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.
1.) Arcane knowledge has plenty to do with casting spells...if you use Intelligence as a casting ability.
2.) Intelligence as the warlock's casting ability could as easily represent the warlock's ability to cleverly and thoroughly grasp the secrets they're being told - because remember, the patron is not a battery the warlock is tapping, they're a teacher the warlock is employing - and thus allowing them to use their newfound secrets more effectively.
(Unrelated) 3.) People keep saying "why not just make another Intelligence-based class, if Intelligence being restricted solely to Wizard Shit is such a problem?" Here's the answer: if the class isn't in the PHB, it doesn't ******* exist. The artificer taught us that in spades - post-PHB classes don't ******* exist. They get NO support in any other books, they get NO further development, they get NOTHING. They exist in one single book and that's it, abandoned and left to rot, because Wizards isn't allowed to assume someone owns any book save the Core Three. So any post-PHB class would have to be reprinted in its entirety in every single book it's in, and Wizards is never going to tolerate that.
The structure of 5e is a spoked wheel - you have the Core Three at the center, and a bunch of spokes radiating out from it (supplementary books) that are NEVER allowed to touch or interact. That makes all the supplementary books The Most Accessible since it's how you keep the bar to purchase as low as you reasonably can, but it also means each supplementary book is effectively an orphan project that will never be built or expanded on. That's mostly fine for species or subclasses or other little packets of dev work designed to slot into a larger whole. It is distinctly not fine for an entire-ass PC class. Again, longtime artificer player here - I'm not talking out my ass on this one.
So no, "just make INT-based classes after the PHB, foreheads!" is not a solution. It has never been a solution, and it will never be a solution. Any measure Wizards introduced to try and lessen the difficulty of supporting non-PHB classes post release was struck down by all you howling monkeys, so we can basically assume non-PHB classes do not and never will exist.
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.
For a person who keeps accusing others of cherry picking holy cherry pick batman. It literally says your ARCANE RESEARCH & the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells. So the arcana skill might not give you spell casting capability but for the warlock their ARCANE RESEARCH at least in part did. So unlike team charisma we have a literal section in the rules that would indicate intelligence is more appropriate as ARCANE RESEARCH is intelligence based and that in part gave them access to spells, and getting crap from a patron is stat neutral.
I don't think classes outside of the PHB are useless in terms of making Intelligence more relevant, but I absolutely agree that they don't do much in that area. A) Classes in other core rulebooks are introduced way later, so they aren't much of an option for a good chunk of when One D&D would be out. Additionally, Artificers were only 1% of "Active characters" on the database in 2020, per THIS data. So, even after they are introduced, they'll only be played a fraction as much as the regular classes. Because not only are they not in the Basic Rules, but they're completely hidden and blocked behind another paywall because you have to by Tasha's.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
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.
While it's true that the Arcana skill isn't a requirement, or of specific benefit, to spellcasting, I wouldn't say arcane knowledge has no bearing, as once again knowledge isn't something that requires any particular skill or ability score. Characters can have a low Intelligence score and still know things that they've encountered during a campaign, or that are part of their backstory. It's entirely possible to play an INT 6 Barbarian knuckle-dragger who actually had a good education, or has specific knowledge about tribes in the northern foothills or whatever.
Your DM shouldn't (or at least doesn't need to) ask you to make rolls for things your character should already know, but you might use Arcana, History, Nature etc. to see if they recall additional information. For example, a Wizard may never have personally experienced the effects of wild magic on a natural environment, but they might have read about it, or they might be able to work out from what they observe that that could be one of the possible causes, and you'd probably use an Arcana check for that.
Being Intelligence based allows Wizards to be better at those kinds of checks, but casters with other spellcasting abilities can still be pretty good at them too if they want to be, as proficiency or expertise are still pretty big boosts to these checks. Arcane knowledge isn't unique to Artificers/Wizards, regardless of spellcasting ability. But nor is arcane knowledge necessarily a part of how a character gains spells; however the Warlock class description specifically talks about gaining arcane knowledge, eldritch secrets etc., and clearly that's a part of how they learn their spells, it just isn't critical to how they cast them.
Even if we do get a choice of casting scores on the final OneD&D Warlock, you can still choose not to take Arcana; that doesn't mean you have no arcane knowledge, it just means you're less likely to have arcane knowledge beyond what you actually use (i.e- the spells that you know). Any caster that knows the fireball spell should be able to recognise that another has cast that same spell; you might still ask for a check in the moment (e.g- if they don't know if they want to counterspell it) but once the spell has taken effect you should be in no doubt if it's a spell you know.
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.
Someone in another thread proposed making all the mental stats a requirement for casting and I think that I kind of like that idea after reading a lot of this discussion. I can't remember their exact reasoning but it was something like 'intelligence for total spells known, wisdom for how many spell slots, and charisma for level of casting' or something in that general area. Since everyone seems to have a different idea on what a warlock should use, why not use them all?
Someone in another thread proposed making all the mental stats a requirement for casting and I think that I kind of like that idea after reading a lot of this discussion. I can't remember their exact reasoning but it was something like 'intelligence for total spells known, wisdom for how many spell slots, and charisma for level of casting' or something in that general area. Since everyone seems to have a different idea on what a warlock should use, why not use them all?
so, like...?
before: spell DC = 8 + PB + CHA
after: spell DC = PB + CHA + INT + WIS
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!
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.
1.) Arcane knowledge has plenty to do with casting spells...if you use Intelligence as a casting ability.
No it doesn't. A Wizard has no more need of proficiency in Arcana than a Bard or Sorcerer. Both the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster use Intelligence as their spellcasting ability and both can function just fine with a +2 modifier to their Arcana skill for the entirety of a campaign. Innate intelligence is not the same as arcane knowledge, a person can have the highest intelligence in the world but not know whether a racoon is a rodent or not if they haven't learned that knowledge.
Someone in another thread proposed making all the mental stats a requirement for casting and I think that I kind of like that idea after reading a lot of this discussion. I can't remember their exact reasoning but it was something like 'intelligence for total spells known, wisdom for how many spell slots, and charisma for level of casting' or something in that general area. Since everyone seems to have a different idea on what a warlock should use, why not use them all?
so, like...?
before: spell DC = 8 + PB + CHA
after: spell DC = PB + CHA + INT + WIS
I am not exactly sure. I would almost want to go find the post again if it would not be such a laborious journey to do so. Or maybe one of the game designers here in this thread can make it work. Maybe the DCs were set by Charisma and the other mental stats contribute to other aspects of magicwork...
I am not exactly sure. I would almost want to go find the post again if it would not be such a laborious journey to do so. Or maybe one of the game designers here in this thread can make it work. Maybe the DCs were set by Charisma and the other mental stats contribute to other aspects of magicwork...
I think I was the one that brought it up in the other Warlock thread, but it was originally raised somewhere else so I don't really remember the specific proposal. I think it was something like Intelligence for spells known/prepared, Wisdom for concentration and Charisma for spellcasting modifier (spell attack and save DC), Charisma and Wisdom might have been the other way around. There's also probably some tweaking needed to make them equally worthwhile (e.g- boosting INT probably needs to be more than just one extra spell).
This would remove Constitution as a secondary score for spellcasters, and make casters in generally more multi-ability score dependent. A blaster for example would want to prioritise spellcasting modifier and concentration saves, a support caster might go for spells known/prepared plus concentration and so-on. It would also make Dexterity more of a choice; currently we have a lot of very dextrous Sorcerers, Warlocks and Wizards because when you only have one spellcasting ability score it's pretty easy to invest in Dexterity for defence, initiative etc., but for a spell-focused full caster at least it would be tempting to get all three mental scores as high as possible.
Would probably also balance half and third casters quite well as they're generally quite strong (slapping casting onto an already good martial generally just makes them better martials); you'd still be able to build them in much the same way, but there'd be more of a trade-off to be both solid martial and solid caster (at least in more than one area of casting). It could also be interesting if the specific abilities of the scores differed by spell list (if they were to bring back Arcane/Divine/Primal that is) but maybe that's just more complicated than it needs to be?
But as with discussion on all casters getting access to a choice of scores this feels very much like something that should be spun off into its own thread, because it's not really about Warlock specifically. If anyone wants to start a topic on major changes to casting, I'd be happy to discuss further, or I can make one but I don't really want to take credit for the idea as it wasn't mine and I've forgotten where I read it (sorry to whoever first posted 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.
part of the problem in my opinion is DM created. All of the tables I have played at, perception (wis) rolls are often used where imo, investigation (int) would be more appropriate. of course, that doesn't address the fact that Wiz is the only primary int class, but actually using int skills regularly, particularly for finding loot, would make players a little less open to straight dumping their int score.
As for Artificer, it's a class I would play if it were not about crafting. I like the base, and I like the spell selection, but I have no interest in the steampunk aspect that goes with nearly every subclass. I am certain I am not the only one who pinches their nose at it for that reason. I'd go so far as to say I don't want to play in a campaign with steampunk or magitech. It's not wrong/bad fun, but it's certainly not for me and may as well not exist.
That said, I don't think there's a solution or argument out there that can be made to convince much of anyone. The lines are drawn. The arguments have been made. The arguments for charisma, in my personal opinion are completely lacking and make little to no sense. What is fact, is that in the original 5e playtest, Warlocks were an INT based class. Playtesters complained because they were used to Charisma. 4e warlocks I /know/ used charisma. I don't know 3e warlocks well enough to know what the liked for their stat priority. I haven't touched or looked at 3e classes/rules for over 20 years. So, in the beginning of 5e the /intent/ was for warlocks to be an int caster. As far as I know, charisma was a sacrifice to 4e warlock players (of which I was one) and it never should have happened. it should be (but won't be) corrected. Intelligence just makes sense, and charisma not only doesn't, it makes warlock dipping too attractive. Or it would, if you couldn't get nearly everything you want out of a warlock dip by taking the invocations at level 1 to get the same thing.
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.
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.
While it's true that the Arcana skill isn't a requirement, or of specific benefit, to spellcasting, I wouldn't say arcane knowledge has no bearing, as once again knowledge isn't something that requires any particular skill or ability score. Characters can have a low Intelligence score and still know things that they've encountered during a campaign, or that are part of their backstory. It's entirely possible to play an INT 6 Barbarian knuckle-dragger who actually had a good education, or has specific knowledge about tribes in the northern foothills or whatever.
While intelligence isn't a requirement it is what makes you better at it. A 20 int wizard trained in it will be better at arcana than a 8 intelligence barbarian trained in it. Unless there is some punch your way to arcana subclass coming out. Similarly if pacts said something like your wheeling and dealing nature allows you to persuade a being for magical power charisma would be tied to that. But that isn't there. The nature of pacts is never described like that. So we have no idea if charisma would help in any way. We do know that while you don't need to be smart to research and study, just like you don't need to be strong to climb something. But it does help, you are a better researcher, you are better at studying, you are better at climbing if the appropriate stat is high.
While intelligence isn't a requirement it is what makes you better at it. A 20 int wizard trained in it will be better at arcana than a 8 intelligence barbarian trained in it.
The point was more that the Arcana skill itself has no bearing on spellcasting performance; sure the Wizard has an edge on that skill since Intelligence is more of a priority for them, so assuming all else is equal they will always have the bigger modifier for that skill. But they could also just as easily not take proficiency in it while for whatever reason the Barbarian does (via background or a feat), in which case the Barbarian can actually equal or beat them on the modifier, or exceed it if they gain Expertise (e.g- via Skill Expert).
However none of that will impair the Wizard's spellcasting; a Wizard without the Arcana skill still has arcane knowledge pertaining to their known spells, school of focus etc., they're just less likely to recall information outside of those areas, or be less able to piece together clues about unknown magic or whatever else your DM uses Arcana checks for.
Similarly if pacts said something like your wheeling and dealing nature allows you to persuade a being for magical power charisma would be tied to that. But that isn't there. The nature of pacts is never described like that. So we have no idea if charisma would help in any way.
Oh I completely agree on that, Warlock's actual casting method is not well defined, certainly not in a way that implies any one ability score. If they were clearly acting as conduits for their patrons as some have suggested for example, then they would surely be Wisdom casters, since that'd be consistent with Clerics. Warlocks clearly learn the spells through some form of arcane knowledge via their pacts, likewise regardless of how good their Arcana skill is, but we don't really know how that ties into how they actually cast them.
That's why I support the choice of any score, or at least INT/CHA (since we already have several WIS casters as well), as I think it could go either way, and it's easy to flavour them as one or the other. I'd probably even settle for INT only to be honest but that'd be purely for score balance (since we only have one INT class heading for the OneD&D PHB if WotC stick with their absurd policy of Artificer remaining a second class citizen that we'll be asked to pay for then immediately forget about again. Not that that position annoys me or anything… 😂)
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1.) Arcane knowledge has plenty to do with casting spells...if you use Intelligence as a casting ability.
2.) Intelligence as the warlock's casting ability could as easily represent the warlock's ability to cleverly and thoroughly grasp the secrets they're being told - because remember, the patron is not a battery the warlock is tapping, they're a teacher the warlock is employing - and thus allowing them to use their newfound secrets more effectively.
(Unrelated) 3.) People keep saying "why not just make another Intelligence-based class, if Intelligence being restricted solely to Wizard Shit is such a problem?" Here's the answer: if the class isn't in the PHB, it doesn't ******* exist. The artificer taught us that in spades - post-PHB classes don't ******* exist. They get NO support in any other books, they get NO further development, they get NOTHING. They exist in one single book and that's it, abandoned and left to rot, because Wizards isn't allowed to assume someone owns any book save the Core Three. So any post-PHB class would have to be reprinted in its entirety in every single book it's in, and Wizards is never going to tolerate that.
The structure of 5e is a spoked wheel - you have the Core Three at the center, and a bunch of spokes radiating out from it (supplementary books) that are NEVER allowed to touch or interact. That makes all the supplementary books The Most Accessible since it's how you keep the bar to purchase as low as you reasonably can, but it also means each supplementary book is effectively an orphan project that will never be built or expanded on. That's mostly fine for species or subclasses or other little packets of dev work designed to slot into a larger whole. It is distinctly not fine for an entire-ass PC class. Again, longtime artificer player here - I'm not talking out my ass on this one.
So no, "just make INT-based classes after the PHB, foreheads!" is not a solution. It has never been a solution, and it will never be a solution. Any measure Wizards introduced to try and lessen the difficulty of supporting non-PHB classes post release was struck down by all you howling monkeys, so we can basically assume non-PHB classes do not and never will exist.
Thanks so much for that.
Please do not contact or message me.
For a person who keeps accusing others of cherry picking holy cherry pick batman. It literally says your ARCANE RESEARCH & the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells. So the arcana skill might not give you spell casting capability but for the warlock their ARCANE RESEARCH at least in part did. So unlike team charisma we have a literal section in the rules that would indicate intelligence is more appropriate as ARCANE RESEARCH is intelligence based and that in part gave them access to spells, and getting crap from a patron is stat neutral.
@Yurei1453
I don't think classes outside of the PHB are useless in terms of making Intelligence more relevant, but I absolutely agree that they don't do much in that area. A) Classes in other core rulebooks are introduced way later, so they aren't much of an option for a good chunk of when One D&D would be out. Additionally, Artificers were only 1% of "Active characters" on the database in 2020, per THIS data. So, even after they are introduced, they'll only be played a fraction as much as the regular classes. Because not only are they not in the Basic Rules, but they're completely hidden and blocked behind another paywall because you have to by Tasha's.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.While it's true that the Arcana skill isn't a requirement, or of specific benefit, to spellcasting, I wouldn't say arcane knowledge has no bearing, as once again knowledge isn't something that requires any particular skill or ability score. Characters can have a low Intelligence score and still know things that they've encountered during a campaign, or that are part of their backstory. It's entirely possible to play an INT 6 Barbarian knuckle-dragger who actually had a good education, or has specific knowledge about tribes in the northern foothills or whatever.
Your DM shouldn't (or at least doesn't need to) ask you to make rolls for things your character should already know, but you might use Arcana, History, Nature etc. to see if they recall additional information. For example, a Wizard may never have personally experienced the effects of wild magic on a natural environment, but they might have read about it, or they might be able to work out from what they observe that that could be one of the possible causes, and you'd probably use an Arcana check for that.
Being Intelligence based allows Wizards to be better at those kinds of checks, but casters with other spellcasting abilities can still be pretty good at them too if they want to be, as proficiency or expertise are still pretty big boosts to these checks. Arcane knowledge isn't unique to Artificers/Wizards, regardless of spellcasting ability. But nor is arcane knowledge necessarily a part of how a character gains spells; however the Warlock class description specifically talks about gaining arcane knowledge, eldritch secrets etc., and clearly that's a part of how they learn their spells, it just isn't critical to how they cast them.
Even if we do get a choice of casting scores on the final OneD&D Warlock, you can still choose not to take Arcana; that doesn't mean you have no arcane knowledge, it just means you're less likely to have arcane knowledge beyond what you actually use (i.e- the spells that you know). Any caster that knows the fireball spell should be able to recognise that another has cast that same spell; you might still ask for a check in the moment (e.g- if they don't know if they want to counterspell it) but once the spell has taken effect you should be in no doubt if it's a spell you know.
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.
Someone in another thread proposed making all the mental stats a requirement for casting and I think that I kind of like that idea after reading a lot of this discussion. I can't remember their exact reasoning but it was something like 'intelligence for total spells known, wisdom for how many spell slots, and charisma for level of casting' or something in that general area. Since everyone seems to have a different idea on what a warlock should use, why not use them all?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
so, like...?
before: spell DC = 8 + PB + CHA
after: spell DC = PB + CHA + INT + WIS
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!
No it doesn't. A Wizard has no more need of proficiency in Arcana than a Bard or Sorcerer. Both the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster use Intelligence as their spellcasting ability and both can function just fine with a +2 modifier to their Arcana skill for the entirety of a campaign. Innate intelligence is not the same as arcane knowledge, a person can have the highest intelligence in the world but not know whether a racoon is a rodent or not if they haven't learned that knowledge.
I am not exactly sure. I would almost want to go find the post again if it would not be such a laborious journey to do so. Or maybe one of the game designers here in this thread can make it work. Maybe the DCs were set by Charisma and the other mental stats contribute to other aspects of magicwork...
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I think I was the one that brought it up in the other Warlock thread, but it was originally raised somewhere else so I don't really remember the specific proposal. I think it was something like Intelligence for spells known/prepared, Wisdom for concentration and Charisma for spellcasting modifier (spell attack and save DC), Charisma and Wisdom might have been the other way around. There's also probably some tweaking needed to make them equally worthwhile (e.g- boosting INT probably needs to be more than just one extra spell).
This would remove Constitution as a secondary score for spellcasters, and make casters in generally more multi-ability score dependent. A blaster for example would want to prioritise spellcasting modifier and concentration saves, a support caster might go for spells known/prepared plus concentration and so-on. It would also make Dexterity more of a choice; currently we have a lot of very dextrous Sorcerers, Warlocks and Wizards because when you only have one spellcasting ability score it's pretty easy to invest in Dexterity for defence, initiative etc., but for a spell-focused full caster at least it would be tempting to get all three mental scores as high as possible.
Would probably also balance half and third casters quite well as they're generally quite strong (slapping casting onto an already good martial generally just makes them better martials); you'd still be able to build them in much the same way, but there'd be more of a trade-off to be both solid martial and solid caster (at least in more than one area of casting). It could also be interesting if the specific abilities of the scores differed by spell list (if they were to bring back Arcane/Divine/Primal that is) but maybe that's just more complicated than it needs to be?
But as with discussion on all casters getting access to a choice of scores this feels very much like something that should be spun off into its own thread, because it's not really about Warlock specifically. If anyone wants to start a topic on major changes to casting, I'd be happy to discuss further, or I can make one but I don't really want to take credit for the idea as it wasn't mine and I've forgotten where I read it (sorry to whoever first posted 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.
part of the problem in my opinion is DM created. All of the tables I have played at, perception (wis) rolls are often used where imo, investigation (int) would be more appropriate. of course, that doesn't address the fact that Wiz is the only primary int class, but actually using int skills regularly, particularly for finding loot, would make players a little less open to straight dumping their int score.
As for Artificer, it's a class I would play if it were not about crafting. I like the base, and I like the spell selection, but I have no interest in the steampunk aspect that goes with nearly every subclass. I am certain I am not the only one who pinches their nose at it for that reason. I'd go so far as to say I don't want to play in a campaign with steampunk or magitech. It's not wrong/bad fun, but it's certainly not for me and may as well not exist.
That said, I don't think there's a solution or argument out there that can be made to convince much of anyone. The lines are drawn. The arguments have been made. The arguments for charisma, in my personal opinion are completely lacking and make little to no sense. What is fact, is that in the original 5e playtest, Warlocks were an INT based class. Playtesters complained because they were used to Charisma. 4e warlocks I /know/ used charisma. I don't know 3e warlocks well enough to know what the liked for their stat priority. I haven't touched or looked at 3e classes/rules for over 20 years. So, in the beginning of 5e the /intent/ was for warlocks to be an int caster. As far as I know, charisma was a sacrifice to 4e warlock players (of which I was one) and it never should have happened. it should be (but won't be) corrected. Intelligence just makes sense, and charisma not only doesn't, it makes warlock dipping too attractive. Or it would, if you couldn't get nearly everything you want out of a warlock dip by taking the invocations at level 1 to get the same thing.
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
While intelligence isn't a requirement it is what makes you better at it. A 20 int wizard trained in it will be better at arcana than a 8 intelligence barbarian trained in it. Unless there is some punch your way to arcana subclass coming out. Similarly if pacts said something like your wheeling and dealing nature allows you to persuade a being for magical power charisma would be tied to that. But that isn't there. The nature of pacts is never described like that. So we have no idea if charisma would help in any way. We do know that while you don't need to be smart to research and study, just like you don't need to be strong to climb something. But it does help, you are a better researcher, you are better at studying, you are better at climbing if the appropriate stat is high.
The point was more that the Arcana skill itself has no bearing on spellcasting performance; sure the Wizard has an edge on that skill since Intelligence is more of a priority for them, so assuming all else is equal they will always have the bigger modifier for that skill. But they could also just as easily not take proficiency in it while for whatever reason the Barbarian does (via background or a feat), in which case the Barbarian can actually equal or beat them on the modifier, or exceed it if they gain Expertise (e.g- via Skill Expert).
However none of that will impair the Wizard's spellcasting; a Wizard without the Arcana skill still has arcane knowledge pertaining to their known spells, school of focus etc., they're just less likely to recall information outside of those areas, or be less able to piece together clues about unknown magic or whatever else your DM uses Arcana checks for.
Oh I completely agree on that, Warlock's actual casting method is not well defined, certainly not in a way that implies any one ability score. If they were clearly acting as conduits for their patrons as some have suggested for example, then they would surely be Wisdom casters, since that'd be consistent with Clerics. Warlocks clearly learn the spells through some form of arcane knowledge via their pacts, likewise regardless of how good their Arcana skill is, but we don't really know how that ties into how they actually cast them.
That's why I support the choice of any score, or at least INT/CHA (since we already have several WIS casters as well), as I think it could go either way, and it's easy to flavour them as one or the other. I'd probably even settle for INT only to be honest but that'd be purely for score balance (since we only have one INT class heading for the OneD&D PHB if WotC stick with their absurd policy of Artificer remaining a second class citizen that we'll be asked to pay for then immediately forget about again. Not that that position annoys me or anything… 😂)
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.