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.
Why can't you negotiate a pact? It is literally an agreement - a contract. Contracts have at least two negotiating parties. I can name a dozen god-like beings just off the top of my head that are susceptible to persuasion or deception, some of whom are from D&D. Obviously no one can force anyone else to play an interesting warlock, but being unimaginative is not a requirement either.
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.
Why can't you negotiate a pact? It is literally an agreement - a contract. Contracts have at least two negotiating parties. I can name a dozen god-like beings just off the top of my head that are susceptible to persuasion or deception, some of whom are from D&D. Obviously no one can force anyone else to play an interesting warlock, but being unimaginative is not a requirement either.
how often are sages or lucky treasure hunters contacting other planes with preparations for a good deal in mind? like a "I've got something you want, what's it worth" situation? and how often is a devil offering power to evade capture this very moment, a kraken 'saving' someone from drowning, a fey lord offering water to a lost child without first discussing costs, etc...?
i don't have data but i haven't yet met a player whose warlock went shopping for a good deal before deciding. i only wish for a subclass of wheeling and dealing. mostly it seems like pacts are a burden or a curse that happens to be useful for now. are your experiences different?
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!
how often are sages or lucky treasure hunters contacting other planes with preparations for a good deal in mind? like a "I've got something you want, what's it worth" situation? and how often is a devil offering power to evade capture this very moment, a kraken 'saving' someone from drowning, a fey lord offering water to a lost child without first discussing costs, etc...?
i don't have data but i haven't yet met a player whose warlock went shopping for a good deal before deciding. i only wish for a subclass of wheeling and dealing. mostly it seems like pacts are a burden or a curse that happens to be useful for now. are your experiences different?
My own experience as playing a warlock was RPd as an agreement, yes. I got my level 1 because I was a failed entertainer who wanted the means to "blow people away" with my performance. A bit of power in exchange for sliding a little box in someone's pocket, or spread a lie about another person for a bit more power in eldritch blast, or straight up asking the patron for more power and arguing why they should give it. I even asked my patron to turn my rapier into a magical item that would cast prestidigitation when I hit something in the form of sparks for normal attacks, and confetti and trumpet sounds if I killed someone with it. I've also taken my patron shopping to update their wardrobe in an effort to convince them I needed devil's sight. These were all examples from my first play experience with D&D, which was as a warlock. My patron was some unknowable, uber-chaotic archfey who had been imprisoned and before I swapped PCs, it was revealed that I was inadvertently sowing chaos and frustration for other warlocks (with competing patrons) in the world.
I definitely don't expect that to be everyone's experience but yes, I absolutely think it fits well with the class design. Jester is another example of the possibilities with the class; she was given power simply because she was an archfey's favorite worshipper and friend. She was a cleric but those who follow CR's fireside discussions know that Jester was originally conceived as a warlock and was only changed when LB learned a few days before the show that her hubby intended to play one. The only thing changed was the class; the relationship with the patron (now god) remained the same. I have also played at tables where the patron is a complete burden and the tools they give are more or less granted to carry out their wishes. Coincidentally, the warlock playing in the game I DM right now is a fathomless warlock with a kraken patron and in our session 0, the player asked that I give him the 'burden' treatment because it was going to be part of the journey he wants his character to have. In this situation, he has been given power and if he refuses to carry out the wishes of the patron, he is punished in some way. However, he is often able to wiggle his way out of those consequences, most recently by convincing the patron that it was in the patron's best interest that the PC refused to carry out his orders.
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.
They could always have breaking a caster's concentration be a specific type of attack action. Call it something like Head Strike where you specifically bash the caster over the head to get them to stop. Or make it something you can do as a part of a grapple. That way every single instance of damage doesn't force a concentration save but there's still an option, particularly for martials, to run up and attempt to put a stop to a wizard concentrating on a spell.
Feats like Mage Slayer could even make you better at it so you can be a martial who specializes in shutting down casters.
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. (˘ ˘ ˘)
Lots of warlock character concepts don't involve extensive negotiation between patron and warlock. My own warlock character is literally just a mercenary who got stranded in the Feywild and made a pact with the first being to offer him a way home. Wyll from BG3 doesn't seem like he even read the contract before he signed which, to be fair, is probably because he was being rushed what with all the impending doom going on at the time.
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. (˘ ˘ ˘)
Lots of warlock character concepts don't involve extensive negotiation between patron and warlock. My own warlock character is literally just a mercenary who got stranded in the Feywild and made a pact with the first being to offer him a way home. Wyll from BG3 doesn't seem like he even read the contract before he signed which, to be fair, is probably because he was being rushed what with all the impending doom going on at the time.
I think a couple of people are injecting a lot of baggage into my posts that I did not bring myself. I did not say that there must be prolonged back and forth negotiations with table pounding and implied threats. I simply said that I see a warlock as someone who bargains for their power in a way other classes do not because that power is granted via a pact; a contract. How each individual sees that play out is going to be as unique as the individual playing the class. Some players will simply make a slave because that is fun for them ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°), some will create a warlock that gains power by being insufferably likable to their patron. Neither is playing the warlock wrong.
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.
However, stats being tied to spell lists makes the world consistent. You need faith to use divine magic, and faith is in Cha. Makes sense for clerics to be confident and influential - it's literally their job to sway people. I'm okay with sorcerers being an exclusion, because it's their whole thing, being an anomaly. Hell, they could cast spells with Con, powering metamagic with their HP, to reflect how their innate sorcery is affecting their bodies.
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. (˘ ˘ ˘)
Lots of warlock character concepts don't involve extensive negotiation between patron and warlock. My own warlock character is literally just a mercenary who got stranded in the Feywild and made a pact with the first being to offer him a way home. Wyll from BG3 doesn't seem like he even read the contract before he signed which, to be fair, is probably because he was being rushed what with all the impending doom going on at the time.
I think a couple of people are injecting a lot of baggage into my posts that I did not bring myself. I did not say that there must be prolonged back and forth negotiations with table pounding and implied threats. I simply said that I see a warlock as someone who bargains for their power in a way other classes do not because that power is granted via a pact; a contract. How each individual sees that play out is going to be as unique as the individual playing the class. Some players will simply make a slave because that is fun for them ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°), some will create a warlock that gains power by being insufferably likable to their patron. Neither is playing the warlock wrong.
I don't think people are arguing you might make a bargain of some kind as its a pact. But I just don't see how that means charisma matters. 1 you are making a pact with a being so far beyond you, your force of personality is nothing. And 2 on a more mortal level if you are making a bargain of some kind all mental stats come into play. You need intelligence to understand the terms, pitfalls, loopholes and what changes you'd want to make, wisdom to know if its worth it and to read the other person, and charisma to try and convince them of your amendments to the deal.
Amusingly enough the class made around a deal, where deals are their core supposedly doesn't have either persuade or insight as class skills. They have all the intelligence skills and deception and intimidation, kind of like they are a creepy arcanist.
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.
However, stats being tied to spell lists makes the world consistent. You need faith to use divine magic, and faith is in Cha. Makes sense for clerics to be confident and influential - it's literally their job to sway people. I'm okay with sorcerers being an exclusion, because it's their whole thing, being an anomaly. Hell, they could cast spells with Con, powering metamagic with their HP, to reflect how their innate sorcery is affecting their bodies.
It makes the world consistent? Maybe a bit. But I've never heard even a semblance of a complaint about the world being inconsistent just because different classes get different flavors of magic.
It's a Cleric's job to sway people? Occasionally. Not every clergyman is a preacher. Even if they were, though, that would seem to be pretty separate from their actual divine powers. I don't think too many gods will give you magic just 'cause you can shmooze people better than the next guy. Maybe some gods would, but it doesn't seem like a rule. Spiritual connection to your god (represented by Wisdom, of course) is much more reasonable. Charisma doesn't make sense as a source of power for them in the same way it does for Paladins.
Sorcerer's "whole thing" is being an anomaly? Is it, though? I'm not even sure where you got that idea from.
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)
I don't think people are arguing you might make a bargain of some kind as its a pact. But I just don't see how that means charisma matters. 1 you are making a pact with a being so far beyond you, your force of personality is nothing. And 2 on a more mortal level if you are making a bargain of some kind all mental stats come into play. You need intelligence to understand the terms, pitfalls, loopholes and what changes you'd want to make, wisdom to know if its worth it and to read the other person, and charisma to try and convince them of your amendments to the deal.
Amusingly enough the class made around a deal, where deals are their core supposedly doesn't have either persuade or insight as class skills. They have all the intelligence skills and deception and intimidation, kind of like they are a creepy arcanist.
I am so far beyond my dog in every measure of the mind, yet those puppydog eyes still gets him the tasty treats even when I tell him no.
There is an infamous spray-tanned business buffoon that undermines this point, who for decades used his force of personality to get what he wanted, often with deception and most often at the expense of business savvy people. There are many other high-profile fools I can use as examples, but I can use my own fool self as an example too. I am a middle management business analyst working in US corporate healthcare. Pretty average intelligence and frankly, the only thing 'special' about me is that I can strangle my tie with my pecs, which does not lend much to intellectually taxing discussions. I am middle of the pack. I have to contend with physician executives, very intelligent people, every quarter when I present my program's numbers. I run circles around them because I have great stage presence and a winning smile. I do the dance and make poor numbers sound like great numbers with some spinning, while making sure to let them feel in control when they have questions. Am I smarter than them? Hell no. I took the MCAT back in my uni days and I was middle of the pack on that too and I have no delusions that I could run the company I work for better than them. They could mothball my program at the drop of a hat, yet I get them eating out of my hand and buy my program another 3 months every quarter to right the ship in terms of performance. There are no loopholes to exploit and I am not paid to determine if my spinning is worth it; I am paid to spin and be likable enough that they don't pin me down with damning questions, but not so likable that they want to engage in lengthy conversation about my overextended, wasteful program. My point here is simply that you don't need to be intelligent or wise to be persuasive or deceptive at all, though those qualities can certainly be useful.
That is a pretty amusing observation though. I hadn't ever thought of that.
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.
However, stats being tied to spell lists makes the world consistent. You need faith to use divine magic, and faith is in Cha. Makes sense for clerics to be confident and influential - it's literally their job to sway people. I'm okay with sorcerers being an exclusion, because it's their whole thing, being an anomaly. Hell, they could cast spells with Con, powering metamagic with their HP, to reflect how their innate sorcery is affecting their bodies.
It makes the world consistent? Maybe a bit. But I've never heard even a semblance of a complaint about the world being inconsistent just because different classes get different flavors of magic.
It's a Cleric's job to sway people? Occasionally. Not every clergyman is a preacher. Even if they were, though, that would seem to be pretty separate from their actual divine powers. I don't think too many gods will give you magic just 'cause you can shmooze people better than the next guy. Maybe some gods would, but it doesn't seem like a rule. Spiritual connection to your god (represented by Wisdom, of course) is much more reasonable. Charisma doesn't make sense as a source of power for them in the same way it does for Paladins.
Sorcerer's "whole thing" is being an anomaly? Is it, though? I'm not even sure where you got that idea from.
All stats work for all casters. Any reason for or against is just fluff. A Cleric that cast with Cha would be a saint like character. Literally blessed by the Gods, similar a Divine Soul Sorcerer or Aasimar, but not based on bloodline. A Int based Cleric uses old rites and rituals passed down in the holiest of text. Flexible casting for all, or flexible casting for none is my feeling on the matter.
All stats work for all casters. Any reason for or against is just fluff.
You do realize that "fluff" is pretty much what classes are based off of, right? "The only reason we confine casters to specific stats is because of class identity and theme and the archetypes that the classes are inspired by. If you get rid of all that stuff, then you realize that it's just fine if all Wizards have glocks."
Right now, the flavor behind Warlock feels like it could go multiple different ways in a way that no other class's flavor does. Compare a secret-delving expert of the occult who steals magical knowledge from an ancient and unaware force to a fool that got so drunk one night that he stumbled into a bargain and woke up with a hangover and fey magic, then tell me which stat Warlocks should use. Both options are explicitly supported by the text. I wouldn't mind the flavor being changed to conform more to one stat (specifying whether they're channels for outside powers or just possessing of unique knowledge would be a good start), but if that doesn't happen then it seems silly to choose one stat for all Warlocks.
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)
Any of the three casting stats could work for a warlock. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.
How about this: move subclass choice to level 1, make your casting stat based on subclass. Different warlocks with different patrons that were attracted by different things. Or tie a stat to each pact and your level 1 choice determines which stat you use.
Any of the three casting stats could work for a warlock. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.
How about this: move subclass choice to level 1, make your casting stat based on subclass. Different warlocks with different patrons that were attracted by different things. Or tie a stat to each pact and your level 1 choice determines which stat you use.
I doubt we'll see 1st-level sub-classes making a return, plus I'm not a fan of tying the score to the patron.
I liked it being tied to the pact boon, and getting that at 1st-level, because it lets us build the Warlock independently of the patron. While it is a little strange to choose your pact later, nothing stops you from declaring who your pact is with at 1st-level, you're just not getting any special benefits (beyond what all Warlocks get) from that patron yet. It's no different to how a Barbarian can be played as a Berserker before they actually gain Frenzied Rage.
Plus I don't see the ability score being patron specific; high Intelligence doesn't make you any more or less susceptible to the temptation of forbidden knowledge, high Wisdom doesn't make you immune to persuasion or stop you from deciding a deal is more beneficial overall etc. If we are only able to pick two, I'd pick Intelligence and Charisma, but I'd still rather have all three as options.
At most the choice of score only forces you to adjust your character concept slightly; if you go high Intelligence you might need to explain why they chose (or didn't) to enter into a pact in spite of, or because of, their intelligence. Did their thirst for knowledge only cause them to crave more (and more dangerous) knowledge? Do they already know the "right" way to obtain something, and decided that a pact was the better/faster choice? Did circumstances leave them with no choice? Plenty of ways to explain why a character might turn to a pact in general, and a pact with a specific entity.
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.
Any of the three casting stats could work for a warlock. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.
How about this: move subclass choice to level 1, make your casting stat based on subclass. Different warlocks with different patrons that were attracted by different things. Or tie a stat to each pact and your level 1 choice determines which stat you use.
Nah. Just let ‘em pick their spellcasting ability. It’s the only class it really makes sense for, so just go for it.
I don't think people are arguing you might make a bargain of some kind as its a pact. But I just don't see how that means charisma matters. 1 you are making a pact with a being so far beyond you, your force of personality is nothing. And 2 on a more mortal level if you are making a bargain of some kind all mental stats come into play. You need intelligence to understand the terms, pitfalls, loopholes and what changes you'd want to make, wisdom to know if its worth it and to read the other person, and charisma to try and convince them of your amendments to the deal.
Amusingly enough the class made around a deal, where deals are their core supposedly doesn't have either persuade or insight as class skills. They have all the intelligence skills and deception and intimidation, kind of like they are a creepy arcanist.
I am so far beyond my dog in every measure of the mind, yet those puppydog eyes still gets him the tasty treats even when I tell him no.
There is an infamous spray-tanned business buffoon that undermines this point, who for decades used his force of personality to get what he wanted, often with deception and most often at the expense of business savvy people. There are many other high-profile fools I can use as examples, but I can use my own fool self as an example too. I am a middle management business analyst working in US corporate healthcare. Pretty average intelligence and frankly, the only thing 'special' about me is that I can strangle my tie with my pecs, which does not lend much to intellectually taxing discussions. I am middle of the pack. I have to contend with physician executives, very intelligent people, every quarter when I present my program's numbers. I run circles around them because I have great stage presence and a winning smile. I do the dance and make poor numbers sound like great numbers with some spinning, while making sure to let them feel in control when they have questions. Am I smarter than them? Hell no. I took the MCAT back in my uni days and I was middle of the pack on that too and I have no delusions that I could run the company I work for better than them. They could mothball my program at the drop of a hat, yet I get them eating out of my hand and buy my program another 3 months every quarter to right the ship in terms of performance. There are no loopholes to exploit and I am not paid to determine if my spinning is worth it; I am paid to spin and be likable enough that they don't pin me down with damning questions, but not so likable that they want to engage in lengthy conversation about my overextended, wasteful program. My point here is simply that you don't need to be intelligent or wise to be persuasive or deceptive at all, though those qualities can certainly be useful.
That is a pretty amusing observation though. I hadn't ever thought of that.
1. You aren't a puppy dog and the patron doesn't give a shit about you, at least yet.
2. I'm going to avoid real world politics crap. I've done a decent number of business deals. I almost never even speak with the other person past a few comments, its all in the damn numbers. And the next time I buy property it will all be in the numbers, it wont matter how charming the selling agent is. I'm looking at comps, zoning, cost to build, ave rents for the area etc. And with something as big as a life changing pact, I hope you are reading the contract. Like people really should read the contracts when buying their cars/houses etc otherwise they might miss that 0% financing for 5 years selling point can be revoked at will from the seller after 12 months. Being charming might have got them to knock $1000 off your car but you still got screwed on the financing because you weren't smart enough to read or understand the contract. As lame as I think the writing in BG3 generally is it shows a more D&D example, if he had read and understood the contract better he would have got that the contract was not just vs demons/devils but would also include tieflings whether or not they were working for the hells. All of which is kind of irrelevant as anyone can make a pact, smart dumb, charming/socially inept all you need to do is sign on the dotted line. And there is nothing in the flavor text that indicated force of personality is what fuels their magic, or being charming is what sealed the deal.
Any of the three casting stats could work for a warlock. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.
How about this: move subclass choice to level 1, make your casting stat based on subclass. Different warlocks with different patrons that were attracted by different things. Or tie a stat to each pact and your level 1 choice determines which stat you use.
I doubt we'll see 1st-level sub-classes making a return, plus I'm not a fan of tying the score to the patron.
I liked it being tied to the pact boon, and getting that at 1st-level, because it lets us build the Warlock independently of the patron. While it is a little strange to choose your pact later, nothing stops you from declaring who your pact is with at 1st-level, you're just not getting any special benefits (beyond what all Warlocks get) from that patron yet. It's no different to how a Barbarian can be played as a Berserker before they actually gain Frenzied Rage.
Plus I don't see the ability score being patron specific; high Intelligence doesn't make you any more or less susceptible to the temptation of forbidden knowledge, high Wisdom doesn't make you immune to persuasion or stop you from deciding a deal has more beneficial overall etc. If we are only able to pick two, I'd pick Intelligence and Charisma, but I'd still rather have all three as options.
At most the choice of score only forces you to adjust your character concept slightly; if you go high Intelligence you might need to explain why they chose (or didn't) to enter into a pact in spite of, or because of, their intelligence. Did their thirst for knowledge only cause them to crave more (and more dangerous) knowledge? Do they already know the "right" way to obtain something, and decided that a pact was the better/faster choice? Did circumstances leave them with no choice? Plenty of ways to explain why a character might turn to a pact in general, and a pact with a specific entity.
I actually dig the pact boons as invocations thing though I'd change their name a bit. It works even if it comes before the subclass as invocations come purely from occult/arcane research. I wouldn't tie the casting stat to them in that case as you could take all 3, or none of them. But yeah, im okay with all 3 stats being an option.
If you look at all the classes in the Player's Handbook, only one's main ability is intelligence, 2 have wisdom as their primary ability score and another 2 have wisdom and another stat listed. And 3 have their main ability score as charisma, while the Paladin specializes around that and strength.
To me, we definitely need another class like the Artificer which ensures that Wizard isn't the only intelligence-based caster. And I dunno if we'll the former class for years, if Wotzy is eager enough to hand it out later in a supplementary book at all.
To me, entering what is typically portrayed as an idiotic deal for magic doesn't revolve around being wise... I have no idea why that would even be an option, especially since that ability score is already a super prevalent option for casters in fifth. It doesn't revolve around charisma, because you're the one getting tricked... Not tricking others. Instead, I view this a perfect opportunity to ensure that those that are intelligent in the arts of knowledge and contacting planar entities to beg for power use intelligence as their primary ability. This'd open up a new class that supports the ideal that all ability scores are at least sort of close to each other in terms of relevance in the average game. Even if it's impossible to make it so they're created equal.
I would be fine with having the Warlock pick which ability to use, but intelligence makes the most sense balance wise and thematically to me. If int alone doesn't work, then at least wisdom hopefully shouldn't be a choice.
Ehh... But maybe I'm just as crazy as a nothic and will change my opinion on this in a day or two. ;)
All stats work for all casters. Any reason for or against is just fluff.
You do realize that "fluff" is pretty much what classes are based off of, right? "The only reason we confine casters to specific stats is because of class identity and theme and the archetypes that the classes are inspired by. If you get rid of all that stuff, then you realize that it's just fine if all Wizards have glocks."
Right now, the flavor behind Warlock feels like it could go multiple different ways in a way that no other class's flavor does. Compare a secret-delving expert of the occult who steals magical knowledge from an ancient and unaware force to a fool that got so drunk one night that he stumbled into a bargain and woke up with a hangover and fey magic, then tell me which stat Warlocks should use. Both options are explicitly supported by the text. I wouldn't mind the flavor being changed to conform more to one stat (specifying whether they're channels for outside powers or just possessing of unique knowledge would be a good start), but if that doesn't happen then it seems silly to choose one stat for all Warlocks.
I didn’t get rid of any fluff, I simply provided other fluff. That’s literally all everyone’s arguments for their favorite stats are. Their favored fluff. None of it takes away from or adds to the core class identity. The casting stat isn’t core to any class identity. You are lying to yourself if you believe only the warlock can go multiple ways with its casting stats. I literally explained how other classes could be fluffed the same exact way. A bard is clearly a class that should have multiple choices for casting stats. Bards are definitely intelligent since they learn multiple instruments and some are story tellers and orators. I shouldn’t have to explain that at all. A Knowledge Cleric and/or Arcana Cleric who perform rites they learned from ancient text should have the option to be Int based. An Intelligence based Druid would study the arithmetic of Nature, studying the flow of primal energy. Divine and Storm Sorcerer could easily be Wisdom based and Aberrant and Clockwork easily Int based. Honestly Sorcerers are weird because Charisma is clearly not the stat for innate casting when you look at all the other casters who are Charisma based none of them are innate casters. A wisdom base Warlock is one that understands that they would never gain the power they will by accepting the pact and acknowledging the gains in the moment are more important than what they will lose later. A Wisdom based wizard is someone who senses the weave around them. They studied, but seemed to understand how to manipulate the weave through intuition more so than true formulaic process. They start with the formula but just kind of figure out the ending with intuition. Cha based Wizards sleeps in most of the classes, fails most of the written exams, but passes the practical exams off pure luck, cheating off their friends spellbook and confidence. They can’t remember as many spells as an Int based wizard, but their fireball burns just as hot.
All stats work for all casters. Any reason for or against is just fluff.
You do realize that "fluff" is pretty much what classes are based off of, right? "The only reason we confine casters to specific stats is because of class identity and theme and the archetypes that the classes are inspired by. If you get rid of all that stuff, then you realize that it's just fine if all Wizards have glocks."
Right now, the flavor behind Warlock feels like it could go multiple different ways in a way that no other class's flavor does. Compare a secret-delving expert of the occult who steals magical knowledge from an ancient and unaware force to a fool that got so drunk one night that he stumbled into a bargain and woke up with a hangover and fey magic, then tell me which stat Warlocks should use. Both options are explicitly supported by the text. I wouldn't mind the flavor being changed to conform more to one stat (specifying whether they're channels for outside powers or just possessing of unique knowledge would be a good start), but if that doesn't happen then it seems silly to choose one stat for all Warlocks.
I didn’t get rid of any fluff, I simply provided other fluff. That’s literally all everyone’s arguments for their favorite stats are. Their favored fluff. None of it takes away from or adds to the core class identity. The casting stat isn’t core to any class identity. You are lying to yourself if you believe only the warlock can go multiple ways with its casting stats. I literally explained how other classes could be fluffed the same exact way. A bard is clearly a class that should have multiple choices for casting stats. Bards are definitely intelligent since they learn multiple instruments and some are story tellers and orators. I shouldn’t have to explain that at all.
Story telling and oration are Charisma skills. Playing instruments is usually Charisma, sometimes Dexterity. I've never heard a request for an Intelligence check to play a lute or anything like that.
A Knowledge Cleric and/or Arcana Cleric who perform rites they learned from ancient text should have the option to be Int based.
Well, that Knowledge and/or Arcana Cleric is taking an unnecessary step. Clerics don't need to learn their spells from ancient texts. They learn them from their connection to their deities.
An Intelligence based Druid would study the arithmetic of Nature, studying the flow of primal energy.
Again, Druids can study the arithmetic of nature (whatever that is) all they want, but that's not how they get their spellcasting. They get their spellcasting from a spiritual connection to nature.
Divine and Storm Sorcerer could easily be Wisdom based and Aberrant and Clockwork easily Int based. Honestly Sorcerers are weird because Charisma is clearly not the stat for innate casting when you look at all the other casters who are Charisma based none of them are innate casters.
Sorcerers don't have to learn or study. They have the magic within them, they just need the force and talent to shape it to their wills. When you look at monsters with innate casting, I'm pretty sure you'll see a lot of Charisma (aside from psionic casting, which isn't something Sorcerers do).
A Wisdom based wizard is someone who senses the weave around them. They studied, but seemed to understand how to manipulate the weave through intuition more so than true formulaic process. They start with the formula but just kind of figure out the ending with intuition.
If it's so intuitive to them, why do they need the formula to start with? Why are they a Wizard?
Cha based Wizards sleeps in most of the classes, fails most of the written exams, but passes the practical exams off pure luck, cheating off their friends spellbook and confidence. They can’t remember as many spells as an Int based wizard, but their fireball burns just as hot.
Charisma isn't luck. Charisma isn't cheating off your friend's spellbook. And casting through confidence simply isn't what the identity of a Wizard is.
All of the examples you've provided are fabrications, fundamental changes to the class fantasies, and sometimes just illogical. The examples I've provided are straight from the book. If you can't tell the difference, I don't know what to tell you.
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)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I ticked Cha and Int. Anyone who does a pact with an otherwordly being clearly dumped wis.
Also I feel like it really exemplifies 2 distinct archetypes of warlocks:
1. The charismatic snake oil sellers
2. The wizardly types who took a shortcut because they are "too" smart to get the short end of the stick in the deal.
Why can't you negotiate a pact? It is literally an agreement - a contract. Contracts have at least two negotiating parties. I can name a dozen god-like beings just off the top of my head that are susceptible to persuasion or deception, some of whom are from D&D. Obviously no one can force anyone else to play an interesting warlock, but being unimaginative is not a requirement either.
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
how often are sages or lucky treasure hunters contacting other planes with preparations for a good deal in mind? like a "I've got something you want, what's it worth" situation? and how often is a devil offering power to evade capture this very moment, a kraken 'saving' someone from drowning, a fey lord offering water to a lost child without first discussing costs, etc...?
i don't have data but i haven't yet met a player whose warlock went shopping for a good deal before deciding. i only wish for a subclass of wheeling and dealing. mostly it seems like pacts are a burden or a curse that happens to be useful for now. are your experiences different?
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!
My own experience as playing a warlock was RPd as an agreement, yes. I got my level 1 because I was a failed entertainer who wanted the means to "blow people away" with my performance. A bit of power in exchange for sliding a little box in someone's pocket, or spread a lie about another person for a bit more power in eldritch blast, or straight up asking the patron for more power and arguing why they should give it. I even asked my patron to turn my rapier into a magical item that would cast prestidigitation when I hit something in the form of sparks for normal attacks, and confetti and trumpet sounds if I killed someone with it. I've also taken my patron shopping to update their wardrobe in an effort to convince them I needed devil's sight. These were all examples from my first play experience with D&D, which was as a warlock. My patron was some unknowable, uber-chaotic archfey who had been imprisoned and before I swapped PCs, it was revealed that I was inadvertently sowing chaos and frustration for other warlocks (with competing patrons) in the world.
I definitely don't expect that to be everyone's experience but yes, I absolutely think it fits well with the class design. Jester is another example of the possibilities with the class; she was given power simply because she was an archfey's favorite worshipper and friend. She was a cleric but those who follow CR's fireside discussions know that Jester was originally conceived as a warlock and was only changed when LB learned a few days before the show that her hubby intended to play one. The only thing changed was the class; the relationship with the patron (now god) remained the same. I have also played at tables where the patron is a complete burden and the tools they give are more or less granted to carry out their wishes. Coincidentally, the warlock playing in the game I DM right now is a fathomless warlock with a kraken patron and in our session 0, the player asked that I give him the 'burden' treatment because it was going to be part of the journey he wants his character to have. In this situation, he has been given power and if he refuses to carry out the wishes of the patron, he is punished in some way. However, he is often able to wiggle his way out of those consequences, most recently by convincing the patron that it was in the patron's best interest that the PC refused to carry out his orders.
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
They could always have breaking a caster's concentration be a specific type of attack action. Call it something like Head Strike where you specifically bash the caster over the head to get them to stop. Or make it something you can do as a part of a grapple. That way every single instance of damage doesn't force a concentration save but there's still an option, particularly for martials, to run up and attempt to put a stop to a wizard concentrating on a spell.
Feats like Mage Slayer could even make you better at it so you can be a martial who specializes in shutting down casters.
Lots of warlock character concepts don't involve extensive negotiation between patron and warlock. My own warlock character is literally just a mercenary who got stranded in the Feywild and made a pact with the first being to offer him a way home. Wyll from BG3 doesn't seem like he even read the contract before he signed which, to be fair, is probably because he was being rushed what with all the impending doom going on at the time.
I think a couple of people are injecting a lot of baggage into my posts that I did not bring myself. I did not say that there must be prolonged back and forth negotiations with table pounding and implied threats. I simply said that I see a warlock as someone who bargains for their power in a way other classes do not because that power is granted via a pact; a contract. How each individual sees that play out is going to be as unique as the individual playing the class. Some players will simply make a slave because that is fun for them ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°), some will create a warlock that gains power by being insufferably likable to their patron. Neither is playing the warlock wrong.
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
However, stats being tied to spell lists makes the world consistent. You need faith to use divine magic, and faith is in Cha. Makes sense for clerics to be confident and influential - it's literally their job to sway people. I'm okay with sorcerers being an exclusion, because it's their whole thing, being an anomaly. Hell, they could cast spells with Con, powering metamagic with their HP, to reflect how their innate sorcery is affecting their bodies.
I don't think people are arguing you might make a bargain of some kind as its a pact. But I just don't see how that means charisma matters. 1 you are making a pact with a being so far beyond you, your force of personality is nothing. And 2 on a more mortal level if you are making a bargain of some kind all mental stats come into play. You need intelligence to understand the terms, pitfalls, loopholes and what changes you'd want to make, wisdom to know if its worth it and to read the other person, and charisma to try and convince them of your amendments to the deal.
Amusingly enough the class made around a deal, where deals are their core supposedly doesn't have either persuade or insight as class skills. They have all the intelligence skills and deception and intimidation, kind of like they are a creepy arcanist.
It makes the world consistent? Maybe a bit. But I've never heard even a semblance of a complaint about the world being inconsistent just because different classes get different flavors of magic.
It's a Cleric's job to sway people? Occasionally. Not every clergyman is a preacher. Even if they were, though, that would seem to be pretty separate from their actual divine powers. I don't think too many gods will give you magic just 'cause you can shmooze people better than the next guy. Maybe some gods would, but it doesn't seem like a rule. Spiritual connection to your god (represented by Wisdom, of course) is much more reasonable. Charisma doesn't make sense as a source of power for them in the same way it does for Paladins.
Sorcerer's "whole thing" is being an anomaly? Is it, though? I'm not even sure where you got that idea from.
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)
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
All stats work for all casters. Any reason for or against is just fluff. A Cleric that cast with Cha would be a saint like character. Literally blessed by the Gods, similar a Divine Soul Sorcerer or Aasimar, but not based on bloodline. A Int based Cleric uses old rites and rituals passed down in the holiest of text. Flexible casting for all, or flexible casting for none is my feeling on the matter.
You do realize that "fluff" is pretty much what classes are based off of, right? "The only reason we confine casters to specific stats is because of class identity and theme and the archetypes that the classes are inspired by. If you get rid of all that stuff, then you realize that it's just fine if all Wizards have glocks."
Right now, the flavor behind Warlock feels like it could go multiple different ways in a way that no other class's flavor does. Compare a secret-delving expert of the occult who steals magical knowledge from an ancient and unaware force to a fool that got so drunk one night that he stumbled into a bargain and woke up with a hangover and fey magic, then tell me which stat Warlocks should use. Both options are explicitly supported by the text. I wouldn't mind the flavor being changed to conform more to one stat (specifying whether they're channels for outside powers or just possessing of unique knowledge would be a good start), but if that doesn't happen then it seems silly to choose one stat for all Warlocks.
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)
How about this: move subclass choice to level 1, make your casting stat based on subclass. Different warlocks with different patrons that were attracted by different things. Or tie a stat to each pact and your level 1 choice determines which stat you use.
I doubt we'll see 1st-level sub-classes making a return, plus I'm not a fan of tying the score to the patron.
I liked it being tied to the pact boon, and getting that at 1st-level, because it lets us build the Warlock independently of the patron. While it is a little strange to choose your pact later, nothing stops you from declaring who your pact is with at 1st-level, you're just not getting any special benefits (beyond what all Warlocks get) from that patron yet. It's no different to how a Barbarian can be played as a Berserker before they actually gain Frenzied Rage.
Plus I don't see the ability score being patron specific; high Intelligence doesn't make you any more or less susceptible to the temptation of forbidden knowledge, high Wisdom doesn't make you immune to persuasion or stop you from deciding a deal is more beneficial overall etc. If we are only able to pick two, I'd pick Intelligence and Charisma, but I'd still rather have all three as options.
At most the choice of score only forces you to adjust your character concept slightly; if you go high Intelligence you might need to explain why they chose (or didn't) to enter into a pact in spite of, or because of, their intelligence. Did their thirst for knowledge only cause them to crave more (and more dangerous) knowledge? Do they already know the "right" way to obtain something, and decided that a pact was the better/faster choice? Did circumstances leave them with no choice? Plenty of ways to explain why a character might turn to a pact in general, and a pact with a specific entity.
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.
Nah. Just let ‘em pick their spellcasting ability. It’s the only class it really makes sense for, so just go for it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
1. You aren't a puppy dog and the patron doesn't give a shit about you, at least yet.
2. I'm going to avoid real world politics crap. I've done a decent number of business deals. I almost never even speak with the other person past a few comments, its all in the damn numbers. And the next time I buy property it will all be in the numbers, it wont matter how charming the selling agent is. I'm looking at comps, zoning, cost to build, ave rents for the area etc. And with something as big as a life changing pact, I hope you are reading the contract. Like people really should read the contracts when buying their cars/houses etc otherwise they might miss that 0% financing for 5 years selling point can be revoked at will from the seller after 12 months. Being charming might have got them to knock $1000 off your car but you still got screwed on the financing because you weren't smart enough to read or understand the contract. As lame as I think the writing in BG3 generally is it shows a more D&D example, if he had read and understood the contract better he would have got that the contract was not just vs demons/devils but would also include tieflings whether or not they were working for the hells. All of which is kind of irrelevant as anyone can make a pact, smart dumb, charming/socially inept all you need to do is sign on the dotted line. And there is nothing in the flavor text that indicated force of personality is what fuels their magic, or being charming is what sealed the deal.
I actually dig the pact boons as invocations thing though I'd change their name a bit. It works even if it comes before the subclass as invocations come purely from occult/arcane research. I wouldn't tie the casting stat to them in that case as you could take all 3, or none of them. But yeah, im okay with all 3 stats being an option.
If you look at all the classes in the Player's Handbook, only one's main ability is intelligence, 2 have wisdom as their primary ability score and another 2 have wisdom and another stat listed. And 3 have their main ability score as charisma, while the Paladin specializes around that and strength.
To me, we definitely need another class like the Artificer which ensures that Wizard isn't the only intelligence-based caster. And I dunno if we'll the former class for years, if Wotzy is eager enough to hand it out later in a supplementary book at all.
To me, entering what is typically portrayed as an idiotic deal for magic doesn't revolve around being wise... I have no idea why that would even be an option, especially since that ability score is already a super prevalent option for casters in fifth. It doesn't revolve around charisma, because you're the one getting tricked... Not tricking others. Instead, I view this a perfect opportunity to ensure that those that are intelligent in the arts of knowledge and contacting planar entities to beg for power use intelligence as their primary ability. This'd open up a new class that supports the ideal that all ability scores are at least sort of close to each other in terms of relevance in the average game. Even if it's impossible to make it so they're created equal.
I would be fine with having the Warlock pick which ability to use, but intelligence makes the most sense balance wise and thematically to me. If int alone doesn't work, then at least wisdom hopefully shouldn't be a choice.
Ehh... But maybe I'm just as crazy as a nothic and will change my opinion on this in a day or two. ;)
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.I didn’t get rid of any fluff, I simply provided other fluff. That’s literally all everyone’s arguments for their favorite stats are. Their favored fluff. None of it takes away from or adds to the core class identity. The casting stat isn’t core to any class identity. You are lying to yourself if you believe only the warlock can go multiple ways with its casting stats. I literally explained how other classes could be fluffed the same exact way. A bard is clearly a class that should have multiple choices for casting stats. Bards are definitely intelligent since they learn multiple instruments and some are story tellers and orators. I shouldn’t have to explain that at all. A Knowledge Cleric and/or Arcana Cleric who perform rites they learned from ancient text should have the option to be Int based. An Intelligence based Druid would study the arithmetic of Nature, studying the flow of primal energy. Divine and Storm Sorcerer could easily be Wisdom based and Aberrant and Clockwork easily Int based. Honestly Sorcerers are weird because Charisma is clearly not the stat for innate casting when you look at all the other casters who are Charisma based none of them are innate casters. A wisdom base Warlock is one that understands that they would never gain the power they will by accepting the pact and acknowledging the gains in the moment are more important than what they will lose later. A Wisdom based wizard is someone who senses the weave around them. They studied, but seemed to understand how to manipulate the weave through intuition more so than true formulaic process. They start with the formula but just kind of figure out the ending with intuition. Cha based Wizards sleeps in most of the classes, fails most of the written exams, but passes the practical exams off pure luck, cheating off their friends spellbook and confidence. They can’t remember as many spells as an Int based wizard, but their fireball burns just as hot.
Story telling and oration are Charisma skills. Playing instruments is usually Charisma, sometimes Dexterity. I've never heard a request for an Intelligence check to play a lute or anything like that.
Well, that Knowledge and/or Arcana Cleric is taking an unnecessary step. Clerics don't need to learn their spells from ancient texts. They learn them from their connection to their deities.
Again, Druids can study the arithmetic of nature (whatever that is) all they want, but that's not how they get their spellcasting. They get their spellcasting from a spiritual connection to nature.
Sorcerers don't have to learn or study. They have the magic within them, they just need the force and talent to shape it to their wills. When you look at monsters with innate casting, I'm pretty sure you'll see a lot of Charisma (aside from psionic casting, which isn't something Sorcerers do).
If it's so intuitive to them, why do they need the formula to start with? Why are they a Wizard?
Charisma isn't luck. Charisma isn't cheating off your friend's spellbook. And casting through confidence simply isn't what the identity of a Wizard is.
All of the examples you've provided are fabrications, fundamental changes to the class fantasies, and sometimes just illogical. The examples I've provided are straight from the book. If you can't tell the difference, I don't know what to tell you.
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)