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.
Spells and alterations are mentioned separately, the alterations are described as minor, and the examples given are specifically invocations. Meanwhile gaining knowledge, arcane secrets etc. is mentioned repeatedly (again, at least four times), but we're never told how Warlocks actually cast magic, only that they can, which has been literally my entire point this entire time.
What is funny is for the invocations it is bestowed through research not through the entity granting you stuff willy nilly. You are using research to bestow these powers upon yourself. "In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed eldritch invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability."
This thread and every discussion like it shows us that one can get real fun and creative to make up any explanation for any caster using any casting stat. Cool beans, but none of that matters to me at all. Warlocks should use INT because there aren't enough INT classes. The others are all fine.
Assuming congruency of casting stat distribution is a meaningful issue in the first place, sounds more like a reason to make another class rather than shoehorn a class whose basis is bargaining for power into the stat whose casting basis is a thorough understanding of the laws and principles that govern magic without needing someone to continually coach you through them.
Assuming stat consistency is or isn't important, shoehorning a class whose basis is eldritch research and study(which is a far more accurate description of the warlock than yours) into a pornomancer mold was and remains a bad idea.
This thread and every discussion like it shows us that one can get real fun and creative to make up any explanation for any caster using any casting stat. Cool beans, but none of that matters to me at all. Warlocks should use INT because there aren't enough INT classes. The others are all fine.
Assuming congruency of casting stat distribution is a meaningful issue in the first place, sounds more like a reason to make another class rather than shoehorn a class whose basis is bargaining for power into the stat whose casting basis is a thorough understanding of the laws and principles that govern magic without needing someone to continually coach you through them.
Assuming stat consistency is or isn't important, shoehorning a class whose basis is eldritch research and study(which is a far more accurate description of the warlock than yours) into a pornomancer mold was and remains a bad idea.
And once again the debate returns to not only pretending the patron doesn’t exist, but strawmanning CHA.
This thread and every discussion like it shows us that one can get real fun and creative to make up any explanation for any caster using any casting stat. Cool beans, but none of that matters to me at all. Warlocks should use INT because there aren't enough INT classes. The others are all fine.
Assuming congruency of casting stat distribution is a meaningful issue in the first place, sounds more like a reason to make another class rather than shoehorn a class whose basis is bargaining for power into the stat whose casting basis is a thorough understanding of the laws and principles that govern magic without needing someone to continually coach you through them.
it's a little difficult to imagine an INT class concept that's been passed over completely in 5e. psion has been 'shoehorned' into a few subclasses and spell-blade must be too similar to existing subclasses to merit dev attention. none of that is getting a new look until there's some "old things re-imagined" revival/renewal push to stay relevant which can't be for another four or five years, maybe ten. having said that, i'd be interested to know if you had a new INT class in mind.
alas, i think Artificer is the other INT class. which is frustrating on many levels...
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!
What is funny is for the invocations it is bestowed through research not through the entity granting you stuff willy nilly. You are using research to bestow these powers upon yourself. "In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed eldritch invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability."
Yeah the class description is a little self-contradictory, so the conclusion seems to be that some, but not all, invocations involve a permanent physical change, I guess? But that doesn't really help us since that's invocations, not spellcasting specifically. Some invocations absolutely crossover, i.e- those that grant extra spells, book of shadows etc. but still.
Boons meanwhile are probably things that the patron can take away, or at the very least is under no obligation to let you re-summon if you get your familiar killed, lose your tome down the back of the couch etc. so those are more "of the patron", even if the patron doesn't know you're summoning them for whatever reason (really unclear on how that works 😂).
But all we really know about how pact magic functions are the mechanics written into the feature. That doesn't help us much though because all that angle amounts to "it's Charisma because the rule says so" but since this thread is about what the rule should say, well it would just end up saying something else.
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.
This thread and every discussion like it shows us that one can get real fun and creative to make up any explanation for any caster using any casting stat. Cool beans, but none of that matters to me at all. Warlocks should use INT because there aren't enough INT classes. The others are all fine.
Assuming congruency of casting stat distribution is a meaningful issue in the first place, sounds more like a reason to make another class rather than shoehorn a class whose basis is bargaining for power into the stat whose casting basis is a thorough understanding of the laws and principles that govern magic without needing someone to continually coach you through them.
Horrors from the deep, horrors from the stars, horrors from the hells. Masters of elements, masters of inscrutability, masters of light, masters of death. Countless different entities, as old as ages or even older, and all you need to have to understand the ancient, esoteric secrets that they can grant you is a bit of rizz. I dunno about that.
Not all pacts even include bargaining. Pacts can be made without one of the parties even knowing about it. When did you fit in the negotiations with Cthulhu before you completed the ritual to steal his knowledge and power? Somewhere between the ritual sacrifice and the chanting?
Also, something that I'd like to point out is that contact other plane, which I see as the spell version of Warlock because its sole purpose is reaching out to an ancient, extraplanar entity for esoteric knowledge, uses an Intelligence saving throw. Not a Charisma saving throw.
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)
This thread and every discussion like it shows us that one can get real fun and creative to make up any explanation for any caster using any casting stat. Cool beans, but none of that matters to me at all. Warlocks should use INT because there aren't enough INT classes. The others are all fine.
Assuming congruency of casting stat distribution is a meaningful issue in the first place, sounds more like a reason to make another class rather than shoehorn a class whose basis is bargaining for power into the stat whose casting basis is a thorough understanding of the laws and principles that govern magic without needing someone to continually coach you through them.
Horrors from the deep, horrors from the stars, horrors from the hells. Masters of elements, masters of inscrutability, masters of light, masters of death. Countless different entities, as old as ages or even older, and all you need to have to understand the ancient, esoteric secrets that they can grant you is a bit of rizz. I dunno about that.
Not all pacts even include bargaining. Pacts can be made without one of the parties even knowing about it. When did you fit in the negotiations with Cthulhu before you completed the ritual to steal his knowledge and power? Somewhere between the ritual sacrifice and the chanting?
Also, something that I'd like to point out is that contact other plane, which I see as the spell version of Warlock because its sole purpose is reaching out to an ancient, extraplanar entity for esoteric knowledge, uses an Intelligence saving throw. Not a Charisma saving throw.
I was using “bargain” loosely, for one, and for another your chant might very well constitute an offer to whoever you’re beseeching. It’s a rather common theme in these stories for someone to make an innocuous comment or reply to one only for the other side to declare something along the lines of “and so our bargain is made”. And regarding Contact Outer Planes, most spells that involve psychic damage require an INT save to check if or how badly you blow some mental breakers, so you’re really reaching to use that as proof of anything more than the association between the damage and the save.
What is funny is for the invocations it is bestowed through research not through the entity granting you stuff willy nilly. You are using research to bestow these powers upon yourself. "In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed eldritch invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability."
Yeah the class description is a little self-contradictory, so the conclusion seems to be that some, but not all, invocations involve a permanent physical change, I guess? But that doesn't really help us since that's invocations, not spellcasting specifically. Some invocations absolutely crossover, i.e- those that grant extra spells, book of shadows etc. but still.
Boons meanwhile are probably things that the patron can take away, or at the very least is under no obligation to let you re-summon if you get your familiar killed, lose your tome down the back of the couch etc. so those are more "of the patron", even if the patron doesn't know you're summoning them for whatever reason (really unclear on how that works 😂).
But all we really know about how pact magic functions are the mechanics written into the feature. That doesn't help us much though because all that angle amounts to "it's Charisma because the rule says so" but since this thread is about what the rule should say, well it would just end up saying something else.
A majority of invocations are either granting spells that can be cast by the warlock or altering spells cast by the warlock. You're on pretty thin ice trying to argue that a thing that gives you ability to cast spells and modifies how you cast spells is completely and whole unrelated and separate from casting spells.
Your patron grants you the ability to cast spells via your Pact. That's why it is called "Pact Magic" and not "Spellcasting". No Pact == No Pact Magic.
This thread and every discussion like it shows us that one can get real fun and creative to make up any explanation for any caster using any casting stat. Cool beans, but none of that matters to me at all. Warlocks should use INT because there aren't enough INT classes. The others are all fine.
Assuming congruency of casting stat distribution is a meaningful issue in the first place, sounds more like a reason to make another class rather than shoehorn a class whose basis is bargaining for power into the stat whose casting basis is a thorough understanding of the laws and principles that govern magic without needing someone to continually coach you through them.
Horrors from the deep, horrors from the stars, horrors from the hells. Masters of elements, masters of inscrutability, masters of light, masters of death. Countless different entities, as old as ages or even older, and all you need to have to understand the ancient, esoteric secrets that they can grant you is a bit of rizz. I dunno about that.
Not all pacts even include bargaining. Pacts can be made without one of the parties even knowing about it. When did you fit in the negotiations with Cthulhu before you completed the ritual to steal his knowledge and power? Somewhere between the ritual sacrifice and the chanting?
Also, something that I'd like to point out is that contact other plane, which I see as the spell version of Warlock because its sole purpose is reaching out to an ancient, extraplanar entity for esoteric knowledge, uses an Intelligence saving throw. Not a Charisma saving throw.
I was using “bargain” loosely, for one, and for another your chant might very well constitute an offer to whoever you’re beseeching. It’s a rather common theme in these stories for someone to make an innocuous comment or reply to one only for the other side to declare something along the lines of “and so our bargain is made”. And regarding Contact Outer Planes, most spells that involve psychic damage require an INT save to check if or how badly you blow some mental breakers, so you’re really reaching to use that as proof of anything more than the association between the damage and the save.
I don't see how you could have been using bargain "loosely." The loosest definition you could use without outright using the word incorrectly is an agreement between two parties. If one party doesn't even know about the pact, how is it possible for it to be a bargain? How is it possible for Charisma to have any influence in the outcome of the pact? The chant doesn't have to constitute an offer to whoever you're beseeching, because it doesn't have to beseech anybody. You can tap right into the patron's power and knowledge, without the patron even knowing. And if the whole deal is based off of an innocuous comment, how does Charisma tie into things? Does Charisma dictate how beneficial innocuous comments are to the person who says them? Contact other plane shows what stat is connected to esoteric extraplanar knowledge, in the same way that phantasmal force shows what stat is connected to illusion. The fact that psychic damage is involved seems irrelevant, since it doesn't really lessen the connection of either spell to their respective stats. Esoteric extraplanar knowledge is Intelligence. Esoteric extraplanar knowledge is not Charisma. That's all I'm saying.
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)
This thread and every discussion like it shows us that one can get real fun and creative to make up any explanation for any caster using any casting stat. Cool beans, but none of that matters to me at all. Warlocks should use INT because there aren't enough INT classes. The others are all fine.
Assuming congruency of casting stat distribution is a meaningful issue in the first place, sounds more like a reason to make another class rather than shoehorn a class whose basis is bargaining for power into the stat whose casting basis is a thorough understanding of the laws and principles that govern magic without needing someone to continually coach you through them.
Assuming stat consistency is or isn't important, shoehorning a class whose basis is eldritch research and study(which is a far more accurate description of the warlock than yours) into a pornomancer mold was and remains a bad idea.
And once again the debate returns to not only pretending the patron doesn’t exist, but strawmanning CHA.
When you have an argument past just cause I will consider it a debate.
A majority of invocations are either granting spells that can be cast by the warlock or altering spells cast by the warlock. You're on pretty thin ice trying to argue that a thing that gives you ability to cast spells and modifies how you cast spells is completely and whole unrelated and separate from casting spells.
They're literally mentioned separately multiple times, meanwhile the invocations granting spells do so in ways that function very differently from your normal spellcasting, either at will or with additional limits.
But neither tell us how the casting actually works, plus they're invocations, i.e- something else.
Your patron grants you the ability to cast spells via your Pact. That's why it is called "Pact Magic" and not "Spellcasting". No Pact == No Pact Magic.
Making the pact is what grants you the knowledge; I have literally said this multiple times with quotes and bells on. That tells us how Warlocks learn spells, it doesn't tell us how they cast them. I have literally never once claimed that making the pact isn't involved, that's a straw-man.
We know how Bards, Clerics, Sorcerers etc. cast their spells, as their class descriptions tell us; but the Warlock class description doesn't do that.
Which once again, is my entire ******* point. Not that I'm going to hold my breath over your ever acknowledging that, since you've pointedly ignored it every other time myself and others have raised it, which is why this will never go anywhere.
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.
What is funny is for the invocations it is bestowed through research not through the entity granting you stuff willy nilly. You are using research to bestow these powers upon yourself. "In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed eldritch invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability."
Yeah the class description is a little self-contradictory, so the conclusion seems to be that some, but not all, invocations involve a permanent physical change, I guess? But that doesn't really help us since that's invocations, not spellcasting specifically. Some invocations absolutely crossover, i.e- those that grant extra spells, book of shadows etc. but still.
Boons meanwhile are probably things that the patron can take away, or at the very least is under no obligation to let you re-summon if you get your familiar killed, lose your tome down the back of the couch etc. so those are more "of the patron", even if the patron doesn't know you're summoning them for whatever reason (really unclear on how that works 😂).
But all we really know about how pact magic functions are the mechanics written into the feature. That doesn't help us much though because all that angle amounts to "it's Charisma because the rule says so" but since this thread is about what the rule should say, well it would just end up saying something else.
A majority of invocations are either granting spells that can be cast by the warlock or altering spells cast by the warlock. You're on pretty thin ice trying to argue that a thing that gives you ability to cast spells and modifies how you cast spells is completely and whole unrelated and separate from casting spells.
Your patron grants you the ability to cast spells via your Pact. That's why it is called "Pact Magic" and not "Spellcasting". No Pact == No Pact Magic.
Pact Magic
Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells. See Spells Rules for the general rules of spellcasting and the Spells Listing for the warlock spell list.
Sp Pact Magic comes from both your research and your patron, not just your patron and invocations comes entirely from your research.
In the 2014 lock what comes entirely from the patron is the pact boon & mystic arcanums. Invocations are pretty huge component are entirely research oriented pact magic is a split. Subclass features are inconsistent on their language of where they come form, but those I'd assume from the pact for the most part. And pacts don't imply a stat at all while research does. Sure you can be a dumb researcher, but it at least uses intelligence.
...People build these threads to have echo chambers.
I never once claimed your thread was made in bad faith. Right now you are antagonizing me for something I never did to you. I said you poll is flawed because it doesn’t have a selection for me to answer. Technically I’m discovering the entire thread is flawed because I had a post struck for talking about logic in a thread about logic.
I am a person and I built one of "these" threads, which you categorize as my wish to have an "echo chamber". How is that not accusing me of acting in bad faith?
Yes, the poll is flawed because I could not anticipate every answer, which is one of the reasons why I put in an "other" response, which could lead to those folks explaining their beliefs and reasoning. A few have used that option because they think Constitution should be the casting stat for a Warlock (I'm sorry, I can't remember if you were one of those). MyDudeicus has also pointed out that the name of the thread and the poll question do not align perfectly either, which is a valid observation.
I had no control over the post that was struck, and am sorry that I probably did not get a chance to read it therefore.
That statement was in reply to someone who told me to go make my own thread to post my ideas. As if my ideas aren’t welcome on this thread. Hmmm sounds like they were trying to promote an echo chamber to me. Considering I am also people and I have started threads I must have meant myself in that generalization as well. Nope, I didn’t. If you want to take the generalization personal that’s your choice. If they shoe fits, wear it. But I never accused you of making this thread in bad faith. You however did personally antagonize me. You claimed that I said things personally about you that I didn’t. If am talking to you specifically I’ll let you know. I will apologize because I could have said “Some People” to further the generalization, or “use these threads” to separate the original author from the echo chamber promoters. Also I’ll note a thread isn’t built by any one person (except the guy who has multiple accounts and replies to themself). It’s built by the multitude of repliers. You didn’t build this thread, you started it. You laid the cornerstone. I pointed out that it was a little crooked. Also since discussing another person’s logic is a forum no no, your title kind of puts us in a bad building zone. I’m actually shocked more post haven’t been struck. I’m sure it’s a key word bot that got me a MyDudeicus. As for the stuck posts, 1st MyDudeicus explained to how others may have perceived my stance and why there was so much push back, and I replied how I perceived their post. It was just us explaining our reasoning and pov. To me both post were far more friendly and acceptable than some of the other post on this thread. I won’t say more because it may trigger this post to get struck.
Ain, fine, thank you for the explanation. I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your meaning, how I read it seemed more personal than general, and thank you for both explaining yourself and realizing that your wording could have been clearer to avoid misinterpretation.
I just caught up on the post and no one is saying anything new. No new info is being presented at this point. A true impasse has been reached.
The book says Warlocks studies and researches so some believe that’s enough to merit their casting stat being Int based on lore.
The book also says Bards can be scholars, but they cast with Charisma and Clerics may learn formulaic magic and rites, but cast with intuition of their God’s desires, so they cast with Wisdom. This has some believing that means Warlock is fine learning and studying occult, but casting with Charisma much like the Bard. There is no direct correlation of casting stat and how you learn you spells according to the book.
With no new information it will be impossible to convince someone from one camp to cross into the other camp. I’m sure the debate will continue as new people jump in, but the reality is it is out of our hands now anyway. Warlock will get no more playtest. I suppose you could write in your view on the next survey under “anything else you would like to add,” at the end of the survey.
The book says Warlocks studies and researches so some believe that’s enough to merit their casting stat being Int based on lore.
The book also says Bards can be scholars, but they cast with Charisma and Clerics may learn formulaic magic and rites, but cast with intuition of their God’s desires, so they cast with Wisdom. This has some believing that means Warlock is fine learning and studying occult, but casting with Charisma much like the Bard. There is no direct correlation of casting stat and how you learn you spells according to the book.
That's not all people have said though, and I find it hard to believe you aren't fully aware of that. Yet you're posting the same tired points just so you can complain nothing's changed… by not changing anything yourself?
It shouldn't need to be said again, yet here we go; Bards differ from Warlocks because the Bard class description clearly states how they actually cast magic (through music and verse), not just how they gain access to it. The same is true of Cleric and Druid for Wisdom (channelling), Sorcerers for Charisma (innate), Wizards for Intelligence (memorised formulae) etc. But the Warlock class description doesn't tell us how Warlocks cast magic, only how they learn it, which is what leaves it open to other casting scores already. Warlock is the class that gained a choice of score in a recent playtest, hence the discussion in the first place.
It's not the only class that is vague about the actual casting element, because Paladins are much the same; we know they get their magic somehow from an oath, but not how they actually cast it. It's similar, but it also has very close ties with Cleric, as we know they both channel divine power, so there must be some external entity or force involved even if they're not aware of it, as that must also be responsible for the terms and tenets of the oath. But that then begs the question of why not Wisdom; the answer seems to be "because we already have a Wisdom half-caster in Ranger who fits it better".
But none of that really matters; it doesn't matter what another classes' spellcasting is, the thread and poll are about what's logical or preferred for a Warlock. If you wanted to talk separately about Paladins, that too would belong in its own thread, or a more general thread about all classes.
That statement was in reply to someone who told me to go make my own thread to post my ideas. As if my ideas aren’t welcome on this thread.
The thread asked what you think a Warlock's spellcasting ability should be, not every other class; saying you'd prefer more choice on other casters as well is a fine thing to say alongside an opinion on Warlock specifically, but what you were doing was constantly trying to drag the thread back onto a different discussion about all classes, and denouncing anyone who disagreed or asked you to stop.
It absolutely belongs in its own thread, because while mentioning the idea is one thing, making it the only topic of conversation for page after page and decrying people's disagreement with you as "nonsense" is another thing entirely. Especially when there's no need for the poll to accommodate a response of "I don't want to discuss Warlock on its own" because voting in the poll isn't mandatory, so you could either abstain (no vote) or vote Charisma (no change for Warlock only).
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.
Haravikk, you really love to argue. I’ve said my piece and moving on. You can keep repeating the same arguments expecting different results. We all have the same access to the books and can read the information there. It’s funny that you are also the one who made that misleading interpretation about the poll’s data.
Haravikk, you really love to argue. I’ve said my piece and moving on. You can keep repeating the same arguments expecting different results. We all have the same access to the books and can read the information there. It’s funny that you are also the one who made that misleading interpretation about the poll’s data.
If you're going to keep misrepresenting what people's arguments were then those people are going to keep challenging that.
Case in point, I've only mentioned the poll's data once in this entire thread, and only to say how many votes cast so far (at the time) were for options that included Intelligence, that's literally all I said. And that was in a reply to Yurei453 after they claimed people were insisting Warlocks should not be allowed to use Intelligence. I stated the polls figures to show how many responses included Intelligence. That's it.
Anything else you have read into that is entirely of your own invention, because I literally have only said literally what I said.
But since it'd be nice to actually talk about the poll itself for a change, what's interesting to me is that the proportion seems to have held pretty steady since then; IIRC there were about 30-40 votes at the time, now with 74 votes the proportion is still around 80% (79.7%) of results including Intelligence in any form (including INT only), or 60.8% for choices that include Intelligence as an option (INT/CHA or INT/WIS/CHA).
It seems notable that Wisdom is the least represented; the only results including Wisdom are Wisdom only (1.4%) or INT/WIS/CHA (23%), so the majority of respondents seem very much in favour of some combination including both Intelligence and Charisma. Other options including Wisdom (INT/WIS or CHA/WIS) don't seem to have any interest at all.
Also interesting is that Intelligence only (18.9%) leads Charisma only (14.9%) but it's hard to know what to make of that as people who either don't want Warlock to change, or don't really care, probably aren't voting in the poll in the first place so it seems likely that Charisma only could be higher. Not sure how you'd actually account for that though, as you'd think that people hanging around this sub-forum and interested in Warlock would at least give it a look, at which point it literally only takes two clicks to vote, so I would have thought CHA only might be higher if a lot of people wanted it to stay as-is.
Of course we're only dealing with a small sample, and of people hanging around the Unearthed Arcana sub forum specifically so it's probably not the most representative group of 74 votes, but it's still interesting.
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.
What is funny is for the invocations it is bestowed through research not through the entity granting you stuff willy nilly. You are using research to bestow these powers upon yourself. "In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed eldritch invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability."
Yeah the class description is a little self-contradictory, so the conclusion seems to be that some, but not all, invocations involve a permanent physical change, I guess? But that doesn't really help us since that's invocations, not spellcasting specifically. Some invocations absolutely crossover, i.e- those that grant extra spells, book of shadows etc. but still.
Boons meanwhile are probably things that the patron can take away, or at the very least is under no obligation to let you re-summon if you get your familiar killed, lose your tome down the back of the couch etc. so those are more "of the patron", even if the patron doesn't know you're summoning them for whatever reason (really unclear on how that works 😂).
But all we really know about how pact magic functions are the mechanics written into the feature. That doesn't help us much though because all that angle amounts to "it's Charisma because the rule says so" but since this thread is about what the rule should say, well it would just end up saying something else.
A majority of invocations are either granting spells that can be cast by the warlock or altering spells cast by the warlock. You're on pretty thin ice trying to argue that a thing that gives you ability to cast spells and modifies how you cast spells is completely and whole unrelated and separate from casting spells.
Your patron grants you the ability to cast spells via your Pact. That's why it is called "Pact Magic" and not "Spellcasting". No Pact == No Pact Magic.
Pact Magic
Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells. See Spells Rules for the general rules of spellcasting and the Spells Listing for the warlock spell list.
Sp Pact Magic comes from both your research and your patron, not just your patron and invocations comes entirely from your research.
In the 2014 lock what comes entirely from the patron is the pact boon & mystic arcanums. Invocations are pretty huge component are entirely research oriented pact magic is a split. Subclass features are inconsistent on their language of where they come form, but those I'd assume from the pact for the most part. And pacts don't imply a stat at all while research does. Sure you can be a dumb researcher, but it at least uses intelligence.
Arcane knowledge has nothing to do with casting spells, you can have a negative modifier to Arcana and still be a full caster, and likewise you can have expertise in Arcana and not be able to cast a single spell. Even a Wizard who casts with Int can have minimal arcane knowledge (untrained in Arcana). Pact Magic clearly states the "magic" is given to you by your patron.
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
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What is funny is for the invocations it is bestowed through research not through the entity granting you stuff willy nilly. You are using research to bestow these powers upon yourself. "In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed eldritch invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability."
Assuming stat consistency is or isn't important, shoehorning a class whose basis is eldritch research and study(which is a far more accurate description of the warlock than yours) into a pornomancer mold was and remains a bad idea.
And once again the debate returns to not only pretending the patron doesn’t exist, but strawmanning CHA.
it's a little difficult to imagine an INT class concept that's been passed over completely in 5e. psion has been 'shoehorned' into a few subclasses and spell-blade must be too similar to existing subclasses to merit dev attention. none of that is getting a new look until there's some "old things re-imagined" revival/renewal push to stay relevant which can't be for another four or five years, maybe ten. having said that, i'd be interested to know if you had a new INT class in mind.
alas, i think Artificer is the other INT class. which is frustrating on many levels...
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!
Yeah the class description is a little self-contradictory, so the conclusion seems to be that some, but not all, invocations involve a permanent physical change, I guess? But that doesn't really help us since that's invocations, not spellcasting specifically. Some invocations absolutely crossover, i.e- those that grant extra spells, book of shadows etc. but still.
Boons meanwhile are probably things that the patron can take away, or at the very least is under no obligation to let you re-summon if you get your familiar killed, lose your tome down the back of the couch etc. so those are more "of the patron", even if the patron doesn't know you're summoning them for whatever reason (really unclear on how that works 😂).
But all we really know about how pact magic functions are the mechanics written into the feature. That doesn't help us much though because all that angle amounts to "it's Charisma because the rule says so" but since this thread is about what the rule should say, well it would just end up saying something else.
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.
Horrors from the deep, horrors from the stars, horrors from the hells. Masters of elements, masters of inscrutability, masters of light, masters of death. Countless different entities, as old as ages or even older, and all you need to have to understand the ancient, esoteric secrets that they can grant you is a bit of rizz. I dunno about that.
Not all pacts even include bargaining. Pacts can be made without one of the parties even knowing about it. When did you fit in the negotiations with Cthulhu before you completed the ritual to steal his knowledge and power? Somewhere between the ritual sacrifice and the chanting?
Also, something that I'd like to point out is that contact other plane, which I see as the spell version of Warlock because its sole purpose is reaching out to an ancient, extraplanar entity for esoteric knowledge, uses an Intelligence saving throw. Not a Charisma saving throw.
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)
I was using “bargain” loosely, for one, and for another your chant might very well constitute an offer to whoever you’re beseeching. It’s a rather common theme in these stories for someone to make an innocuous comment or reply to one only for the other side to declare something along the lines of “and so our bargain is made”. And regarding Contact Outer Planes, most spells that involve psychic damage require an INT save to check if or how badly you blow some mental breakers, so you’re really reaching to use that as proof of anything more than the association between the damage and the save.
A majority of invocations are either granting spells that can be cast by the warlock or altering spells cast by the warlock. You're on pretty thin ice trying to argue that a thing that gives you ability to cast spells and modifies how you cast spells is completely and whole unrelated and separate from casting spells.
Your patron grants you the ability to cast spells via your Pact. That's why it is called "Pact Magic" and not "Spellcasting". No Pact == No Pact Magic.
I don't see how you could have been using bargain "loosely." The loosest definition you could use without outright using the word incorrectly is an agreement between two parties. If one party doesn't even know about the pact, how is it possible for it to be a bargain? How is it possible for Charisma to have any influence in the outcome of the pact? The chant doesn't have to constitute an offer to whoever you're beseeching, because it doesn't have to beseech anybody. You can tap right into the patron's power and knowledge, without the patron even knowing. And if the whole deal is based off of an innocuous comment, how does Charisma tie into things? Does Charisma dictate how beneficial innocuous comments are to the person who says them? Contact other plane shows what stat is connected to esoteric extraplanar knowledge, in the same way that phantasmal force shows what stat is connected to illusion. The fact that psychic damage is involved seems irrelevant, since it doesn't really lessen the connection of either spell to their respective stats. Esoteric extraplanar knowledge is Intelligence. Esoteric extraplanar knowledge is not Charisma. That's all I'm saying.
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)
When you have an argument past just cause I will consider it a debate.
They're literally mentioned separately multiple times, meanwhile the invocations granting spells do so in ways that function very differently from your normal spellcasting, either at will or with additional limits.
But neither tell us how the casting actually works, plus they're invocations, i.e- something else.
Making the pact is what grants you the knowledge; I have literally said this multiple times with quotes and bells on. That tells us how Warlocks learn spells, it doesn't tell us how they cast them. I have literally never once claimed that making the pact isn't involved, that's a straw-man.
We know how Bards, Clerics, Sorcerers etc. cast their spells, as their class descriptions tell us; but the Warlock class description doesn't do that.
Which once again, is my entire ******* point. Not that I'm going to hold my breath over your ever acknowledging that, since you've pointedly ignored it every other time myself and others have raised it, which is why this will never go anywhere.
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.
Pact Magic
Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells. See Spells Rules for the general rules of spellcasting and the Spells Listing for the warlock spell list.
Sp Pact Magic comes from both your research and your patron, not just your patron and invocations comes entirely from your research.
In the 2014 lock what comes entirely from the patron is the pact boon & mystic arcanums. Invocations are pretty huge component are entirely research oriented pact magic is a split. Subclass features are inconsistent on their language of where they come form, but those I'd assume from the pact for the most part. And pacts don't imply a stat at all while research does. Sure you can be a dumb researcher, but it at least uses intelligence.
That statement was in reply to someone who told me to go make my own thread to post my ideas. As if my ideas aren’t welcome on this thread. Hmmm sounds like they were trying to promote an echo chamber to me. Considering I am also people and I have started threads I must have meant myself in that generalization as well. Nope, I didn’t. If you want to take the generalization personal that’s your choice. If they shoe fits, wear it. But I never accused you of making this thread in bad faith. You however did personally antagonize me. You claimed that I said things personally about you that I didn’t. If am talking to you specifically I’ll let you know. I will apologize because I could have said “Some People” to further the generalization, or “use these threads” to separate the original author from the echo chamber promoters. Also I’ll note a thread isn’t built by any one person (except the guy who has multiple accounts and replies to themself). It’s built by the multitude of repliers. You didn’t build this thread, you started it. You laid the cornerstone. I pointed out that it was a little crooked. Also since discussing another person’s logic is a forum no no, your title kind of puts us in a bad building zone. I’m actually shocked more post haven’t been struck. I’m sure it’s a key word bot that got me a MyDudeicus.
As for the stuck posts, 1st MyDudeicus explained to how others may have perceived my stance and why there was so much push back, and I replied how I perceived their post. It was just us explaining our reasoning and pov. To me both post were far more friendly and acceptable than some of the other post on this thread. I won’t say more because it may trigger this post to get struck.
Ain, fine, thank you for the explanation. I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your meaning, how I read it seemed more personal than general, and thank you for both explaining yourself and realizing that your wording could have been clearer to avoid misinterpretation.
I just caught up on the post and no one is saying anything new. No new info is being presented at this point. A true impasse has been reached.
The book says Warlocks studies and researches so some believe that’s enough to merit their casting stat being Int based on lore.
The book also says Bards can be scholars, but they cast with Charisma and Clerics may learn formulaic magic and rites, but cast with intuition of their God’s desires, so they cast with Wisdom. This has some believing that means Warlock is fine learning and studying occult, but casting with Charisma much like the Bard. There is no direct correlation of casting stat and how you learn you spells according to the book.
With no new information it will be impossible to convince someone from one camp to cross into the other camp. I’m sure the debate will continue as new people jump in, but the reality is it is out of our hands now anyway. Warlock will get no more playtest. I suppose you could write in your view on the next survey under “anything else you would like to add,” at the end of the survey.
That's not all people have said though, and I find it hard to believe you aren't fully aware of that. Yet you're posting the same tired points just so you can complain nothing's changed… by not changing anything yourself?
It shouldn't need to be said again, yet here we go; Bards differ from Warlocks because the Bard class description clearly states how they actually cast magic (through music and verse), not just how they gain access to it. The same is true of Cleric and Druid for Wisdom (channelling), Sorcerers for Charisma (innate), Wizards for Intelligence (memorised formulae) etc. But the Warlock class description doesn't tell us how Warlocks cast magic, only how they learn it, which is what leaves it open to other casting scores already. Warlock is the class that gained a choice of score in a recent playtest, hence the discussion in the first place.
It's not the only class that is vague about the actual casting element, because Paladins are much the same; we know they get their magic somehow from an oath, but not how they actually cast it. It's similar, but it also has very close ties with Cleric, as we know they both channel divine power, so there must be some external entity or force involved even if they're not aware of it, as that must also be responsible for the terms and tenets of the oath. But that then begs the question of why not Wisdom; the answer seems to be "because we already have a Wisdom half-caster in Ranger who fits it better".
But none of that really matters; it doesn't matter what another classes' spellcasting is, the thread and poll are about what's logical or preferred for a Warlock. If you wanted to talk separately about Paladins, that too would belong in its own thread, or a more general thread about all classes.
The thread asked what you think a Warlock's spellcasting ability should be, not every other class; saying you'd prefer more choice on other casters as well is a fine thing to say alongside an opinion on Warlock specifically, but what you were doing was constantly trying to drag the thread back onto a different discussion about all classes, and denouncing anyone who disagreed or asked you to stop.
It absolutely belongs in its own thread, because while mentioning the idea is one thing, making it the only topic of conversation for page after page and decrying people's disagreement with you as "nonsense" is another thing entirely. Especially when there's no need for the poll to accommodate a response of "I don't want to discuss Warlock on its own" because voting in the poll isn't mandatory, so you could either abstain (no vote) or vote Charisma (no change for Warlock only).
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.
Haravikk, you really love to argue. I’ve said my piece and moving on. You can keep repeating the same arguments expecting different results. We all have the same access to the books and can read the information there. It’s funny that you are also the one who made that misleading interpretation about the poll’s data.
If you're going to keep misrepresenting what people's arguments were then those people are going to keep challenging that.
Case in point, I've only mentioned the poll's data once in this entire thread, and only to say how many votes cast so far (at the time) were for options that included Intelligence, that's literally all I said. And that was in a reply to Yurei453 after they claimed people were insisting Warlocks should not be allowed to use Intelligence. I stated the polls figures to show how many responses included Intelligence. That's it.
Anything else you have read into that is entirely of your own invention, because I literally have only said literally what I said.
But since it'd be nice to actually talk about the poll itself for a change, what's interesting to me is that the proportion seems to have held pretty steady since then; IIRC there were about 30-40 votes at the time, now with 74 votes the proportion is still around 80% (79.7%) of results including Intelligence in any form (including INT only), or 60.8% for choices that include Intelligence as an option (INT/CHA or INT/WIS/CHA).
It seems notable that Wisdom is the least represented; the only results including Wisdom are Wisdom only (1.4%) or INT/WIS/CHA (23%), so the majority of respondents seem very much in favour of some combination including both Intelligence and Charisma. Other options including Wisdom (INT/WIS or CHA/WIS) don't seem to have any interest at all.
Also interesting is that Intelligence only (18.9%) leads Charisma only (14.9%) but it's hard to know what to make of that as people who either don't want Warlock to change, or don't really care, probably aren't voting in the poll in the first place so it seems likely that Charisma only could be higher. Not sure how you'd actually account for that though, as you'd think that people hanging around this sub-forum and interested in Warlock would at least give it a look, at which point it literally only takes two clicks to vote, so I would have thought CHA only might be higher if a lot of people wanted it to stay as-is.
Of course we're only dealing with a small sample, and of people hanging around the Unearthed Arcana sub forum specifically so it's probably not the most representative group of 74 votes, but it's still interesting.
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.
Arcane knowledge has nothing to do with casting spells, you can have a negative modifier to Arcana and still be a full caster, and likewise you can have expertise in Arcana and not be able to cast a single spell. Even a Wizard who casts with Int can have minimal arcane knowledge (untrained in Arcana). Pact Magic clearly states the "magic" is given to you by your patron.
Intelligence exclusively.
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