Tbh, I feel Warlock could be a CON caster. Not sure about the implications and some stuff would probably need adjustment, but it honestly makes the most sense.
The reason why int side uses actual arguments past just cause is because the class was literally written to be a int casting class.
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.
Um, no it wasn't. They wrote a class, made it a int class and changed it last minute without rewriting the class to reflect the change to it being charisma based.
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.
To the contrary, there most certainly is; you just obstinately choose to ignore it. But even if there wasn't, and possibly more importantly in a game of creativity and imagination, there's absolutely nothing in its description that excludes or discourages it. Well...except for people like you that seem to want to say, "no, your fun isn't right".
"Shifting his gaze between a battered tome and the odd alignment of the stars overhead, a wild-eyed tiefling chants the mystic ritual that will open a doorway to a distant world." - Hell...this one could be straight from the description for wizard.
"Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse."
"Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as fey nobles, demons, devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power."
"Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power, which compels them into their pacts and shapes their lives. This thirst drives warlocks into their pacts and shapes their later careers as well."
"No one makes a pact with such a mighty patron if he or she doesn’t intend to use the power thus gained. Rather, the vast majority of warlocks spend their days in active pursuit of their goals, which typically means some kind of adventuring."
"What led you to make the pact, and how did you make contact with your patron? Were you seduced into summoning a devil, or did you seek out the ritual that would allow you to make contact with an alien elder god? Did you search for your patron, or did your patron find and choose you?"
"In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed eldritch invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability."
"Your patron is a mysterious entity whose nature is utterly foreign to the fabric of reality. It might come from the Far Realm, the space beyond reality, or it could be one of the elder gods known only in legends. The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it."
"Your patron is a lord or lady of the fey, a creature of legend who holds secrets that were forgotten before the mortal races were born."
I hope we're accepting that not all warlocks stumble accidentally on their patron and some seek them out. If they're not clever problem solvers, out in the world digging up and discovering this information themselves, where exactly are they easily being handed all this knowledge on entities who "were forgotten before the mortal races were born"? Hell, in the description for the Great Old One it might not even be aware that you tapped into it and stole some of its powers for yourself.
Like...I dunno. I'm just going to try not to bother with you any further than that, cause if your entire mindset is really an unfalteringly static "no, none of that possibly takes any kind of intelligence, capable research, clever wits, puzzle solving, or hands on discoveries or experimentation (either in part or as a whole) to contact these beings lost to all preexisting knowledge and that arguably NO ONE else would know how to contact" ...well...there's just no reasoning or discussion to be had with that kind of rigidness.
Tbh, I feel Warlock could be a CON caster. Not sure about the implications and some stuff would probably need adjustment, but it honestly makes the most sense.
If we were going to have a Con caster I would vote Sorcerer, maybe lowering the hit die to a d4.
The reason why int side uses actual arguments past just cause is because the class was literally written to be a int casting class.
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.
Um, no it wasn't. They wrote a class, made it a int class and changed it last minute without rewriting the class to reflect the change to it being charisma based.
Tbh, I feel Warlock could be a CON caster. Not sure about the implications and some stuff would probably need adjustment, but it honestly makes the most sense.
If we were going to have a Con caster I would vote Sorcerer, maybe lowering the hit die to a d4.
The reason why int side uses actual arguments past just cause is because the class was literally written to be a int casting class.
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.
Um, no it wasn't. They wrote a class, made it a int class and changed it last minute without rewriting the class to reflect the change to it being charisma based.
I mean, if we're going to get really deep into the "what ability score" debate, the real question is; does D&D even need ability scores in the first place? Very few things in the game actually care what your ability scores actually are, the important part is how it feeds into modifiers, but if we assume the goal is to have a balanced game then why not just use a fixed progression for everyone, and the only difference is your proficiencies?
Pretty sure you could rip out ability scores and still have a functioning game, maybe boil saves down to physical and mental (averaging what your STR/DEX/CON and INT/WIS/CHA would have been) and call it a day. Ability scores are something that's always annoyed me because historically you randomised them anyway which I hate (too variable/luck based, can ruin a good character idea) and it's always confused new players with how it translates into modifiers (players expect adding a point to cause the modifier to go up one but it doesn't).
What matters is that if you're proficient with a sword, then you'll hit people with swords more good. If you're good at spells then spells happen.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I hope we're accepting that not all warlocks stumble accidentally on their patron and some seek them out. If they're not clever problem solvers, out in the world digging up and discovering this information themselves, where exactly are they easily being handed all this knowledge on entities who "were forgotten before the mortal races were born"? Hell, in the description for the Great Old One it might not even be aware that you tapped into it and stole some of its powers for yourself.
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."
Nah, they aren’t more complicated than, “because tradition.” It’s all make believe and there is no defined reason any class to have one casting stat over another. During development someone argued aren’t Warlocks Charisma casters and enough people agreed and it was printed that way. We have people coming up with all this head canon about which stat works better, but none of that matters because all the stats work.
I hope we're accepting that not all warlocks stumble accidentally on their patron and some seek them out. If they're not clever problem solvers, out in the world digging up and discovering this information themselves, where exactly are they easily being handed all this knowledge on entities who "were forgotten before the mortal races were born"? Hell, in the description for the Great Old One it might not even be aware that you tapped into it and stole some of its powers for yourself.
Because those entities want to find a sucker.
Sure, that's a possibility. Can you show me in the class description where that is supported as the ONLY possibility?
I already provided the text from The Great Old One (that you ignored) that clearly states its very possibly completely unaware of the warlock and if it is its indifferent to it. Certainly doesn't sound like that ones itching to hook a sucker or be found. Here's another from the blanket descriptions of Otherworldly Patrons "Other patrons bestow their power only grudgingly, and might make a pact with only one warlock." Mmm...grudgingly...sure sounds like there's plenty out there not baiting a line to catch some sucker.
Edit: To follow up on the "grudgingly". That means that the warlock needs to...learn on their own about the existence of this being that's possibly been forgotten or never even known to exist prior...they need to figure out on their own how to make any kind of contact with this being...now, remember to keep in mind this is a being that sounds like it definitely doesn't WANT to be found or contacted, so...arguably it might have even made these tasks even more difficult...and then that warlock needs to know what the being WOULD actually want in order to force it to make a deal that the damn thing doesn't even want to make...cause it definitely doesn't seem to have any interest in the warlock themself....I gotta say, that sounds like a LOT of self-sought knowledge, precautions, and clever preparation that warlock has to come armed with.
I hope we're accepting that not all warlocks stumble accidentally on their patron and some seek them out. If they're not clever problem solvers, out in the world digging up and discovering this information themselves, where exactly are they easily being handed all this knowledge on entities who "were forgotten before the mortal races were born"? Hell, in the description for the Great Old One it might not even be aware that you tapped into it and stole some of its powers for yourself.
Because those entities want to find a sucker.
Sure, that's a possibility. Can you show me in the class description where that is supported as the ONLY possibility?
I already provided the text from The Great Old One that clearly states its very possibly completely unaware of the warlock and if it is its indifferent to it. Certainly doesn't sound like that ones itching to hook a sucker or be found. Here's another from the blanket descriptions of Otherworldly Patrons "Other patrons bestow their power only grudgingly, and might make a pact with only one warlock." Mmm...grudgingly...sure sounds like there's plenty out there not baiting a line to catch some sucker.
Regarding the GOO, there’s always the classic “even dead gods dream” bit. It might not be actively looking for followers, but someone gets freaky dreams, starts acting them out, and presto, you’ve got a ritual for contacting The Being Who Was Hiding Behind the Door When the Vowels Were Handed Out.
As for grudgingly, there’s the classic “genie in a lamp” scenario where someone leverages the entity needing that person to perform some action or task that they’re incapable of.
Ultimately, the hypothetical scenarios for how a pact gets formed are “whatever your DM thinks sounds good”, not just “those scenarios that support the idea that most Warlocks formed their pacts by pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps via academic achievement”.
I hope we're accepting that not all warlocks stumble accidentally on their patron and some seek them out. If they're not clever problem solvers, out in the world digging up and discovering this information themselves, where exactly are they easily being handed all this knowledge on entities who "were forgotten before the mortal races were born"? Hell, in the description for the Great Old One it might not even be aware that you tapped into it and stole some of its powers for yourself.
Because those entities want to find a sucker.
Sure, that's a possibility. Can you show me in the class description where that is supported as the ONLY possibility?
I already provided the text from The Great Old One that clearly states its very possibly completely unaware of the warlock and if it is its indifferent to it. Certainly doesn't sound like that ones itching to hook a sucker or be found. Here's another from the blanket descriptions of Otherworldly Patrons "Other patrons bestow their power only grudgingly, and might make a pact with only one warlock." Mmm...grudgingly...sure sounds like there's plenty out there not baiting a line to catch some sucker.
Regarding the GOO, there’s always the classic “even dead gods dream” bit. It might not be actively looking for followers, but someone gets freaky dreams, starts acting them out, and presto, you’ve got a ritual for contacting The Being Who Was Hiding Behind the Door When the Vowels Were Handed Out.
As for grudgingly, there’s the classic “genie in a lamp” scenario where someone leverages the entity needing that person to perform some action or task that they’re incapable of.
Ultimately, the hypothetical scenarios for how a pact gets formed are “whatever your DM thinks sounds good”, not just “those scenarios that support the idea that most Warlocks formed their pacts by pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps via academic achievement”.
Lol. What is your argument here? All of those are legitimate methods of finding a patron. Did I ever imply that they weren't? Did I ever imply that the scenarios I was suggesting, were the ONLY way those could play out? No, in fact I stated in the comment you responded to that yes, even just being a sucker who was baited was a valid possibility. I provided suggestions further back for someone stumbling on one accidentally (there's your genie with Aladdin, but...BUT what about someone who intelligently does the research and seeks out how to find that genie? à la Jafar?) and I provided suggestion for someone being contacted out of the blue by some otherworldly being as they sat connecting with the energies of the world (there's your dead god dreaming origin) But for some reason...for some reason that you can't seem to actually provide any reason for...your imagination just flat out runs empty when it comes to someone being clever or doing work to find their patron?
It is hilarious, how blind to your own argument your last statement is. I'm not, and no one arguing for flexible casting on the warlock is, arguing that "those scenarios that support the idea that most warlocks formed their pacts by pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps via academic achievement" are the only valid scenarios. But you HAVE been arguing that only the scenarios where intelligence is not a factor at all are valid. You have been ardently claiming that there is no inspiration, in the class text or features, for cleverness or intelligence in the warlock's design, when it clearly exists there. When we provide examples of that existing in the class description you then try to spin this like we're the ones trying to lock out creativity or options? lol. Like, what were you actually arguing against here?
I will repeat what I said to Pantagruel. Sure, all those suggestions you provided are a possibility. Can you show me in the class description where that is supported as the ONLY possibility?
Let's take it further. Can you show me in the class description where it says that you COULD NOT HAVE possibly sought out your patron through hard work and dedicated research and planning? Can you show me in the class description where it says you ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE stumbled on your patron? Or been baited? Or been contacted out of the aether?
Just...an overwhelmingly large portion of the class description pointedly describes warlocks as dedicated, driven individuals in endless pursuit of knowledge and power who have sought out forgotten rites and rituals to beings that either were never known to have existed or are forgotten, and you ACTIVELY turn a blind eye to that, and then SOMEHOW you try to turn the argument around to try to say we're the ones blocking out scenarios?
I hope we're accepting that not all warlocks stumble accidentally on their patron and some seek them out. If they're not clever problem solvers, out in the world digging up and discovering this information themselves, where exactly are they easily being handed all this knowledge on entities who "were forgotten before the mortal races were born"? Hell, in the description for the Great Old One it might not even be aware that you tapped into it and stole some of its powers for yourself.
They hid in the restriction section of a wizard school library and got cursed by one of the sentient books -> this is Rincewind's backstory in Discworld.
An evil wizard / servant of the GOO (or other patron) slips a cursed book into the character's possession and they happen to discover it and get cursed by it -> i.e. Ginny Weasley in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
They are kidnapped by a coven of hags and steal one of their gimoires in order to tap into the hag magiks to defeat their captors -> my GOO-lock character's backstory.
Raised by a bunch of crazy cultists
Decide after reading some wacky political propaganda that abberrations are just lost and misunderstood creatures that humanity should actually try to help & rehabilitate, not kill -> backstory for one of my NPCs.
Got trapped in the planes of dread and had a dream from one of the dark powers and thought it sounded cool so said yes.
Got captured by Mindflayers and got a tadpole in the brain -> backstory for my BG3 warlock.
Looted a magical artifact from an ancient temple for $$, then started having dreams about monstrous rat-god who dubbed them their champion -> in character justification for one of my PCs to MC into warlock
Bought a ship in a bottle from a D&D junk shop, when the bottle was opened the character got sucked inside and confronted by a strange entity trapped within. -> backstory for a different warlock PC.
Hands were crushed in an accident and sought out any possible cure until they heard of a mystical healer who could cure any ailment, went and begged them for a cure, but was refused until agreed to work for them and let go of obsession with "knowing" and "understanding" and embrace spirituality / faith -> Dr. Strange origin story.
I hope we're accepting that not all warlocks stumble accidentally on their patron and some seek them out. If they're not clever problem solvers, out in the world digging up and discovering this information themselves, where exactly are they easily being handed all this knowledge on entities who "were forgotten before the mortal races were born"? Hell, in the description for the Great Old One it might not even be aware that you tapped into it and stole some of its powers for yourself.
They hid in the restriction section of a wizard school library and got cursed by one of the sentient books -> this is Rincewind's backstory in Discworld.
An evil wizard / servant of the GOO (or other patron) slips a cursed book into the character's possession and they happen to discover it and get cursed by it -> i.e. Ginny Weasley in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
They are kidnapped by a coven of hags and steal one of their gimoires in order to tap into the hag magiks to defeat their captors -> my GOO-lock character's backstory.
Raised by a bunch of crazy cultists
Decide after reading some wacky political propaganda that abberrations are just lost and misunderstood creatures that humanity should actually try to help & rehabilitate, not kill -> backstory for one of my NPCs.
Got trapped in the planes of dread and had a dream from one of the dark powers and thought it sounded cool so said yes.
Got captured by Mindflayers and got a tadpole in the brain -> backstory for my BG3 warlock.
Looted a magical artifact from an ancient temple for $$, then started having dreams about monstrous rat-god who dubbed them their champion -> in character justification for one of my PCs to MC into warlock
Bought a ship in a bottle from a D&D junk shop, when the bottle was opened the character got sucked inside and confronted by a strange entity trapped within. -> backstory for a different warlock PC.
Hands were crushed in an accident and sought out any possible cure until they heard of a mystical healer who could cure any ailment, went and begged them for a cure, but was refused until agreed to work for them and let go of obsession with "knowing" and "understanding" and embrace spirituality / faith -> Dr. Strange origin story.
If you will note, I started my comment that you replied to with "I hope we're accepting that not all warlocks stumble accidentally on their patron and that some do seek them out?"
You then proceeded to provide a list of examples of warlocks that almost completely ONLY stumbled on their patron accidentally. Arguable 5 is not accidentally stumbling on them, and 10 is definitely seeking them out but not with willful knowledge of what it is; and both are still seeking beings they've heard of and others know of. A being that is not forgotten, that exists in the present and whose presence is known well enough that they were able to hear tales of them or have aforementioned knowledge of. Which, it should've been noted, part of the scenario in question, was that the being is a complete unknown that also doesn't want to be contacted.
THAT scenario provided, exists within the context of the warlock description. To argue that it doesn't, is a fallacy. To argue that it could ONLY be done through ignorance, foolhardiness, naivety, desperation, or being contacted first, is willing yourself to deliberately disregard probably about half of the context of the written warlock class simply because it doesn't align with what your image of it is.
This discussion is reaching a crazy point. How can anyone deny that the class description is obviously intended for an int caster?
[...]Shifting his gaze between a battered tome and the odd alignment of the stars overhead[...]
[...]Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse.[...]
[...]Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as fey nobles, demons, devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power[...]
[...]The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf.[...]
[...]Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power[...]
[...] And sometimes, while poring over tomes of forbidden lore, a brilliant student’s mind is opened to realities beyond the material world and to the alien beings that dwell in the outer void[...]
[...]Once a pact is made, a warlock’s thirst for knowledge and power can’t be slaked with mere study and research[...]
However, there is nothing to suggest that the warlock is a very charismatic person. Or that he has a great will, which is another way of looking at char. And that has an explanation: The Warlock archetype is that of someone intelligent and sibylline. Not a diplomat, a trickster, a seducer, etc...
If they want to keep him as a char caster, the first thing they should do is reconsider the archetype they want to represent. And write a description accordingly. Right now that description simply does not correspond to the mechanics of the class.
However, there is nothing to suggest that the warlock is a very charismatic person.
I hate to undercut you a just a tiny bit, but there IS the recommendation in the Quick Build section to take the Charlatan background and there's the example of being a cult leader to their chosen entity (this is pretty quickly brushed a side with a "more often though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice") So, there are some small snippets in there, but they are pretty greatly overwhelmed with the number of references to seeking knowledge and lore.
Also, thank you for including the "brilliant student's mind" bit. lol, I missed including that one in my post some ways above and I'm ashamed of myself for it.
This discussion is reaching a crazy point. How can anyone deny that the class description is obviously intended for an int caster?
Quite easily. Warlocks are seekers of lore, yes, but they're bad at it. If they were good at it... they wouldn't need a pact.
Lore based statement, not applicable in general.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Tbh, I feel Warlock could be a CON caster. Not sure about the implications and some stuff would probably need adjustment, but it honestly makes the most sense.
Um, no it wasn't. They wrote a class, made it a int class and changed it last minute without rewriting the class to reflect the change to it being charisma based.
To the contrary, there most certainly is; you just obstinately choose to ignore it. But even if there wasn't, and possibly more importantly in a game of creativity and imagination, there's absolutely nothing in its description that excludes or discourages it. Well...except for people like you that seem to want to say, "no, your fun isn't right".
"Shifting his gaze between a battered tome and the odd alignment of the stars overhead, a wild-eyed tiefling chants the mystic ritual that will open a doorway to a distant world." - Hell...this one could be straight from the description for wizard.
"Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse."
"Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as fey nobles, demons, devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power."
"Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power, which compels them into their pacts and shapes their lives. This thirst drives warlocks into their pacts and shapes their later careers as well."
"No one makes a pact with such a mighty patron if he or she doesn’t intend to use the power thus gained. Rather, the vast majority of warlocks spend their days in active pursuit of their goals, which typically means some kind of adventuring."
"What led you to make the pact, and how did you make contact with your patron? Were you seduced into summoning a devil, or did you seek out the ritual that would allow you to make contact with an alien elder god? Did you search for your patron, or did your patron find and choose you?"
"In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed eldritch invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability."
"Your patron is a mysterious entity whose nature is utterly foreign to the fabric of reality. It might come from the Far Realm, the space beyond reality, or it could be one of the elder gods known only in legends. The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it."
"Your patron is a lord or lady of the fey, a creature of legend who holds secrets that were forgotten before the mortal races were born."
I hope we're accepting that not all warlocks stumble accidentally on their patron and some seek them out. If they're not clever problem solvers, out in the world digging up and discovering this information themselves, where exactly are they easily being handed all this knowledge on entities who "were forgotten before the mortal races were born"? Hell, in the description for the Great Old One it might not even be aware that you tapped into it and stole some of its powers for yourself.
Like...I dunno. I'm just going to try not to bother with you any further than that, cause if your entire mindset is really an unfalteringly static "no, none of that possibly takes any kind of intelligence, capable research, clever wits, puzzle solving, or hands on discoveries or experimentation (either in part or as a whole) to contact these beings lost to all preexisting knowledge and that arguably NO ONE else would know how to contact" ...well...there's just no reasoning or discussion to be had with that kind of rigidness.
If we were going to have a Con caster I would vote Sorcerer, maybe lowering the hit die to a d4.
MyDudeicus is correct, here's the proof. Note that he didn't contradict the "description screams intelligence" statement either.
Yeah, sorc fits as well. Why not both.jpeg.
Lowering the hit die to d6 for Warlock in exchange would probably work just as well.
I mean, if we're going to get really deep into the "what ability score" debate, the real question is; does D&D even need ability scores in the first place? Very few things in the game actually care what your ability scores actually are, the important part is how it feeds into modifiers, but if we assume the goal is to have a balanced game then why not just use a fixed progression for everyone, and the only difference is your proficiencies?
Pretty sure you could rip out ability scores and still have a functioning game, maybe boil saves down to physical and mental (averaging what your STR/DEX/CON and INT/WIS/CHA would have been) and call it a day. Ability scores are something that's always annoyed me because historically you randomised them anyway which I hate (too variable/luck based, can ruin a good character idea) and it's always confused new players with how it translates into modifiers (players expect adding a point to cause the modifier to go up one but it doesn't).
What matters is that if you're proficient with a sword, then you'll hit people with swords more good. If you're good at spells then spells happen.
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.
Because those entities want to find a sucker.
Nah, they aren’t more complicated than, “because tradition.” It’s all make believe and there is no defined reason any class to have one casting stat over another. During development someone argued aren’t Warlocks Charisma casters and enough people agreed and it was printed that way. We have people coming up with all this head canon about which stat works better, but none of that matters because all the stats work.
Sure, that's a possibility. Can you show me in the class description where that is supported as the ONLY possibility?
I already provided the text from The Great Old One (that you ignored) that clearly states its very possibly completely unaware of the warlock and if it is its indifferent to it. Certainly doesn't sound like that ones itching to hook a sucker or be found. Here's another from the blanket descriptions of Otherworldly Patrons "Other patrons bestow their power only grudgingly, and might make a pact with only one warlock." Mmm...grudgingly...sure sounds like there's plenty out there not baiting a line to catch some sucker.
Edit: To follow up on the "grudgingly". That means that the warlock needs to...learn on their own about the existence of this being that's possibly been forgotten or never even known to exist prior...they need to figure out on their own how to make any kind of contact with this being...now, remember to keep in mind this is a being that sounds like it definitely doesn't WANT to be found or contacted, so...arguably it might have even made these tasks even more difficult...and then that warlock needs to know what the being WOULD actually want in order to force it to make a deal that the damn thing doesn't even want to make...cause it definitely doesn't seem to have any interest in the warlock themself....I gotta say, that sounds like a LOT of self-sought knowledge, precautions, and clever preparation that warlock has to come armed with.
Regarding the GOO, there’s always the classic “even dead gods dream” bit. It might not be actively looking for followers, but someone gets freaky dreams, starts acting them out, and presto, you’ve got a ritual for contacting The Being Who Was Hiding Behind the Door When the Vowels Were Handed Out.
As for grudgingly, there’s the classic “genie in a lamp” scenario where someone leverages the entity needing that person to perform some action or task that they’re incapable of.
Ultimately, the hypothetical scenarios for how a pact gets formed are “whatever your DM thinks sounds good”, not just “those scenarios that support the idea that most Warlocks formed their pacts by pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps via academic achievement”.
Lol. What is your argument here? All of those are legitimate methods of finding a patron. Did I ever imply that they weren't? Did I ever imply that the scenarios I was suggesting, were the ONLY way those could play out? No, in fact I stated in the comment you responded to that yes, even just being a sucker who was baited was a valid possibility. I provided suggestions further back for someone stumbling on one accidentally (there's your genie with Aladdin, but...BUT what about someone who intelligently does the research and seeks out how to find that genie? à la Jafar?) and I provided suggestion for someone being contacted out of the blue by some otherworldly being as they sat connecting with the energies of the world (there's your dead god dreaming origin) But for some reason...for some reason that you can't seem to actually provide any reason for...your imagination just flat out runs empty when it comes to someone being clever or doing work to find their patron?
It is hilarious, how blind to your own argument your last statement is. I'm not, and no one arguing for flexible casting on the warlock is, arguing that "those scenarios that support the idea that most warlocks formed their pacts by pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps via academic achievement" are the only valid scenarios. But you HAVE been arguing that only the scenarios where intelligence is not a factor at all are valid. You have been ardently claiming that there is no inspiration, in the class text or features, for cleverness or intelligence in the warlock's design, when it clearly exists there. When we provide examples of that existing in the class description you then try to spin this like we're the ones trying to lock out creativity or options? lol. Like, what were you actually arguing against here?
I will repeat what I said to Pantagruel. Sure, all those suggestions you provided are a possibility. Can you show me in the class description where that is supported as the ONLY possibility?
Let's take it further. Can you show me in the class description where it says that you COULD NOT HAVE possibly sought out your patron through hard work and dedicated research and planning? Can you show me in the class description where it says you ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE stumbled on your patron? Or been baited? Or been contacted out of the aether?
Just...an overwhelmingly large portion of the class description pointedly describes warlocks as dedicated, driven individuals in endless pursuit of knowledge and power who have sought out forgotten rites and rituals to beings that either were never known to have existed or are forgotten, and you ACTIVELY turn a blind eye to that, and then SOMEHOW you try to turn the argument around to try to say we're the ones blocking out scenarios?
They hid in the restriction section of a wizard school library and got cursed by one of the sentient books -> this is Rincewind's backstory in Discworld.
An evil wizard / servant of the GOO (or other patron) slips a cursed book into the character's possession and they happen to discover it and get cursed by it -> i.e. Ginny Weasley in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
They are kidnapped by a coven of hags and steal one of their gimoires in order to tap into the hag magiks to defeat their captors -> my GOO-lock character's backstory.
Raised by a bunch of crazy cultists
Decide after reading some wacky political propaganda that abberrations are just lost and misunderstood creatures that humanity should actually try to help & rehabilitate, not kill -> backstory for one of my NPCs.
Got trapped in the planes of dread and had a dream from one of the dark powers and thought it sounded cool so said yes.
Got captured by Mindflayers and got a tadpole in the brain -> backstory for my BG3 warlock.
Looted a magical artifact from an ancient temple for $$, then started having dreams about monstrous rat-god who dubbed them their champion -> in character justification for one of my PCs to MC into warlock
Bought a ship in a bottle from a D&D junk shop, when the bottle was opened the character got sucked inside and confronted by a strange entity trapped within. -> backstory for a different warlock PC.
Hands were crushed in an accident and sought out any possible cure until they heard of a mystical healer who could cure any ailment, went and begged them for a cure, but was refused until agreed to work for them and let go of obsession with "knowing" and "understanding" and embrace spirituality / faith -> Dr. Strange origin story.
@FadingPhoenix: I gave up replying to him because he outright admitted that he's trolling and his mind isn't open to being changed. Best to move on.
I’m not trolling. I just happen to hold a different opinion and enjoy debating the issue.
If you will note, I started my comment that you replied to with "I hope we're accepting that not all warlocks stumble accidentally on their patron and that some do seek them out?"
You then proceeded to provide a list of examples of warlocks that almost completely ONLY stumbled on their patron accidentally. Arguable 5 is not accidentally stumbling on them, and 10 is definitely seeking them out but not with willful knowledge of what it is; and both are still seeking beings they've heard of and others know of. A being that is not forgotten, that exists in the present and whose presence is known well enough that they were able to hear tales of them or have aforementioned knowledge of. Which, it should've been noted, part of the scenario in question, was that the being is a complete unknown that also doesn't want to be contacted.
THAT scenario provided, exists within the context of the warlock description. To argue that it doesn't, is a fallacy. To argue that it could ONLY be done through ignorance, foolhardiness, naivety, desperation, or being contacted first, is willing yourself to deliberately disregard probably about half of the context of the written warlock class simply because it doesn't align with what your image of it is.
This discussion is reaching a crazy point. How can anyone deny that the class description is obviously intended for an int caster?
[...]Shifting his gaze between a battered tome and the odd alignment of the stars overhead[...]
[...]Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse.[...]
[...]Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as fey nobles, demons, devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power[...]
[...]The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf.[...]
[...]Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power[...]
[...] And sometimes, while poring over tomes of forbidden lore, a brilliant student’s mind is opened to realities beyond the material world and to the alien beings that dwell in the outer void[...]
[...]Once a pact is made, a warlock’s thirst for knowledge and power can’t be slaked with mere study and research[...]
However, there is nothing to suggest that the warlock is a very charismatic person. Or that he has a great will, which is another way of looking at char. And that has an explanation: The Warlock archetype is that of someone intelligent and sibylline. Not a diplomat, a trickster, a seducer, etc...
If they want to keep him as a char caster, the first thing they should do is reconsider the archetype they want to represent. And write a description accordingly. Right now that description simply does not correspond to the mechanics of the class.
I hate to undercut you a just a tiny bit, but there IS the recommendation in the Quick Build section to take the Charlatan background and there's the example of being a cult leader to their chosen entity (this is pretty quickly brushed a side with a "more often though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice") So, there are some small snippets in there, but they are pretty greatly overwhelmed with the number of references to seeking knowledge and lore.
Also, thank you for including the "brilliant student's mind" bit. lol, I missed including that one in my post some ways above and I'm ashamed of myself for it.
So what you're saying is OneDnD shouldn't change anything from 5e because it's how it has always been since 5e started?
Huh. Yurei was right all along.
Quite easily. Warlocks are seekers of lore, yes, but they're bad at it. If they were good at it... they wouldn't need a pact.
Lore based statement, not applicable in general.
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