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.
Oh, I thought you were talking about vast differences in cognitive ability being a meaningful factor in whether one can influence another. And guess what, people give treats to persuasive little doggos that they don't really give a shit about as well. Point 1 defeated a second time.
Avoid all you want (you are confused if you think I was talking politics, btw), it remains absolutely valid that you do not need to be at all intelligent to be persuasive in the real world, so why not a simplified game world too? If you aren't speaking to the person, you aren't persuading them of anything. They are persuading themselves and your numbers probably are not as influential as you think. Not even sure why you bring it up really. I do agree that people should read the contract, but many don't. Or even those who do may not understand the legalese they are reading. What point are you trying to make here anyway? Because you literally provide support for my argument that unintelligent people find themselves signing contracts all the time and can still use their charm to get things they find valuable out of it. So... thank you?
Yeah, you keep doing this thing where you insist on trying to force me to defend some argument taking place in your head, and I think it is time for me to ask you to stop. I never said that a warlock has to be charismatic, nor did I say that they could not be intelligent. I did not say that they must use charisma and cannot use intelligence as their spellcasting modifier either. In fact, the very first post you quoted from me, I outright state the exact opposite. Windmills confused for giants, I think.
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.
Well the DMG says you are wrong on many of your points. Let’s discuss.
Story telling requires you to recall the story. Guess what stat covers remembering things. Intelligence. Also if we are saying the stats only represent what checks are involved with them their is definitely no reason to limit any caster to a mental stat, since none of the stats have do magic skill attached to it.
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.
Nobody would care if the Knowledge or Arcana Cleric are taking an extra step by being Int based and learning magic through divine rites it’s just fluff. Also it’s not any extra step if it is the way to show worship to your god. You know a god of knowledge probably blesses people who study knowledge.
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.
Again fluff vs mechanics. What is the mechanical difference of I get my magic from a spiritual connection to nature and I get my magic from learning the order and flow of primal energies. Literally nothing, all fluff. Also none of the books state Wisdom is the stat that means you have a connection to nature or a deity. Actually Wisdom is stated to represent Willpower. Which will come up later.
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).
Well here we are. If Sorcerers cast through Willpower they should according to the DMG be Wisdom casters. Also there is a whole sorcerer subclass dedicated to psionic casting now and you know it.
If it's so intuitive to them, why do they need the formula to start with? Why are they a Wizard?
Why is anything anything? Fluff, you are literally arguing with me about a game of make believe and mental stat breakdown that has no real life bearing. You cannot separate Intelligence and Wisdom in real life. The ideal of the Wise fool is a fallacy. Also to my point earlier real life intellect is needed for skills. That’s why in older editions skills were based on Int. They decided for 5e that wouldn’t be the case. Back to the Wisdom Wizard just because you can intuit the end doesn’t mean you have the beginning. Maybe they could be a bard, or a Druid, but they learned at a Wizard school. So that’s what they know.
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.
I’m pretty sure Charisma is cheating off your friends spellbook since it covers both persuasion and deception. And as far as you are concerned Charisma gives you enough memory to recall epic tales which means it’s enough memory to recall a spell. Wait is this what Warlocks are doing. Are they cheating off some higher powers spell book. Lol. Also I’m pretty sure everyone who cast a spell that they know it’s going to work is pretty confident.
As for straight from the book descriptions that don’t match their casting stats let’s do it.
Bard: Whether scholar, skald, or scoundrel, a bard weaves magic through words and music to inspire allies, demoralize foes, manipulate minds, create illusions, and even heal wounds.
I don’t have to explain what a scholar is, do I?
Cleric: Clerics are intermediaries between the mortal world and the distant planes of the gods. As varied as the gods they serve, clerics strive to embody the handiwork of their deities. No ordinary priest, a cleric is imbued with divine magic.
How do you embody knowledge without being intelligent. Please explain.
Druid: I’ll give you a semi pass since nothing in their PHB lore states anything about learning the Old Faith only practicing it. But their is still nothing that solidifies Wisdom as the appropriate casting stat for natural connections.
Sorcerer: Sorcerers have no use for the spellbooks and ancient tomes of magic lore that wizards rely on, nor do they rely on a patron to grant their spells as warlocks do. By learning to harness and channel their own inborn magic, they can discover new and staggering ways to unleash that power.
Well this says a lot. Literally a sorcerer should be able to cast with any stat depending on how they learned about themselves. Legit should be able to cast with strength if that’s how it first manifested and I kept training that way. Also look what this says about Warlocks. Lmao. Kind of contradicts what a lot of people are saying about them learning their spells through occult research.
Wizard: Well this is a tough one and I knew it would be since they are really a knowledge based class, but they actually left more room for play than the Druid. Wizards are supreme magic-users, defined and united as a class by the spells they cast. The only thing that makes them a class is the spells they class. The juicy juicy spell list, which means you could use another stat. I’ll admit I’m pulling a straws here. This next from the book statement looks bad for you Int based Warlock. Wizards live and die by their spells. Everything else is secondary. They learn new spells as they experiment and grow in experience. They can also learn them from other wizards, from ancient tomes or inscriptions, and from ancient creatures (such as the fey) that are steeped in magic.
Seems to me that if you learn using Int from an Ancient Creature you are a Wizard, but if your spells are granted from that Creature you are a Warlock. At least that’s how these small sentences from the book would paint it. If you can’t tell the difference, I don’t know what to tell you.
Again fluff vs mechanics. What is the mechanical difference of I get my magic from a spiritual connection to nature and I get my magic from learning the order and flow of primal energies. Literally nothing, all fluff.
You're completely right. The only reason Druids don't cast with Intelligence is existing fluff. If we get rid of fluff, then Druids can cast with Intelligence all they like. And we might as well make Wizards Dex-based gunslingers, while we're at it. Because the only thing standing in the way of that is fluff. To hell with fluff! I think every game should be played with nothing but a spreadsheet!
Bard: Whether scholar, skald, or scoundrel, a bard weaves magic through words and music to inspire allies, demoralize foes, manipulate minds, create illusions, and even heal wounds.
I don’t have to explain what a scholar is, do I?
It's a noun used to describe a person in a way that isn't necessarily linked to how they cast spells. Should Bards also be able to cast with their Scoundrelness stat? I think you'll find that some of the text supporting the possibility of Intelligence-based Warlocks is unmistakably linked to how they access and perform their magic.
Cleric: Clerics are intermediaries between the mortal world and the distant planes of the gods. As varied as the gods they serve, clerics strive to embody the handiwork of their deities. No ordinary priest, a cleric is imbued with divine magic.
How do you embody knowledge without being intelligent. Please explain.
You don't. I'm not making the claim that Knowledge Clerics should have low Intelligence. I think that somebody playing an 8 Int Knowledge Cleric, unless they have a very unique character, is not the kind of person I want at my table. That doesn't change the fact that it's separate to their spellcasting.
Druid: I’ll give you a semi pass since nothing in their PHB lore states anything about learning the Old Faith only practicing it. But their is still nothing that solidifies Wisdom as the appropriate casting stat for natural connections.
"Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you"
Sorcerer: Sorcerers have no use for the spellbooks and ancient tomes of magic lore that wizards rely on, nor do they rely on a patron to grant their spells as warlocks do. By learning to harness and channel their own inborn magic, they can discover new and staggering ways to unleash that power.
Well this says a lot. Literally a sorcerer should be able to cast with any stat depending on how they learned about themselves. Legit should be able to cast with strength if that’s how it first manifested and I kept training that way.
That's a hell of a lot of inferences being made off of... nothing. I don't know how you read "new and staggering ways to unleash that power" as "if you're a Sorcerer and you punch walls a ton then your magic becomes based on wall punching." It's pretty clear that the part you bolded is talking about getting new spells and class features. Not sure where you got the idea that it means you can do whatever the hell you want with your magic.
This next from the book statement looks bad for you Int based Warlock. Wizards live and die by their spells. Everything else is secondary. They learn new spells as they experiment and grow in experience. They can also learn them from other wizards, from ancient tomes or inscriptions, and from ancient creatures (such as the fey) that are steeped in magic.
Seems to me that if you learn using Int from an Ancient Creature you are a Wizard, but if your spells are granted from that Creature you are a Warlock. At least that’s how these small sentences from the book would paint it.
Well, that's kinda my point, no? You have sentences like these scattered around the book, suggesting that Warlocks are simply granted their spells, but you also have lines straight from the class's description that suggest otherwise. From the main description for Warlock:
Drawing on ancient knowledge... warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power.
Both possibilities are heavily supported by the book, except in the spellcasting ability used.
If you can’t tell the difference, I don’t know what to tell you.
Egads, the irony hath slain me.
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)
You fail in your own argument. First you say scholar is just a noun when describing a Bard, but somehow those sentences matter for the warlock casting stat. Lol. No point in have a debate with you if you aren’t even willing to stick to your own points.
You fail in your own argument. First you say scholar is just a noun when describing a Bard, but somehow those sentences matter for the warlock casting stat. Lol. No point in have a debate with you if you aren’t even willing to stick to your own points.
Warlocks draw on ancient knowledge to piece together arcane secrets that bolster their power. Some Bards know things.
If there were implications that some Warlocks are intelligent without connecting that intelligence to their spellcasting which still maintained the idea that a Warlock's spells are actually being cast by an entity they made a pact with (something like "some warlocks studied for more orthodox methods of magic, at places like bard colleges or wizard schools, but found the time commitment necessary to be tedious," you get the picture), then I don't think I'd have as strong an argument. Instead of that, we get text saying that Warlocks hunt for arcane secrets that they use for their abilities, and descriptions that show that the patron doesn't even have to know about a pact, but instead can just be leeched off of for knowledge.
Plus, something that should certainly not go unmentioned is that people are far more split on the stat that Warlocks should use than for any other class. How many threads have you seen asking people which stat Bards should use in 1D&D? How many times do you think a genuine argument for Charisma-based Wizardry has come up in conversation?
(For the record, I'd say that Bard is the second least concrete in their spellcasting ability [by a fair margin]. But the vast majority of people prefer them as Charisma casters, and it's undeniably linked to the very core of the class fantasy. Masters of oration and music who cast by harnessing the power within words would probably have a tough time without any talent or force of personality.)
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)
You fail in your own argument. First you say scholar is just a noun when describing a Bard, but somehow those sentences matter for the warlock casting stat. Lol. No point in have a debate with you if you aren’t even willing to stick to your own points.
Warlocks draw on ancient knowledge to piece together arcane secrets that bolster their power. Some Bards know things.
If there were implications that some Warlocks are intelligent without connecting that intelligence to their spellcasting which still maintained the idea that a Warlock's spells are actually being cast by an entity they made a pact with (something like "some warlocks studied for more orthodox methods of magic, at places like bard colleges or wizard schools, but found the time commitment necessary to be tedious," you get the picture), then I don't think I'd have as strong an argument. Instead of that, we get text saying that Warlocks hunt for arcane secrets that they use for their abilities, and descriptions that show that the patron doesn't even have to know about a pact, but instead can just be leeched off of for knowledge.
Plus, something that should certainly not go unmentioned is that people are far more split on the stat that Warlocks should use than for any other class. How many threads have you seen asking people which stat Bards should use in 1D&D? How many times do you think a genuine argument for Charisma-based Wizardry has come up in conversation?
(For the record, I'd say that Bard is the second least concrete in their spellcasting ability [by a fair margin]. But the vast majority of people prefer them as Charisma casters, and it's undeniably linked to the very core of the class fantasy. Masters of oration and music who cast by harnessing the power within words would probably have a tough time without any talent or force of personality.)
So you are going to ignore the sentence that said Warlocks rely on a patron to grant their spells. I question what is the warlocks abilities and what is the patron’s power? Is it invocations? Is it Pact Magic? At the very least we know that cantrips is undoubtedly the Warlocks own power by nature of what a cantrip is. What I find hilarious is that you claim to have a strong argument, but the only measure of your argument is your own opinion. So I’m sure in your opinion your argument is quite strong, lol. As far using threads to measure the divide I’m going to say that’s pointless. Do you know why 5e Warlock is a charisma caster? Because in the 5e playtest more people wanted that. Probably because the 3e Warlock was a charisma spell like ability user. If you know your D&D history Bards were a Wisdom caster in the past. They literally playtested giving a bard all the spell list as options, so I’m going to argue it’s not that far fetched to give them all the spell casting stats as options. Its so funny you keep clinging to the text about how the Warlock searches for knowledge to support your claim they should be Int based, but I show you text that bard could be Int based and I get denied. Lol You should really read the Bard page. It talks more about studying a knowledge than the Warlock page.
Anyway like I said it’s all fluff. Pick your favorite flavor of fluff. It’s no better or worse than anyone else’s, but if they are giving one class flexible casting they might as well give it to all classes. And if Warlock is stuck with one casting stat Cha makes equal sense to Int or Wis, and since it’s been Cha this long their is no reason to change it now.
You fail in your own argument. First you say scholar is just a noun when describing a Bard, but somehow those sentences matter for the warlock casting stat. Lol. No point in have a debate with you if you aren’t even willing to stick to your own points.
Warlocks draw on ancient knowledge to piece together arcane secrets that bolster their power. Some Bards know things.
If there were implications that some Warlocks are intelligent without connecting that intelligence to their spellcasting which still maintained the idea that a Warlock's spells are actually being cast by an entity they made a pact with (something like "some warlocks studied for more orthodox methods of magic, at places like bard colleges or wizard schools, but found the time commitment necessary to be tedious," you get the picture), then I don't think I'd have as strong an argument. Instead of that, we get text saying that Warlocks hunt for arcane secrets that they use for their abilities, and descriptions that show that the patron doesn't even have to know about a pact, but instead can just be leeched off of for knowledge.
Plus, something that should certainly not go unmentioned is that people are far more split on the stat that Warlocks should use than for any other class. How many threads have you seen asking people which stat Bards should use in 1D&D? How many times do you think a genuine argument for Charisma-based Wizardry has come up in conversation?
(For the record, I'd say that Bard is the second least concrete in their spellcasting ability [by a fair margin]. But the vast majority of people prefer them as Charisma casters, and it's undeniably linked to the very core of the class fantasy. Masters of oration and music who cast by harnessing the power within words would probably have a tough time without any talent or force of personality.)
So you are going to ignore the sentence that said Warlocks rely on a patron to grant their spells.
No, I'm not going to ignore that sentence. That's half of my argument. My claim is that text in Warlock supports their spellcasting coming from both Charisma and Intelligence. I suppose that sentence is the Charisma end of things.
What I find hilarious is that you claim to have a strong argument, but the only measure of your argument is your own opinion. So I’m sure in your opinion your argument is quite strong, lol.
Yes, I believe the things that I am saying. Must'a rolled a high Insight check for that one.
As far using threads to measure the divide I’m going to say that’s pointless. Do you know why 5e Warlock is a charisma caster? Because in the 5e playtest more people wanted that. Probably because the 3e Warlock was a charisma spell like ability user.
That was then, this is now. If you're going to say it's pointless, it might help if you add some reasoning as to why.
If you know your D&D history Bards were a Wisdom caster in the past.
I'm aware. That's because their spellcasting was essentially that of a Druid. Bard and Druid have both developed independently for a fair bit of time, and most players wouldn't see the connection, neither mechanically nor flavor-wise. I know I didn't.
Its so funny you keep clinging to the text about how the Warlock searches for knowledge to support your claim they should be Int based, but I show you text that bard could be Int based and I get denied.
Yes, I disagree with some of the things that you said. Must'a rolled a high Investigation check for that one.
In the biz, we call this "refuting." I suppose you could call it denial, if you want, but I think we both know what that'd mean you're in. (Pause for laughter.)
Anyway like I said it’s all fluff. Pick your favorite flavor of fluff.
Well, the thing about my fluff is that it's the fluff that's, y'know, in the book, whereas a bunch of your fluff you just came up with. "Arithmetic of nature" and all that.
It’s no better or worse than anyone else’s, but if they are giving one class flexible casting they might as well give it to all classes.
And if you give 9th level spells to one class, might as well give it to all of them. After all, the only reason for anything is fluff. Fluff fluff fluff.
All that is to say: Nope. Not how classes work. Not every class deserves to have everything that every other class has. Yes, the reason is fluff. Yes, that's the primary divide between classes. No, archetypes don't just change to your whims. No, not all Wizards should have fully automatic machine guns instead of spells.
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)
a half-elf in rugged leathers finds knowledge springing into her mind, conjured forth by the magic of her song—knowledge of the people who constructed the monument and the mythic saga it depicts.........Whether scholar, skald, or scoundrel, a bard weaves magic through words and music to inspire allies, demoralize foes, manipulate minds, create illusions, and even heal wounds.....They have a wide-ranging knowledge of many subjects and a natural aptitude that lets them do almost anything well. Bards become masters of the talents they set their minds to perfecting, from musical performance to esoteric knowledge......Discovering the magic hidden in music requires hard study and some measure of natural talent that most troubadours and jongleurs lack........A bard’s life is spent wandering across the land gathering lore, telling stories, and living on the gratitude of audiences, much like any other entertainer. But a depth of knowledge, a level of musical skill, and a touch of magic set bards apart from their fellows.....Every adventure is an opportunity to learn, practice a variety of skills, enter long-forgotten tombs, discover lost works of magic, decipher old tomes, travel to strange places, or encounter exotic creatures......Did you serve an apprenticeship, studying under a master, following the more experienced bard until you were ready to strike out on your own? Or did you attend a college where you studied bardic lore and practiced your musical magic? ......... Or you might have been a spoiled noble child tutored by a master....
Fighters should be INT based
and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat....Fighters learn the basics of all combat styles......Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen’s army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge..... Where did you get your combat training....What drove you to this training in the first place.....You might have enjoyed formal training in a noble’s army or in a local militia. Perhaps you trained in a war academy, learning strategy, tactics, and military history.....
Monk should be INT based
Monks make careful study of a magical energy that most monastic traditions call ki. ......The monks who live there seek personal perfection through contemplation and rigorous training.......As you make your monk character, think about your connection to the monastery where you learned your skills and spent your formative years
Sorcerers should be INT-based
By learning to harness and channel their own inborn magic, they can discover new and staggering ways to unleash that power......Some seek a greater understanding of the magical force that infuses them, or the answer to the mystery of its origin.....
Warlocks should be INT-based
Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse..... Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as fey nobles, demons, devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power.....Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power...And sometimes, while poring over tomes of forbidden lore, a brilliant student’s
Warlocks should NOT be INT-based
Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as fey nobles, demons, devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power.....Unlike bookish wizards, warlocks supplement their magic with some facility at hand-to-hand combat....a warlock’s thirst for knowledge and power can’t be slaked with mere study and research.
- Warlocks don't use their own knowledge, they gain information from their patron.
- They are explicitly unlike wizards
- They are unsatsified by study and research
Conclusion : Bard fluff has far more justification for them being INT-based than warlocks do. If we need another INT-based caster it should be the Bard and not warlock. Arguably, even fighters have more justification for INT-based than warlocks.
a half-elf in rugged leathers finds knowledge springing into her mind, conjured forth by the magic of her song—knowledge of the people who constructed the monument and the mythic saga it depicts.........Whether scholar, skald, or scoundrel, a bard weaves magic through words and music to inspire allies, demoralize foes, manipulate minds, create illusions, and even heal wounds.....They have a wide-ranging knowledge of many subjects and a natural aptitude that lets them do almost anything well. Bards become masters of the talents they set their minds to perfecting, from musical performance to esoteric knowledge......Discovering the magic hidden in music requires hard study and some measure of natural talent that most troubadours and jongleurs lack........A bard’s life is spent wandering across the land gathering lore, telling stories, and living on the gratitude of audiences, much like any other entertainer. But a depth of knowledge, a level of musical skill, and a touch of magic set bards apart from their fellows.....Every adventure is an opportunity to learn, practice a variety of skills, enter long-forgotten tombs, discover lost works of magic, decipher old tomes, travel to strange places, or encounter exotic creatures......Did you serve an apprenticeship, studying under a master, following the more experienced bard until you were ready to strike out on your own? Or did you attend a college where you studied bardic lore and practiced your musical magic? ......... Or you might have been a spoiled noble child tutored by a master....
Fighters should be INT based
and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat....Fighters learn the basics of all combat styles......Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen’s army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge..... Where did you get your combat training....What drove you to this training in the first place.....You might have enjoyed formal training in a noble’s army or in a local militia. Perhaps you trained in a war academy, learning strategy, tactics, and military history.....
Monk should be INT based
Monks make careful study of a magical energy that most monastic traditions call ki. ......The monks who live there seek personal perfection through contemplation and rigorous training.......As you make your monk character, think about your connection to the monastery where you learned your skills and spent your formative years
Sorcerers should be INT-based
By learning to harness and channel their own inborn magic, they can discover new and staggering ways to unleash that power......Some seek a greater understanding of the magical force that infuses them, or the answer to the mystery of its origin.....
Warlocks should be INT-based
Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse..... Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as fey nobles, demons, devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power.....Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power...And sometimes, while poring over tomes of forbidden lore, a brilliant student’s
Warlocks should not be INT-based
Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as fey nobles, demons, devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power.....Unlike bookish wizards, warlocks supplement their magic with some facility at hand-to-hand combat....a warlock’s thirst for knowledge and power can’t be slaked with mere study and research.
- Warlocks don't use their own knowledge, they gain information from their patron.
- They are explicitly unlike wizards
- They are unsatsified by study and research
Conclusion : Bard fluff has far more justification for them being INT-based than warlocks do. If we need another INT-based caster it should be the Bard and not warlock. Arguably, even fighters have more justification for INT-based than warlocks.
Out of curiosity, I looked at more recent descriptions of both Bard and Warlock, from the playtests. Note that there's only 4 paragraphs of description for each class.
Warlock (UA5 and UA7 Overlap):
Warlocks quest for knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse. They make pacts with mysterious beings of supernatural power, unlocking magical effects as they pry into the secrets and mysteries of reality. Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as archfey, demons, devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, Warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power.
Most Warlocks begin their search for magical power by delving into tomes of forbidden lore, dabbling in invocations meant to attract the power of extraplanar beings, or seeking out places of power where the influence of these beings can be felt.
Once a pact is made, a Warlock’s thirst for knowledge and power can’t be slaked with mere study. Rather, most Warlocks spend their days in active pursuit of greater power and deeper knowledge, which typically means some kind of adventure.
Bard (UA2 and UA6 Overlap):
They have a wide-ranging knowledge of many subjects*and develop an aptitude to do almost anything well. A Bard’s life is spent wandering across the land gathering lore, telling stories, and living on the gratitude of audiences, much like any other entertainer. But Bards’ depth of knowledge and mastery of magic sets them apart.
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)
Nice job cherry picking & carefully choosing parameters to bias the results in your favour. Also read the Warlock description again, drawing on the knowledge of other beings is not evidence that you yourself are smart, nor is not being slaked by "mere study" evidence of studiousness - rather the opposite. Warlock's reject academic study as inefficient and ineffectual preferred to just be given information from their patrons.
Bard UA 6:
Still others immerse themselves in the study of magical lore, collecting scraps of mystic knowledge wherever their journeys take them as they master the secrets of arcane magic.....Bards learn to access almost the entire breadth of magical potential. Anything can inspire a new song or tale, so Bards are fascinated by almost everything. They have a wide-ranging knowledge of many subjects and develop an aptitude to do almost anything well..... Harnessing the Words of Creation requires hard work and some measure of natural talent that most troubadours and jongleurs lack. A Bard’s life is spent wandering across the land gathering lore, telling stories, and living on the gratitude of audiences, much like any other entertainer. But Bards’ depth of knowledge and mastery of magic sets them apart.
Bard UA 2
The magic of Bards is an attempt to harness those words—which transcend any language—and direct them to create new wonders.... Bards are fascinated by almost everything. They have a wide-ranging knowledge of many subjects and develop an aptitude to do almost anything well.... Harnessing the Words of Creation requires hard work and some measure of natural talent that most troubadours and jongleurs lack.... A Bard’s life is spent wandering across the land gathering lore, telling stories, and living on the gratitude of audiences, much like any other entertainer. But Bards’ depth of knowledge, level of musical skill, and mastery of magic sets them apart.
Your argument for why warlocks casting is not intelligence is so insanely flawed it hurts agilemind. And you cherry pick more than anyone while doing it.
That being said Bards casting probably should be intelligence as its lore based, on a game design level I get it as the rest of their class is based around charisma.
Nice job cherry picking & carefully choosing parameters to bias the results in your favour. Also read the Warlock description again, drawing on the knowledge of other beings is not evidence that you yourself are smart, nor is not being slaked by "mere study" evidence of studiousness - rather the opposite. Warlock's reject academic study as inefficient and ineffectual preferred to just be given information from their patrons.
Bard UA 6:
Still others immerse themselves in the study of magical lore, collecting scraps of mystic knowledge wherever their journeys take them as they master the secrets of arcane magic.....Bards learn to access almost the entire breadth of magical potential. Anything can inspire a new song or tale, so Bards are fascinated by almost everything. They have a wide-ranging knowledge of many subjects and develop an aptitude to do almost anything well..... Harnessing the Words of Creation requires hard work and some measure of natural talent that most troubadours and jongleurs lack. A Bard’s life is spent wandering across the land gathering lore, telling stories, and living on the gratitude of audiences, much like any other entertainer. But Bards’ depth of knowledge and mastery of magic sets them apart.
Bard UA 2
The magic of Bards is an attempt to harness those words—which transcend any language—and direct them to create new wonders.... Bards are fascinated by almost everything. They have a wide-ranging knowledge of many subjects and develop an aptitude to do almost anything well.... Harnessing the Words of Creation requires hard work and some measure of natural talent that most troubadours and jongleurs lack.... A Bard’s life is spent wandering across the land gathering lore, telling stories, and living on the gratitude of audiences, much like any other entertainer. But Bards’ depth of knowledge, level of musical skill, and mastery of magic sets them apart.
"master the secrets of arcane magic" doesn't imply anything about Intelligence. They can become good at things. Duh. That's the point of classes
"learn to access almost the entire breadth of magical potential" doesn't say anything about Intelligence either. Fighters learn to access almost the entire breadth of martial potential. That doesn't tie into Intelligence at all, it's just something they're good at.
"Bards are fascinated by almost anything" says nothing about Intelligence once again. Cats are famously curious creatures. Guess what their Intelligence score is.
"hard work," once again, says nothing about Intelligence. They have to learn to be better at their class, yes. Just like a Barbarian does.
"harness those words—which transcend any language" is just a description of what Bards do. Where's the connection to Intelligence?
Talk about bias...
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)
What all of these arguments amount to is players saying "Intelligence should never be the basis of anything, should never be useful for anything, and in fact should be completely superfluous to every conceivable action in D&D to the point where we can just drop it as a stat and assume everyone has the brainpower of an undercaffeinated capybara because unrealistically unintelligent characters are waaay cooler than characters that can remember how to put their own shoes on."
What all of these arguments amount to is players saying "Intelligence should never be the basis of anything, should never be useful for anything, and in fact should be completely superfluous to every conceivable action in D&D to the point where we can just drop it as a stat and assume everyone has the brainpower of an undercaffeinated capybara because unrealistically unintelligent characters are waaay cooler than characters that can remember how to put their own shoes on."
The Luddism in this place is unreal. Yeesh...
If you read these arguments some of us are arguing that intelligence could be used for more classes. The problem is people who want Warlock to be INT casters suddenly realize that like I said many others can and probably should have the same option to be Int casters as well. If anyone is getting flexible casting it should bard and or Sorcerer and honestly if they are going to give it to one, everyone should get it.
You fail in your own argument. First you say scholar is just a noun when describing a Bard, but somehow those sentences matter for the warlock casting stat. Lol. No point in have a debate with you if you aren’t even willing to stick to your own points.
Warlocks draw on ancient knowledge to piece together arcane secrets that bolster their power. Some Bards know things.
If there were implications that some Warlocks are intelligent without connecting that intelligence to their spellcasting which still maintained the idea that a Warlock's spells are actually being cast by an entity they made a pact with (something like "some warlocks studied for more orthodox methods of magic, at places like bard colleges or wizard schools, but found the time commitment necessary to be tedious," you get the picture), then I don't think I'd have as strong an argument. Instead of that, we get text saying that Warlocks hunt for arcane secrets that they use for their abilities, and descriptions that show that the patron doesn't even have to know about a pact, but instead can just be leeched off of for knowledge.
Plus, something that should certainly not go unmentioned is that people are far more split on the stat that Warlocks should use than for any other class. How many threads have you seen asking people which stat Bards should use in 1D&D? How many times do you think a genuine argument for Charisma-based Wizardry has come up in conversation?
(For the record, I'd say that Bard is the second least concrete in their spellcasting ability [by a fair margin]. But the vast majority of people prefer them as Charisma casters, and it's undeniably linked to the very core of the class fantasy. Masters of oration and music who cast by harnessing the power within words would probably have a tough time without any talent or force of personality.)
So you are going to ignore the sentence that said Warlocks rely on a patron to grant their spells.
No, I'm not going to ignore that sentence. That's half of my argument. My claim is that text in Warlock supports their spellcasting coming from both Charisma and Intelligence. I suppose that sentence is the Charisma end of things.
What I find hilarious is that you claim to have a strong argument, but the only measure of your argument is your own opinion. So I’m sure in your opinion your argument is quite strong, lol.
Yes, I believe the things that I am saying. Must'a rolled a high Insight check for that one.
As far using threads to measure the divide I’m going to say that’s pointless. Do you know why 5e Warlock is a charisma caster? Because in the 5e playtest more people wanted that. Probably because the 3e Warlock was a charisma spell like ability user.
That was then, this is now. If you're going to say it's pointless, it might help if you add some reasoning as to why.
If you know your D&D history Bards were a Wisdom caster in the past.
I'm aware. That's because their spellcasting was essentially that of a Druid. Bard and Druid have both developed independently for a fair bit of time, and most players wouldn't see the connection, neither mechanically nor flavor-wise. I know I didn't.
Its so funny you keep clinging to the text about how the Warlock searches for knowledge to support your claim they should be Int based, but I show you text that bard could be Int based and I get denied.
Yes, I disagree with some of the things that you said. Must'a rolled a high Investigation check for that one.
In the biz, we call this "refuting." I suppose you could call it denial, if you want, but I think we both know what that'd mean you're in. (Pause for laughter.)
Anyway like I said it’s all fluff. Pick your favorite flavor of fluff.
Well, the thing about my fluff is that it's the fluff that's, y'know, in the book, whereas a bunch of your fluff you just came up with. "Arithmetic of nature" and all that.
It’s no better or worse than anyone else’s, but if they are giving one class flexible casting they might as well give it to all classes.
And if you give 9th level spells to one class, might as well give it to all of them. After all, the only reason for anything is fluff. Fluff fluff fluff.
All that is to say: Nope. Not how classes work. Not every class deserves to have everything that every other class has. Yes, the reason is fluff. Yes, that's the primary divide between classes. No, archetypes don't just change to your whims. No, not all Wizards should have fully automatic machine guns instead of spells.
You’re own arguments work against you. If a Bard scholar is someone who just knows stuff, but still cast with Charisma then a Warlock who seeks knowledge can find it and still cast with Charisma. I guess that’s what happens when you take short cuts to power.
The reason threads don’t matter is because of playtest surveys. More people participate in playtest than in threads. More people want Charisma based Warlock than wanted Int based Warlock. In similar vein more people wanted pact magic than wanted that 1/2 caster Warlock. Threads mean nothing compared to playtest surveys.
Also again you said something funny. Did you know there was a time in D&D that not all full casters had 9th level spells. Yeah they gave it to the other fullcasters. Flexible casting isn’t the core design to any one class. Casting stat isn’t the core design of any class. I literally gave you examples from the book that other classes could use other stats to cast, but you ignored them. You failed do refute anything since the evidence is in writing in the book. You only deny the truth that is plainly in front of you. Sure my arithmetic of nature is unwritten fluff, but Bard, Cleric, and Sorcerer have in book fluff that can’t be refuted, because it’s written in the book for all to read.
What all of these arguments amount to is players saying "Intelligence should never be the basis of anything, should never be useful for anything, and in fact should be completely superfluous to every conceivable action in D&D to the point where we can just drop it as a stat and assume everyone has the brainpower of an undercaffeinated capybara because unrealistically unintelligent characters are waaay cooler than characters that can remember how to put their own shoes on."
The Luddism in this place is unreal. Yeesh...
The top three results in the poll right now are Charisma or Intelligence, Intelligence only, and Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma, meaning Intelligence accounts for over 80% of all votes cast so far.
But I feel the need to repeat; Intelligence 8 isn't stupid, it's just a little below average, it's only a -1 to Intelligence checks, which is only a 5% lower chance than INT 10, which is average intelligence. Even a Barbarian with INT 6-7 which is -2 (10% less chance) can still pass DC 10 Intelligence checks 45% of the time, so INT 8-9 is a 50% chance. You're not so likely to unexpectedly recall esoteric lore (or if you do, it'll be very unexpected), or solve complex riddles using a check, but the 1d20 is the bigger part of most rolls for much of tier 1 and 2, so you're not incapable of succeeding either.
Nothing prevents you from playing a smart character with only moderate Intelligence of 12 or 14; with proficiency or better yet, expertise, in appropriate skills that's plenty. If you choose to play any character with less than 20 Intelligence as a complete thicko, dumber than a sack of remedial sticks, that's a choice, not a requirement.
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.
Flexible casting isn’t the core design to any one class.
For Warlock, the most modular class in the game, it makes perfect sense to have flexible casting. After all, why would any two pacts be alike? Warlocks are in the very broad position of "people who gain power from other people," and who those "other people" are varies vastly, as does the way they gain the power, so trying to shoehorn all Warlocks into one stat is far more difficult than it is for any other class. I think that flexible casting would be an interesting way to show just how modular Warlocks are and to set them apart from other classes.
Casting stat isn’t the core design of any class.
Casting stat is most certainly part of the core design for numerous classes. Wizards cast with Intelligence, with memorization of patterns and incantations. Druids cast with Wisdom, with their connection to the world around them (which is exactly what Wisdom is). Your Charisma and Wisdom based Wizards, your Intelligence based Druids, they're simply separate archetypes (if they could even be called that).
I literally gave you examples from the book that other classes could use other stats to cast, but you ignored them. You failed do refute anything since the evidence is in writing in the book. You only deny the truth that is plainly in front of you. Sure my arithmetic of nature is unwritten fluff, but Bard, Cleric, and Sorcerer have in book fluff that can’t be refuted, because it’s written in the book for all to read.
You cannot say that a train of logic simply cannot be refuted. All trains of logic can be refuted, at least somehow. Maybe not successfully, but by virtue of being a train of logic there are logical leaps that have the possibility of being flawed. If a train of logic truly gives no opportunity to be refuted, that makes it unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiability, believe it or not, is not something that you want.
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)
What all of these arguments amount to is players saying "Intelligence should never be the basis of anything, should never be useful for anything, and in fact should be completely superfluous to every conceivable action in D&D to the point where we can just drop it as a stat and assume everyone has the brainpower of an undercaffeinated capybara because unrealistically unintelligent characters are waaay cooler than characters that can remember how to put their own shoes on."
The Luddism in this place is unreal. Yeesh...
The top three results in the poll right now are Charisma or Intelligence, Intelligence only, and Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma, meaning Intelligence accounts for over 80% of all votes cast so far.
But I feel the need to repeat; Intelligence 8 isn't stupid, it's just a little below average, it's only a -1 to Intelligence checks, which is only a 5% lower chance than INT 10, which is average intelligence. Even a Barbarian with INT 6-7 which is -2 (10% less chance) can still pass DC 10 Intelligence checks 45% of the time, so INT 8-9 is a 50% chance. You're not so likely to unexpectedly recall esoteric lore (or if you do, it'll be very unexpected), or solve complex riddles using a check, but the 1d20 is the bigger part of most rolls.
Nothing prevents you from playing a smart character with only moderate Intelligence of 12 or 14; with proficiency or better yet, expertise, in a skill that's plenty. If you choose to play any character with less than 20 Intelligence as thick as a complete thick, dumber than a sack of remedial sticks, that's a choice, not a requirement.
Haravikk, thank you for your effort to bring the discussion back to the point of this thread, the poll numbers.
I am personally somewhat surprised that sticking with straight Charisma has as few supporters as it does in this limited sample size. This may be due to the fact that folks who are happy with the status quo are less invested in noting and arguing their opinions, or it may just be that an Intelligence casting Warlock genuinely does have an overwhelming amount of support. My guess would tend to the former.
Not that I have any pretentions about having any real control over the course of discussion of this thread I started, but I would certainly rather folks refrain from rehashing all the pro and counter arguments according to their reading of the descriptions, and instead discuss the conclusions that can be taken from the actual numbers.
Flexible casting isn’t the core design to any one class.
For Warlock, the most modular class in the game, it makes perfect sense to have flexible casting. After all, why would any two pacts be alike? Warlocks are in the very broad position of "people who gain power from other people," and who those "other people" are varies vastly, as does the way they gain the power, so trying to shoehorn all Warlocks into one stat is far more difficult than it is for any other class. I think that flexible casting would be an interesting way to show just how modular Warlocks are and to set them apart from other classes.
Casting stat isn’t the core design of any class.
Casting stat is most certainly part of the core design for numerous classes. Wizards cast with Intelligence, with memorization of patterns and incantations. Druids cast with Wisdom, with their connection to the world around them (which is exactly what Wisdom is). Your Charisma and Wisdom based Wizards, your Intelligence based Druids, they're simply separate archetypes (if they could even be called that).
I literally gave you examples from the book that other classes could use other stats to cast, but you ignored them. You failed do refute anything since the evidence is in writing in the book. You only deny the truth that is plainly in front of you. Sure my arithmetic of nature is unwritten fluff, but Bard, Cleric, and Sorcerer have in book fluff that can’t be refuted, because it’s written in the book for all to read.
You cannot say that a train of logic simply cannot be refuted. All trains of logic can be refuted, at least somehow. Maybe not successfully, but by virtue of being a train of logic there are logical leaps that have the possibility of being flawed. If a train of logic truly gives no opportunity to be refuted, that makes it unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiability, believe it or not, is not something that you want.
Please stopping thinking your thoughts are game facts.
1. Just because you think warlocks make sense having flexible casting doesn’t make it true. Because I think it makes sense for any caster to have flexible casting. 2. No where in the books does it say Wisdom is nature’s casting stat. It doesn’t explain how they use awareness to cast spells. Please stop telling that lie or making that mistake. It only says Wisdom represents how attuned you are to the world around you and mentions perception and intuition. The definition of attuned is aware. That has nothing to do with casting stats. Honestly the only casting stat that makes sense is Int because you are recalling a spell that has been experimented and worked. Wisdom is willpower so I suppose you could claim the casters are willing Magic into existence, but that actually is counter to how we normally assume both Clerics and Druids cast. Charisma has nothing that states how you would manifest magic with it. Unless you say they are confident that magic is going to manifest which is honestly just Willpower, and well the books say willpower is Wisdom. 3. Refute means to prove false. You can’t prove something false that has physical evidence that others can see at will. The things you claim to refute aren’t my train of logic, it’s the literal words from the books. They are not refutable because they can’t be proven false since they exist. Unless we go into existential overview that you and I are just characters being played in a game of Computers and Humans and my player is metagaming right now in a weird way we have to acknowledge that for us the D&D book does exist. In this book it states Bards can be Scholars. It states Clerics embody their God’s theme, it states that Sorcerers learn new ways of manifesting their power. It doesn’t state that primal magic is summoned with Wisdom. Now if you want to end the debate it also states what casting stat each class has. Sadly for you if you accept the books statement on casting stats you are stuck with Charisma for Warlocks. If we are ignoring that statement from the book for warlocks and using other statements from the book to support other possibilities I’m fine with it. Just do it across the board. Don’t cherry pick.
What all of these arguments amount to is players saying "Intelligence should never be the basis of anything, should never be useful for anything, and in fact should be completely superfluous to every conceivable action in D&D to the point where we can just drop it as a stat and assume everyone has the brainpower of an undercaffeinated capybara because unrealistically unintelligent characters are waaay cooler than characters that can remember how to put their own shoes on."
The Luddism in this place is unreal. Yeesh...
The top three results in the poll right now are Charisma or Intelligence, Intelligence only, and Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma, meaning Intelligence accounts for over 80% of all votes cast so far.
But I feel the need to repeat; Intelligence 8 isn't stupid, it's just a little below average, it's only a -1 to Intelligence checks, which is only a 5% lower chance than INT 10, which is average intelligence. Even a Barbarian with INT 6-7 which is -2 (10% less chance) can still pass DC 10 Intelligence checks 45% of the time, so INT 8-9 is a 50% chance. You're not so likely to unexpectedly recall esoteric lore (or if you do, it'll be very unexpected), or solve complex riddles using a check, but the 1d20 is the bigger part of most rolls.
Nothing prevents you from playing a smart character with only moderate Intelligence of 12 or 14; with proficiency or better yet, expertise, in a skill that's plenty. If you choose to play any character with less than 20 Intelligence as thick as a complete thick, dumber than a sack of remedial sticks, that's a choice, not a requirement.
Haravikk, thank you for your effort to bring the discussion back to the point of this thread, the poll numbers.
I am personally somewhat surprised that sticking with straight Charisma has as few supporters as it does in this limited sample size. This may be due to the fact that folks who are happy with the status quo are less invested in noting and arguing their opinions, or it may just be that an Intelligence casting Warlock genuinely does have an overwhelming amount of support. My guess would tend to the former.
Not that I have any pretentions about having any real control over the course of discussion of this thread I started, but I would certainly rather folks refrain from rehashing all the pro and counter arguments according to their reading of the descriptions, and instead discuss the conclusions that can be taken from the actual numbers.
But you just admitted these numbers aren’t the ones that matter. There was a 5e playtest and they were going to make Warlock Int based as there was a 4e version of Warlock that was Int based. What happened was a bunch of people wanted Warlock to be Charisma based. This is likely because they remember the 3.5 Warlock being charisma based and some of them probably played the Cha based 4e Warlock. My point being there was already a much bigger poll and survey done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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
Well the DMG says you are wrong on many of your points. Let’s discuss.
Story telling requires you to recall the story. Guess what stat covers remembering things. Intelligence. Also if we are saying the stats only represent what checks are involved with them their is definitely no reason to limit any caster to a mental stat, since none of the stats have do magic skill attached to it.
Nobody would care if the Knowledge or Arcana Cleric are taking an extra step by being Int based and learning magic through divine rites it’s just fluff. Also it’s not any extra step if it is the way to show worship to your god. You know a god of knowledge probably blesses people who study knowledge.
Again fluff vs mechanics. What is the mechanical difference of I get my magic from a spiritual connection to nature and I get my magic from learning the order and flow of primal energies. Literally nothing, all fluff. Also none of the books state Wisdom is the stat that means you have a connection to nature or a deity. Actually Wisdom is stated to represent Willpower. Which will come up later.
Well here we are. If Sorcerers cast through Willpower they should according to the DMG be Wisdom casters. Also there is a whole sorcerer subclass dedicated to psionic casting now and you know it.
Why is anything anything? Fluff, you are literally arguing with me about a game of make believe and mental stat breakdown that has no real life bearing. You cannot separate Intelligence and Wisdom in real life. The ideal of the Wise fool is a fallacy. Also to my point earlier real life intellect is needed for skills. That’s why in older editions skills were based on Int. They decided for 5e that wouldn’t be the case. Back to the Wisdom Wizard just because you can intuit the end doesn’t mean you have the beginning. Maybe they could be a bard, or a Druid, but they learned at a Wizard school. So that’s what they know.
I’m pretty sure Charisma is cheating off your friends spellbook since it covers both persuasion and deception. And as far as you are concerned Charisma gives you enough memory to recall epic tales which means it’s enough memory to recall a spell. Wait is this what Warlocks are doing. Are they cheating off some higher powers spell book. Lol. Also I’m pretty sure everyone who cast a spell that they know it’s going to work is pretty confident.
As for straight from the book descriptions that don’t match their casting stats let’s do it.
Bard: Whether scholar, skald, or scoundrel, a bard weaves magic through words and music to inspire allies, demoralize foes, manipulate minds, create illusions, and even heal wounds.
I don’t have to explain what a scholar is, do I?
Cleric: Clerics are intermediaries between the mortal world and the distant planes of the gods. As varied as the gods they serve, clerics strive to embody the handiwork of their deities. No ordinary priest, a cleric is imbued with divine magic.
How do you embody knowledge without being intelligent. Please explain.
Druid: I’ll give you a semi pass since nothing in their PHB lore states anything about learning the Old Faith only practicing it. But their is still nothing that solidifies Wisdom as the appropriate casting stat for natural connections.
Sorcerer: Sorcerers have no use for the spellbooks and ancient tomes of magic lore that wizards rely on, nor do they rely on a patron to grant their spells as warlocks do. By learning to harness and channel their own inborn magic, they can discover new and staggering ways to unleash that power.
Well this says a lot. Literally a sorcerer should be able to cast with any stat depending on how they learned about themselves. Legit should be able to cast with strength if that’s how it first manifested and I kept training that way. Also look what this says about Warlocks. Lmao. Kind of contradicts what a lot of people are saying about them learning their spells through occult research.
Wizard: Well this is a tough one and I knew it would be since they are really a knowledge based class, but they actually left more room for play than the Druid.
Wizards are supreme magic-users, defined and united as a class by the spells they cast.
The only thing that makes them a class is the spells they class. The juicy juicy spell list, which means you could use another stat. I’ll admit I’m pulling a straws here. This next from the book statement looks bad for you Int based Warlock.
Wizards live and die by their spells. Everything else is secondary. They learn new spells as they experiment and grow in experience. They can also learn them from other wizards, from ancient tomes or inscriptions, and from ancient creatures (such as the fey) that are steeped in magic.
Seems to me that if you learn using Int from an Ancient Creature you are a Wizard, but if your spells are granted from that Creature you are a Warlock. At least that’s how these small sentences from the book would paint it. If you can’t tell the difference, I don’t know what to tell you.
You're completely right. The only reason Druids don't cast with Intelligence is existing fluff. If we get rid of fluff, then Druids can cast with Intelligence all they like. And we might as well make Wizards Dex-based gunslingers, while we're at it. Because the only thing standing in the way of that is fluff. To hell with fluff! I think every game should be played with nothing but a spreadsheet!
It's a noun used to describe a person in a way that isn't necessarily linked to how they cast spells. Should Bards also be able to cast with their Scoundrelness stat? I think you'll find that some of the text supporting the possibility of Intelligence-based Warlocks is unmistakably linked to how they access and perform their magic.
You don't. I'm not making the claim that Knowledge Clerics should have low Intelligence. I think that somebody playing an 8 Int Knowledge Cleric, unless they have a very unique character, is not the kind of person I want at my table. That doesn't change the fact that it's separate to their spellcasting.
That's a hell of a lot of inferences being made off of... nothing. I don't know how you read "new and staggering ways to unleash that power" as "if you're a Sorcerer and you punch walls a ton then your magic becomes based on wall punching." It's pretty clear that the part you bolded is talking about getting new spells and class features. Not sure where you got the idea that it means you can do whatever the hell you want with your magic.
Well, that's kinda my point, no? You have sentences like these scattered around the book, suggesting that Warlocks are simply granted their spells, but you also have lines straight from the class's description that suggest otherwise. From the main description for Warlock:
Both possibilities are heavily supported by the book, except in the spellcasting ability used.
Egads, the irony hath slain me.
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)
You fail in your own argument. First you say scholar is just a noun when describing a Bard, but somehow those sentences matter for the warlock casting stat. Lol. No point in have a debate with you if you aren’t even willing to stick to your own points.
Warlocks draw on ancient knowledge to piece together arcane secrets that bolster their power. Some Bards know things.
If there were implications that some Warlocks are intelligent without connecting that intelligence to their spellcasting which still maintained the idea that a Warlock's spells are actually being cast by an entity they made a pact with (something like "some warlocks studied for more orthodox methods of magic, at places like bard colleges or wizard schools, but found the time commitment necessary to be tedious," you get the picture), then I don't think I'd have as strong an argument. Instead of that, we get text saying that Warlocks hunt for arcane secrets that they use for their abilities, and descriptions that show that the patron doesn't even have to know about a pact, but instead can just be leeched off of for knowledge.
Plus, something that should certainly not go unmentioned is that people are far more split on the stat that Warlocks should use than for any other class. How many threads have you seen asking people which stat Bards should use in 1D&D? How many times do you think a genuine argument for Charisma-based Wizardry has come up in conversation?
(For the record, I'd say that Bard is the second least concrete in their spellcasting ability [by a fair margin]. But the vast majority of people prefer them as Charisma casters, and it's undeniably linked to the very core of the class fantasy. Masters of oration and music who cast by harnessing the power within words would probably have a tough time without any talent or force of personality.)
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)
So you are going to ignore the sentence that said Warlocks rely on a patron to grant their spells. I question what is the warlocks abilities and what is the patron’s power? Is it invocations? Is it Pact Magic? At the very least we know that cantrips is undoubtedly the Warlocks own power by nature of what a cantrip is. What I find hilarious is that you claim to have a strong argument, but the only measure of your argument is your own opinion. So I’m sure in your opinion your argument is quite strong, lol. As far using threads to measure the divide I’m going to say that’s pointless. Do you know why 5e Warlock is a charisma caster? Because in the 5e playtest more people wanted that. Probably because the 3e Warlock was a charisma spell like ability user. If you know your D&D history Bards were a Wisdom caster in the past. They literally playtested giving a bard all the spell list as options, so I’m going to argue it’s not that far fetched to give them all the spell casting stats as options.
Its so funny you keep clinging to the text about how the Warlock searches for knowledge to support your claim they should be Int based, but I show you text that bard could be Int based and I get denied. Lol You should really read the Bard page. It talks more about studying a knowledge than the Warlock page.
Anyway like I said it’s all fluff. Pick your favorite flavor of fluff. It’s no better or worse than anyone else’s, but if they are giving one class flexible casting they might as well give it to all classes. And if Warlock is stuck with one casting stat Cha makes equal sense to Int or Wis, and since it’s been Cha this long their is no reason to change it now.
No, I'm not going to ignore that sentence. That's half of my argument. My claim is that text in Warlock supports their spellcasting coming from both Charisma and Intelligence. I suppose that sentence is the Charisma end of things.
Yes, I believe the things that I am saying. Must'a rolled a high Insight check for that one.
That was then, this is now. If you're going to say it's pointless, it might help if you add some reasoning as to why.
I'm aware. That's because their spellcasting was essentially that of a Druid. Bard and Druid have both developed independently for a fair bit of time, and most players wouldn't see the connection, neither mechanically nor flavor-wise. I know I didn't.
Yes, I disagree with some of the things that you said. Must'a rolled a high Investigation check for that one.
In the biz, we call this "refuting." I suppose you could call it denial, if you want, but I think we both know what that'd mean you're in. (Pause for laughter.)
Well, the thing about my fluff is that it's the fluff that's, y'know, in the book, whereas a bunch of your fluff you just came up with. "Arithmetic of nature" and all that.
And if you give 9th level spells to one class, might as well give it to all of them. After all, the only reason for anything is fluff. Fluff fluff fluff.
All that is to say: Nope. Not how classes work. Not every class deserves to have everything that every other class has. Yes, the reason is fluff. Yes, that's the primary divide between classes. No, archetypes don't just change to your whims. No, not all Wizards should have fully automatic machine guns instead of spells.
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)
Bards should be INT casters:
Fighters should be INT based
Monk should be INT based
Sorcerers should be INT-based
Warlocks should be INT-based
Warlocks should NOT be INT-based
- Warlocks don't use their own knowledge, they gain information from their patron.
- They are explicitly unlike wizards
- They are unsatsified by study and research
Conclusion : Bard fluff has far more justification for them being INT-based than warlocks do. If we need another INT-based caster it should be the Bard and not warlock. Arguably, even fighters have more justification for INT-based than warlocks.
Out of curiosity, I looked at more recent descriptions of both Bard and Warlock, from the playtests. Note that there's only 4 paragraphs of description for each class.
Warlock (UA5 and UA7 Overlap):
Bard (UA2 and UA6 Overlap):
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)
Nice job cherry picking & carefully choosing parameters to bias the results in your favour. Also read the Warlock description again, drawing on the knowledge of other beings is not evidence that you yourself are smart, nor is not being slaked by "mere study" evidence of studiousness - rather the opposite. Warlock's reject academic study as inefficient and ineffectual preferred to just be given information from their patrons.
Bard UA 6:
Bard UA 2
Your argument for why warlocks casting is not intelligence is so insanely flawed it hurts agilemind. And you cherry pick more than anyone while doing it.
That being said Bards casting probably should be intelligence as its lore based, on a game design level I get it as the rest of their class is based around charisma.
Talk about bias...
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)
What all of these arguments amount to is players saying "Intelligence should never be the basis of anything, should never be useful for anything, and in fact should be completely superfluous to every conceivable action in D&D to the point where we can just drop it as a stat and assume everyone has the brainpower of an undercaffeinated capybara because unrealistically unintelligent characters are waaay cooler than characters that can remember how to put their own shoes on."
The Luddism in this place is unreal. Yeesh...
Please do not contact or message me.
If you read these arguments some of us are arguing that intelligence could be used for more classes. The problem is people who want Warlock to be INT casters suddenly realize that like I said many others can and probably should have the same option to be Int casters as well. If anyone is getting flexible casting it should bard and or Sorcerer and honestly if they are going to give it to one, everyone should get it.
You’re own arguments work against you. If a Bard scholar is someone who just knows stuff, but still cast with Charisma then a Warlock who seeks knowledge can find it and still cast with Charisma. I guess that’s what happens when you take short cuts to power.
The reason threads don’t matter is because of playtest surveys. More people participate in playtest than in threads. More people want Charisma based Warlock than wanted Int based Warlock. In similar vein more people wanted pact magic than wanted that 1/2 caster Warlock. Threads mean nothing compared to playtest surveys.
Also again you said something funny. Did you know there was a time in D&D that not all full casters had 9th level spells. Yeah they gave it to the other fullcasters. Flexible casting isn’t the core design to any one class. Casting stat isn’t the core design of any class. I literally gave you examples from the book that other classes could use other stats to cast, but you ignored them. You failed do refute anything since the evidence is in writing in the book. You only deny the truth that is plainly in front of you. Sure my arithmetic of nature is unwritten fluff, but Bard, Cleric, and Sorcerer have in book fluff that can’t be refuted, because it’s written in the book for all to read.
The top three results in the poll right now are Charisma or Intelligence, Intelligence only, and Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma, meaning Intelligence accounts for over 80% of all votes cast so far.
But I feel the need to repeat; Intelligence 8 isn't stupid, it's just a little below average, it's only a -1 to Intelligence checks, which is only a 5% lower chance than INT 10, which is average intelligence. Even a Barbarian with INT 6-7 which is -2 (10% less chance) can still pass DC 10 Intelligence checks 45% of the time, so INT 8-9 is a 50% chance. You're not so likely to unexpectedly recall esoteric lore (or if you do, it'll be very unexpected), or solve complex riddles using a check, but the 1d20 is the bigger part of most rolls for much of tier 1 and 2, so you're not incapable of succeeding either.
Nothing prevents you from playing a smart character with only moderate Intelligence of 12 or 14; with proficiency or better yet, expertise, in appropriate skills that's plenty. If you choose to play any character with less than 20 Intelligence as a complete thicko, dumber than a sack of remedial sticks, that's a choice, not a requirement.
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.
For Warlock, the most modular class in the game, it makes perfect sense to have flexible casting. After all, why would any two pacts be alike? Warlocks are in the very broad position of "people who gain power from other people," and who those "other people" are varies vastly, as does the way they gain the power, so trying to shoehorn all Warlocks into one stat is far more difficult than it is for any other class. I think that flexible casting would be an interesting way to show just how modular Warlocks are and to set them apart from other classes.
Casting stat is most certainly part of the core design for numerous classes. Wizards cast with Intelligence, with memorization of patterns and incantations. Druids cast with Wisdom, with their connection to the world around them (which is exactly what Wisdom is). Your Charisma and Wisdom based Wizards, your Intelligence based Druids, they're simply separate archetypes (if they could even be called that).
You cannot say that a train of logic simply cannot be refuted. All trains of logic can be refuted, at least somehow. Maybe not successfully, but by virtue of being a train of logic there are logical leaps that have the possibility of being flawed. If a train of logic truly gives no opportunity to be refuted, that makes it unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiability, believe it or not, is not something that you want.
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)
Haravikk, thank you for your effort to bring the discussion back to the point of this thread, the poll numbers.
I am personally somewhat surprised that sticking with straight Charisma has as few supporters as it does in this limited sample size. This may be due to the fact that folks who are happy with the status quo are less invested in noting and arguing their opinions, or it may just be that an Intelligence casting Warlock genuinely does have an overwhelming amount of support. My guess would tend to the former.
Not that I have any pretentions about having any real control over the course of discussion of this thread I started, but I would certainly rather folks refrain from rehashing all the pro and counter arguments according to their reading of the descriptions, and instead discuss the conclusions that can be taken from the actual numbers.
Please stopping thinking your thoughts are game facts.
1. Just because you think warlocks make sense having flexible casting doesn’t make it true. Because I think it makes sense for any caster to have flexible casting.
2. No where in the books does it say Wisdom is nature’s casting stat. It doesn’t explain how they use awareness to cast spells. Please stop telling that lie or making that mistake. It only says Wisdom represents how attuned you are to the world around you and mentions perception and intuition. The definition of attuned is aware. That has nothing to do with casting stats. Honestly the only casting stat that makes sense is Int because you are recalling a spell that has been experimented and worked. Wisdom is willpower so I suppose you could claim the casters are willing Magic into existence, but that actually is counter to how we normally assume both Clerics and Druids cast. Charisma has nothing that states how you would manifest magic with it. Unless you say they are confident that magic is going to manifest which is honestly just Willpower, and well the books say willpower is Wisdom.
3. Refute means to prove false. You can’t prove something false that has physical evidence that others can see at will. The things you claim to refute aren’t my train of logic, it’s the literal words from the books. They are not refutable because they can’t be proven false since they exist. Unless we go into existential overview that you and I are just characters being played in a game of Computers and Humans and my player is metagaming right now in a weird way we have to acknowledge that for us the D&D book does exist. In this book it states Bards can be Scholars. It states Clerics embody their God’s theme, it states that Sorcerers learn new ways of manifesting their power. It doesn’t state that primal magic is summoned with Wisdom. Now if you want to end the debate it also states what casting stat each class has. Sadly for you if you accept the books statement on casting stats you are stuck with Charisma for Warlocks. If we are ignoring that statement from the book for warlocks and using other statements from the book to support other possibilities I’m fine with it. Just do it across the board. Don’t cherry pick.
But you just admitted these numbers aren’t the ones that matter. There was a 5e playtest and they were going to make Warlock Int based as there was a 4e version of Warlock that was Int based. What happened was a bunch of people wanted Warlock to be Charisma based. This is likely because they remember the 3.5 Warlock being charisma based and some of them probably played the Cha based 4e Warlock. My point being there was already a much bigger poll and survey done.