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.
As usually a lurker, I honestly think I usually agree with Yurei's opinions and ideas, but they seem to actively fight to make me want to not.
I agree that I prefer the image of a Warlock as an Intelligence based class. I'm indifferent, but probably in support of it having a flexible casting stat. I do definitely agree with Yurei that Charisma is far overrepresented, and that Intelligence has been stupidly relegated to near nothing in 5e; but I also feel this is worsened by many tables giving too much lenience and too many conveniences to how Charisma is used in game. Going a tiny bit off track here, but I strongly feel the variant rule of using skills with various Ability Scores should have been the default. Hitting players with Strength Intimidation or Intelligence Persuasion checks helps make skills feel less cookie cutter and players a little less pigeonholed; I feel like it helps them creatively think more about how they try to approach a situation too, so that they can try to get the type of roll that's more beneficial to their character.
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.
To be fair, fantasy also has lots of examples of very smart people who took shortcuts to power. An archetypical example of the Warlock could be Doctor Faustus, who was highly intelligent but very impatient. The Lovecraft mythos also contains very learned people who pursued Great Old Ones as a shortcut to power.
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.
The original design of the warlock in the original playtest WAS an int class. It was changed to charisma to placate people coming over from 4e who were used to charisma being the warlock's primary stat and didn't want to change it. The devs made a mistake (and it was a mistake by any reasonable argument) and caved to them. They should use this opportunity to fix it and make Warlocks into an INT class, but they are caving again to the people who don't want positive change by leaving it alone. At least they got rid of the flex because making warlock EVEN MORE dippable is a terrible, terrible idea.
As for Yurei, yes, there are good ideas in there sometimes. Sometimes not so much imo. I don't agree with a lot of people, so take that for what it's worth (nothing). Yurei's ideas would probably be taken more seriously if presented in a less confrontational manner, but at the same time, people would just blow her off because in many people's eyes, different = bad. I think she knows this, and decides to just go down fighting. I can respect that at least.
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.
To be fair, fantasy also has lots of examples of very smart people who took shortcuts to power. An archetypical example of the Warlock could be Doctor Faustus, who was highly intelligent but very impatient. The Lovecraft mythos also contains very learned people who pursued Great Old Ones as a shortcut to power.
Certainly true, but as I have argued above, I don't believe their intelligence was the key factor in them controlling the power they received (although I am not well read enough to comment on the specifics of certain characters in fiction). In my experience, in stories of this type, people who make deals for power usually land up faring quite poorly in the end. This is often despite their great intelligence, and I would argue that their failure may come about due to their lack of Charisma as used in D&D.
The original design of the warlock in the original playtest WAS an int class. It was changed to charisma to placate people coming over from 4e who were used to charisma being the warlock's primary stat and didn't want to change it. The devs made a mistake (and it was a mistake by any reasonable argument) and caved to them. They should use this opportunity to fix it and make Warlocks into an INT class, but they are caving again to the people who don't want positive change by leaving it alone. At least they got rid of the flex because making warlock EVEN MORE dippable is a terrible, terrible idea.
(My emphasis) Do you have so little regard for anyone who doesn't share your opinion? I think some other of the folks here as well as I have made some reasonable arguments for why it makes sense. I played no D&D between 2e and 5e, but I certainly believe Charisma is the more logical choice for Warlocks, although not necessarily the only choice. I think the essential impossibility of having a Warlock who is also intelligent has less to do with the class and more to do with how irrelevant the Intelligence ability tends to be in current D&D.
Regarding the concept of "seeking power" as a justification for INT casting, let's compare the basic premise between how the two classes acquire magic. A Wizard has basically dedicated their life to studying the mechanics and laws of magic, and copies them down in their spellbook. This study is so comprehensive that purely by their own work they acquire understanding equivalent to 2 spells every level, when I believe no other full casting class can match that progression. In contrast, a Warlock- even one who has "sought out the means to acquire power"- has, broadly speaking, found a single process by which they can contact some being of significant power, and come to an arrangement whereby that being provides them with magic and knowledge, typically in exchange for a service or commitment from the Warlock. They are handed the power, have the answers spelled out for them. That's very explicit in both the class description and feature descriptions.
"A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being." "Through pacts made with mysterious beings of supernatural power, warlocks unlock magical effects both subtle and spectacular." "The magic bestowed on a warlock ranges from minor but lasting alterations to the warlock’s being (such as the ability to see in darkness or to read any language) to access to powerful spells." "At 3rd level, your otherworldly patron bestows a gift upon you for your loyal service." "At 11th level, your patron bestows upon you a magical secret called an arcanum."
An individual player is, of course, free to spin and interpret this however they want for their particular character's backstory, but in the larger design concept behind the class, they are clearly not studying and learning magic even to the same degree that a Bard or Sorcerer is. Honestly, if there's any CHA caster that would be justified shifting over to INT, it would be Bards, not Warlocks. They have neither the innate leg up that Sorcerers have nor the patronage that a Warlock enjoys as a source of power. After Wizards, they're the PHB class with the most hands on learning involved in getting their magic per the class description.
Now, INT is definitely suffering a bit as a primary stat, but it's a valid secondary choice on plenty of classes still. A Bard with 14-16 in INT can easily out Arcana a Wizard with 16-20, even without Arcane Trickster it's a fairly on point pick for a Rogue if you want to go more canny than charming. INT is tied with WIS for most skill that default to it, so even with a Wizard in the party they'll likely take 2 or maybe 3 of the 5 options, so purely from a party ability spread perspective it's entirely possible to still be better than the Wizard on INT rolls in a particular area. And of course this is all aside from the fact that people will allocate ability scores based on the kind of character they want to roleplay. Even if there's little to no mechanical benefit, people will still bump INT just because they want to play a smarter than average character.
To be fair, fantasy also has lots of examples of very smart people who took shortcuts to power. An archetypical example of the Warlock could be Doctor Faustus, who was highly intelligent but very impatient. The Lovecraft mythos also contains very learned people who pursued Great Old Ones as a shortcut to power.
Certainly true, but as I have argued above, I don't believe their intelligence was the key factor in them controlling the power they received (although I am not well read enough to comment on the specifics of certain characters in fiction). In my experience, in stories of this type, people who make deals for power usually land up faring quite poorly in the end. This is often despite their great intelligence, and I would argue that their failure may come about due to their lack of Charisma as used in D&D.
The original design of the warlock in the original playtest WAS an int class. It was changed to charisma to placate people coming over from 4e who were used to charisma being the warlock's primary stat and didn't want to change it. The devs made a mistake (and it was a mistake by any reasonable argument) and caved to them. They should use this opportunity to fix it and make Warlocks into an INT class, but they are caving again to the people who don't want positive change by leaving it alone. At least they got rid of the flex because making warlock EVEN MORE dippable is a terrible, terrible idea.
(My emphasis) Do you have so little regard for anyone who doesn't share your opinion? I think some other of the folks here as well as I have made some reasonable arguments for why it makes sense. I played no D&D between 2e and 5e, but I certainly believe Charisma is the more logical choice for Warlocks, although not necessarily the only choice. I think the essential impossibility of having a Warlock who is also intelligent has less to do with the class and more to do with how irrelevant the Intelligence ability tends to be in current D&D.
I would think the stat Faustus lacked was wisdom, the ability to realize he was getting suckered. Sadly for the not so good Doctor, he rolled a 1 on his insight check.
Certainly true, but as I have argued above, I don't believe their intelligence was the key factor in them controlling the power they received (although I am not well read enough to comment on the specifics of certain characters in fiction). In my experience, in stories of this type, people who make deals for power usually land up faring quite poorly in the end. This is often despite their great intelligence, and I would argue that their failure may come about due to their lack of Charisma as used in D&D.
Plenty of high-Cha warlocks fare poorly too. I don't think their ultimate fate has anything to do with their suitability for the class itself; that's more of a narrative thing than it is gameplay.
Certainly true, but as I have argued above, I don't believe their intelligence was the key factor in them controlling the power they received (although I am not well read enough to comment on the specifics of certain characters in fiction). In my experience, in stories of this type, people who make deals for power usually land up faring quite poorly in the end. This is often despite their great intelligence, and I would argue that their failure may come about due to their lack of Charisma as used in D&D.
Plenty of high-Cha warlocks fare poorly too. I don't think their ultimate fate has anything to do with their suitability for the class itself; that's more of a narrative thing than it is gameplay.
My bad, but the point stands that while they want knowledge, they're not presented as studying and researching in the ongoing manner of a Wizard; if they were looking to go Faustian, they looked for a way to set up the pact and then got the meat of their further knowledge given to them as part of the Pact. It's the difference between actually reading through a book and writing a report on it and Googling the book and using CliffNotes or other pre-made summaries.
Certainly true, but as I have argued above, I don't believe their intelligence was the key factor in them controlling the power they received (although I am not well read enough to comment on the specifics of certain characters in fiction). In my experience, in stories of this type, people who make deals for power usually land up faring quite poorly in the end. This is often despite their great intelligence, and I would argue that their failure may come about due to their lack of Charisma as used in D&D.
Plenty of high-Cha warlocks fare poorly too. I don't think their ultimate fate has anything to do with their suitability for the class itself; that's more of a narrative thing than it is gameplay.
My bad, but the point stands that while they want knowledge, they're not presented as studying and researching in the ongoing manner of a Wizard; if they were looking to go Faustian, they looked for a way to set up the pact and then got the meat of their further knowledge given to them as part of the Pact. It's the difference between actually reading through a book and writing a report on it and Googling the book and using CliffNotes or other pre-made summaries.
That's exactly the point though; high Int doesn't necessarily mean a propensity for study. Plenty of intelligent people are lazy or impatient or self-important or desperate or cheats, and that's exactly what a high-Int Warlock would be. Someone who prefers the cliffnotes to the unabridged text isn't necessarily lower Int, they might simply be (or see themselves as being) shorter on time.
Certainly true, but as I have argued above, I don't believe their intelligence was the key factor in them controlling the power they received (although I am not well read enough to comment on the specifics of certain characters in fiction). In my experience, in stories of this type, people who make deals for power usually land up faring quite poorly in the end. This is often despite their great intelligence, and I would argue that their failure may come about due to their lack of Charisma as used in D&D.
Plenty of high-Cha warlocks fare poorly too. I don't think their ultimate fate has anything to do with their suitability for the class itself; that's more of a narrative thing than it is gameplay.
My bad, but the point stands that while they want knowledge, they're not presented as studying and researching in the ongoing manner of a Wizard; if they were looking to go Faustian, they looked for a way to set up the pact and then got the meat of their further knowledge given to them as part of the Pact. It's the difference between actually reading through a book and writing a report on it and Googling the book and using CliffNotes or other pre-made summaries.
That's exactly the point though; high Int doesn't necessarily mean a propensity for study. Plenty of intelligent people are lazy or impatient or self-important or desperate or cheats, and that's exactly what a high-Int Warlock would be. Someone who prefers the cliffnotes to the unabridged text isn't necessarily lower Int, they might simply be (or see themselves as being) shorter on time.
I'm not saying a player can't give their Warlock character a high INT score, but the fundamental source of their magic is not the product of diligent research and study like it is for a Wizard, it's the product of going to someone else for the answers. Ergo it makes sense to use a different score, and since WIS is the province of most divine/primal casters and- as people have already gone over- the idea that making a pact is "wise" is rather suspect, that leaves CHA.
Certainly true, but as I have argued above, I don't believe their intelligence was the key factor in them controlling the power they received (although I am not well read enough to comment on the specifics of certain characters in fiction). In my experience, in stories of this type, people who make deals for power usually land up faring quite poorly in the end. This is often despite their great intelligence, and I would argue that their failure may come about due to their lack of Charisma as used in D&D.
Plenty of high-Cha warlocks fare poorly too. I don't think their ultimate fate has anything to do with their suitability for the class itself; that's more of a narrative thing than it is gameplay.
My bad, but the point stands that while they want knowledge, they're not presented as studying and researching in the ongoing manner of a Wizard; if they were looking to go Faustian, they looked for a way to set up the pact and then got the meat of their further knowledge given to them as part of the Pact. It's the difference between actually reading through a book and writing a report on it and Googling the book and using CliffNotes or other pre-made summaries.
That's exactly the point though; high Int doesn't necessarily mean a propensity for study. Plenty of intelligent people are lazy or impatient or self-important or desperate or cheats, and that's exactly what a high-Int Warlock would be. Someone who prefers the cliffnotes to the unabridged text isn't necessarily lower Int, they might simply be (or see themselves as being) shorter on time.
I'm not saying a player can't give their Warlock character a high INT score, but the fundamental source of their magic is not the product of diligent research and study like it is for a Wizard, it's the product of going to someone else for the answers. Ergo it makes sense to use a different score, and since WIS is the province of most divine/primal casters and- as people have already gone over- the idea that making a pact is "wise" is rather suspect, that leaves CHA.
Research isn't the only way people use/display intelligence and research is not the only way intelligent people learn. Everything about the class description says intelligence. Maybe not all of them are dedicated researchers but the same can be said for wizards. I know plenty of people who got though college without studying at all, and not a bachelors in poly sci, but doctorates in law, stem degrees etc. They were intelligent used/learned in different ways than just hard core research. There is nothing tying it to charisma, the well charisma is left after I eliminated things for less reason than charisma would be eliminated is not much of a argument.
Certainly true, but as I have argued above, I don't believe their intelligence was the key factor in them controlling the power they received (although I am not well read enough to comment on the specifics of certain characters in fiction). In my experience, in stories of this type, people who make deals for power usually land up faring quite poorly in the end. This is often despite their great intelligence, and I would argue that their failure may come about due to their lack of Charisma as used in D&D.
Plenty of high-Cha warlocks fare poorly too. I don't think their ultimate fate has anything to do with their suitability for the class itself; that's more of a narrative thing than it is gameplay.
My bad, but the point stands that while they want knowledge, they're not presented as studying and researching in the ongoing manner of a Wizard; if they were looking to go Faustian, they looked for a way to set up the pact and then got the meat of their further knowledge given to them as part of the Pact. It's the difference between actually reading through a book and writing a report on it and Googling the book and using CliffNotes or other pre-made summaries.
That's exactly the point though; high Int doesn't necessarily mean a propensity for study. Plenty of intelligent people are lazy or impatient or self-important or desperate or cheats, and that's exactly what a high-Int Warlock would be. Someone who prefers the cliffnotes to the unabridged text isn't necessarily lower Int, they might simply be (or see themselves as being) shorter on time.
I'm not saying a player can't give their Warlock character a high INT score, but the fundamental source of their magic is not the product of diligent research and study like it is for a Wizard, it's the product of going to someone else for the answers. Ergo it makes sense to use a different score, and since WIS is the province of most divine/primal casters and- as people have already gone over- the idea that making a pact is "wise" is rather suspect, that leaves CHA.
Research isn't the only way people use/display intelligence and research is not the only way intelligent people learn. Everything about the class description says intelligence. Maybe not all of them are dedicated researchers but the same can be said for wizards. I know plenty of people who got though college without studying at all, and not a bachelors in poly sci, but doctorates in law, stem degrees etc. They were intelligent used/learned in different ways than just hard core research. There is nothing tying it to charisma, the well charisma is left after I eliminated things for less reason than charisma would be eliminated is not much of a argument.
You're fixating on specific examples and not the overarching point; whether or not the Wizard "researches" however you choose to define it, the point is that they are obtaining data and synthesizing conclusions from it to further their understanding and power. Most likely they had a teacher at some point in their past, but the spells and features they gain with levels are a product of their own independent work at furthering their understanding of and skill with magic. While a Warlock character might choose to do some these actions in their day-to-day life for one reason or another, it is not the root of their power. They made a deal with some powerful being, and that being is directly telling them "this is how you do X, that is how you do Y". That is the premise behind how the class gains features. For the umpteenth time this doesn't mean I'm gatekeeping anyone's personal character, but thematically Wizards are presented as applying INT as the basis for the acquisition and growth of their power. They do their own work, and reap the rewards from it. Warlocks reap their rewards as the product of a typically transactional relationship with another entity. And, aside from all the reasons I've previously listed, CHA is the stat most relevant to a relationship dynamic.
Obviously it's not the perfect fit for every possible interpretation of what a pact might look like, but as you yourself essentially outlined above, one might frame a Wizard's process in such a way that you could argue WIS is a better fit (they'd be intuitive thinkers rather than the classic studious bit), so unless Wizards being locked into INT is now unacceptable as well, then obviously the possibility that some players might have a character concept that doesn't support the caster's main stat in perfect lockstep doesn't invalidate the general rationale behind the main stat. In this case, the rationale being that the mental stat most in line with power coming from a transactional relationship- regardless of how the individual kicked off that relationship in the backstory- is CHA. Do you contend that either the primary source of a Warlock's power- as outlined in the class description- is not a from said relationship, or that CHA is not the stat most generally applicable to that dynamic?
That's exactly the point though; high Int doesn't necessarily mean a propensity for study. Plenty of intelligent people are lazy or impatient or self-important or desperate or cheats, and that's exactly what a high-Int Warlock would be. Someone who prefers the cliffnotes to the unabridged text isn't necessarily lower Int, they might simply be (or see themselves as being) shorter on time.
Or that he has not had access to a magic academy, an arcane teacher, etc... But he has found another source of power. The warlock is an occultist by definition. If there's one thing a warlock has, it's knowledge. Maybe not academic knowledge of the fundamentals of magic, but occult knowledge.
Regarding flexible casting and dips, there is an easy way to limit that. Set a 13 int requirement to multiclass warlock, and you'll have wiped out most warlock dips in one fell swoop. And yet, the singleclass warlock can maintain its flexible casting.
I'm also not a fan of flexible casting. I like it because it allows me to do int warlocks, which in my opinion should be the archetypal warlock. However, I'm not really interested in char or wis warlocks. Sure, some warlock concepts might fit char or wis, but as a general rule warlocks should have int as their primary stat. But if the problem with flexible casting is dip, which it is, there are effective ways to limit that.
They made a deal with some powerful being, and that being is directly telling them "this is how you do X, that is how you do Y". That is the premise behind how the class gains features.
There's a whole subclass that very explicitly doesn't need to have formed a contract with anything. GOOlocks don't have a magic tutor buddy telling them how to do the magic, they touch upon an unfathomable entity and tap into that entity's power. This is most likely done through observation and study. Learning how to tap into an Eldritch god's power because it would be faster than the long, arduous study at a wizard college is still definitely a power derived from INT. Charisma never even comes into the equation.
I'd also argue, concerning your point about transactional relationships, that a warlock who is learning the secrets of the cosmos from a devil or genie isn't, on a fundamental level, any different from a wizard learning from another wizard. How the relationship came to be shouldn't matter as much as how the relationship functions after the initial deal, and warlocks can have very, very varied relationships with their patrons that manifest in very different ways. Ways that express different primary stats from your typical "I negotiated a deal with a hag and must continue to negotiate additional powers as I go" style of warlock.
"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." From the class description of warlock right here on DnDBeyond.
A warlock being tutored in fey magic by a magic squirrel is just as much using their INT to gain new spells as a wizard being tutored by an old man with a magic book.
There is something fundamental in the concept of warlock that I think is sometimes ignored. The warlock does not close a deal with his eldritch patron because he convinces him, or deceives him, but because both benefit. The warlock becomes a pawn of that entity, something that is often ignored, in exchange for power. There may be cases in which that pact is accidental or unconscious, but the archetypal warlock seeks that power. That is why the eldritch patron should be an active agent of the warlock's career. In my games as DM the eldritch patron always appears, and has his own agenda. This agenda may or may not coincide with that of the warlock, but if the player decides not to follow it, and not listen to their eldritch patron, there will be consequences. After all, he is not fulfilling his part of the agreement.
The case of the Otherworldly Patron is more complex. But in that case I interpret it as I would an Azathoth cult in a Lovecraftian game. Azathoth is not going to tell his cultists what to do. Mainly because Azathoth is chaos itself, and his agenda, if you can call it that, is to imbue everything with pure madness and chaos. However, I do expect his cultists to behave in ways that reflect what his god represents. Likewise, in D&D, a warlock whose patron is an otherworldly entity, I expect him to behave in a manner consistent with that entity. The entity will not appear as such in the game, nor will it speak directly to the warlock. But he will receive pieces of that being in dreams and visions that he will have to interpret and follow.
I don't understand those DMs who completely ignore the eldritch patron of their players. And I don't understand those players who ignore their eldritch patron. What warlock is that? Okay, you've taken the warlock's mechanical corset to play something else. But narratively that warlock has no meaning or reason to exist.
What gets me is how far people are willing to go to argue that warlocks aren't intelligent, shouldn't be intelligent, CAN'T be intelligent, and anyone who wants to play a canny occultist delving into secrets beyond the ken of ordinary mortals - even ordinary wizardly mortals - is playing warlock entirely wrong and needs to scrap their character and start over.
Nah. Every single warlock, PERIOD, needs to be a completely braindead sugar baby with the mental acuity of a particularly clever rutabaga, and never mind that this doesn't make any ******* sense for most of them. Fiends aside, most patrons want something from their warlocks, they have an objective they want accomplished. A mission for their mortal agent. ... how many influential people in modern days do you know who trust sensitive assignments they really need done to an Intelligence 4 brain damage victim just because the Int 4 guy wants something the influential person can provide?
The warlock needs to be capable of holding up their end of a bargain, and morons are not noteworthy for their ability to handle complex assignments. Doesn't matter how charismatic you are if you're too stupid to speak Common, you're probably not getting your patron's work done. Laid, perhaps. Accomplishing meaningful objectives, unlikely.
What gets me is how far people are willing to go to argue that warlocks aren't intelligent, shouldn't be intelligent, CAN'T be intelligent, and anyone who wants to play a canny occultist delving into secrets beyond the ken of ordinary mortals - even ordinary wizardly mortals - is playing warlock entirely wrong and needs to scrap their character and start over.
Nah. Every single warlock, PERIOD, needs to be a completely braindead sugar baby with the mental acuity of a particularly clever rutabaga, and never mind that this doesn't make any ******* sense for most of them. Fiends aside, most patrons want something from their warlocks, they have an objective they want accomplished. A mission for their mortal agent. ... how many influential people in modern days do you know who trust sensitive assignments they really need done to an Intelligence 4 brain damage victim just because the Int 4 guy wants something the influential person can provide?
The warlock needs to be capable of holding up their end of a bargain, and morons are not noteworthy for their ability to handle complex assignments. Doesn't matter how charismatic you are if you're too stupid to speak Common, you're probably not getting your patron's work done. Laid, perhaps. Accomplishing meaningful objectives, unlikely.
I don't think anyone said they CAN'T be intelligent... Also, you could use the same argument for Clerics. Why would a deity choose a "braindead sugar baby" to "fulfill a high calling"?
However, in many situations it's quite benefitial if your minions aren't the type who asks questions but just do as they're told.
The "INT 4 guy, too stupid to speak Common" is likely to fail in any proffession. Think about the Bard too stupid to learn an instrument, the Fighter that doesn't understand the most basic battle strategy, the Rogue who can't distinguish gold from poop, the Cleric that can't remember their deity's laws, etc. I don't see that this as something Warlock specific.
There are 2 lines in the Warlock's description that support INT as primary stat for Warlocks - the same is true for the Bard's description.
Apart from that, I think the argumentation should be the other way around: Instead of saying "Warlocks should be intelligent" you shoud ask "why does a warlock have to be charismatic?". In my opinion, Warlocks shouldn't need to be charismatic or intelligent. An obnoxious, stupid person can just as well make a deal with the devil and gain just as much power from it as a smart and/or charismatic one. The logical thing would be to make their spellcasting independent of either ability.
They made a deal with some powerful being, and that being is directly telling them "this is how you do X, that is how you do Y". That is the premise behind how the class gains features.
There's a whole subclass that very explicitly doesn't need to have formed a contract with anything. GOOlocks don't have a magic tutor buddy telling them how to do the magic, they touch upon an unfathomable entity and tap into that entity's power. This is most likely done through observation and study. Learning how to tap into an Eldritch god's power because it would be faster than the long, arduous study at a wizard college is still definitely a power derived from INT. Charisma never even comes into the equation.
I'd also argue, concerning your point about transactional relationships, that a warlock who is learning the secrets of the cosmos from a devil or genie isn't, on a fundamental level, any different from a wizard learning from another wizard. How the relationship came to be shouldn't matter as much as how the relationship functions after the initial deal, and warlocks can have very, very varied relationships with their patrons that manifest in very different ways. Ways that express different primary stats from your typical "I negotiated a deal with a hag and must continue to negotiate additional powers as I go" style of warlock.
"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." From the class description of warlock right here on DnDBeyond.
A warlock being tutored in fey magic by a magic squirrel is just as much using their INT to gain new spells as a wizard being tutored by an old man with a magic book.
And, once again we return to the issue of cherry-picking narrow examples rather than looking at the overarching trend. Yes, a Warlock could be a studious individual, and yes not every pact necessarily must be a case of literal face-to-face bargaining, but that’s the archetype that was used for the broad strokes of the class, which is also what they base casting stat on. Most of the class features are framed as the warlock having their powers directly bestowed on them. Compared to a Wizard, who’s framed as requiring time and effort to learn a spell even when they’re working from someone else’s notes, while the archetype of the Warlock class is in no way presented as putting in the same kind of continuous personal work as their primary method of unlocking and growing their magical power. The pact is their primary source of those, and any additional research, education, etc is supplemental to that pact.
Now, Yurei, before you strawman this again, this is descriptive, not proscriptive, and in reference to the raw concept used to determine the casting stat. I am by no means against the concept of someone playing a studious Warlock, and in fact am currently playing one with 16 INT in a campaign right now. But in terms of class differentiation, the basic concept of Warlocks and their pacts and patrons is sufficiently divorced from the concept of Wizards and their studies and spellbooks that it seems more than reasonable the distance be reflected in different casting stats, and the fact that they would likewise wish to draw a distinction between Clerics with their deities/domains and Warlocks with their patrons pretty much leaves CHA as the best choice.
Wisdom is RAW how you "read body language" or "understand someone's feelings," instead of that being a function of charisma. why is that? shouldn't someone with high charisma be able to read the room as they seek to best actualize their persuasion? Charisma is RAW how you evoke "eloquence," even when fluent educated speech seems like it'd be the domain of intelligence. yelling 'for freedom!' doesn't require many brain cells, but negotiating clever concessions after a battle would. Intelligence is RAW how one would "draw on logic" which seemingly tramples on the "knowing not to put tomato in a fruit salad" purview of wisdom. that suggests knowing the complications of making a deal with a devil/fey/kraken/etc and with evaluating those complications wisely are functions of the same stat. no. but then we circle back around...
nothing in ability scores works as intuitively as you you might think once it starts going under a microscope. i sincerely wish the spells themselves had their own ability modifier and you could just build your stats to meet up with the sort of casting you'd like to do (and be healthily sub-optimal in other things). in lieu of that, why can't it just be (CHA + INT) /2 = spellcasting modifier? there. now build however you want. unless what you want is wisdom in the mix because that's wrong and you should think about your choices.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
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.
true enough, still bodily though, so the argument stands sorcs should be con.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As usually a lurker, I honestly think I usually agree with Yurei's opinions and ideas, but they seem to actively fight to make me want to not.
I agree that I prefer the image of a Warlock as an Intelligence based class. I'm indifferent, but probably in support of it having a flexible casting stat. I do definitely agree with Yurei that Charisma is far overrepresented, and that Intelligence has been stupidly relegated to near nothing in 5e; but I also feel this is worsened by many tables giving too much lenience and too many conveniences to how Charisma is used in game. Going a tiny bit off track here, but I strongly feel the variant rule of using skills with various Ability Scores should have been the default. Hitting players with Strength Intimidation or Intelligence Persuasion checks helps make skills feel less cookie cutter and players a little less pigeonholed; I feel like it helps them creatively think more about how they try to approach a situation too, so that they can try to get the type of roll that's more beneficial to their character.
I care more about what a person is saying than how they say it personally, but I can understand if others don't.
Your question has been answered. That you don't like the answer is irrelevant, and not worth further engaging with.
To be fair, fantasy also has lots of examples of very smart people who took shortcuts to power. An archetypical example of the Warlock could be Doctor Faustus, who was highly intelligent but very impatient. The Lovecraft mythos also contains very learned people who pursued Great Old Ones as a shortcut to power.
The original design of the warlock in the original playtest WAS an int class. It was changed to charisma to placate people coming over from 4e who were used to charisma being the warlock's primary stat and didn't want to change it. The devs made a mistake (and it was a mistake by any reasonable argument) and caved to them. They should use this opportunity to fix it and make Warlocks into an INT class, but they are caving again to the people who don't want positive change by leaving it alone. At least they got rid of the flex because making warlock EVEN MORE dippable is a terrible, terrible idea.
As for Yurei, yes, there are good ideas in there sometimes. Sometimes not so much imo. I don't agree with a lot of people, so take that for what it's worth (nothing). Yurei's ideas would probably be taken more seriously if presented in a less confrontational manner, but at the same time, people would just blow her off because in many people's eyes, different = bad. I think she knows this, and decides to just go down fighting. I can respect that at least.
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
Certainly true, but as I have argued above, I don't believe their intelligence was the key factor in them controlling the power they received (although I am not well read enough to comment on the specifics of certain characters in fiction). In my experience, in stories of this type, people who make deals for power usually land up faring quite poorly in the end. This is often despite their great intelligence, and I would argue that their failure may come about due to their lack of Charisma as used in D&D.
(My emphasis) Do you have so little regard for anyone who doesn't share your opinion? I think some other of the folks here as well as I have made some reasonable arguments for why it makes sense. I played no D&D between 2e and 5e, but I certainly believe Charisma is the more logical choice for Warlocks, although not necessarily the only choice. I think the essential impossibility of having a Warlock who is also intelligent has less to do with the class and more to do with how irrelevant the Intelligence ability tends to be in current D&D.
Regarding the concept of "seeking power" as a justification for INT casting, let's compare the basic premise between how the two classes acquire magic. A Wizard has basically dedicated their life to studying the mechanics and laws of magic, and copies them down in their spellbook. This study is so comprehensive that purely by their own work they acquire understanding equivalent to 2 spells every level, when I believe no other full casting class can match that progression. In contrast, a Warlock- even one who has "sought out the means to acquire power"- has, broadly speaking, found a single process by which they can contact some being of significant power, and come to an arrangement whereby that being provides them with magic and knowledge, typically in exchange for a service or commitment from the Warlock. They are handed the power, have the answers spelled out for them. That's very explicit in both the class description and feature descriptions.
"A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being." "Through pacts made with mysterious beings of supernatural power, warlocks unlock magical effects both subtle and spectacular." "The magic bestowed on a warlock ranges from minor but lasting alterations to the warlock’s being (such as the ability to see in darkness or to read any language) to access to powerful spells." "At 3rd level, your otherworldly patron bestows a gift upon you for your loyal service." "At 11th level, your patron bestows upon you a magical secret called an arcanum."
An individual player is, of course, free to spin and interpret this however they want for their particular character's backstory, but in the larger design concept behind the class, they are clearly not studying and learning magic even to the same degree that a Bard or Sorcerer is. Honestly, if there's any CHA caster that would be justified shifting over to INT, it would be Bards, not Warlocks. They have neither the innate leg up that Sorcerers have nor the patronage that a Warlock enjoys as a source of power. After Wizards, they're the PHB class with the most hands on learning involved in getting their magic per the class description.
Now, INT is definitely suffering a bit as a primary stat, but it's a valid secondary choice on plenty of classes still. A Bard with 14-16 in INT can easily out Arcana a Wizard with 16-20, even without Arcane Trickster it's a fairly on point pick for a Rogue if you want to go more canny than charming. INT is tied with WIS for most skill that default to it, so even with a Wizard in the party they'll likely take 2 or maybe 3 of the 5 options, so purely from a party ability spread perspective it's entirely possible to still be better than the Wizard on INT rolls in a particular area. And of course this is all aside from the fact that people will allocate ability scores based on the kind of character they want to roleplay. Even if there's little to no mechanical benefit, people will still bump INT just because they want to play a smarter than average character.
I would think the stat Faustus lacked was wisdom, the ability to realize he was getting suckered. Sadly for the not so good Doctor, he rolled a 1 on his insight check.
Gonna stop you right there; it's "seeking knowledge" that justifies Int. Any stat (well, any mental stat anyway) can lead to power.
"Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse."
Plenty of high-Cha warlocks fare poorly too. I don't think their ultimate fate has anything to do with their suitability for the class itself; that's more of a narrative thing than it is gameplay.
My bad, but the point stands that while they want knowledge, they're not presented as studying and researching in the ongoing manner of a Wizard; if they were looking to go Faustian, they looked for a way to set up the pact and then got the meat of their further knowledge given to them as part of the Pact. It's the difference between actually reading through a book and writing a report on it and Googling the book and using CliffNotes or other pre-made summaries.
That's exactly the point though; high Int doesn't necessarily mean a propensity for study. Plenty of intelligent people are lazy or impatient or self-important or desperate or cheats, and that's exactly what a high-Int Warlock would be. Someone who prefers the cliffnotes to the unabridged text isn't necessarily lower Int, they might simply be (or see themselves as being) shorter on time.
I'm not saying a player can't give their Warlock character a high INT score, but the fundamental source of their magic is not the product of diligent research and study like it is for a Wizard, it's the product of going to someone else for the answers. Ergo it makes sense to use a different score, and since WIS is the province of most divine/primal casters and- as people have already gone over- the idea that making a pact is "wise" is rather suspect, that leaves CHA.
Research isn't the only way people use/display intelligence and research is not the only way intelligent people learn. Everything about the class description says intelligence. Maybe not all of them are dedicated researchers but the same can be said for wizards. I know plenty of people who got though college without studying at all, and not a bachelors in poly sci, but doctorates in law, stem degrees etc. They were intelligent used/learned in different ways than just hard core research. There is nothing tying it to charisma, the well charisma is left after I eliminated things for less reason than charisma would be eliminated is not much of a argument.
You're fixating on specific examples and not the overarching point; whether or not the Wizard "researches" however you choose to define it, the point is that they are obtaining data and synthesizing conclusions from it to further their understanding and power. Most likely they had a teacher at some point in their past, but the spells and features they gain with levels are a product of their own independent work at furthering their understanding of and skill with magic. While a Warlock character might choose to do some these actions in their day-to-day life for one reason or another, it is not the root of their power. They made a deal with some powerful being, and that being is directly telling them "this is how you do X, that is how you do Y". That is the premise behind how the class gains features. For the umpteenth time this doesn't mean I'm gatekeeping anyone's personal character, but thematically Wizards are presented as applying INT as the basis for the acquisition and growth of their power. They do their own work, and reap the rewards from it. Warlocks reap their rewards as the product of a typically transactional relationship with another entity. And, aside from all the reasons I've previously listed, CHA is the stat most relevant to a relationship dynamic.
Obviously it's not the perfect fit for every possible interpretation of what a pact might look like, but as you yourself essentially outlined above, one might frame a Wizard's process in such a way that you could argue WIS is a better fit (they'd be intuitive thinkers rather than the classic studious bit), so unless Wizards being locked into INT is now unacceptable as well, then obviously the possibility that some players might have a character concept that doesn't support the caster's main stat in perfect lockstep doesn't invalidate the general rationale behind the main stat. In this case, the rationale being that the mental stat most in line with power coming from a transactional relationship- regardless of how the individual kicked off that relationship in the backstory- is CHA. Do you contend that either the primary source of a Warlock's power- as outlined in the class description- is not a from said relationship, or that CHA is not the stat most generally applicable to that dynamic?
Or that he has not had access to a magic academy, an arcane teacher, etc... But he has found another source of power. The warlock is an occultist by definition. If there's one thing a warlock has, it's knowledge. Maybe not academic knowledge of the fundamentals of magic, but occult knowledge.
Regarding flexible casting and dips, there is an easy way to limit that. Set a 13 int requirement to multiclass warlock, and you'll have wiped out most warlock dips in one fell swoop. And yet, the singleclass warlock can maintain its flexible casting.
I'm also not a fan of flexible casting. I like it because it allows me to do int warlocks, which in my opinion should be the archetypal warlock. However, I'm not really interested in char or wis warlocks. Sure, some warlock concepts might fit char or wis, but as a general rule warlocks should have int as their primary stat. But if the problem with flexible casting is dip, which it is, there are effective ways to limit that.
There's a whole subclass that very explicitly doesn't need to have formed a contract with anything. GOOlocks don't have a magic tutor buddy telling them how to do the magic, they touch upon an unfathomable entity and tap into that entity's power. This is most likely done through observation and study. Learning how to tap into an Eldritch god's power because it would be faster than the long, arduous study at a wizard college is still definitely a power derived from INT. Charisma never even comes into the equation.
I'd also argue, concerning your point about transactional relationships, that a warlock who is learning the secrets of the cosmos from a devil or genie isn't, on a fundamental level, any different from a wizard learning from another wizard. How the relationship came to be shouldn't matter as much as how the relationship functions after the initial deal, and warlocks can have very, very varied relationships with their patrons that manifest in very different ways. Ways that express different primary stats from your typical "I negotiated a deal with a hag and must continue to negotiate additional powers as I go" style of warlock.
"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."
From the class description of warlock right here on DnDBeyond.
A warlock being tutored in fey magic by a magic squirrel is just as much using their INT to gain new spells as a wizard being tutored by an old man with a magic book.
There is something fundamental in the concept of warlock that I think is sometimes ignored. The warlock does not close a deal with his eldritch patron because he convinces him, or deceives him, but because both benefit. The warlock becomes a pawn of that entity, something that is often ignored, in exchange for power. There may be cases in which that pact is accidental or unconscious, but the archetypal warlock seeks that power. That is why the eldritch patron should be an active agent of the warlock's career. In my games as DM the eldritch patron always appears, and has his own agenda. This agenda may or may not coincide with that of the warlock, but if the player decides not to follow it, and not listen to their eldritch patron, there will be consequences. After all, he is not fulfilling his part of the agreement.
The case of the Otherworldly Patron is more complex. But in that case I interpret it as I would an Azathoth cult in a Lovecraftian game. Azathoth is not going to tell his cultists what to do. Mainly because Azathoth is chaos itself, and his agenda, if you can call it that, is to imbue everything with pure madness and chaos. However, I do expect his cultists to behave in ways that reflect what his god represents. Likewise, in D&D, a warlock whose patron is an otherworldly entity, I expect him to behave in a manner consistent with that entity. The entity will not appear as such in the game, nor will it speak directly to the warlock. But he will receive pieces of that being in dreams and visions that he will have to interpret and follow.
I don't understand those DMs who completely ignore the eldritch patron of their players. And I don't understand those players who ignore their eldritch patron. What warlock is that? Okay, you've taken the warlock's mechanical corset to play something else. But narratively that warlock has no meaning or reason to exist.
What gets me is how far people are willing to go to argue that warlocks aren't intelligent, shouldn't be intelligent, CAN'T be intelligent, and anyone who wants to play a canny occultist delving into secrets beyond the ken of ordinary mortals - even ordinary wizardly mortals - is playing warlock entirely wrong and needs to scrap their character and start over.
Nah. Every single warlock, PERIOD, needs to be a completely braindead sugar baby with the mental acuity of a particularly clever rutabaga, and never mind that this doesn't make any ******* sense for most of them. Fiends aside, most patrons want something from their warlocks, they have an objective they want accomplished. A mission for their mortal agent. ... how many influential people in modern days do you know who trust sensitive assignments they really need done to an Intelligence 4 brain damage victim just because the Int 4 guy wants something the influential person can provide?
The warlock needs to be capable of holding up their end of a bargain, and morons are not noteworthy for their ability to handle complex assignments. Doesn't matter how charismatic you are if you're too stupid to speak Common, you're probably not getting your patron's work done. Laid, perhaps. Accomplishing meaningful objectives, unlikely.
Please do not contact or message me.
I don't think anyone said they CAN'T be intelligent... Also, you could use the same argument for Clerics. Why would a deity choose a "braindead sugar baby" to "fulfill a high calling"?
However, in many situations it's quite benefitial if your minions aren't the type who asks questions but just do as they're told.
The "INT 4 guy, too stupid to speak Common" is likely to fail in any proffession. Think about the Bard too stupid to learn an instrument, the Fighter that doesn't understand the most basic battle strategy, the Rogue who can't distinguish gold from poop, the Cleric that can't remember their deity's laws, etc. I don't see that this as something Warlock specific.
There are 2 lines in the Warlock's description that support INT as primary stat for Warlocks - the same is true for the Bard's description.
Apart from that, I think the argumentation should be the other way around: Instead of saying "Warlocks should be intelligent" you shoud ask "why does a warlock have to be charismatic?". In my opinion, Warlocks shouldn't need to be charismatic or intelligent. An obnoxious, stupid person can just as well make a deal with the devil and gain just as much power from it as a smart and/or charismatic one. The logical thing would be to make their spellcasting independent of either ability.
And, once again we return to the issue of cherry-picking narrow examples rather than looking at the overarching trend. Yes, a Warlock could be a studious individual, and yes not every pact necessarily must be a case of literal face-to-face bargaining, but that’s the archetype that was used for the broad strokes of the class, which is also what they base casting stat on. Most of the class features are framed as the warlock having their powers directly bestowed on them. Compared to a Wizard, who’s framed as requiring time and effort to learn a spell even when they’re working from someone else’s notes, while the archetype of the Warlock class is in no way presented as putting in the same kind of continuous personal work as their primary method of unlocking and growing their magical power. The pact is their primary source of those, and any additional research, education, etc is supplemental to that pact.
Now, Yurei, before you strawman this again, this is descriptive, not proscriptive, and in reference to the raw concept used to determine the casting stat. I am by no means against the concept of someone playing a studious Warlock, and in fact am currently playing one with 16 INT in a campaign right now. But in terms of class differentiation, the basic concept of Warlocks and their pacts and patrons is sufficiently divorced from the concept of Wizards and their studies and spellbooks that it seems more than reasonable the distance be reflected in different casting stats, and the fact that they would likewise wish to draw a distinction between Clerics with their deities/domains and Warlocks with their patrons pretty much leaves CHA as the best choice.
Wisdom is RAW how you "read body language" or "understand someone's feelings," instead of that being a function of charisma. why is that? shouldn't someone with high charisma be able to read the room as they seek to best actualize their persuasion? Charisma is RAW how you evoke "eloquence," even when fluent educated speech seems like it'd be the domain of intelligence. yelling 'for freedom!' doesn't require many brain cells, but negotiating clever concessions after a battle would. Intelligence is RAW how one would "draw on logic" which seemingly tramples on the "knowing not to put tomato in a fruit salad" purview of wisdom. that suggests knowing the complications of making a deal with a devil/fey/kraken/etc and with evaluating those complications wisely are functions of the same stat. no. but then we circle back around...
nothing in ability scores works as intuitively as you you might think once it starts going under a microscope. i sincerely wish the spells themselves had their own ability modifier and you could just build your stats to meet up with the sort of casting you'd like to do (and be healthily sub-optimal in other things). in lieu of that, why can't it just be (CHA + INT) /2 = spellcasting modifier? there. now build however you want. unless what you want is wisdom in the mix because that's wrong and you should think about your choices.
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!
true enough, still bodily though, so the argument stands sorcs should be con.