The problem, Kahbiel, is that every single time anyone tries to push or play the warlock as anything but a sex-crazed irresponsible-promise-making hooligan, they get roundly slapped and told "PLAY A GODDAMN WIZARD INSTEAD YOU *******". It was everywhere in the UA5 and UA7 warlock threads - "IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE WARLOCK EXACTLY AS IT'S WRITTEN IN THE 2014 BOOK THEN PLAY A FUKKIN' WIZARD AND JUST PRETEND YOU GOT A DEAL FROM CTHULHU OR WHATEVER".
It is maddening. And there's plenty of people in this thread pissing on the idea that warlocks can be anything but bedroom-chasing yayhoos. Not because that fits the class narrative, but because they don't want to give up their free access to the most powerful skillcheck stat in the game.
More people might listen to you if you stopped with the strawman arguments.
High charisma does not make one sex-crazed, nor a maker of irresponsible promises, nor a hooligan. Now, this is just my experience, but bedroom chasing has as much to do with the player as it does with the stats on the character sheet.
And to be honest, you can make as strong a case for the sorcerer having multiple casting stat options as you can for the warlock. Pathfinder has been doing it since their first edition (I always wanted to play the Arcane bloodline human sorcerer/pocket wizard before the edition change hit but the right campaign never came up).
In the wont happen file it would be interesting to me at least if instead of a class having a casting stat the spells did. So like enchantment, evocation, abjuration and conjuration spells might be charisma based, illusions, transmutation, necromancy and divination int For clerics the int spells might end up wisdom. Sort of like how for martials if you want to use a bow its dex and if you want to use a great axe its strength.
Hopefully that will lead to fewer folks (including those playing Warlocks) ignoring Intelligence, whether or not it is a primary stat for them. I guess the DMs in games I play in generally already make knowledge skills fairly important, and due to that I rarely dump it even when not playing a Wizard or Artificer. Of course, with expertise seeming to be far more common in 1DnD, the base ability score may not land up being quite as important, meaning smart Rogues, Rangers, and Bards in particular can easily make up for being a few points behind the Wizard in Intelligence.
I agree that it'll be useful enough that fewer people want to dump intelligence - but it'd still be nice to have a second class in core that wants to max out Intelligence, not merely avoid tanking it. As for Expertise - while that's certainly a useful way to excel at Study with middling or even low Int, there are a lot of skills that get modified by Int, and the classes that tend to get Expertise tend to also have many other skills demanding its attention, such as scouting/exploration and face skills.
But making one class dependent on intelligence doesn't do anything close to actually solving that problem.
The problem it solves is one of probability; with 3 classes in core that rely on high Cha, and 2 more that can get by with average or above-average Cha, you have a strong chance of someone at your table wanting to cover that stat, maybe even multiple someones. But with only 1 real option for Int reliance and 2 specific subclasses that maybe want above-average Int, your chances of someone covering that are much lower. Adding one more Int-based option to core is a good thing for everyone.
In the wont happen file it would be interesting to me at least if instead of a class having a casting stat the spells did. So like enchantment, evocation, abjuration and conjuration spells might be charisma based, illusions, transmutation, necromancy and divination int For clerics the int spells might end up wisdom. Sort of like how for martials if you want to use a bow its dex and if you want to use a great axe its strength.
Will admit, am intrigued by the idea of specific spells having casting abilities as opposed to entire classes doing so. Would make for a very different game, and a much more natural way of encouraging the sort of school specialization folks want in 5e. Would mean even more overemphasis on CHA, though....hmmm...
Hopefully that will lead to fewer folks (including those playing Warlocks) ignoring Intelligence, whether or not it is a primary stat for them. I guess the DMs in games I play in generally already make knowledge skills fairly important, and due to that I rarely dump it even when not playing a Wizard or Artificer. Of course, with expertise seeming to be far more common in 1DnD, the base ability score may not land up being quite as important, meaning smart Rogues, Rangers, and Bards in particular can easily make up for being a few points behind the Wizard in Intelligence.
I agree that it'll be useful enough that fewer people want to dump intelligence - but it'd still be nice to have a second class in core that wants to max out Intelligence, not merely avoid tanking it. As for Expertise - while that's certainly a useful way to excel at Study with middling or even low Int, there are a lot of skills that get modified by Int, and the classes that tend to get Expertise tend to also have many other skills demanding its attention, such as scouting/exploration and face skills.
But making one class dependent on intelligence doesn't do anything close to actually solving that problem.
The problem it solves is one of probability; with 3 classes in core that rely on high Cha, and 2 more that can get by with average or above-average Cha, you have a strong chance of someone at your table wanting to cover that stat, maybe even multiple someones. But with only 1 real option for Int reliance and 2 specific subclasses that maybe want above-average Int, your chances of someone covering that are much lower. Adding one more Int-based option to core is a good thing for everyone.
There is the artificer for Intelligence, but they won't be in the PHB.
Back in 3rd edition intelligence also added to known skills, which made the stat far more relevant than it is now. It provided too much of a tilt towards wizards in the wizard v sorcerer debate back then, but adding it back in at half ability (1 more trained skill per 2 points of int bonus) might not be too overwhelming.
Back in 3rd edition intelligence also added to known skills, which made the stat far more relevant than it is now. It provided too much of a tilt towards wizards in the wizard v sorcerer debate back then, but adding it back in at half ability (1 more trained skill per 2 points of int bonus) might not be too overwhelming.
The problem with this approach is that it would have the same effect it did in 3e, i.e making wizards even stronger, which they don't need. And just about everything you might do to mitigate that - lowering Wizards' base proficiencies, or lowering/capping the number of bonus proficiencies you can get from high Int, or returning to rank assignment, adds complexity to the game. because the new player can't simply look at their level 1 character and know exactly which/how many skills they should have.
Honestly, INT and WIS aren't a good fit purely on the basis of a comparison of the basic archetypes. The baseline image of a Wizard or Artificer is someone who is meant to have spent years if not decades learning their craft from the ground up. The baseline for Clerics and Druids is to commune and harmonize with a higher power. The baseline for Warlocks is some kind of transactional relationship; they do X and get power in return, no inherent need for rigorous study or spiritual communion. Like, yes, you can attempt to justify how your particular backstory is more about learning the ancient rites or finding a way to commune with The Beast Who Was Behind the Door When the Vowels Were Handed Out, but by the same token you can have a Cleric who goes with the whole "my domain comes from a concept, not a deity" and/or generally is more a theologian than a member of the clergy or a Wizard who just got their spellbook a few weeks ago or is more an intuitive caster than a rigorous academic; learning to play music or sing and particularly memorizing a wide repertoire of songs is at least as much of a cerebral exercise as an emotive one. Casting stats are all somewhat arbitrary and aren't necessarily going to reflect how you make a character's backstory or play the character. If Warlocks can be flexible about it, there's really no reason why all the other classes can't too. Which is not a bad thing in and of itself, but then it might make it too easy for one casting stat to become mechanically dominant.
TLDR: Yes, you can justify INT or WIS with your particular Warlock backstory, but casting stats are sometimes an instance of Gameplay and Story Segregation.
I mean sure but you are wrong. There is almost 0 connection between the warlock and charisma. They made one damn contract which could or could not be tied to charisma based on how the contract was formed, everything else about the class is intelligence. People just like charisma because its better. Not just it covers the social pillar aspect but its a active vs reactive skill. You can go forth and choose to charm, intimidate, deceive etc. Unless the DM hands you a reason to you are not rolling arcana.
See, yet again, this is where I think people are completely misunderstanding Charisma's role in the pact. As Ace of Rogues pointed out in another post, Charisma is not just looking good and smooth talking, it is force of personality and sense of self. Charisma is not used for some mortal to convince an enormously powerful being to share power with them, it is used to maintain one's self and control the power provided by the patron without being completely overwhelmed by it.
"it is force of personality and sense of self"
Could you maybe point me to where this comes from ? As in where it is described so in the PHB or DMG?
honestly when it comes to sorcs, I kinda think there is no good argument for any casting stat unless the argument is for Con.
I know that probably sounds weird but this argument comes from the fact Sorc in 5e are people who inherited their power in some way. It is always described as a bloodline or something that has been entwined with your very being. The only reason i think Sorc used Cha is because Cha seems to be the stat most representative of the soul.
That also works as a argument as to why Cha is a spell casting stat for bards, warlocks, and paladins as well.
I mean if you want a reason as to why it's not a bad thing, it really doesn't impact anything by making them a flexible caster.
"OOOOOh NOOO they will be Multiclassed!" already are, giving more reason to a thing already happening doesn't make it a bad thing. Hell, Multiclassing is literally how dnd equals its self out with path finder in customization options so giving people more reason to do it isn't a bad thing.
"OOOHHHH but you need to convince your patron to give you power!" Since when? Name a DM who actually plays the patron character like this. Never have I heard of a story where the warlock needed to go talk to their patron and make a deal for more power. If the patron needs the warlock in some way they will give the warlock quest to go fullfil their role. In some instances the Patron doesn't even know the warlock exist. If a Patron made a warlock it is for these 3 reasons,
1. You were already valuable to it, If you were trying to persuade it, you thought wrong, it always wanted you and was just playing hard to get.
2. It literally has no idea you exist, and your a leech upon a much greater entity who hasn't bothered going to a doctor.
3. It's desperate to take anyone, and you were the lucky sucker.
There are of course many other reasons you as a player could become a warlock, but not many reason a patron actually needs a warlock. there expendable in many cases, but in the cases where a Patron wants a warlock to succeed why no bolster what the warlock is best at?
Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.
honestly when it comes to sorcs, I kinda think there is no good argument for any casting stat unless the argument is for Con.
I know that probably sounds weird but this argument comes from the fact Sorc in 5e are people who inherited their power in some way. It is always described as a bloodline or something that has been entwined with your very being. The only reason i think Sorc used Cha is because Cha seems to be the stat most representative of the soul.
That also works as a argument as to why Cha is a spell casting stat for bards, warlocks, and paladins as well.
I wouldnt be against Sorcs being Con-based but you'd probably have to bump them down to d4 HD for balance reasons.
I know that probably sounds weird but this argument comes from the fact Sorc in 5e are people who inherited their power in some way.
I'd like to make a minor nitpick. Its not always inherited (though that is an option) - it can come from mutations caused by wild magics or exposure to extraplanar emanations. Still a fundamental bodily alteration from the norm, but just wanted to point out that you don't always have to be born to sorcery.
Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.
Force of personality =/= type of personality. Sense of self =/= confidence .
My question still stands, where in the PHB or DMG is Charisma described as force of personality or sense of self?
Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.
Force of personality =/= type of personality. Sense of self =/= confidence .
My question still stands, where in the PHB or DMG is Charisma described as force of personality or sense of self?
Force of personality is an aspect of confidence. The books might not use the exact words used here, but in my opinion an elementary reading comprehension allows one to extrapolate from “confidence” and “commanding personality” into such things as a strong sense of self.
Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.
Force of personality =/= type of personality. Sense of self =/= confidence .
My question still stands, where in the PHB or DMG is Charisma described as force of personality or sense of self?
I do not know if it is stated anywhere explicitly (although, I do not know how explicitly described Wisdom and Intelligence are either to explain why and where they are used in all cases). I do know that this subject has been the topic of discussion on many boards, and what the mental abilities encompass is also strongly implied by the types of saving throws they are utilized for. So, Charisma essentially bein force of personality or sense of self as posited by both Ace and myself may simply come from this inference, or is possibly backed up somewhere in the books or by statements from the designers.
In the end, whether or not it has been set down in writing, this conclusion seems justified from the evidence provided (including it being the spellcasting ability for Warlocks and Sorcerers), and is a useful tool for understanding the design choices that have been made.
Why is it so freaking terrible to want a warlock class that isn't actively pushed away from having an Intelligence score higher than 6?
The book outright says "DELVERS INTO SECRETS", with the line "Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power, which compels them into their pacts and shapes their lives" front and center. Knowledge and power. KNOWLEDGE and power. So why is the class actively ******* steered away from ever having 'Knowledge' and shoved towards being a bumbling horny idiot?
I don't always agree with Yurei, but when I do, she's right.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Why is it so freaking terrible to want a warlock class that isn't actively pushed away from having an Intelligence score higher than 6?
The book outright says "DELVERS INTO SECRETS", with the line "Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power, which compels them into their pacts and shapes their lives" front and center. Knowledge and power. KNOWLEDGE and power. So why is the class actively ******* steered away from ever having 'Knowledge' and shoved towards being a bumbling horny idiot?
I don't always agree with Yurei, but when I do, she's right.
Actually, if you abstract away from the hyperbole, and look beneath the aggressive language, there are often interesting ideas underneath there.
Anyway, I am one of those who think that it never made sense that a warlock has no incentive to invest in int. I don't understand that design. It goes against the warlock archetype in any fantasy one imagines. A warlock is sibylline by nature. And that, in my view, requires intelligence, not charisma. Okay, a warlock could be seductive and charismatic. But many other warlocks might not be. What a warlock cannot be is an idiot.
Why is it so freaking terrible to want a warlock class that isn't actively pushed away from having an Intelligence score higher than 6?
The book outright says "DELVERS INTO SECRETS", with the line "Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power, which compels them into their pacts and shapes their lives" front and center. Knowledge and power. KNOWLEDGE and power. So why is the class actively ******* steered away from ever having 'Knowledge' and shoved towards being a bumbling horny idiot?
I don't always agree with Yurei, but when I do, she's right.
Actually, if you abstract away from the hyperbole, and look beneath the aggressive language, there are often interesting ideas underneath there.
Anyway, I am one of those who think that it never made sense that a warlock has no incentive to invest in int. I don't understand that design. It goes against the warlock archetype in any fantasy one imagines. A warlock is sibylline by nature. And that, in my view, requires intelligence, not charisma. Okay, a warlock could be seductive and charismatic. But many other warlocks might not be. What a warlock cannot be is an idiot.
Its difficult to compare warlock archetypes with the D&D class, because many of those "warlocks" from fantasy might be classified as Wizards or Sorcerers or something else in this system. That being said, I know of plenty of times in fiction where an idiot made a pact with an entity to increase their power. I do find it unfortunate, though, that the system generally undervalues Intelligence in comparison to other abilities such as Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, and thus essentially incentivizes Warlocks (and other classes) not to use their limited resources to boost it.
Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.
Force of personality =/= type of personality. Sense of self =/= confidence .
My question still stands, where in the PHB or DMG is Charisma described as force of personality or sense of self?
Trying not to be too snippy in providing this, but did you try looking for it at all yourself? Both in the Basic Rules & PHB under the obvious "Chapter 7: Using Ability Scores". Literally at the very top of the chapter, in a bullet list providing a simple description of each Ability Score, "Charisma, measuring force of personality" is the exact description used.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
More people might listen to you if you stopped with the strawman arguments.
High charisma does not make one sex-crazed, nor a maker of irresponsible promises, nor a hooligan. Now, this is just my experience, but bedroom chasing has as much to do with the player as it does with the stats on the character sheet.
And to be honest, you can make as strong a case for the sorcerer having multiple casting stat options as you can for the warlock. Pathfinder has been doing it since their first edition (I always wanted to play the Arcane bloodline human sorcerer/pocket wizard before the edition change hit but the right campaign never came up).
In the wont happen file it would be interesting to me at least if instead of a class having a casting stat the spells did. So like enchantment, evocation, abjuration and conjuration spells might be charisma based, illusions, transmutation, necromancy and divination int For clerics the int spells might end up wisdom. Sort of like how for martials if you want to use a bow its dex and if you want to use a great axe its strength.
I agree that it'll be useful enough that fewer people want to dump intelligence - but it'd still be nice to have a second class in core that wants to max out Intelligence, not merely avoid tanking it. As for Expertise - while that's certainly a useful way to excel at Study with middling or even low Int, there are a lot of skills that get modified by Int, and the classes that tend to get Expertise tend to also have many other skills demanding its attention, such as scouting/exploration and face skills.
The problem it solves is one of probability; with 3 classes in core that rely on high Cha, and 2 more that can get by with average or above-average Cha, you have a strong chance of someone at your table wanting to cover that stat, maybe even multiple someones. But with only 1 real option for Int reliance and 2 specific subclasses that maybe want above-average Int, your chances of someone covering that are much lower. Adding one more Int-based option to core is a good thing for everyone.
That's and interesting idea!
Enchantment and Conjuration are CHA
Divination and Illusion are INT
Abjuration and Transmutation are WIS
Necromancy is either INT or WIS
Evocation is either INT or CHA
Will admit, am intrigued by the idea of specific spells having casting abilities as opposed to entire classes doing so. Would make for a very different game, and a much more natural way of encouraging the sort of school specialization folks want in 5e. Would mean even more overemphasis on CHA, though....hmmm...
Please do not contact or message me.
There is the artificer for Intelligence, but they won't be in the PHB.
Back in 3rd edition intelligence also added to known skills, which made the stat far more relevant than it is now. It provided too much of a tilt towards wizards in the wizard v sorcerer debate back then, but adding it back in at half ability (1 more trained skill per 2 points of int bonus) might not be too overwhelming.
I know; that's why I specified "in core."
The problem with this approach is that it would have the same effect it did in 3e, i.e making wizards even stronger, which they don't need. And just about everything you might do to mitigate that - lowering Wizards' base proficiencies, or lowering/capping the number of bonus proficiencies you can get from high Int, or returning to rank assignment, adds complexity to the game. because the new player can't simply look at their level 1 character and know exactly which/how many skills they should have.
"it is force of personality and sense of self"
Could you maybe point me to where this comes from ? As in where it is described so in the PHB or DMG?
honestly when it comes to sorcs, I kinda think there is no good argument for any casting stat unless the argument is for Con.
I know that probably sounds weird but this argument comes from the fact Sorc in 5e are people who inherited their power in some way. It is always described as a bloodline or something that has been entwined with your very being. The only reason i think Sorc used Cha is because Cha seems to be the stat most representative of the soul.
That also works as a argument as to why Cha is a spell casting stat for bards, warlocks, and paladins as well.
I mean if you want a reason as to why it's not a bad thing, it really doesn't impact anything by making them a flexible caster.
"OOOOOh NOOO they will be Multiclassed!" already are, giving more reason to a thing already happening doesn't make it a bad thing. Hell, Multiclassing is literally how dnd equals its self out with path finder in customization options so giving people more reason to do it isn't a bad thing.
"OOOHHHH but you need to convince your patron to give you power!" Since when? Name a DM who actually plays the patron character like this. Never have I heard of a story where the warlock needed to go talk to their patron and make a deal for more power. If the patron needs the warlock in some way they will give the warlock quest to go fullfil their role. In some instances the Patron doesn't even know the warlock exist. If a Patron made a warlock it is for these 3 reasons,
1. You were already valuable to it, If you were trying to persuade it, you thought wrong, it always wanted you and was just playing hard to get.
2. It literally has no idea you exist, and your a leech upon a much greater entity who hasn't bothered going to a doctor.
3. It's desperate to take anyone, and you were the lucky sucker.
There are of course many other reasons you as a player could become a warlock, but not many reason a patron actually needs a warlock. there expendable in many cases, but in the cases where a Patron wants a warlock to succeed why no bolster what the warlock is best at?
this is a pretty good take
Honestly, you got a point
From Basic:
I wouldnt be against Sorcs being Con-based but you'd probably have to bump them down to d4 HD for balance reasons.
I'd like to make a minor nitpick. Its not always inherited (though that is an option) - it can come from mutations caused by wild magics or exposure to extraplanar emanations. Still a fundamental bodily alteration from the norm, but just wanted to point out that you don't always have to be born to sorcery.
Force of personality =/= type of personality. Sense of self =/= confidence .
My question still stands, where in the PHB or DMG is Charisma described as force of personality or sense of self?
Force of personality is an aspect of confidence. The books might not use the exact words used here, but in my opinion an elementary reading comprehension allows one to extrapolate from “confidence” and “commanding personality” into such things as a strong sense of self.
I do not know if it is stated anywhere explicitly (although, I do not know how explicitly described Wisdom and Intelligence are either to explain why and where they are used in all cases). I do know that this subject has been the topic of discussion on many boards, and what the mental abilities encompass is also strongly implied by the types of saving throws they are utilized for. So, Charisma essentially bein force of personality or sense of self as posited by both Ace and myself may simply come from this inference, or is possibly backed up somewhere in the books or by statements from the designers.
In the end, whether or not it has been set down in writing, this conclusion seems justified from the evidence provided (including it being the spellcasting ability for Warlocks and Sorcerers), and is a useful tool for understanding the design choices that have been made.
I don't always agree with Yurei, but when I do, she's right.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Actually, if you abstract away from the hyperbole, and look beneath the aggressive language, there are often interesting ideas underneath there.
Anyway, I am one of those who think that it never made sense that a warlock has no incentive to invest in int. I don't understand that design. It goes against the warlock archetype in any fantasy one imagines. A warlock is sibylline by nature. And that, in my view, requires intelligence, not charisma. Okay, a warlock could be seductive and charismatic. But many other warlocks might not be. What a warlock cannot be is an idiot.
Its difficult to compare warlock archetypes with the D&D class, because many of those "warlocks" from fantasy might be classified as Wizards or Sorcerers or something else in this system. That being said, I know of plenty of times in fiction where an idiot made a pact with an entity to increase their power. I do find it unfortunate, though, that the system generally undervalues Intelligence in comparison to other abilities such as Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, and thus essentially incentivizes Warlocks (and other classes) not to use their limited resources to boost it.
Trying not to be too snippy in providing this, but did you try looking for it at all yourself? Both in the Basic Rules & PHB under the obvious "Chapter 7: Using Ability Scores". Literally at the very top of the chapter, in a bullet list providing a simple description of each Ability Score, "Charisma, measuring force of personality" is the exact description used.