So I highly doubt we'll see INT/CHA warlock anytime soon.
We literally did.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Why not just separate Warlock into two different classes? One based on CHA and one based on INT. 5e is hardly overflowing with classes, so we could easy add some more.
INT-warlock could be a "Witch" class with Pact of the Tome built in as their "Grimoire", and rename Invocations as "Talismans". The 'Pact' aspect could be reduced or eliminated entirely and they would instead be more focused on delving into forbidden knowledge and discovering exotic magics through research and experimentation on creatures and materials from other planes. They'd get Pact of the Talisman, Pact of the Tome and Pact of the Chain stuff.
Whereas,
CHA-warlock would be the wheeler-dealer or confident cult-leader type who has made a pact with a powerful being, which grants them powers in exchange for the warlock working on their behalf. They'd get Pact of the Chain, and Pact of the Blade stuff.
I'd guess that part of the problem with that would be the same problem that we run into with the Artificer. WotC seems to be reluctant to go beyond the current 12 classes in the Player's Handbook (and the SRD), and any class that is not in the Player's Handbook/SRD cannot be iterated upon in other books by WotC or other publishers.
Also keeping it all within the framework of the Warlock would seem to provide greater freedom as well as saving quite a few pages in the book that would be dedicated mostly to copying many of the features of the Warlock in a separate Intelligence-based class.
I could equally argue that WotC seems reluctant to have classes with multiple spellcasting ability options - likely because of how complicated this would make writing "easy guides" for new players as well as implementing the classes in a VTT. So I highly doubt we'll see INT/CHA warlock anytime soon.
Lots of mechanics are and features are copied between classes (Hunter's Mark and Hex are basically the same spell, and tones of classes get Fighting Styles and Spellcasting), so I don't think it's that much of a barrier. Having two classes with Pact Magic would normalize it as a build type similar to half and 1/3 casting, and lots of invocations/Talismans would be specific to one or other of the classes rather than being copied to both of them. Invocations already aren't much different design-wise from things like Maneuvers or Metamagics.
Don't get me wrong, I think it is very good thinking to discuss making an extra class, and it seems like many have been clamoring for an official Witch class or something like that for quite a while. In a similar vein, it would be nice if Artificer were made fully official somehow, whether that means including it in the Player's Handbook or by some other means. I wonder whether they would consider the class you proposed to be too close to the Warlock on one side and the Artificer on the other (as infusions are somewhat similar to invocations).
Of course, it seems I am also not as pessimistic as you about the possibilities of a flexible casting stat, since, as Quar1on mentions, we have seen this proposed at least in the playtest.
Also I’m calling super BS on your statement of the warlock having the least defined core concept. The Warlocks core concept is they made a pact with a powerful being. No class has a core concept is attached to their casting stat. Their concept is all the fluff you read that instantly makes you think of that class.
Dude, people in this very thread are arguing what the hell it even means to be in a pact. In PHB examples, one seeks the pact through arcane study, another stumbles upon it randomly. One serves their patron as an apprentice, another leeches from the patron without the latter even knowing. One entered the contract willingly and loves their patron, another had the pact forced upon them and seeks to break their patron's grasp on their soul. No other class has such variety in interpretations of a core idea except for maybe sorcerers, but sorcerers are weird and it's their whole deal, being weird.
I disagree, lots of classes had their interpretations broadened in 5e.
Paladins can be a knight who pledges their life and soul to protecting a country of noble line, or a holy warrior devoted to a god and serving their cause, or a power-hungry idealist who will subdue the world under their will and ideology, or a pacifist who just wants to bring peace and love to the world, or a broken and angry person who swears on their life to pursue and get revenge on the one who wronged them, or a green knight who worships their ancestors and will protect the world for the generations to come. They can follow gods, men, ideals, or their own passions.
A rogue can be an silent and deadly assassin, a rowdy but charming swashbuckler, a focused and intelligent sherlock-holms type, or a clever tactician/manager who tells people what they need to do and how to do it. They can work for or against the law, for their own benefit or for others, they might be lone-wolves or natural leaders, they might have chosen a life of crime or been forced into it by circumstance or bad luck.
A fighter is literally anyone who has received combat training, they could be slaves forced to fight in gladiatorial games, loyal soldiers in an army, bandits who do anything for a buck, bodyguards, snipers, rebels, guards, prisoners sent to the military to serve their time, ordinary folks conscripted in a time of war, or career warriors who live off of tournament winnings.
A cleric is simply the chosen one of a god. They might to loyal devotees who have spend their lives worshiping their deity, or ordinary shmucks who received a vision instructing them with a divine task, or the lost and desperate who begged for and received mercy from a deity.
A ranger is simply one who has learned to thrive in the wilds. They might have been born in the woods, raised by wolves, or been a city dweller forced into exile in the mountains, or a naturally curious type who simply loves exploring the remote areas of the world, or a thrill seeker who needs to climb the highest mountain simply because it is there.
I could equally argue that WotC seems reluctant to have classes with multiple spellcasting ability options - likely because of how complicated this would make writing "easy guides" for new players as well as implementing the classes in a VTT.
Not sure why this would be a problem? The easy guide just needs to tell you to use one of the possible scores (e.g- Charisma) then have a note somewhere mentioning you can swap mentions of Charisma for another score if you pick that one.
And it doesn't need to complicate a VTT if done properly; even on D&D Beyond homebrew it's possible to override the spellcasting ability score in sub-classes, so the capability seems to already exist behind the scenes.
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.
Warlocks are NOT the class with the most undefined core. Stop saying that nonsense!!!
Without a doubt a sorcerer is the most undefined core, but more importantly as Agilemind stated 5e opened almost every class up for interpretation. Paladins don’t even choose Gods in 5e.
Pacts are left open so the player can freely choose how to play their character, but the Pact is the source of a Warlocks powers. It’s something to ground them to and is equally or more defined than a Paladin’s oath.
Also I find it crazy how many of you are willing to contradict yourselves. On one hand y’all are arguing that Warlock should get an Int casting option because the PHB states they study in their lore section, but when I say Bard should have that too since the PHB states they study and can be scholars in their lore sections I get responses like you can have a separate casting stat. Well if Int isn’t the Scholar Bard’s casting stat I don’t see a reason for it being the Knowledge Obsessed Warlock’s casting stat.
Again I’m not against flexible casting. I’m actually pro flexible casting for everyone. I’m against giving flexible casting to one class when other classes deserve it and some more so based on lore than Warlock. I would argue that against those more deserving classes gaining it as well if everyone wasn’t going to get it.
... I’m fine with Warlocks having a choice from all three mental stats, but caveat only if all casters get the same choice. Otherwise leave them alone.
The Charismatic Talky Boi archetype is dramatically over-supported in Fifth Edition, with an entire class devoted almost solely to being a Charismatic Talky Boi (bards) and three more classes forced into being Charismatic Talky Bois due to their stat priority regardless of what the player wants to do (sorcerer, warlock, dingdong).
There is precisely ONE choice for The Smart Guy. ONE.No, the artificer does not count; it is being abandoned in One with no plans to reintroduce the class(empahsis mine), since all you people destroyed Wizards' ability to introduce new spellcasting classes with the dissolution of the unified spell lists. No unified spell lists? Introducing new classes is a colossal pain in the ass and makes the printing of any future books and increasingly nightmarish issue. So the whole "leave our four hundred and seventy-three Charisma classes alone and just make some new Intelligence once down the road!" is a nonstarter. New classes are not an option.
NOW is the time to try and reverse the oversupport for Charismatic Talky Boi and the undersupport for Smart Guy. It is the ONLY time, in fact. We will not get another chance to change or adjust the rules of Fifth Edition. This. Is. It. So either we fix it now, or we just agree that players who want to be The Smart Guy have to play literally nothing but an endless procession of wizards, or we put at least one goddamned more Intelligence-driven option in the game. And since the warlock is unquestionably the most modular class in 5e with the loosest, least defined core concept, this is the place to do it.
Chris Perkins mentioned in an interview that a lot of the materials from Tasha's and Xanathar's will be implemented in baseline while things that don't make the cut will be bundled up into a separate book post launch.
Warlocks are NOT the class with the most undefined core. Stop saying that nonsense!!!
I'm not sure that dismissing alternative opinions as "nonsense" and demanding people don't have them is going to be a winning argument here. 😝
Without a doubt a sorcerer is the most undefined core
No it isn't?
All Sorcerers get their power from a magic bloodline, making it a form of innate spellcasting; you might disagree with Charisma as the correct ability score to represent that, but given that Constitution would be broken it's a perfectly reasonable score to settle on as "casting through force of will".
It’s something to ground them to and is equally or more defined than a Paladin’s oath.
Just about everything is more defined than a Paladin's oath, because the flavour text tells us absolutely nothing about how Paladins actually cast spells; it just says they're "blessed warriors". This would arguably make Wisdom more appropriate since their spellcasting should be equivalent to a Clerics (granted a deity or whatever's powers). Unless they're more like real-world influencers who are #blessed, I guess? But I think it probably comes back to that decision for Charisma to be the "force of will" spellcasting score for Sorcerers.
But Warlock pacts also don't say anything about how the Warlock actually casts spells, but also go out of its way to describe a myriad of wildly different patrons and means of forming pacts. While pacts might be mechanically similar, they're narratively very different as they can be formed both knowingly and unknowingly on both sides, and at any time in a creature's existing career.
You don't train to be a Warlock, you become one when you make a pact. While a Paladin probably isn't truly a paladin until they swear an oath, they still have to train to be a warrior before they can become a blessed one, and it also likely involves years of training in the rites and practices for the oath specific they're working towards.
A Warlock will only do something similar if they set out to become a Warlock as part of a longer term plan, i.e- researched possible patrons before making contact (or whatever else was required). But they can just as easily have a fiend show up, offer a deal and be a Warlock two minutes later.
Also I find it crazy how many of you are willing to contradict yourselves. On one hand y’all are arguing that Warlock should get an Int casting option because the PHB states they study in their lore section, but when I say Bard should have that too since the PHB states they study and can be scholars in their lore sections I get responses like you can have a separate casting stat.
That's not what people have been saying; as myself and others have pointed out many times now seeking knowledge has nothing to do with the Intelligence ability score, and what matters isn't how you learn spells, but how you cast them. It's the spellcasting ability score, and Bards as they are right now cast using musical instruments and the spoken word; you can absolutely have a studious Bard, but it's not part of how they cast spells.
You also don't become a Bard overnight; a Warlock could have been a Wizard yesterday, or a Cleric, or anything else.
Again I’m not against flexible casting. I’m actually pro flexible casting for everyone. I’m against giving flexible casting to one class when other classes deserve it and some more so based on lore than Warlock. I would argue that against those more deserving classes gaining it as well if everyone wasn’t going to get it.
So start a new thread about how everyone should have access to more spellcasting ability options? This thread is supposed to be about Warlocks, and really only about what the poll results are suggesting, or what people chose and why. Yet you're arguing that people are wrong to want more choices on Warlocks because you want more choices for other classes as well? At best that's an aside, because on its own it's off-topic.
All you needed to do was say "I want INT/WIS/CHA for Warlocks, but I'd also like to see other casters expanded too"; one post and done, not pages of arguing with anyone and everyone trying to push others onto an unrelated position? It might be an interesting thing to discuss in another thread, but I don't see you winning any hearts here.
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.
Warlocks are NOT the class with the most undefined core. Stop saying that nonsense!!!
I'm not sure that dismissing alternative opinions as "nonsense" and demanding people don't have them is going to be a winning argument here. 😝
Without a doubt a sorcerer is the most undefined core
No it isn't?
All Sorcerers get their power from a magic bloodline, making it a form of innate spellcasting; you might disagree with Charisma as the correct ability score to represent that, but given that Constitution would be broken it's a perfectly reasonable score to settle on as "casting through force of will".
It’s something to ground them to and is equally or more defined than a Paladin’s oath.
Just about everything is more defined than a Paladin's oath, because the flavour text tells us absolutely nothing about how Paladins actually cast spells; it just says they're "blessed warriors". This would arguably make Wisdom more appropriate since their spellcasting should be equivalent to a Clerics (granted a deity or whatever's powers). Unless they're more like real-world influencers who are #blessed, I guess? But I think it probably comes back to that decision for Charisma to be the "force of will" spellcasting score for Sorcerers.
But Warlock pacts also don't say anything about how the Warlock actually casts spells, but also go out of its way to describe a myriad of wildly different patrons and means of forming pacts. While pacts might be mechanically similar, they're narratively very different as they can be formed both knowingly and unknowingly on both sides, and at any time in a creature's existing career.
You don't train to be a Warlock, you become one when you make a pact. While a Paladin probably isn't truly a paladin until they swear an oath, they still have to train to be a warrior before they can become a blessed one, and it also likely involves years of training in the rites and practices for the oath specific they're working towards.
A Warlock will only do something similar if they set out to become a Warlock as part of a longer term plan, i.e- researched possible patrons before making contact (or whatever else was required). But they can just as easily have a fiend show up, offer a deal and be a Warlock two minutes later.
Also I find it crazy how many of you are willing to contradict yourselves. On one hand y’all are arguing that Warlock should get an Int casting option because the PHB states they study in their lore section, but when I say Bard should have that too since the PHB states they study and can be scholars in their lore sections I get responses like you can have a separate casting stat.
That's not what people have been saying; as myself and others have pointed out many times now seeking knowledge has nothing to do with the Intelligence ability score, and what matters isn't how you learn spells, but how you cast them. It's the spellcasting ability score, and Bards as they are right now cast using musical instruments and the spoken word; you can absolutely have a studious Bard, but it's not part of how they cast spells.
You also don't become a Bard overnight; a Warlock could have been a Wizard yesterday, or a Cleric, or anything else.
Again I’m not against flexible casting. I’m actually pro flexible casting for everyone. I’m against giving flexible casting to one class when other classes deserve it and some more so based on lore than Warlock. I would argue that against those more deserving classes gaining it as well if everyone wasn’t going to get it.
So start a new thread about how everyone should have access to more spellcasting ability options? This thread is supposed to be about Warlocks, and really only about what the poll results are suggesting, or what people chose and why. Yet you're arguing that people are wrong to want more choices on Warlocks because you want more choices for other classes as well? At best that's an aside, because on its own it's off-topic.
All you needed to do was say "I want INT/WIS/CHA for Warlocks, but I'd also like to see other casters expanded too"; one post and done, not pages of arguing with anyone and everyone trying to push others onto an unrelated position? It might be an interesting thing to discuss in another thread, but I don't see you winning any hearts here.
5e Sorcerers are not all bloodline related. Like Agilemind stated 5e opened up other avenues of interpretation for everyone. Please read their section in the PHB. Also if everything is more defined than an oath that would mean that a pact is more defined than an oath and you agree that Warlock isn’t the least defined class. It’s not me dismissing alternative opinions, it’s me stating facts supported by the PHB. If the speed limit is 50 you may be of the opinion that it’s okay to go 55, but the written fact is that speed limit is 50. Saying Warlocks have the least defined core is nonsense because the book tells you their core concept. Another important thing I will point out to you is Charisma is not the willpower stat. That is Wisdom, so there is no way to explain Cha casting according to the books. Also because of this it makes Divine and Primal casting seem deferent than the way what the lore says about them.
Also I need you to take your own advice. You don’t have to have pages of arguments with people. You could read what I said and not reply. I made an on topic statement that Warlock is no more deserving of multiple casting stats than any other class based on lore in the PHB. If I just vote give warlock all three Int/Wis/Cha it could be misinterpreted as see that vote counts towards Int. That is not my opinion or vote. I stated my opinion and facts from the books.
and what matters isn't how you learn spells, but how you cast them.
So Warlocks can stay Cha casters and we can stop this conversation, since as of now they learn their spells from studying and researching them and cast them with power from other beings by using their Charisma. It’s fine because if you say it’s not you are literally contradicting yourself.
An archaic definition of Charisma is being a barer of divine spark/divine gift.
The modern/secular definition derives from this because those with divine spark were expected to have a charming presence about them, as god's spiritual presence would shine through them. That was the start of the modern/secular version of the word. This is also the idea behind the Charismatic Movement (divine spark, not charming eloquence).
I think this is also the reason that Gygax put Charisma high on the requirements for the Paladin: these would people who were gifted by god or a saint, like the mission and calling of Joan of Arc. Which also dovetails into the Warlock: barers of a divine gift, just not in the form of a "calling."
(and sorcerers? the fantasy version of genetics might be seen as a "divine or magical spark in your bloodline")
Bards are the only CHA casters who don't fit this version of the definition of Charisma. Theirs probably actually is magic via personal charm and strong personality or magic via empathy (and, IMO, they're the ONLY ones whose magic is based on personal charm and strong personality/empathy: the other 3 CHA casters are all based on baring a spark of divine/magical gift in one form or another).
(though, I did like the UA Warlock that had choices about it ... but for me, that made the class seem more like a Prestige class than a Base class: intended for multiclassing with some other class to represent their base magical abilities, and that version of the Warlock is really more of a side-hustle than a primary archetype)
...Also if everything is more defined than an oath that would mean that a pact is more defined than an oath...
they're both pretty loosely goosey. however, while a pact is a connection between two parties, the oath is more open ended. is it a connection to gods, spirits, virtues, ideals, a promise, or just magical narcissism?
it might be time to let it go or start a new poll you like better.
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!
While a Paladin probably isn't truly a paladin until they swear an oath, they still have to train to be a warrior before they can become a blessed one, and it also likely involves years of training in the rites and practices for the oath specific they're working towards.
Why would a Paladin have to train before becoming a Paladin? Below is the description from the 2014 PHB on how a character might become a Paladin:
How did you experience your call to serve as a paladin? Did you hear a whisper from an unseen god or angel while you were at prayer? Did another paladin sense the potential within you and decide to train you as a squire? Or did some terrible event—the destruction of your home, perhaps—drive you to your quests? Perhaps you stumbled into a sacred grove or a hidden elven enclave and found yourself called to protect all such refuges of goodness and beauty. Or you might have known from your earliest memories that the paladin’s life was your calling, almost as if you had been sent into the world with that purpose stamped on your soul.
Sure you might have trained for years as a warrior first, but you could equally be called to serve as a paladin and then train as a warrior, or you could simply be blessed by a god to become a paladin without training at all.
This would arguably make Wisdom more appropriate since their spellcasting should be equivalent to a Clerics (granted a deity or whatever's powers).
Except, no. 2014 PHB Paladins don't need to have a deity or any external source of their powers. They can gain their powers directly from their own dedication to their oath and/or self-righteousness that is why they are CHA casters it is their own force of personality, their commitment to their quest, that grants them their powers. Though they can be granted powers from a deity instead / as well but this is still for them to fulfill their personal mission - thus is more similar to a warlock's pact - than a cleric. Clerics are conduits and representatives of their gods on the material plane, they should not have the ego of a Paladin, but instead seek better understanding of their god's will and through this knowledge improve their ability to channel that will as magical powers.
All Sorcerers get their power from a magic bloodline
Again no. Sorcerers can get power from a magic bloodline but also just from directly being exposed to magical forces. See extract from PHB 2014 below:
Sorcerers carry a magical birthright conferred upon them by an exotic bloodline, some otherworldly influence, or exposure to unknown cosmic forces.
Bloodline is only one of three options for how to become a sorcerer, you could have been cursed / blessed by a Fey or a Celestial as a child, you could have fallen through a portal, or wandered around exotic ruins, be born until a black sun, or struck by a beholder's eye ray...
Why would a Paladin have to train before becoming a Paladin?
Because it literally says so in the class description:
a paladin’s oath is a powerful bond. It is a source of power that turns a devout warrior into a blessed champion.
One follows the other. I'm skipping the rest because it's all off-topic anyway as you've ignored all the parts where I'm actually discussing Warlocks.
I'm sorry I used the word "blood" for Sorcerer when I was talking about innate spellcasting but my actual points still stand, because any other physiological change that results in innate casting is consistent with that.
But I really don't want to indulge anymore Paladin/Sorcerer pedantry that isn't Warlock related. 😉
So Warlocks can stay Cha casters and we can stop this conversation, since as of now they learn their spells from studying and researching them and cast them with power from other beings by using their Charisma. It’s fine because if you say it’s not you are literally contradicting yourself.
Except that's not what they do; pacts grant the knowledge of how to use powers, but the Warlock is the one that is still actually doing all (or at least most) of it. It tells you this in the class description:
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.
While some specific abilities might call upon the patron itself, not all of a Warlock's abilities are the patron's own powers. The Warlock is casting spells etc. themselves using knowledge they gained from the patron.
Also I need you to take your own advice
I'm not the one that keeps trying to drag this thread off into a different topic, and literally demanded people stop believing as they do because you don't agree with them. If you want to discuss what spellcasting ability scores should be available to all/other classes, please post a topic about that instead of hijacking someone else's, I'd be happy to join that one and discuss that very subject, just not here.
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.
...Also if everything is more defined than an oath that would mean that a pact is more defined than an oath...
they're both pretty loosely goosey. however, while a pact is a connection between two parties, the oath is more open ended. is it a connection to gods, spirits, virtues, ideals, a promise, or just magical narcissism?
it might be time to let it go or start a new poll you like better.
I’m not sure of what I need to let go because I make a valid point and then someone argues against my valid point, sometimes literally proving my point. You just did it. Read your statement again. First you argue that they are both loosely goosey, but then explain how the pala is a little more loosely goosey. I never argued that pact magic wasn’t loosely goosey. I simply argued that the claim that it was the most undefined is not supported by the PHB. People build these threads to have echo chambers. Echo chambers are bad. Telling me to make a new poll is pointless. The only poll that will matter for this would be if WoTC did another one. Technically they already did one when play testing 5e and we know the put come of that one even if we never saw the results.
Why would a Paladin have to train before becoming a Paladin?
Because it literally says so in the class description:
a paladin’s oath is a powerful bond. It is a source of power that turns a devout warrior into a blessed champion.
One follows the other. I'm skipping the rest because it's all off-topic anyway as you've ignored all the parts where I'm actually discussing Warlocks.
I'm sorry I used the word "blood" for Sorcerer when clearly I was talking about physiological sources of innate spellcasting because my actual points still stand. I don't want this to become a pedantic debate on Paladins and Sorcerers without any mention of Warlocks. 😒
So Warlocks can stay Cha casters and we can stop this conversation, since as of now they learn their spells from studying and researching them and cast them with power from other beings by using their Charisma. It’s fine because if you say it’s not you are literally contradicting yourself.
Except that's not what they do; pacts grant the knowledge of how to use powers, but the Warlock is the one that is still actually doing all (or at least most) of it. It tells you this in the class description:
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.
While some specific abilities might call upon the patron itself, not all of a Warlock's abilities are the patron's own powers. The Warlock is casting spells etc. themselves using knowledge they gained from the patron.
Also I need you to take your own advice
I'm not the one that keeps trying to drag this thread off into a different topic, and literally demanding people stop believing as they do because you don't agree with them. If you want to discuss what spellcasting ability scores should be available to all/other classes, please post a topic about that instead of hijacking someone else's, I'd be happy to join that one and discuss that very subject, just not here.
You are literally demanding that I stop believing what the book says. You are guilty of what you are telling me I’m guilty of doing. I didn’t tell anyone that Warlock shouldn’t be Int casters. I said if you give flexible casting to the Warlock you should give it to everyone. This topic is about casting stats. Warlock doesn’t exist in a white room. I haven’t hijacked anything it’s an open thread. That’s like saying I’m hijacking a road because I drive down it. I’m not off topic I’m literally discussing Warlock Spellcasting stat. Also I’m not arguing with myself. You and others keep replying to me. It’s not like I’m finding every post on here that says something I don’t agree with and attacking them for not agreeing with me. I made an open statement you decided to reply. Don’t try to shoo me away now because my arguments are better supported by core books.
Also I apologize for saying Warlocks cast with their patrons power. It doesn’t matter that they cast with their own power. They still can do all that research and studying but cast with Charisma. Why? Because you said so. Paladins, Bards, and Sorcerers all cast with their own power and are Cha casters. Bards can be scholars, go to college, learn their spells and still be Cha casters. So the same is true of Warlocks according to your own arguments. Warlocks are Charisma casters because that’s just how they cast their spells. Enough said, I agree with you. Unless you are going to contradict yourself.
You are literally demanding that I stop believing what the book says.
I have literally said nothing of the sort; all I did was ask you to post a separate thread about spellcasting abilities for other classes so it can be discussed properly there rather than wasting page after page of this thread with discussion that has gone well off-topic.
Sure, the Warlock class doesn't exist in a vacuum, but a poll about Warlocks and Warlocks alone, does. We can of course compare to other classes (as I have, multiple times), but unless it's supporting one of the options for Warlock specifically, it's not relevant. There's a world of difference between something like "I prefer option X because it lines up with classes Y and Z" and repeatedly saying you don't want to discuss just Warlocks.
It's the equivalent of dropping by the thread to say "screw your poll and everyone who voted in it, here's what I want this thread to be about instead". If you want to discuss something else, then create a thread for that.
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.
...Also if everything is more defined than an oath that would mean that a pact is more defined than an oath...
they're both pretty loosely goosey. however, while a pact is a connection between two parties, the oath is more open ended. is it a connection to gods, spirits, virtues, ideals, a promise, or just magical narcissism?
it might be time to let it go or start a new poll you like better.
I’m not sure of what I need to let go because I make a valid point and then someone argues against my valid point, sometimes literally proving my point. You just did it. Read your statement again. First you argue that they are both loosely goosey, but then explain how the pala is a little more loosely goosey. I never argued that pact magic wasn’t loosely goosey. I simply argued that the claim that it was the most undefined is not supported by the PHB....
the paladin oath IS the least defined source of power. so? that doesn't immediately track to "and you agree that Warlock isn’t the least defined class." the oath's anchor is undefined, but every paladin power is fueled from that oath regardless. as such, the bulk of the classes is defined and self consistent.
...People build these threads to have echo chambers. Echo chambers are bad. Telling me to make a new poll is pointless. The only poll that will matter for this would be if WoTC did another one. Technically they already did one when play testing 5e and we know the put come of that one even if we never saw the results.
i don't think the thread was meant to confirm assumptions. honestly, i wish i had more to contribute regarding analysis of the data and i feel like it's for a worthy cause. all the echos came with us off topic posters.
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 disagree, lots of classes had their interpretations broadened in 5e.
Paladins can be a knight who pledges their life and soul to protecting a country of noble line, or a holy warrior devoted to a god and serving their cause, or a power-hungry idealist who will subdue the world under their will and ideology, or a pacifist who just wants to bring peace and love to the world, or a broken and angry person who swears on their life to pursue and get revenge on the one who wronged them, or a green knight who worships their ancestors and will protect the world for the generations to come. They can follow gods, men, ideals, or their own passions.
But it is following an oath that defines a paladin. A paladin can't stumble into an oath or be tricked into it, can't work against an oath without becoming an oathbreaker. A paladin has to swear an oath and follow it, their faith and ideals is literally what gives them power. 5e has expanded the moral spectrum of such ideals, but the essence is unchanged.
A rogue can be an silent and deadly assassin, a rowdy but charming swashbuckler, a focused and intelligent sherlock-holms type, or a clever tactician/manager who tells people what they need to do and how to do it. They can work for or against the law, for their own benefit or for others, they might be lone-wolves or natural leaders, they might have chosen a life of crime or been forced into it by circumstance or bad luck.
A fighter is literally anyone who has received combat training, they could be slaves forced to fight in gladiatorial games, loyal soldiers in an army, bandits who do anything for a buck, bodyguards, snipers, rebels, guards, prisoners sent to the military to serve their time, ordinary folks conscripted in a time of war, or career warriors who live off of tournament winnings.
Always been this way.
A cleric is simply the chosen one of a god. They might to loyal devotees who have spend their lives worshiping their deity, or ordinary shmucks who received a vision instructing them with a divine task, or the lost and desperate who begged for and received mercy from a deity.
But again, they are defined by service to deities. An atheist clerics that receives power from a god while actively denying this particular god's existence is kind of nonsensical. I remember a cleric from Pillars of Eternity that was meant to be martyred by his goddess, but survived and upon realizing that he was merely a pawn, resolved to somehow "steal" divine power from the goddess. But that's a pretty exotic outlier.
A ranger is simply one who has learned to thrive in the wilds. They might have been born in the woods, raised by wolves, or been a city dweller forced into exile in the mountains, or a naturally curious type who simply loves exploring the remote areas of the world, or a thrill seeker who needs to climb the highest mountain simply because it is there.
etc...etc...
Always been blurry, but you'd be hard pressed to find a nature-hating ranger or ranger by accident.
Btw: I find it a bit sad to see that roughly one in three of the players vote for "my interpretation of the class is the only correct one", i.e., "CHA/INT/WIS exclusively". I mean who gets hurt if players get more choices? The issues with dips must be dealt with regardless (i.e., EB scaling with Warlock lvl, PotB giving less power on lvl 1, etc.). Once this is done, potential Wizlock, Druidlock, ..., *lock builds should not be a problem.
Part of that is the thread title asks one question, the poll another.
I find intelligence to be the most appropriate for the class as described, and by a large margin. I support a flexible stat option though. If I am answering the title I would give the first answer, if i am answering the poll question the second.
We literally did.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Don't get me wrong, I think it is very good thinking to discuss making an extra class, and it seems like many have been clamoring for an official Witch class or something like that for quite a while. In a similar vein, it would be nice if Artificer were made fully official somehow, whether that means including it in the Player's Handbook or by some other means. I wonder whether they would consider the class you proposed to be too close to the Warlock on one side and the Artificer on the other (as infusions are somewhat similar to invocations).
Of course, it seems I am also not as pessimistic as you about the possibilities of a flexible casting stat, since, as Quar1on mentions, we have seen this proposed at least in the playtest.
I disagree, lots of classes had their interpretations broadened in 5e.
Paladins can be a knight who pledges their life and soul to protecting a country of noble line, or a holy warrior devoted to a god and serving their cause, or a power-hungry idealist who will subdue the world under their will and ideology, or a pacifist who just wants to bring peace and love to the world, or a broken and angry person who swears on their life to pursue and get revenge on the one who wronged them, or a green knight who worships their ancestors and will protect the world for the generations to come. They can follow gods, men, ideals, or their own passions.
A rogue can be an silent and deadly assassin, a rowdy but charming swashbuckler, a focused and intelligent sherlock-holms type, or a clever tactician/manager who tells people what they need to do and how to do it. They can work for or against the law, for their own benefit or for others, they might be lone-wolves or natural leaders, they might have chosen a life of crime or been forced into it by circumstance or bad luck.
A fighter is literally anyone who has received combat training, they could be slaves forced to fight in gladiatorial games, loyal soldiers in an army, bandits who do anything for a buck, bodyguards, snipers, rebels, guards, prisoners sent to the military to serve their time, ordinary folks conscripted in a time of war, or career warriors who live off of tournament winnings.
A cleric is simply the chosen one of a god. They might to loyal devotees who have spend their lives worshiping their deity, or ordinary shmucks who received a vision instructing them with a divine task, or the lost and desperate who begged for and received mercy from a deity.
A ranger is simply one who has learned to thrive in the wilds. They might have been born in the woods, raised by wolves, or been a city dweller forced into exile in the mountains, or a naturally curious type who simply loves exploring the remote areas of the world, or a thrill seeker who needs to climb the highest mountain simply because it is there.
etc...etc...
Not sure why this would be a problem? The easy guide just needs to tell you to use one of the possible scores (e.g- Charisma) then have a note somewhere mentioning you can swap mentions of Charisma for another score if you pick that one.
And it doesn't need to complicate a VTT if done properly; even on D&D Beyond homebrew it's possible to override the spellcasting ability score in sub-classes, so the capability seems to already exist behind the scenes.
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.
Warlocks are NOT the class with the most undefined core. Stop saying that nonsense!!!
Without a doubt a sorcerer is the most undefined core, but more importantly as Agilemind stated 5e opened almost every class up for interpretation. Paladins don’t even choose Gods in 5e.
Pacts are left open so the player can freely choose how to play their character, but the Pact is the source of a Warlocks powers. It’s something to ground them to and is equally or more defined than a Paladin’s oath.
Also I find it crazy how many of you are willing to contradict yourselves. On one hand y’all are arguing that Warlock should get an Int casting option because the PHB states they study in their lore section, but when I say Bard should have that too since the PHB states they study and can be scholars in their lore sections I get responses like you can have a separate casting stat. Well if Int isn’t the Scholar Bard’s casting stat I don’t see a reason for it being the Knowledge Obsessed Warlock’s casting stat.
Again I’m not against flexible casting. I’m actually pro flexible casting for everyone. I’m against giving flexible casting to one class when other classes deserve it and some more so based on lore than Warlock. I would argue that against those more deserving classes gaining it as well if everyone wasn’t going to get it.
Chris Perkins mentioned in an interview that a lot of the materials from Tasha's and Xanathar's will be implemented in baseline while things that don't make the cut will be bundled up into a separate book post launch.
I'm not sure that dismissing alternative opinions as "nonsense" and demanding people don't have them is going to be a winning argument here. 😝
No it isn't?
All Sorcerers get their power from a magic bloodline, making it a form of innate spellcasting; you might disagree with Charisma as the correct ability score to represent that, but given that Constitution would be broken it's a perfectly reasonable score to settle on as "casting through force of will".
But Warlock pacts also don't say anything about how the Warlock actually casts spells, but also go out of its way to describe a myriad of wildly different patrons and means of forming pacts. While pacts might be mechanically similar, they're narratively very different as they can be formed both knowingly and unknowingly on both sides, and at any time in a creature's existing career.
You don't train to be a Warlock, you become one when you make a pact. While a Paladin probably isn't truly a paladin until they swear an oath, they still have to train to be a warrior before they can become a blessed one, and it also likely involves years of training in the rites and practices for the oath specific they're working towards.
A Warlock will only do something similar if they set out to become a Warlock as part of a longer term plan, i.e- researched possible patrons before making contact (or whatever else was required). But they can just as easily have a fiend show up, offer a deal and be a Warlock two minutes later.
That's not what people have been saying; as myself and others have pointed out many times now seeking knowledge has nothing to do with the Intelligence ability score, and what matters isn't how you learn spells, but how you cast them. It's the spellcasting ability score, and Bards as they are right now cast using musical instruments and the spoken word; you can absolutely have a studious Bard, but it's not part of how they cast spells.
You also don't become a Bard overnight; a Warlock could have been a Wizard yesterday, or a Cleric, or anything else.
So start a new thread about how everyone should have access to more spellcasting ability options? This thread is supposed to be about Warlocks, and really only about what the poll results are suggesting, or what people chose and why. Yet you're arguing that people are wrong to want more choices on Warlocks because you want more choices for other classes as well? At best that's an aside, because on its own it's off-topic.
All you needed to do was say "I want INT/WIS/CHA for Warlocks, but I'd also like to see other casters expanded too"; one post and done, not pages of arguing with anyone and everyone trying to push others onto an unrelated position? It might be an interesting thing to discuss in another thread, but I don't see you winning any hearts here.
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.
5e Sorcerers are not all bloodline related. Like Agilemind stated 5e opened up other avenues of interpretation for everyone. Please read their section in the PHB. Also if everything is more defined than an oath that would mean that a pact is more defined than an oath and you agree that Warlock isn’t the least defined class. It’s not me dismissing alternative opinions, it’s me stating facts supported by the PHB. If the speed limit is 50 you may be of the opinion that it’s okay to go 55, but the written fact is that speed limit is 50. Saying Warlocks have the least defined core is nonsense because the book tells you their core concept.
Another important thing I will point out to you is Charisma is not the willpower stat. That is Wisdom, so there is no way to explain Cha casting according to the books. Also because of this it makes Divine and Primal casting seem deferent than the way what the lore says about them.
Also I need you to take your own advice. You don’t have to have pages of arguments with people. You could read what I said and not reply. I made an on topic statement that Warlock is no more deserving of multiple casting stats than any other class based on lore in the PHB. If I just vote give warlock all three Int/Wis/Cha it could be misinterpreted as see that vote counts towards Int. That is not my opinion or vote. I stated my opinion and facts from the books.
So Warlocks can stay Cha casters and we can stop this conversation, since as of now they learn their spells from studying and researching them and cast them with power from other beings by using their Charisma. It’s fine because if you say it’s not you are literally contradicting yourself.
An archaic definition of Charisma is being a barer of divine spark/divine gift.
The modern/secular definition derives from this because those with divine spark were expected to have a charming presence about them, as god's spiritual presence would shine through them. That was the start of the modern/secular version of the word. This is also the idea behind the Charismatic Movement (divine spark, not charming eloquence).
I think this is also the reason that Gygax put Charisma high on the requirements for the Paladin: these would people who were gifted by god or a saint, like the mission and calling of Joan of Arc. Which also dovetails into the Warlock: barers of a divine gift, just not in the form of a "calling."
(and sorcerers? the fantasy version of genetics might be seen as a "divine or magical spark in your bloodline")
Bards are the only CHA casters who don't fit this version of the definition of Charisma. Theirs probably actually is magic via personal charm and strong personality or magic via empathy (and, IMO, they're the ONLY ones whose magic is based on personal charm and strong personality/empathy: the other 3 CHA casters are all based on baring a spark of divine/magical gift in one form or another).
So, that's why I went for Charisma only.
(though, I did like the UA Warlock that had choices about it ... but for me, that made the class seem more like a Prestige class than a Base class: intended for multiclassing with some other class to represent their base magical abilities, and that version of the Warlock is really more of a side-hustle than a primary archetype)
they're both pretty loosely goosey. however, while a pact is a connection between two parties, the oath is more open ended. is it a connection to gods, spirits, virtues, ideals, a promise, or just magical narcissism?
it might be time to let it go or start a new poll you like better.
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!
Why would a Paladin have to train before becoming a Paladin? Below is the description from the 2014 PHB on how a character might become a Paladin:
Sure you might have trained for years as a warrior first, but you could equally be called to serve as a paladin and then train as a warrior, or you could simply be blessed by a god to become a paladin without training at all.
Except, no. 2014 PHB Paladins don't need to have a deity or any external source of their powers. They can gain their powers directly from their own dedication to their oath and/or self-righteousness that is why they are CHA casters it is their own force of personality, their commitment to their quest, that grants them their powers. Though they can be granted powers from a deity instead / as well but this is still for them to fulfill their personal mission - thus is more similar to a warlock's pact - than a cleric. Clerics are conduits and representatives of their gods on the material plane, they should not have the ego of a Paladin, but instead seek better understanding of their god's will and through this knowledge improve their ability to channel that will as magical powers.
Again no. Sorcerers can get power from a magic bloodline but also just from directly being exposed to magical forces. See extract from PHB 2014 below:
Bloodline is only one of three options for how to become a sorcerer, you could have been cursed / blessed by a Fey or a Celestial as a child, you could have fallen through a portal, or wandered around exotic ruins, be born until a black sun, or struck by a beholder's eye ray...
Because it literally says so in the class description:
One follows the other. I'm skipping the rest because it's all off-topic anyway as you've ignored all the parts where I'm actually discussing Warlocks.
I'm sorry I used the word "blood" for Sorcerer when I was talking about innate spellcasting but my actual points still stand, because any other physiological change that results in innate casting is consistent with that.
But I really don't want to indulge anymore Paladin/Sorcerer pedantry that isn't Warlock related. 😉
Except that's not what they do; pacts grant the knowledge of how to use powers, but the Warlock is the one that is still actually doing all (or at least most) of it. It tells you this in the class description:
While some specific abilities might call upon the patron itself, not all of a Warlock's abilities are the patron's own powers. The Warlock is casting spells etc. themselves using knowledge they gained from the patron.
I'm not the one that keeps trying to drag this thread off into a different topic, and literally demanded people stop believing as they do because you don't agree with them. If you want to discuss what spellcasting ability scores should be available to all/other classes, please post a topic about that instead of hijacking someone else's, I'd be happy to join that one and discuss that very subject, just not here.
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’m not sure of what I need to let go because I make a valid point and then someone argues against my valid point, sometimes literally proving my point. You just did it. Read your statement again. First you argue that they are both loosely goosey, but then explain how the pala is a little more loosely goosey. I never argued that pact magic wasn’t loosely goosey. I simply argued that the claim that it was the most undefined is not supported by the PHB. People build these threads to have echo chambers. Echo chambers are bad. Telling me to make a new poll is pointless. The only poll that will matter for this would be if WoTC did another one. Technically they already did one when play testing 5e and we know the put come of that one even if we never saw the results.
You are literally demanding that I stop believing what the book says. You are guilty of what you are telling me I’m guilty of doing. I didn’t tell anyone that Warlock shouldn’t be Int casters. I said if you give flexible casting to the Warlock you should give it to everyone. This topic is about casting stats. Warlock doesn’t exist in a white room. I haven’t hijacked anything it’s an open thread. That’s like saying I’m hijacking a road because I drive down it. I’m not off topic I’m literally discussing Warlock Spellcasting stat. Also I’m not arguing with myself. You and others keep replying to me. It’s not like I’m finding every post on here that says something I don’t agree with and attacking them for not agreeing with me. I made an open statement you decided to reply. Don’t try to shoo me away now because my arguments are better supported by core books.
Also I apologize for saying Warlocks cast with their patrons power. It doesn’t matter that they cast with their own power. They still can do all that research and studying but cast with Charisma. Why? Because you said so. Paladins, Bards, and Sorcerers all cast with their own power and are Cha casters. Bards can be scholars, go to college, learn their spells and still be Cha casters. So the same is true of Warlocks according to your own arguments. Warlocks are Charisma casters because that’s just how they cast their spells. Enough said, I agree with you. Unless you are going to contradict yourself.
I have literally said nothing of the sort; all I did was ask you to post a separate thread about spellcasting abilities for other classes so it can be discussed properly there rather than wasting page after page of this thread with discussion that has gone well off-topic.
Sure, the Warlock class doesn't exist in a vacuum, but a poll about Warlocks and Warlocks alone, does. We can of course compare to other classes (as I have, multiple times), but unless it's supporting one of the options for Warlock specifically, it's not relevant. There's a world of difference between something like "I prefer option X because it lines up with classes Y and Z" and repeatedly saying you don't want to discuss just Warlocks.
It's the equivalent of dropping by the thread to say "screw your poll and everyone who voted in it, here's what I want this thread to be about instead". If you want to discuss something else, then create a thread for that.
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.
the paladin oath IS the least defined source of power. so? that doesn't immediately track to "and you agree that Warlock isn’t the least defined class." the oath's anchor is undefined, but every paladin power is fueled from that oath regardless. as such, the bulk of the classes is defined and self consistent.
i don't think the thread was meant to confirm assumptions. honestly, i wish i had more to contribute regarding analysis of the data and i feel like it's for a worthy cause. all the echos came with us off topic posters.
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!
But it is following an oath that defines a paladin. A paladin can't stumble into an oath or be tricked into it, can't work against an oath without becoming an oathbreaker. A paladin has to swear an oath and follow it, their faith and ideals is literally what gives them power. 5e has expanded the moral spectrum of such ideals, but the essence is unchanged.
Always been this way.
But again, they are defined by service to deities. An atheist clerics that receives power from a god while actively denying this particular god's existence is kind of nonsensical. I remember a cleric from Pillars of Eternity that was meant to be martyred by his goddess, but survived and upon realizing that he was merely a pawn, resolved to somehow "steal" divine power from the goddess. But that's a pretty exotic outlier.
Always been blurry, but you'd be hard pressed to find a nature-hating ranger or ranger by accident.
Part of that is the thread title asks one question, the poll another.
I find intelligence to be the most appropriate for the class as described, and by a large margin. I support a flexible stat option though. If I am answering the title I would give the first answer, if i am answering the poll question the second.
Edit well that quote attempt failed in editing.
Bards and Sorcerers are more deserving of flexible casting than Warlock is.