I'm not really interested in the arguments from the other thread spilling over here, I just thought it would be interesting to get a numerical breakdown of where people land on this issue.
For my part, while I believe Charisma is the most logical, I certainly have been convinced by the many adamant supporters of Intelligence (from both the stance of gameplay and lore) that it should be an option.
I put any of the three because I really liked having the choice, as for me Warlock is something you could potentially be tempted into becoming having started down any number of different paths to begin with, e.g- the Cleric whose deity won't help them save a loved one, but some other entity will, the Wizard who's tired of slow progress and wants a shortcut etc.
Otherwise I'd lean towards the choice between Intelligence or Charisma for a "pure" Warlock who starts "fresh", i.e- someone untrained in magic who wants to get started and chooses a somewhat questionable way to do so.
I like to compare this to Wyll in Baldur's Gate 3; he's clearly reasonably intelligent and certainly well educated, yet when he discovers a threat and needs a way to stop it, he is desperate enough to be tempted into a pact, and continues that pact because he believes he's still getting the better of it.
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.
Easy. It's not 'control the channel' it's 'withstanding the channeling'. It's opening yourself up to the eldritch forces threating to consume you, and suffering through it. The idea that the warlock is 'in control' of the process I find to be amusing. The Patron is in control. The warlock is just a meat puppet the Patron is using to manifest it's powers in the mortal world. The Patron will burn through the warlock if it suits their purpose, and the warlock must endure it.
Or something silly like that. You can come up with excuses for any attribute, it's all a matter of phrasing... well, I haven't figured out an excuse for Strength as a casting attribute yet.
Honestly I figure Con would be a better casting attribute for Sorcerers than Warlocks, since a lot of lore written for Sorcerers in this edition revolves around bloodlines. Makes me think you could tie Sorcery to Blood Magic.
From a balance point of view, Intelligence makes sense. Two (& a half) casters with Wisdom (Cleric & Druid & Ranger). Two (& a half) casters with Charisma (Bard & Sorcerer & Paladin). Two (& a half) casters with Intelligence (Wizard & Warlock & Artificer.)
I think if Charisma was eliminated as at least a possibility, many people who multiclass would be disappointed and upset. So, I voted for Int/Cha. But a choice of any of the 3 would be ok, too. But, it looks like they are set on just reverting back to Charisma only. Still, if it's just a matter of which stat to use for casting, then it's an easy enough homebrew fix.
Easy. It's not 'control the channel' it's 'withstanding the channeling'. It's opening yourself up to the eldritch forces threating to consume you, and suffering through it. The idea that the warlock is 'in control' of the process I find to be amusing. The Patron is in control. The warlock is just a meat puppet the Patron is using to manifest it's powers in the mortal world. The Patron will burn through the warlock if it suits their purpose, and the warlock must endure it...
that sounds more like possession than a pact, but i suppose it's an interpretation i wouldn't blacklist. more of an NPC thing though, maybe?
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!
It's opening yourself up to the eldritch forces threating to consume you, and suffering through it. The idea that the warlock is 'in control' of the process I find to be amusing.
In the class description for a Warlock the nature of a (typical) pact is that the Warlock gains knowledge and power in exchange for whatever the patron asks of them. There's no mention of the patron casting through them or drawing upon the patron's power.
Strictly speaking the Warlock is under no obligation to do as their patron asks once they've got the knowledge and power that they want; there's no mention of these being revokable. Most On the other hand, as long as the patron makes no unreasonable requests of them a Warlock also has no incentive to defy its wishes as there is always more knowledge and more power to be had, as even at level 20 a patron could be the source of any epic boons, unique magical gear etc. that you continue to receive.
Now you can absolutely flavour it however you want; if you want to be a vessel for the patron's power that's cool, and I doubt many (if any) DMs would refuse that idea, and there are plenty of ways to handle it mechanically beyond what the rules tell us is possible in the core game.
That said, Charisma is the current "correct" ability score for casting that way, because that's how a Sorcerer's "innate" spellcasting currently works. Plus Constitution isn't an option for game balance reasons, because CON as a casting score would mean you only need to invest in ability score both casting power, concentration saving throws and durability.
Lore-wise I tend to think of Warlock pacts as being a shortcut for most; they're a way to get something you either can't get any other way, or that you want to get faster/more easily (at least in the short term). That's maybe a bit reductive/simplistic, but I think that's how Warlock is presented in 5e and you can always tweak it from there.
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 correct answer is any of the three mental stats. I didn’t vote, because the moment you give that flexibility to Warlocks you should be giving it to all casters. Bards clearly have a great argument for all three stats.
Clerics who studied ancient religious text might be Int based, and Saints might be Cha based.
Druids who study the old runes might be Int based and those that channel the power of the planes might be closer to sorcerers and be Cha based.
Sorcerers Magic might be innate, but the way they channel it might be something they learn in books Int or just through sheer willpower Wis. (Wis is willpower, Cha is confidence, it says so in the DMG, so don’t start that argument)
Warlocks who study their patrons or occult things could be foolish geniuses using Int, and some might act as priest of some far realm being using Wis.
Wizards may learn there magic in books, but again the question how do you bring it into the world. Int would be knowing the formula and using them, Wis would be willing the magic to work or understanding that you don’t need the whole formula just a match to start the process, and Cha would be similar to a Bard.
But if you aren’t going to open the door for everyone then don’t open it for anyone. There isn’t really a great argument for Warlocks to be any stat over another. Since they are already Cha in 5e I don’t see a reason to change them in 5eR.
I think intelligence fits the class as described better than any other stat but I am all for a flexible stat. Though I do think the idea of a casting stat per class should go away and instead it should be based on the spells.(enchantment charisma, transmutation intelligence etc) A bit of a nerf for casters as if you want to be good at all spells you need to be good at all mental stats.
This conversation needs to die. Honestly, its just flaming trash wars at this point. The people really invested in it don't want to listen to another view point, they just want to shout opponents down.
We had the test in a previous UA. They got an answer, and now tried going a different route with Pact Boons they wanted to test. We don't know if flexible casting stat failed or succeeded yet. And, if both previous and current test succeed, how flexible stat will be implemented when Pact Boons are Invocations.
Flexible stat is good. It lets everyone play what they want. We want to game to have fun, and vibes matter. If you vibe one way or another, good on you.
This conversation needs to die. Honestly, its just flaming trash wars at this point. The people really invested in it don't want to listen to another view point, they just want to shout opponents down.
We had the test in a previous UA. They got an answer, and now tried going a different route with Pact Boons they wanted to test. We don't know if flexible casting stat failed or succeeded yet. And, if both previous and current test succeed, how flexible stat will be implemented when Pact Boons are Invocations.
Flexible stat is good. It lets everyone play what they want. We want to game to have fun, and vibes matter. If you vibe one way or another, good on you.
Which is why I said in the first post that I was not interested in the arguments for or against the particular choices, and I only wanted to see the numerical spread of where people's opinions lie. This was in part because some people seemed to be defending Charisma or Intelligence to the extent that they felt that only that one particular ability was appropriate, although I suspect that (as in my case, defending Charisma) people might have just been overreacting to the idea that the other side absolutely wanted to deny the use of whichever position they were supporting. I have no pretentions that this thread will influence any official outcome.
That being said, the only thing I find even less useful than constantly rehashing one staunchly held belief or another is someone coming in and complaining about the people discussing the issue at all. If the topic doesn't or no longer interests you, then feel free to ignore it and spend your time where you feel it is more useful.
Because its origin is not from any sort of talent, which arguably all other stats represent. CON is just your "body", and you are a vessel to foreign forces. Eldritch is usually also absolutely incomprehensible to normal mortals and withstanding those forces and madness seems very fitting.
Warlock is the most flexible class, so I would love if they would lean into that. Either via choosing the stat or by making it CON, since you can focus on other stats and skills as you like in that case. It'd obviously have to be nerfed by making it a 1d6 hitdie, but would be fairly balanced and has huge flavor opportunities.
Warlock is the most flexible class, so I would love if they would lean into that. Either via choosing the stat or by making it CON, since you can focus on other stats and skills as you like in that case. It'd obviously have to be nerfed by making it a 1d6 hitdie, but would be fairly balanced and has huge flavor opportunities.
Not sure a drop to d6 would be enough to compensate; if we assume your average 5e Warlock isn't likely to go above +2 on CON at 8th-level, a Warlock that can use CON for casting could easily hit +5 by that same point, meaning with a d6 hit-die it'd still have an extra 2 hit-points per level on average (1d8+2 vs. 1d6+5)
This is why it's difficult balance wise; it may be the "body" stat, but it has a very clear mechanical benefit; two actually, for casters, since they also use it for concentration saving throws. They'd also be going from three main stats (CHA/DEX/CON, flipping CON and DEX depending upon your priorities) to only two (CON/DEX, and that's only if you need more DEX), which means they can max out their important scores early (or at all, compared to more score dependent classes).
I don't see a Constitution caster happening without some major changes, or some big drawbacks. I occasionally revisit my unpublished take on a "College of Dance" sub-class for Bard, which I based around the idea of being able to use Dexterity to cast, with all spells becoming somatic. That at least somewhat stays balanced because a Bard still needs Charisma for their stereotypical skills and for the number of Bardic Inspiration uses.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
As an aside to that I do think they should change concentration checks from a con save to a casting stat save and adjust the DCs up a bit. Take resilient con/start as a fighter etc are done too much on the optimization boards and when something like that is overdone I think they should look at remedying it in some way. Nerfing the combo or making it so its not necessary. An alternative would be to make it a Con check and not a save and maybe keeping the DCs as is if you want a small nerf on casters as the alternative to making it not necessary.
As an aside to that I do think they should change concentration checks from a con save to a casting stat save and adjust the DCs up a bit. Take resilient con/start as a fighter etc are done too much on the optimization boards and when something like that is overdone I think they should look at remedying it in some way. Nerfing the combo or making it so its not necessary. An alternative would be to make it a Con check and not a save and maybe keeping the DCs as is if you want a small nerf on casters as the alternative to making it not necessary.
Why do optimization boards matter to at table play?
As an aside to that I do think they should change concentration checks from a con save to a casting stat save and adjust the DCs up a bit. Take resilient con/start as a fighter etc are done too much on the optimization boards and when something like that is overdone I think they should look at remedying it in some way. Nerfing the combo or making it so its not necessary. An alternative would be to make it a Con check and not a save and maybe keeping the DCs as is if you want a small nerf on casters as the alternative to making it not necessary.
Why do optimization boards matter to at table play?
Optimizers find holes in a system, which is great but if they are found it makes sense to patch the hole.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm not really interested in the arguments from the other thread spilling over here, I just thought it would be interesting to get a numerical breakdown of where people land on this issue.
For my part, while I believe Charisma is the most logical, I certainly have been convinced by the many adamant supporters of Intelligence (from both the stance of gameplay and lore) that it should be an option.
I put any of the three because I really liked having the choice, as for me Warlock is something you could potentially be tempted into becoming having started down any number of different paths to begin with, e.g- the Cleric whose deity won't help them save a loved one, but some other entity will, the Wizard who's tired of slow progress and wants a shortcut etc.
Otherwise I'd lean towards the choice between Intelligence or Charisma for a "pure" Warlock who starts "fresh", i.e- someone untrained in magic who wants to get started and chooses a somewhat questionable way to do so.
I like to compare this to Wyll in Baldur's Gate 3; he's clearly reasonably intelligent and certainly well educated, yet when he discovers a threat and needs a way to stop it, he is desperate enough to be tempted into a pact, and continues that pact because he believes he's still getting the better of it.
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 think CON makes the most sense actually, but any of the mental ones are fine as well.
as CON casting has no precedence in 5e, this makes the least sense. what about holding your breath, marching for hours, going without sleep, starving, or taking an impressively long drink of ale suggests control of channeled eldritch forces?
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!
Easy. It's not 'control the channel' it's 'withstanding the channeling'. It's opening yourself up to the eldritch forces threating to consume you, and suffering through it. The idea that the warlock is 'in control' of the process I find to be amusing. The Patron is in control. The warlock is just a meat puppet the Patron is using to manifest it's powers in the mortal world. The Patron will burn through the warlock if it suits their purpose, and the warlock must endure it.
Or something silly like that. You can come up with excuses for any attribute, it's all a matter of phrasing... well, I haven't figured out an excuse for Strength as a casting attribute yet.
Honestly I figure Con would be a better casting attribute for Sorcerers than Warlocks, since a lot of lore written for Sorcerers in this edition revolves around bloodlines. Makes me think you could tie Sorcery to Blood Magic.
From a balance point of view, Intelligence makes sense. Two (& a half) casters with Wisdom (Cleric & Druid & Ranger). Two (& a half) casters with Charisma (Bard & Sorcerer & Paladin). Two (& a half) casters with Intelligence (Wizard & Warlock & Artificer.)
I think if Charisma was eliminated as at least a possibility, many people who multiclass would be disappointed and upset. So, I voted for Int/Cha. But a choice of any of the 3 would be ok, too. But, it looks like they are set on just reverting back to Charisma only. Still, if it's just a matter of which stat to use for casting, then it's an easy enough homebrew fix.
that sounds more like possession than a pact, but i suppose it's an interpretation i wouldn't blacklist. more of an NPC thing though, maybe?
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!
In the class description for a Warlock the nature of a (typical) pact is that the Warlock gains knowledge and power in exchange for whatever the patron asks of them. There's no mention of the patron casting through them or drawing upon the patron's power.
Strictly speaking the Warlock is under no obligation to do as their patron asks once they've got the knowledge and power that they want; there's no mention of these being revokable. Most On the other hand, as long as the patron makes no unreasonable requests of them a Warlock also has no incentive to defy its wishes as there is always more knowledge and more power to be had, as even at level 20 a patron could be the source of any epic boons, unique magical gear etc. that you continue to receive.
Now you can absolutely flavour it however you want; if you want to be a vessel for the patron's power that's cool, and I doubt many (if any) DMs would refuse that idea, and there are plenty of ways to handle it mechanically beyond what the rules tell us is possible in the core game.
That said, Charisma is the current "correct" ability score for casting that way, because that's how a Sorcerer's "innate" spellcasting currently works. Plus Constitution isn't an option for game balance reasons, because CON as a casting score would mean you only need to invest in ability score both casting power, concentration saving throws and durability.
Lore-wise I tend to think of Warlock pacts as being a shortcut for most; they're a way to get something you either can't get any other way, or that you want to get faster/more easily (at least in the short term). That's maybe a bit reductive/simplistic, but I think that's how Warlock is presented in 5e and you can always tweak it from there.
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 correct answer is any of the three mental stats. I didn’t vote, because the moment you give that flexibility to Warlocks you should be giving it to all casters.
Bards clearly have a great argument for all three stats.
Clerics who studied ancient religious text might be Int based, and Saints might be Cha based.
Druids who study the old runes might be Int based and those that channel the power of the planes might be closer to sorcerers and be Cha based.
Sorcerers Magic might be innate, but the way they channel it might be something they learn in books Int or just through sheer willpower Wis. (Wis is willpower, Cha is confidence, it says so in the DMG, so don’t start that argument)
Warlocks who study their patrons or occult things could be foolish geniuses using Int, and some might act as priest of some far realm being using Wis.
Wizards may learn there magic in books, but again the question how do you bring it into the world. Int would be knowing the formula and using them, Wis would be willing the magic to work or understanding that you don’t need the whole formula just a match to start the process, and Cha would be similar to a Bard.
But if you aren’t going to open the door for everyone then don’t open it for anyone. There isn’t really a great argument for Warlocks to be any stat over another. Since they are already Cha in 5e I don’t see a reason to change them in 5eR.
I think intelligence fits the class as described better than any other stat but I am all for a flexible stat. Though I do think the idea of a casting stat per class should go away and instead it should be based on the spells.(enchantment charisma, transmutation intelligence etc) A bit of a nerf for casters as if you want to be good at all spells you need to be good at all mental stats.
This conversation needs to die. Honestly, its just flaming trash wars at this point. The people really invested in it don't want to listen to another view point, they just want to shout opponents down.
We had the test in a previous UA. They got an answer, and now tried going a different route with Pact Boons they wanted to test. We don't know if flexible casting stat failed or succeeded yet. And, if both previous and current test succeed, how flexible stat will be implemented when Pact Boons are Invocations.
Flexible stat is good. It lets everyone play what they want. We want to game to have fun, and vibes matter. If you vibe one way or another, good on you.
Which is why I said in the first post that I was not interested in the arguments for or against the particular choices, and I only wanted to see the numerical spread of where people's opinions lie. This was in part because some people seemed to be defending Charisma or Intelligence to the extent that they felt that only that one particular ability was appropriate, although I suspect that (as in my case, defending Charisma) people might have just been overreacting to the idea that the other side absolutely wanted to deny the use of whichever position they were supporting. I have no pretentions that this thread will influence any official outcome.
That being said, the only thing I find even less useful than constantly rehashing one staunchly held belief or another is someone coming in and complaining about the people discussing the issue at all. If the topic doesn't or no longer interests you, then feel free to ignore it and spend your time where you feel it is more useful.
Very well, I shall. Have a good day.
Because its origin is not from any sort of talent, which arguably all other stats represent. CON is just your "body", and you are a vessel to foreign forces. Eldritch is usually also absolutely incomprehensible to normal mortals and withstanding those forces and madness seems very fitting.
Warlock is the most flexible class, so I would love if they would lean into that. Either via choosing the stat or by making it CON, since you can focus on other stats and skills as you like in that case. It'd obviously have to be nerfed by making it a 1d6 hitdie, but would be fairly balanced and has huge flavor opportunities.
While I am sure I could come up with a rational for con working for warlocks, con as a stat for casters is just too dang good.
Not sure a drop to d6 would be enough to compensate; if we assume your average 5e Warlock isn't likely to go above +2 on CON at 8th-level, a Warlock that can use CON for casting could easily hit +5 by that same point, meaning with a d6 hit-die it'd still have an extra 2 hit-points per level on average (1d8+2 vs. 1d6+5)
This is why it's difficult balance wise; it may be the "body" stat, but it has a very clear mechanical benefit; two actually, for casters, since they also use it for concentration saving throws. They'd also be going from three main stats (CHA/DEX/CON, flipping CON and DEX depending upon your priorities) to only two (CON/DEX, and that's only if you need more DEX), which means they can max out their important scores early (or at all, compared to more score dependent classes).
I don't see a Constitution caster happening without some major changes, or some big drawbacks. I occasionally revisit my unpublished take on a "College of Dance" sub-class for Bard, which I based around the idea of being able to use Dexterity to cast, with all spells becoming somatic. That at least somewhat stays balanced because a Bard still needs Charisma for their stereotypical skills and for the number of Bardic Inspiration uses.
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.
As an aside to that I do think they should change concentration checks from a con save to a casting stat save and adjust the DCs up a bit. Take resilient con/start as a fighter etc are done too much on the optimization boards and when something like that is overdone I think they should look at remedying it in some way. Nerfing the combo or making it so its not necessary. An alternative would be to make it a Con check and not a save and maybe keeping the DCs as is if you want a small nerf on casters as the alternative to making it not necessary.
Why do optimization boards matter to at table play?
Unless you have a Celestial warlock, I'd say Intelligence or Charisma.
Optimizers find holes in a system, which is great but if they are found it makes sense to patch the hole.