array of suggestions for how the warlock obtained their powers.
I am curious. Who are you saying has framed a personal backstory that is different from the major archetype of the warlock class? Or that would require retooling its features to fit that backstory? I believe any description I myself provided fits perfectly fine within the framework and description of the class. They absolutely don't require any retooling of the class's features other than the casting stat brought into question, and that's simply an inconsequential adjustment that changes absolutely nothing about the class except its flavour.
This debate is getting stupid. There is one reason that Warlocks are Charisma casters in 5e. LEGACY!!! If anyone can tell me the Warlocks spell like ability DC stat in 3.5e and their Casting stat in 4e you win a prize of knowledge. Any mental stat has an argument for being the casting stat for any class. I could argue that Dex should be the casting stat attack roll spells and possibly spells with somatic components. We can have an infinite number of “valid” pros and cons for any stat because we are talking about fantasy and how to interpret an imaginary thing. Again there is one reason that Warlocks cast with Charisma and if you want flex casting for Warlock you should want it for all casters. It makes just as much sense for a Cleric to be an Int caster as it does for a Warlock to be one.
Legacy is the only argument the "Cha-only" crowd have, and by argument I mean argumentum ad antiquitam, i.e. a logical fallacy.
Int proponents meanwhile have given reasons beyond legacy and novelty for Warlocks to have the option of being Int-based. We've pointed to the class description, we've pointed to the fact that it adds more variety and fun to core, and we've pointed to Warlocks whose pacts don't rely on charismatic negotiation or overt deals.
The reason why int side uses actual arguments past just cause is because the class was literally written to be a int casting class which is why they way it is written in its class description and how its abilities are gained reference intelligence based methods. It was changed to charisma due to play test feedback when people wanted the flat out better stat for the class but the description of the class did not change to reflect that.
This debate is getting stupid. There is one reason that Warlocks are Charisma casters in 5e. LEGACY!!! If anyone can tell me the Warlocks spell like ability DC stat in 3.5e and their Casting stat in 4e you win a prize of knowledge. Any mental stat has an argument for being the casting stat for any class. I could argue that Dex should be the casting stat attack roll spells and possibly spells with somatic components. We can have an infinite number of “valid” pros and cons for any stat because we are talking about fantasy and how to interpret an imaginary thing. Again there is one reason that Warlocks cast with Charisma and if you want flex casting for Warlock you should want it for all casters. It makes just as much sense for a Cleric to be an Int caster as it does for a Warlock to be one.
Legacy is the only argument the "Cha-only" crowd have, and by argument I mean argumentum ad antiquitam, i.e. a logical fallacy.
Int proponents meanwhile have given reasons beyond legacy and novelty for Warlocks to have the option of being Int-based. We've pointed to the class description, we've pointed to the fact that it adds more variety and fun to core, and we've pointed to Warlocks whose pacts don't rely on charismatic negotiation or overt deals.
And there’s Clerics who don’t worship gods, but they still use WIS regardless of their alternate dynamic. The fact that you can frame your personal backstory as different from the major archetype of the class doesn’t mean the class needs to retool its features to fit your backstory.
Except that the major backstory of the class the big picture, the little picture pretty much every picture they give of the class is intelligence based. They intended it to be a intelligence based class, they wrote it that way and changed it last minute due to feedback without changing how the class was written to reflect that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I didn't say they were doing a dissertation, I said they were doing the research equivalent to that NEEDED for a dissertation. While a wizard would be doing their dissertation on how to cast or create a spell, if the warlock were to write one it would be on how to find and bind a being into granting you the ability to do so. You're weirdly equating knowledge 1:1 to spellcasting; I never implied the warlock gained their spells from any source other than their patron, but you're dismissing any other potential avenue of intelligence or knowledge as not intelligence or knowledge because they don't learn the spell themselves and instead are granted it from something else. A warlocks gathering of knowledge and intelligence is simply utilized in an alternative manner, and toward a different end, than a wizards. If a person beat a devil in a game of logic and wits with the reward being power (read: a spell of some kind) would we argue that person didn't use intelligence to gain that power simply because it was granted to them, despite being earned?
Further, you're being sadly dismissive of legitimate ability needed in properly researching knowledge and more importantly utilizing that knowledge. We're also (generally) talking about worlds where the ease of access to a resource like google doesn't exist, but even in a world where google DOES exist (i.e. ours) the number of people that just generally don't know how to use it to look up, let alone learn how to do, the most basic things just overwhelms your argument. And, I want to get ahead of this here, because you're again going to go "they're not actually utilizing or doing anything themselves with the knowledge because they're not learning the spells themselves" but I once again stress, as I have been VERY clear about, I'm talking about the knowledge and research used to contact and bind into a contract the beings that grant them those spells or powers.
The entire purpose of those cards is that there is a way to exploit them but if you fail to do so you're screwed. The credit companies offering 0% interest for x months expect people that are not able to actually pay it off in time to be too tempted or to foolishly think that they can, and hence end up paying exorbitant interest on their debt. But yes, say the warlock and the wizard both want to "buy" a powerful spell. The wizard can save up enough money (or has the money but doesn't want to be without that large amount of money at that time) over a period of a year to buy that spell and does so; going the entire year without it and gaining it in the end when they have saved enough that they're willing to spend. The warlock could also save up enough money (or again, already has that money but doesn't want to be without it) over a period of a year to buy that spell, but they've just been offered that spell immediately, with the only string attached being that they NEED to pay for it in entirety before the year is up or the debt will compound with a high interest and be even greater. So the warlock takes the deal and gets the spell immediately, while the wizard is still waiting, and gradually pays it off over the year. If they do so, they achieved their goal of getting that spell quicker and paid absolutely nothing more, if they don't...well...they're not an intelligent warlock and suffer the consequences. So yes, those offers absolutely can be "exploited" for benefit, they simply rely on the greater number of people failing to properly do so, which generally tends to be true and hence they are profitable for the credit companies to offer them...plus even if the person signing up for it utilizes it without paying interest on the initial offer, they still have a new customer who is (likely) going to use that card on purchases that they will owe interest on in the future.
A warlock pact is roughly the equivalent of passing a test by buying the answers to the test questions from some shady character. It's not impossible for a smart person to do that... but it's generally a sign that you lack the talent to answer the questions on your own.
well... -- it makes the "magic Stat" primary in any magic using build. But to learn spells or upcast them requires other scores, and other functions (features) of a class rely on the other ability scores. So, for example, a Druid's class features will all rely one other scores than magic -- it only applies to spell casting.
Absolutely a MAD set up -- and honestly, I think all the classes should be MAD and the monk whiners can bite me. TO make a spell points system work the way we (players and DMs) wanted it to work, we essentially did it this way.
We did eventually de-emphasize the Serve, Learn, Feel, and Channel portion post development and playtesting (because it works more for establishing an archetype and distinction and then structural aspects), but they are still there, just "under the hood" now. Grouping the classes in that manner (by how they access their magic) and crossing it with the kind of magic gave rise to the classes we use, so would essentially be a way to establish the boundaries of assorted sub-classes in regular 5e.
In this model, Sorcs are "feel" and 'locks are "channel". Since we have rules around multiclassing that are structurally present to limit and or reduce potential dipping (if the Dm even allows it), such an approach would mean significant effort and greater investment to get a Sorlock, because they learn their magic in two different ways.
But I mentioned it because a lot of the "it should be" x or it "could be Y" sort of stuff is really going to vary according to the nature of the archetype in use and how that archetype interfaces with the setting -- any ability score can be used if you have a concept for how it operates (con for channel, for example is the "physical hardship" of channeling the magic granted).
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
And those that see the capability for a warlock (which is written right into the descriptions of the class) to be an intelligent individual find this kind of argument disgustingly dismissive and dishonest. Would you consider a wizard apprentice being shown how to perform spells by his master as cheating the answers? Or as not performing a spell as a wizard because they were shown how to do it? I would presume not; yet the warlock class itself even describes the relationship as often that of a teacher and apprentice.
More to the point, the argument is that the warlock isn't just putting out an ad in the classifieds "Wanted: Powerful being with which to make bargain". The warlock is in the field doing hands on research and digging up incremental knowledge on how to perform the proper rituals, as well as what to be prepared for AND how to bend it to your benefit when you do; then piecing those bits of knowledge together and properly utlizing it.
They might learn knowledge of a ritual or how to contact a suitable being...and maybe it resulted in a poor outcome; but maybe, with this other bit of knowledge they learned elsewhere regarding this particular kind of being, they can formulate a different approach and be more successful than that last person. To be safe, maybe they should keep researching more somewhere else, see if they can't find other knowledge/evidence to reinforce their thinking, or maybe show it to be a mistake. They might make contact with lesser beings of the desired type, ones the warlock would be able to handle if things go wrong, but that they can use to gradually learn more about how to achieve their ultimate goal. Gradually they learn how to contact more and more powerful beings. Ultimately, maybe the warlock is even the first to learn, through their own experimentation and study, how to contact their particular sought after entity
Where a wizards knowledge is in the spell itself, an intelligent warlocks knowledge is in the occult or otherworldly; and in the learning how to contact, deal with, and exploit these beings for their benefit. Why should we accept that a wizard learning his magic by being shown how to do so by another wizard is innately more intelligent than the warlock pursuing impossibly hard to find or even priorly nonexistent knowledge on contacting and dealing with a more powerful entity to do the same?
Intelligence is no guarantee of sensible decision making. Case in point, literally every high INT D&D character that gets even momentarily bored of being the only sensible one in the party. 😝
Also just because you're on the "better" path doesn't mean you won't get frustrated at others making faster progress, or that circumstances won't arise where you can longer afford to wait for the long term pay-off etc., there are a myriad reasons someone might turn to a Warlock pact that aren't simply that they're lazy good for nothings. There's also the arrogance that can come with intelligence; over-confidence can lead an intelligent person to think they're smart enough to "win" the bargain. After all, a contract with a devil is just a written set of conditions, and you're super good at studying so you'll definitely pick up on every shady loophole that's hidden in there… right?
It's never quite so simple as high INT = is smart, as it's entirely possible to be a learned fool; quick to pick things up, and even quicker to do exactly the wrong thing with them. 😉
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
This debate is getting stupid. There is one reason that Warlocks are Charisma casters in 5e. LEGACY!!!
If anyone can tell me the Warlocks spell like ability DC stat in 3.5e and their Casting stat in 4e you win a prize of knowledge. Any mental stat has an argument for being the casting stat for any class. I could argue that Dex should be the casting stat attack roll spells and possibly spells with somatic components. We can have an infinite number of “valid” pros and cons for any stat because we are talking about fantasy and how to interpret an imaginary thing. Again there is one reason that Warlocks cast with Charisma and if you want flex casting for Warlock you should want it for all casters. It makes just as much sense for a Cleric to be an Int caster as it does for a Warlock to be one.
might as well say that high intelligence equals good every time. how could one be greedy when one could simply follow the chain of effect and see that luxury and excess of the ruling class disproportionately effects groups down the line? and if you fail the check to spot those possible long-term outcomes, it must have been the dice. the dice are evil, not my big brain and its plan to construct a phylactery!
warlock is some guy who opened a door he wasn't supposed to and found a primitive automobile. some few elites ride horses and everyone else walks, but not this guy! sure, it might be smokey and rattly and scares the peasants, but you don't have to deal with those horse stable jerks. also, it caps out at a max speed and the shady things you have to do to fuel the damn thing in a world without standardized petrochemical infrastructure is regularly quite literally 'hellish,' but... the charm of it!
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
You could even make a case for different subclasses of the same class to use different stats - such as the Divine Soul sorcerer to default to wisdom, but that would require subclasses to start at 1st level rather than 3rd. And while I would personally like that change, the developers have decided otherwise.
I always thought it made more sense for Warlocks, Sorcerers, and Clerics to start with their subclass right away. The bargain for power has to happen before you get spells at all in the case of Warlocks (and technically Clerics), and one's bloodline (for Sorcerers) is something they are born with, it isn't some choice you make later.
No, because intelligence =/= empathy. An intelligent person can know that luxury and excess of the ruling class disadvantages society as a whole down the line and just not care because they and their family will still be a net ahead even if society as a whole gets worse for everyone. (See: Prisoner's Dilemma or Tragedy of the Commons).
In fact many of our social / cultural / economic systems incentivize acting in a selfish way to the detriment of society & the world as a whole, because individual wealth & success is disconnected from broader social good. Thus, an intelligent but selfish actor will rationally act in an exploitative manner because that maximizes their personal success.
E.g. short-term-ism in the business world isn't because all business leaders are stupid and short thinking, it's because they aren't planning to stay at one company long-term so doing long-term damage to the company by extracting maximum profits now is the logical choice because they can put that short term success on their CV in order to get a better job at a different company and leave the long-term damage as someone else's problem (the average time a CEO stays in their job is only 5 years so why should they care about long-term consequences of their decisions?).
Well, if you really, really want to go down that rabbit hole..
The modern warlock is actually a combination of three 3.x classes. Warlock, Binder, and Hexblade. While all three had magic that relied on Charisma, they also all relied on physical stats. Eldritch Blast was a ranged touch attack, which was a 1d20 + DEX bonus + BAB vs Touch AC, and a number of Invocations didn't use any stat. Hellfire warlocks were actually fairly well known for primarily ignoring CHA and going DEX and CON (as Hellfire caused damage to your CON score in exchange for increased damage). Many binder options relied on using weapons, which called for DEX or STR rolls instead of CHA. Hexblade was a half caster, like the paladin, and relied more on using regular attack rolls and Charisma was a secondary option. Physical stats were often regarded as more important than Charisma.
4e did merge the classes, but we had a weird quirk where every class had two stats it relied on. In the case of the warlock, you either relied on CON+INT or CHA+INT. At first, the inferno and star warlocks were CON+INT, though latter supplements gave into demand and made CHA+INT options, while there was no reciprocation to give the already CHA-based pacts CON-based magic. INT was always a secondary concern compared to CON or CHA, but a concern nonetheless.
5e started off as INT based to reflect the INT basis of 4e, but there was significant push for CHA during the playtest.
Things are a bit more complicated than "because tradition."
Legacy is the only argument the "Cha-only" crowd have, and by argument I mean argumentum ad antiquitam, i.e. a logical fallacy.
Int proponents meanwhile have given reasons beyond legacy and novelty for Warlocks to have the option of being Int-based. We've pointed to the class description, we've pointed to the fact that it adds more variety and fun to core, and we've pointed to Warlocks whose pacts don't rely on charismatic negotiation or overt deals.
Yeah, no, that's not a warlock. Why do you want to have that character be a warlock? There's nothing about the class design that encourages clever solving problem.
And there’s Clerics who don’t worship gods, but they still use WIS regardless of their alternate dynamic. The fact that you can frame your personal backstory as different from the major archetype of the class doesn’t mean the class needs to retool its features to fit your backstory.
I just want to say that this would be pretty hilarious. "I reject your curse because, as an avowed atheist, I don't believe in gods, ergo, your curse is just a psychological trick and..."
Oh, great, now you just gave them the next version of Epic Boons!
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Per the 5e description of the cleric class there really kind of aren't: "As you create a cleric, the most important question to consider is which deity to serve and what principles you want your character to embody". Clerics and gods go hand in hand, I'm pretty sure the closest you get in the 5e class description to a reference of not serving a god 100% directly is "Clerics are intermediaries between the mortal world and the distant planes of the gods" which is still serving at least the energies or power of some god. That said, I have no problem with a cleric not serving a god directly, and I imagine many dms don't as I imagine there are many that play in worlds without gods at all, but they generally still do need to serve some kind of energy or power of the universe. They might just serve the energies of life, death, chaos, justice, or balance rather than a deity directly, but their powers are derived directly from those forces. Which brings me to the point that you don't seem to understand why a cleric uses wisdom as their casting stat in 5e, or are just trying to change the entire description and foundation of both the cleric and wisdom in general. Clerics don't use wisdom as their stat "specifically" because they serve a god, else druids who have absolutely no presupposed connection to any specific deity would not use wisdom. They use wisdom because they are conduits for something else's power, be that a god, or a driving energy of the universe, or in the case of the druid from the force of nature itself if not a nature deity. Their wisdom represents their attunement to these forces and energies and their ability to intuit their wishes and channel their powers "the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes".
Ain_Undos isn't necessary wrong though, I'm sure arguments could be made for every casting class to use a different casting stat; and frankly, I think it could probably be beneficial. That said, clerics, druids, wizards, and artificers are probably the most strongly rooted to their existing casting stats due to the heavy handed wording of the official descriptions. Cleric's and druid's entire classes are quite strongly and directly tied in their descriptions and features to being conduits and servants to those greater forces, and hence, using wisdom "Harnessing divine magic doesn’t rely on study or training". Wizards and artificers the same for knowledge and intelligence. Still, I'm sure even those four can have ideas crafted for them using other mental stats that would make me want to see it played. Moving on to the other classes though, things definitely get more shaky. Paladins use charisma cause their power comes from the strength of their oath and hence from within themselves, but a paladin that serves a god could be argued to use wisdom as their casting stat instead, and I'm sure arguments could be made for intelligence. Rangers definitely could have arguments to be either charisma or intelligence casters instead of wisdom. Bard is frequently argued that it should have been intelligence, and there are plenty of people that feel sorcerer should have been constitution; let alone both easily have arguments for wisdom as well.
The warlock is probably easily the most fluid though. I would argue most specifically because the warlocks spellcasting stat actually has nothing to do with how they actually cast or interact with those spells/powers, but only how they went about obtaining access to another creature who can give them to them. Through this their spellcasting stat is seemingly more directly tied to the character's backstory. The warlock's spellcasting stat isn't like a cleric's where its representative more directly of their level of service and attunement to a greater force; for a warlock it's more broadly representative of HOW they came to serve that greater force in the force place. Did the warlock stumble onto something by accident and through the force of their personality seize the opportunity to forge a deal with something other? Were they contacted mysteriously from beyond with an offer of power as they were attuning to the world around them? Or did they perform countless hours of high level research both in tome and in the field to coax the mysteries of the other planes to reveal themselves to them? This is what a flexible casting stat for a warlock could be used to represent; and it's supported strongly in the official descriptions by the broad array of suggestions for how the warlock obtained their powers.
I am curious. Who are you saying has framed a personal backstory that is different from the major archetype of the warlock class? Or that would require retooling its features to fit that backstory? I believe any description I myself provided fits perfectly fine within the framework and description of the class. They absolutely don't require any retooling of the class's features other than the casting stat brought into question, and that's simply an inconsequential adjustment that changes absolutely nothing about the class except its flavour.
The reason why int side uses actual arguments past just cause is because the class was literally written to be a int casting class which is why they way it is written in its class description and how its abilities are gained reference intelligence based methods. It was changed to charisma due to play test feedback when people wanted the flat out better stat for the class but the description of the class did not change to reflect that.
Um... it was literally written to be a cha casting class. If it was written to be an int casting class... it would use int to cast spells.
Except that the major backstory of the class the big picture, the little picture pretty much every picture they give of the class is intelligence based. They intended it to be a intelligence based class, they wrote it that way and changed it last minute due to feedback without changing how the class was written to reflect that.