As an aside to that I do think they should change concentration checks from a con save to a casting stat save and adjust the DCs up a bit. Take resilient con/start as a fighter etc are done too much on the optimization boards and when something like that is overdone I think they should look at remedying it in some way. Nerfing the combo or making it so its not necessary. An alternative would be to make it a Con check and not a save and maybe keeping the DCs as is if you want a small nerf on casters as the alternative to making it not necessary.
Why do optimization boards matter to at table play?
Optimizers find holes in a system, which is great but if they are found it makes sense to patch the hole.
A choice between all three gets my vote. It allows for the greatest range of warlock characters and explanations behind their power/pact and plays into the concept that anyone can make a pact with a powerful being to enhance their own abilities.
Fey Wanderer Ranger/Archfey Warlock (WIS): A ranger who gets lost in the Feywilds and is found by a powerful Archfey. The Archfey is willing to teach the ranger how to deepen their connection to the Feywild in exchange for the ranger policing the boundary between the two realms so that the evils of the Material world do not spill over into the Feywild.
Celestial Warlock (WIS): A person of faith who has, through committing acts of sin that go against their gods' principles, been cut off from their god. But they have been given a second chance by one of their former god's servants, a powerful celestial who is willing to be the ex-cleric's patron so long as they walk the path their god has in store for them in pursuit of redemption.
Great Old One Warlock (INT): A widely known crackpot conspiracy theorist who stumbled onto something very, very real. Through their studies, they've made contact with an elder thing in the Blind Eternities that has imprinted strange spells and unnatural powers upon their mind and body. They also now know that this Great Old One is coming this way. They must find a way to halt their patron's progress while silently siphoning power from the very thing they seek to stop.
Oath of Redemption Paladin/Fiend Warlock (CHA): A once holy knight who was seduced by a fiendish temptress into betraying everything they hold dear. Now the paladin must try to walk the path of redemption with the same devil that lured them off the path of righteousness whispering in their ear. But can they face the challenges ahead without leaning on the infernal powers of their patron?
As an aside to that I do think they should change concentration checks from a con save to a casting stat save and adjust the DCs up a bit. Take resilient con/start as a fighter etc are done too much on the optimization boards and when something like that is overdone I think they should look at remedying it in some way. Nerfing the combo or making it so its not necessary. An alternative would be to make it a Con check and not a save and maybe keeping the DCs as is if you want a small nerf on casters as the alternative to making it not necessary.
I strongly agree with this. It's a bit antithetical that spellcasters are so strongly incentivized to invest in CON so they can be better at casting spells.
Almost anyone looking to make as effective a caster as they can has to go 14 CON. This creates a weird situation where every wizard is also a marathon runner or a long-distance swimmer. I wanna be able to make a scrawny, barely able to walk up the steps without getting winded, wizard without killing my odds at maintaining concentration on my spells.
It'd also free spellcasters up to make more fun and interesting feats. Resilient CON / Warcaster gets pretty boring after your third or fourth caster.
I strongly agree with this. It's a bit antithetical that spellcasters are so strongly incentivized to invest in CON so they can be better at casting spells.
Not really, if CON is the body stat then it makes sense for resisting the effects of pain, which is essentially what concentration saves are for. These absolutely shouldn't be tied to the casting score or it only makes casters less score dependent, they need some weaknesses.
Some people have proposed casting should use all three mental scores, e.g- Intelligence for spells known/prepared, maybe you'd have Wisdom for save DC and spell attack, and could then use Charisma for concentration saving throws?
But really CON makes sense, and every character benefits from a few more hit-points. What I've always found a bit weird is that casters don't need Dexterity for aiming, but they still need to use gestures and such to cast spell attacks so it still seems relevant to me. While a lot of builds still want DEX for AC and initiative, ranged blasters can get by without it being too high.
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.
Not really, if CON is the body stat then it makes sense for resisting the effects of pain, which is essentially what concentration saves are for. These absolutely shouldn't be tied to the casting score or it only makes casters less score dependent, they need some weaknesses.
Some people have proposed casting should use all three mental scores, e.g- Intelligence for spells known/prepared, maybe you'd have Wisdom for save DC and spell attack, and could then use Charisma for concentration saving throws?
But really CON makes sense, and every character benefits from a few more hit-points. What I've always found a bit weird is that casters don't need Dexterity for aiming, but they still need to use gestures and such to cast spell attacks so it still seems relevant to me. While a lot of builds still want DEX for AC and initiative, ranged blasters can get by without it being too high.
That's just the thing, though. The big weakness of casters is supposed to be having low HP, but if every caster must invest in CON for Concentration it lessens the HP weakness. It also leads to samey, boring builds as every caster wants concentration-boosting feats or multiclasses. If you decouple Concentration from CON you'd have more varied builds in casters. Many will still want better CON for more HP and CON Saves, but now you might have a wizard with high DEX for AC and Initiative or a druid who invested in CHA so they can lead a squirrel revolution against the local lumber mill.
That said, I'd be very much in favor of shifting the responsibilities of skills around more. Especially for the casting stats as INT needs to be more valuable to more than just wizards. Though I'd probably have Concentration be WIS and Spell DC be CHA. The reasoning is that CHA is supposed to be your force of personality and ability to impose your will on others while WIS is described as your ability to hold on to your sense of self against outside forces. It also suits the classes more. The Druid and Ranger lists are pretty much defined by having tons of concentration spells and few attack spells, while your typical arcane caster like warlocks and sorcerers has a lot of stuff like Banishment and Polymorph. Meanwhile, Spell To Hit could be INT, justified by needing to triangulate the distance and force of the spell to ensure it hits. It's not the same as aiming an arrow or throwing a dagger, after all. You don't so much shoot a spell as you command the spell to go where you need it to go.
So it'd end up as: INT Casters are the best at pure blasting magic and have a variety of spells to choose from. WIS Casters are the best at casting and maintaining buff spells, summoning creatures, and manipulating the environment. CHA Casters are the best at ensnaring, charming, or transforming things.
Then you have specific class features key off a specific stat. So your Wizard still needs high INT, but now they can choose between being a pure blasty wizard only or branching out and investing a bit in WIS or CHA at the cost of having low CON and STR. Similarly, you might be a druid with high CHA who focuses on charm effects and controlling beasts, but they'd still need good WIS for their druid-specific mechanics.
I'd also probably shift some power from DEX while we're at it. Maybe split Initiative between DEX and WIS (agility and perception of incoming threats). That way casters wouldn't have as strong a need for high DEX to be able to get their spells off first. The less casters need martial attributes to do caster things the more martials excel at martial things compared to casters and the wider range of builds we see within the same class. Two wizards won't necessarily have the same attribute spread with this setup and will play differently because of it.
Not really, if CON is the body stat then it makes sense for resisting the effects of pain, which is essentially what concentration saves are for. These absolutely shouldn't be tied to the casting score or it only makes casters less score dependent, they need some weaknesses.
Some people have proposed casting should use all three mental scores, e.g- Intelligence for spells known/prepared, maybe you'd have Wisdom for save DC and spell attack, and could then use Charisma for concentration saving throws?
But really CON makes sense, and every character benefits from a few more hit-points. What I've always found a bit weird is that casters don't need Dexterity for aiming, but they still need to use gestures and such to cast spell attacks so it still seems relevant to me. While a lot of builds still want DEX for AC and initiative, ranged blasters can get by without it being too high.
That's just the thing, though. The big weakness of casters is supposed to be having low HP, but if every caster must invest in CON for Concentration it lessens the HP weakness. It also leads to samey, boring builds as every caster wants concentration-boosting feats or multiclasses. If you decouple Concentration from CON you'd have more varied builds in casters. Many will still want better CON for more HP and CON Saves, but now you might have a wizard with high DEX for AC and Initiative or a druid who invested in CHA so they can lead a squirrel revolution against the local lumber mill.
That said, I'd be very much in favor of shifting the responsibilities of skills around more. Especially for the casting stats as INT needs to be more valuable to more than just wizards. Though I'd probably have Concentration be WIS and Spell DC be CHA. The reasoning is that CHA is supposed to be your force of personality and ability to impose your will on others while WIS is described as your ability to hold on to your sense of self against outside forces. It also suits the classes more. The Druid and Ranger lists are pretty much defined by having tons of concentration spells and few attack spells, while your typical arcane caster like warlocks and sorcerers has a lot of stuff like Banishment and Polymorph. Meanwhile, Spell To Hit could be INT, justified by needing to triangulate the distance and force of the spell to ensure it hits. It's not the same as aiming an arrow or throwing a dagger, after all. You don't so much shoot a spell as you command the spell to go where you need it to go.
So it'd end up as: INT Casters are the best at pure blasting magic and have a variety of spells to choose from. WIS Casters are the best at casting and maintaining buff spells, summoning creatures, and manipulating the environment. CHA Casters are the best at ensnaring, charming, or transforming things.
Then you have specific class features key off a specific stat. So your Wizard still needs high INT, but now they can choose between being a pure blasty wizard only or branching out and investing a bit in WIS or CHA at the cost of having low CON and STR. Similarly, you might be a druid with high CHA who focuses on charm effects and controlling beasts, but they'd still need good WIS for their druid-specific mechanics.
I'd also probably shift some power from DEX while we're at it. Maybe split Initiative between DEX and WIS (agility and perception of incoming threats). That way casters wouldn't have as strong a need for high DEX to be able to get their spells off first. The less casters need martial attributes to do caster things the more martials excel at martial things compared to casters and the wider range of builds we see within the same class. Two wizards won't necessarily have the same attribute spread with this setup and will play differently because of it.
While this sounds like a good idea at first, I suspect it would just lead to even more similar builds among all casters. While concentration is important, it's clearly not the most relevant stat - otherwise we would see casters prioritizing CON over their casting stat. Furthermore, only a minority of spells involve attack rolls. So clearly, the ability that increases your save DC is the most relevant for almost all casters. The exception maybe being the warlock focusing on EB.
To sum it up: This would lead to most casters prioritizing CHA, probably with WIS secondary. On top, Warlocks would be kind of screwed because they have only so few spellslots that they defenitely want those few spells to stick, i.e., high concentration save and high spellsave DC required. On top, they heavily rely on EB, i.e., attack rolls...
The much more reasonable model to make casters more MAD and shift them away from going CON, DEX as secondary and tertiary is to assign each spell school to either CHA, INT or WIS. Although I still don't thik it's ideal: Once again warlocks relying so heavily on EB would always push them towards whatever stat is used for Evocation.
I strongly agree with this. It's a bit antithetical that spellcasters are so strongly incentivized to invest in CON so they can be better at casting spells.
Not really, if CON is the body stat then it makes sense for resisting the effects of pain, which is essentially what concentration saves are for. These absolutely shouldn't be tied to the casting score or it only makes casters less score dependent, they need some weaknesses.
To be honest, I think WotC should get rid of the "if you take damage you have to save vs concentration" because there are so, so, many ways to get buffs to that save and it comes up so often that it hugely incentivizes players to build their casters so they almost never fail these saves anyway. If a majority of players are trying to avoid a mechanic then maybe that mechanic shouldn't be in the game.
Concentration itself should stay in order to stop stacking tons of powerful spells at the same time, but only specific types of attacks or spells should break it.
To be honest, I think WotC should get rid of the "if you take damage you have to save vs concentration" because there are so, so, many ways to get buffs to that save and it comes up so often that it hugely incentivizes players to build their casters so they almost never fail these saves anyway. If a majority of players are trying to avoid a mechanic then maybe that mechanic shouldn't be in the game.
Concentration itself should stay in order to stop stacking tons of powerful spells at the same time, but only specific types of attacks or spells should break it.
While I agree that concentration saving throws are a pain, forcing them is a legitimate strategy for ending effects with a duration; for example, if someone casts heat metal on your armour, how do you get that to stop without fully incapacitating them? Dispel magic isn't a good alternative because that requires another caster.
There needs to be some middle-ground between no concentration saving throws at all, and spamming the saving throws to push someone to fail.
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.
If a majority of players are trying to avoid a mechanic then maybe that mechanic shouldn't be in the game.
I suppose that means we should get rid of damage, death, saving throws, and (for certain parties) combat.
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)
If a majority of players are trying to avoid a mechanic then maybe that mechanic shouldn't be in the game.
I suppose that means we should get rid of damage, death, saving throws, and (for certain parties) combat.
Death : yes, I mean they've practically gotten rid of it anyway with all the resurrection, healing, and stabilization options. Just have characters become incapacitated upon being reduced to 0 HP and be Dazed until the end of their next turn upon being healed from 0 HP. Death is unfun and unnecessary.
Damage : This could be an optional supplement. I think there are lots of players who don't mind taking damage - they are completely satisfied with mediocre AC, are happy to use Reckless Attack, and excited to run up into the face of the enemy rather than stay back and use ranged options. However, there are absolutely some tables where they hate taking damage and will go out of their way to avoid combat or make super complex builds to have massively high AC or make a party of ranged-only characters so they never need to risk taking damage, for them a game without damage would probably suit them better but I'm pretty confident they are a minority.
Saving Throws: Again I disagree that the majority of players make a significant effort to be good at saving throws because they want to avoid any chance of failing them in general. However, the exception here is probably Wisdom saving throws, as most effects that cripple a character are governed by Wis saves, and players don't like their character being crippled. Here again, I think we see enough mechanics being introduced to negate specifically fear & charm that it's worth considering whether those conditions should be in the game at all (at least in their current state). To be honest, I would support removal of "charm" and all the spells & effects that rely on "charm" because taking away a player's agency is often unfun and I've had many players get upset when they get mind-controlled and forced to help the bad guys.
To be honest, I think WotC should get rid of the "if you take damage you have to save vs concentration" because there are so, so, many ways to get buffs to that save and it comes up so often that it hugely incentivizes players to build their casters so they almost never fail these saves anyway. If a majority of players are trying to avoid a mechanic then maybe that mechanic shouldn't be in the game.
Concentration itself should stay in order to stop stacking tons of powerful spells at the same time, but only specific types of attacks or spells should break it.
While I agree that concentration saving throws are a pain, forcing them is a legitimate strategy for ending effects with a duration; for example, if someone casts heat metal on your armour, how do you get that to stop without fully incapacitating them? Dispel magic isn't a good alternative because that requires another caster.
There needs to be some middle-ground between no concentration saving throws at all, and spamming the saving throws to push someone to fail.
You can't that's the point, spells with a duration would last for that duration. If it is undesirable for a spell to last for it's current full duration then it's current full duration should be reduced until it is short enough that it isn't undesirable for the spell to last for its full duration. This would provide a ton of benefits:
1) speed up combat by eliminating the need to roll so many concentration saves.
2) avoid every caster having to build their characters to be good at concentration saves.
3) making it clear to players how long they should expect spells to last, rather than tricking them into thinking a spell will last a whole combat but they lose concentration after less than 1 round.
4) making it feasible for DMs to have enemies use concentration spells.
5) prevent both players & DMs from needing to focus-fire on casters to break their concentration.
IMO that would work with unified spell lists. Int (education, analytic ability) for arcane, Cha (conviction, faith) for divine, Wis (intuition, perceptiveness) for primal. Sorcerers and bards should be able to choose a spell list (because why not), sorcerers being universal fullcasters and bards universal half-casters.
I don't like the idea of stats being tied to spell lists. I've always liked the flavor of different classes gaining access to power in different ways. Whereas Clerics find power from connection to their deities, Paladins do so with pure confidence and commitment. Whereas Wizards study tirelessly and need to memorize large arcane formulas, Sorcerers simply need the talent to bend reality to their will. I really don't see the point in taking all of that away.
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)
Personally, for me, I like charisma. Warlocks bargained for their power. Warlocks do not need intelligence or wisdom to make a pact. In fact, it could be argued that some patrons would seek out those who lack both. That said, a patron that can grant incredible power to someone could also potentially make some other ability the focus of their power, such as intelligence. I don't really think that is a necessary improvement to warlocks though and if making warlocks flexible in which stat is their primary stat, why not do that for any class? A televangelist-like cleric needs not wisdom or intelligence, but they do need a strong stage presence.
... I just think I found my next PC.
"Get on up and stamp your feet for Beshaba!" ~(˘▾˘~)
Personally, for me, I like charisma. Warlocks bargained for their power. Warlocks do not need intelligence or wisdom to make a pact. In fact, it could be argued that some patrons would seek out those who lack both. That said, a patron that can grant incredible power to someone could also potentially make some other ability the focus of their power, such as intelligence. I don't really think that is a necessary improvement to warlocks though and if making warlocks flexible in which stat is their primary stat, why not do that for any class? A televangelist-like cleric needs not wisdom or intelligence, but they do need a strong stage presence.
... I just think I found my next PC.
"Get on up and stamp your feet for Beshaba!" ~(˘▾˘~)
Personally, for me, I like charisma. Warlocks bargained for their power. Warlocks do not need intelligence or wisdom to make a pact. In fact, it could be argued that some patrons would seek out those who lack both. That said, a patron that can grant incredible power to someone could also potentially make some other ability the focus of their power, such as intelligence. I don't really think that is a necessary improvement to warlocks though and if making warlocks flexible in which stat is their primary stat, why not do that for any class? A televangelist-like cleric needs not wisdom or intelligence, but they do need a strong stage presence.
... I just think I found my next PC.
"Get on up and stamp your feet for Beshaba!" ~(˘▾˘~)
You don't need charisma to make a pact either.
Yes, agreed, there are a great many people who have made a pact and gotten very little out of it. They make great antagonist NPCs. (˘ ˘ ˘)
To be honest, I think WotC should get rid of the "if you take damage you have to save vs concentration" because there are so, so, many ways to get buffs to that save and it comes up so often that it hugely incentivizes players to build their casters so they almost never fail these saves anyway. If a majority of players are trying to avoid a mechanic then maybe that mechanic shouldn't be in the game.
Concentration itself should stay in order to stop stacking tons of powerful spells at the same time, but only specific types of attacks or spells should break it.
While I agree that concentration saving throws are a pain, forcing them is a legitimate strategy for ending effects with a duration; for example, if someone casts heat metal on your armour, how do you get that to stop without fully incapacitating them? Dispel magic isn't a good alternative because that requires another caster.
There needs to be some middle-ground between no concentration saving throws at all, and spamming the saving throws to push someone to fail.
You can't that's the point, spells with a duration would last for that duration. If it is undesirable for a spell to last for it's current full duration then it's current full duration should be reduced until it is short enough that it isn't undesirable for the spell to last for its full duration. This would provide a ton of benefits:
1) speed up combat by eliminating the need to roll so many concentration saves.
2) avoid every caster having to build their characters to be good at concentration saves.
3) making it clear to players how long they should expect spells to last, rather than tricking them into thinking a spell will last a whole combat but they lose concentration after less than 1 round.
4) making it feasible for DMs to have enemies use concentration spells.
5) prevent both players & DMs from needing to focus-fire on casters to break their concentration.
While I support that as a principle, it would require a lot of spells and features to all be changed at once, so it seems unlikely.
Perhaps equally unlikely, but what if a concentration spell had a durability equal to the level it's cast at, and you lose one point each time you're hit or take damage from a single effect. Once the durability is gone, the duration starts decreasing instead? I was thinking maybe you lose half the remaining duration (rounded down, minimum 1 round) or something along those lines.
This way you still have concentration, and breaking concentration, but it requires no rolling. Effects that currently grant advantage on concentration saving throws might do something else like give you the ability to burn a spell slot as a bonus action to refresh the durability by three times the level burned (so a 9th-level spell can get its durability back by burning a 3rd-level slot to maintain it).
Very much a rough work in progress idea, and it doesn't solve the "pile on till the spell's down" problem, but then I'm not sure if it needs to; part of the risk of maintaining a particularly nasty concentration spell is that anyone affected (or their allies) is going to be gunning for you to try and end it. But with a little ingenuity or preparation you could minimise (or even use) that, plus you'd defend against it generally by avoiding taking damage or being hit (things you should want to do anyway), rather than boosting Constitution.
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.
Personally, for me, I like charisma. Warlocks bargained for their power. Warlocks do not need intelligence or wisdom to make a pact. In fact, it could be argued that some patrons would seek out those who lack both. That said, a patron that can grant incredible power to someone could also potentially make some other ability the focus of their power, such as intelligence. I don't really think that is a necessary improvement to warlocks though and if making warlocks flexible in which stat is their primary stat, why not do that for any class? A televangelist-like cleric needs not wisdom or intelligence, but they do need a strong stage presence.
... I just think I found my next PC.
"Get on up and stamp your feet for Beshaba!" ~(˘▾˘~)
You don't need charisma to make a pact either.
Yes, agreed, there are a great many people who have made a pact and gotten very little out of it. They make great antagonist NPCs. (˘ ˘ ˘)
You aren't out negotiating god like beings your charisma or any other stat or skill is meaningless in making the pact.
But you haven’t mentioned a hole in the system.
A choice between all three gets my vote. It allows for the greatest range of warlock characters and explanations behind their power/pact and plays into the concept that anyone can make a pact with a powerful being to enhance their own abilities.
Fey Wanderer Ranger/Archfey Warlock (WIS): A ranger who gets lost in the Feywilds and is found by a powerful Archfey. The Archfey is willing to teach the ranger how to deepen their connection to the Feywild in exchange for the ranger policing the boundary between the two realms so that the evils of the Material world do not spill over into the Feywild.
Celestial Warlock (WIS): A person of faith who has, through committing acts of sin that go against their gods' principles, been cut off from their god. But they have been given a second chance by one of their former god's servants, a powerful celestial who is willing to be the ex-cleric's patron so long as they walk the path their god has in store for them in pursuit of redemption.
Great Old One Warlock (INT): A widely known crackpot conspiracy theorist who stumbled onto something very, very real. Through their studies, they've made contact with an elder thing in the Blind Eternities that has imprinted strange spells and unnatural powers upon their mind and body. They also now know that this Great Old One is coming this way. They must find a way to halt their patron's progress while silently siphoning power from the very thing they seek to stop.
Oath of Redemption Paladin/Fiend Warlock (CHA): A once holy knight who was seduced by a fiendish temptress into betraying everything they hold dear. Now the paladin must try to walk the path of redemption with the same devil that lured them off the path of righteousness whispering in their ear. But can they face the challenges ahead without leaning on the infernal powers of their patron?
I strongly agree with this. It's a bit antithetical that spellcasters are so strongly incentivized to invest in CON so they can be better at casting spells.
Almost anyone looking to make as effective a caster as they can has to go 14 CON. This creates a weird situation where every wizard is also a marathon runner or a long-distance swimmer. I wanna be able to make a scrawny, barely able to walk up the steps without getting winded, wizard without killing my odds at maintaining concentration on my spells.
It'd also free spellcasters up to make more fun and interesting feats. Resilient CON / Warcaster gets pretty boring after your third or fourth caster.
Not really, if CON is the body stat then it makes sense for resisting the effects of pain, which is essentially what concentration saves are for. These absolutely shouldn't be tied to the casting score or it only makes casters less score dependent, they need some weaknesses.
Some people have proposed casting should use all three mental scores, e.g- Intelligence for spells known/prepared, maybe you'd have Wisdom for save DC and spell attack, and could then use Charisma for concentration saving throws?
But really CON makes sense, and every character benefits from a few more hit-points. What I've always found a bit weird is that casters don't need Dexterity for aiming, but they still need to use gestures and such to cast spell attacks so it still seems relevant to me. While a lot of builds still want DEX for AC and initiative, ranged blasters can get by without it being too high.
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.
That's just the thing, though. The big weakness of casters is supposed to be having low HP, but if every caster must invest in CON for Concentration it lessens the HP weakness. It also leads to samey, boring builds as every caster wants concentration-boosting feats or multiclasses. If you decouple Concentration from CON you'd have more varied builds in casters. Many will still want better CON for more HP and CON Saves, but now you might have a wizard with high DEX for AC and Initiative or a druid who invested in CHA so they can lead a squirrel revolution against the local lumber mill.
That said, I'd be very much in favor of shifting the responsibilities of skills around more. Especially for the casting stats as INT needs to be more valuable to more than just wizards. Though I'd probably have Concentration be WIS and Spell DC be CHA. The reasoning is that CHA is supposed to be your force of personality and ability to impose your will on others while WIS is described as your ability to hold on to your sense of self against outside forces. It also suits the classes more. The Druid and Ranger lists are pretty much defined by having tons of concentration spells and few attack spells, while your typical arcane caster like warlocks and sorcerers has a lot of stuff like Banishment and Polymorph. Meanwhile, Spell To Hit could be INT, justified by needing to triangulate the distance and force of the spell to ensure it hits. It's not the same as aiming an arrow or throwing a dagger, after all. You don't so much shoot a spell as you command the spell to go where you need it to go.
So it'd end up as:
INT Casters are the best at pure blasting magic and have a variety of spells to choose from.
WIS Casters are the best at casting and maintaining buff spells, summoning creatures, and manipulating the environment.
CHA Casters are the best at ensnaring, charming, or transforming things.
Then you have specific class features key off a specific stat. So your Wizard still needs high INT, but now they can choose between being a pure blasty wizard only or branching out and investing a bit in WIS or CHA at the cost of having low CON and STR. Similarly, you might be a druid with high CHA who focuses on charm effects and controlling beasts, but they'd still need good WIS for their druid-specific mechanics.
I'd also probably shift some power from DEX while we're at it. Maybe split Initiative between DEX and WIS (agility and perception of incoming threats). That way casters wouldn't have as strong a need for high DEX to be able to get their spells off first. The less casters need martial attributes to do caster things the more martials excel at martial things compared to casters and the wider range of builds we see within the same class. Two wizards won't necessarily have the same attribute spread with this setup and will play differently because of it.
While this sounds like a good idea at first, I suspect it would just lead to even more similar builds among all casters. While concentration is important, it's clearly not the most relevant stat - otherwise we would see casters prioritizing CON over their casting stat. Furthermore, only a minority of spells involve attack rolls. So clearly, the ability that increases your save DC is the most relevant for almost all casters. The exception maybe being the warlock focusing on EB.
To sum it up: This would lead to most casters prioritizing CHA, probably with WIS secondary. On top, Warlocks would be kind of screwed because they have only so few spellslots that they defenitely want those few spells to stick, i.e., high concentration save and high spellsave DC required. On top, they heavily rely on EB, i.e., attack rolls...
The much more reasonable model to make casters more MAD and shift them away from going CON, DEX as secondary and tertiary is to assign each spell school to either CHA, INT or WIS. Although I still don't thik it's ideal: Once again warlocks relying so heavily on EB would always push them towards whatever stat is used for Evocation.
To be honest, I think WotC should get rid of the "if you take damage you have to save vs concentration" because there are so, so, many ways to get buffs to that save and it comes up so often that it hugely incentivizes players to build their casters so they almost never fail these saves anyway. If a majority of players are trying to avoid a mechanic then maybe that mechanic shouldn't be in the game.
Concentration itself should stay in order to stop stacking tons of powerful spells at the same time, but only specific types of attacks or spells should break it.
While I agree that concentration saving throws are a pain, forcing them is a legitimate strategy for ending effects with a duration; for example, if someone casts heat metal on your armour, how do you get that to stop without fully incapacitating them? Dispel magic isn't a good alternative because that requires another caster.
There needs to be some middle-ground between no concentration saving throws at all, and spamming the saving throws to push someone to fail.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I suppose that means we should get rid of damage, death, saving throws, and (for certain parties) combat.
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)
Death : yes, I mean they've practically gotten rid of it anyway with all the resurrection, healing, and stabilization options. Just have characters become incapacitated upon being reduced to 0 HP and be Dazed until the end of their next turn upon being healed from 0 HP. Death is unfun and unnecessary.
Damage : This could be an optional supplement. I think there are lots of players who don't mind taking damage - they are completely satisfied with mediocre AC, are happy to use Reckless Attack, and excited to run up into the face of the enemy rather than stay back and use ranged options. However, there are absolutely some tables where they hate taking damage and will go out of their way to avoid combat or make super complex builds to have massively high AC or make a party of ranged-only characters so they never need to risk taking damage, for them a game without damage would probably suit them better but I'm pretty confident they are a minority.
Saving Throws: Again I disagree that the majority of players make a significant effort to be good at saving throws because they want to avoid any chance of failing them in general. However, the exception here is probably Wisdom saving throws, as most effects that cripple a character are governed by Wis saves, and players don't like their character being crippled. Here again, I think we see enough mechanics being introduced to negate specifically fear & charm that it's worth considering whether those conditions should be in the game at all (at least in their current state). To be honest, I would support removal of "charm" and all the spells & effects that rely on "charm" because taking away a player's agency is often unfun and I've had many players get upset when they get mind-controlled and forced to help the bad guys.
Combat : See response to damage.
You can't that's the point, spells with a duration would last for that duration. If it is undesirable for a spell to last for it's current full duration then it's current full duration should be reduced until it is short enough that it isn't undesirable for the spell to last for its full duration. This would provide a ton of benefits:
1) speed up combat by eliminating the need to roll so many concentration saves.
2) avoid every caster having to build their characters to be good at concentration saves.
3) making it clear to players how long they should expect spells to last, rather than tricking them into thinking a spell will last a whole combat but they lose concentration after less than 1 round.
4) making it feasible for DMs to have enemies use concentration spells.
5) prevent both players & DMs from needing to focus-fire on casters to break their concentration.
IMO that would work with unified spell lists. Int (education, analytic ability) for arcane, Cha (conviction, faith) for divine, Wis (intuition, perceptiveness) for primal. Sorcerers and bards should be able to choose a spell list (because why not), sorcerers being universal fullcasters and bards universal half-casters.
I don't like the idea of stats being tied to spell lists. I've always liked the flavor of different classes gaining access to power in different ways. Whereas Clerics find power from connection to their deities, Paladins do so with pure confidence and commitment. Whereas Wizards study tirelessly and need to memorize large arcane formulas, Sorcerers simply need the talent to bend reality to their will. I really don't see the point in taking all of that away.
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)
Personally, for me, I like charisma. Warlocks bargained for their power. Warlocks do not need intelligence or wisdom to make a pact. In fact, it could be argued that some patrons would seek out those who lack both. That said, a patron that can grant incredible power to someone could also potentially make some other ability the focus of their power, such as intelligence. I don't really think that is a necessary improvement to warlocks though and if making warlocks flexible in which stat is their primary stat, why not do that for any class? A televangelist-like cleric needs not wisdom or intelligence, but they do need a strong stage presence.
... I just think I found my next PC.
"Get on up and stamp your feet for Beshaba!" ~(˘▾˘~)
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
You don't need charisma to make a pact either.
Sometimes I read the ideas people are coming up with and wonder if they are plants from another company trying to ruin D&D.
Yes, agreed, there are a great many people who have made a pact and gotten very little out of it. They make great antagonist NPCs. (˘ ˘ ˘)
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
While I support that as a principle, it would require a lot of spells and features to all be changed at once, so it seems unlikely.
Perhaps equally unlikely, but what if a concentration spell had a durability equal to the level it's cast at, and you lose one point each time you're hit or take damage from a single effect. Once the durability is gone, the duration starts decreasing instead? I was thinking maybe you lose half the remaining duration (rounded down, minimum 1 round) or something along those lines.
This way you still have concentration, and breaking concentration, but it requires no rolling. Effects that currently grant advantage on concentration saving throws might do something else like give you the ability to burn a spell slot as a bonus action to refresh the durability by three times the level burned (so a 9th-level spell can get its durability back by burning a 3rd-level slot to maintain it).
Very much a rough work in progress idea, and it doesn't solve the "pile on till the spell's down" problem, but then I'm not sure if it needs to; part of the risk of maintaining a particularly nasty concentration spell is that anyone affected (or their allies) is going to be gunning for you to try and end it. But with a little ingenuity or preparation you could minimise (or even use) that, plus you'd defend against it generally by avoiding taking damage or being hit (things you should want to do anyway), rather than boosting Constitution.
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.
You aren't out negotiating god like beings your charisma or any other stat or skill is meaningless in making the pact.
Any of the three casting stats could work for a warlock. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
other companies want a healthy dnd because it is an anchor. it draws people to the industry and allows smaller companies to target their advertising.
bitter rivals plotting destruction are way less a worry than well meaning fans crowdsourcing assistance.
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!