I acknowledge my sentence structure is poor, but the common education of the people replying on these threads can understand that ‘Warlock only’ would exclude all others. The question is presented from the perspective of the Warlock being granted this flexible casting stats and ask who else do you believe should also receive flexible casting stats. In the poll I was limited by letter count and my own inferior understanding of written language, but I’m pretty sure 99% of people who took the time to vote were understood the question and the potential answers.
I think arguing over the semantics is...unhelpful. I thought the poll was clear enough for the last question. if you think that warlocks should be flexible casters and nothing else, then you vote 'warlock only'. Otherwise, you vote for the classes that should get it. I personally am one of the few that voted none at all (to include warlock). I think it would open up a balancing nightmare for multi classing. While I would use it and certainly enjoy it, I do not think that it would be good for the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
The thing is the superpowerful multiclasses are the charisma ones - hexadins, sorlocks, even sorclockadin if that takes your fancy. I’m in favour of int or cha only, and warlock/wizard or warlock/artificer would absolutely not cause any problems.
I can see a potential issue with warlock/cleric, simply because melee cleric is very powerful already and adding WIS attack/damage, armor of Agathys and eldritch blast forced movement to cleric seems very powerful. But even then, if you plan on minmaxing you should be telling your DM so they can yea or nay for the campaign. I doubt it’d be very much of an issue.
And for the people voting against it who want CHA warlock, it doesn’t actually affect you? You could just.. keep playing cha warlock.
Warlock is such a varied bag, that it does beg questions of what certain combos of pacts and patrons should be. Pact of the Tome sounds very Intelligence based while Pact of the Blade, Pact of the Chain and Pact of the Talisman do not. Making a pact with a Celestial or an Archfey is potentially more wise than making a pact with a fiend or undead patron.
Most of the other classes, I don't think Flexible casting makes as much sense, the only one I think it might is Paladin. Paladin is about their power of their faith, which feeds into their ego, thus Charisma, but is the same true of an Oath of the Ancients Paladin? Their beliefs tend to be similar to a Druid or Ranger, Oath of the Watchers also similarly sounds more Wisdom than Charisma. Devotion also can be to a god or religion, so that also potentially shifts towards being closer to a Cleric, or Wisdom.
For sorcerer, their power is innate so is always Charisma; A Wizard is from their arcane study, so always intelligence; for Bard it is their performance and story telling, so Charisma; For a druid or ranger, it is related to nature and so Wisdom and Cleric is their deity, so Wisdom. Even outliers like Divine Soul Sorcerer, their power is innate still, so still Charisma. Warlock is by far the most varied and Paladin I think might have a few oaths that scratch on that side too.
The thing is the superpowerful multiclasses are the charisma ones - hexadins, sorlocks, even sorclockadin if that takes your fancy. I’m in favour of int or cha only, and warlock/wizard or warlock/artificer would absolutely not cause any problems.
I can see a potential issue with warlock/cleric, simply because melee cleric is very powerful already and adding WIS attack/damage, armor of Agathys and eldritch blast forced movement to cleric seems very powerful. But even then, if you plan on minmaxing you should be telling your DM so they can yea or nay for the campaign. I doubt it’d be very much of an issue.
And for the people voting against it who want CHA warlock, it doesn’t actually affect you? You could just.. keep playing cha warlock.
I think an Int Warlock would pair well with the 1/3 caster subclasses like Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster, however there are so many Dex based skills that the latter doesn't gain as much as a combatant like the EK. It would also pair well with Artificer, but like with wizard, it is probably better to stay single class in that case from a power perspective. Possibly the BladeSinger Wizard gets something more impressive, but I was more worried about the (now fixed, thankfully) ability to get infinite Shield spells than a couple points of melee attack bonus on a d6 HP character.
Warlock is such a varied bag, that it does beg questions of what certain combos of pacts and patrons should be. Pact of the Tome sounds very Intelligence based while Pact of the Blade, Pact of the Chain and Pact of the Talisman do not. Making a pact with a Celestial or an Archfey is potentially more wise than making a pact with a fiend or undead patron.
Most of the other classes, I don't think Flexible casting makes as much sense, the only one I think it might is Paladin. Paladin is about their power of their faith, which feeds into their ego, thus Charisma, but is the same true of an Oath of the Ancients Paladin? Their beliefs tend to be similar to a Druid or Ranger, Oath of the Watchers also similarly sounds more Wisdom than Charisma. Devotion also can be to a god or religion, so that also potentially shifts towards being closer to a Cleric, or Wisdom.
For sorcerer, their power is innate so is always Charisma; A Wizard is from their arcane study, so always intelligence; for Bard it is their performance and story telling, so Charisma; For a druid or ranger, it is related to nature and so Wisdom and Cleric is their deity, so Wisdom. Even outliers like Divine Soul Sorcerer, their power is innate still, so still Charisma. Warlock is by far the most varied and Paladin I think might have a few oaths that scratch on that side too.
While I agree for the most part with what you have said here, as other folks have pointed out, Bard has a pretty decent argument for using Intelligence (about on par with the Warlock in my opinion). However, I'd probably rather keep flexible casting to only the Warlock.
As Redpelt mentioned, if Wisdom is included as a casting stat for Warlock, I would be rather worried about Warlock/Cleric builds being too powerful (and in addition, I really don't see Wisdom as an appropriate stat for Warlocks).
This thread is pretty interesting in that it gives a little insight into how much people box themselves in on what other classes can or should be. I can see how a cleric or paladin might be intelligent based. Religious leaders can also be academics (think the Pope) but besides that, why could a patron grant someone the ability to use intelligence for their spellcasting, but a god could not? Or rigorous study that leads to a binding oath? A sorcerer could use intelligence. Their natural talent might lend to their mind rather than their will. Wizards might lack the intellectual capacity to attain great wizarding heights, but they make up for it in a strong intuitive sense (wisdom).
Pull the lever on all spellcasters being flexible.
This thread is pretty interesting in that it gives a little insight into how much people box themselves in on what other classes can or should be. I can see how a cleric or paladin might be intelligent based. Religious leaders can also be academics (think the Pope) but besides that, why could a patron grant someone the ability to use intelligence for their spellcasting, but a god could not? Or rigorous study that leads to a binding oath? A sorcerer could use intelligence. Their natural talent might lend to their mind rather than their will. Wizards might lack the intellectual capacity to attain great wizarding heights, but they make up for it in a strong intuitive sense (wisdom).
Pull the lever on all spellcasters being flexible.
Yuck.
How do you plan on getting new players to play Intelligence Wizards? Obviously "intuition magic" is a very niche class fantasy, assuming it makes any sense at all, and the vast majority of Wizards should learn through arcane study, but new players don't necessarily understand that or know all of the stats, so you'll have a bunch of them with Wizards (or any other class) who are barely even Wizards (or any other class) and don't realize it.
How do you plan on getting anybody to have a high Intelligence? It's generally accepted that Charisma and Wisdom are simply superior. I think you'll find, with true flexible casting, that barely anybody will play a Wizard or Artificer with Intelligence, which sucks because flavor-wise a Charisma Wizard/Artificer is stupid, but mechanically just better than an Intelligence Wizard/Artificer. You're just encouraging people to throw their class fantasies out the window in favor of raw mechanical benefits. Don't encourage people to do that.
How do you plan on maintaining any shred of class fantasy? I mean, it's no secret that the biggest difference between Sorcerers and Wizards is spellcasting stat, but now that a ton of Wizards will be Charisma casters because [insert nonsensical background reason that half-assedly justifies Charisma Wizards], that difference is undeniably destroyed. Also, speaking more personally, I think it's really interesting to see how different classes draw from similar sources of power in different ways. Clerics cast through Wisdom, through spiritual connection to their deity, but Divine Soul Sorcerers cast through Charisma, through force of will and otherworldly gift. That's an interesting dichotomy. I think Divine Soul actually says in its description that a lot of Clerics feel threatened by Divine Soul Sorcerers for just that reason. Guess how many Clerics will be threatened by Divine Soul Sorcerers if they both cast through Wisdom and gain their powers the exact same way. Similarly, Wizards are often affronted by Sorcerers because the former learn magic through long, tedious study and Intelligence while the latter learn magic through simply being, and the force of will with which they assert that they be. That's interesting. Then along comes flexible casting, which says either "Wizards actually learn just like Sorcerers now" or "Sorcerers actually learn through Intelligence and tough study," and that interest goes bye-bye. There are plenty more examples, if you'd like to hear them.
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)
Warlock is such a varied bag, that it does beg questions of what certain combos of pacts and patrons should be. Pact of the Tome sounds very Intelligence based while Pact of the Blade, Pact of the Chain and Pact of the Talisman do not. Making a pact with a Celestial or an Archfey is potentially more wise than making a pact with a fiend or undead patron.
Most of the other classes, I don't think Flexible casting makes as much sense, the only one I think it might is Paladin. Paladin is about their power of their faith, which feeds into their ego, thus Charisma, but is the same true of an Oath of the Ancients Paladin? Their beliefs tend to be similar to a Druid or Ranger, Oath of the Watchers also similarly sounds more Wisdom than Charisma. Devotion also can be to a god or religion, so that also potentially shifts towards being closer to a Cleric, or Wisdom.
For sorcerer, their power is innate so is always Charisma; A Wizard is from their arcane study, so always intelligence; for Bard it is their performance and story telling, so Charisma; For a druid or ranger, it is related to nature and so Wisdom and Cleric is their deity, so Wisdom. Even outliers like Divine Soul Sorcerer, their power is innate still, so still Charisma. Warlock is by far the most varied and Paladin I think might have a few oaths that scratch on that side too.
While I agree for the most part with what you have said here, as other folks have pointed out, Bard has a pretty decent argument for using Intelligence (about on par with the Warlock in my opinion). However, I'd probably rather keep flexible casting to only the Warlock.
As Redpelt mentioned, if Wisdom is included as a casting stat for Warlock, I would be rather worried about Warlock/Cleric builds being too powerful (and in addition, I really don't see Wisdom as an appropriate stat for Warlocks).
I can see the argument for Bard, but I don't really agree with it. Perhaps certain subclasses could get benefits from intelligence, like lore college could get more magical secret spells or what not but most of how a bard casts spells is not intelligence based, it is song, music, dance or some other type of performance.
Wisdom is slightly abusable by Cleric but to get the levels needed for something like extra attack, it's kinda pointless, you'd sacrifice so many levels of cleric. So it's really the weapon attack, which a cleric can already do well with a club and getting shillelagh. I don't think a cleric/warlock hybrid here is actually as powerful as people might think, Cleric already has better proficiencies than warlock.
This thread is pretty interesting in that it gives a little insight into how much people box themselves in on what other classes can or should be. I can see how a cleric or paladin might be intelligent based. Religious leaders can also be academics (think the Pope) but besides that, why could a patron grant someone the ability to use intelligence for their spellcasting, but a god could not? Or rigorous study that leads to a binding oath? A sorcerer could use intelligence. Their natural talent might lend to their mind rather than their will. Wizards might lack the intellectual capacity to attain great wizarding heights, but they make up for it in a strong intuitive sense (wisdom).
Pull the lever on all spellcasters being flexible.
Yuck.
How do you plan on getting new players to play Intelligence Wizards? Obviously "intuition magic" is a very niche class fantasy, assuming it makes any sense at all, and the vast majority of Wizards should learn through arcane study, but new players don't necessarily understand that or know all of the stats, so you'll have a bunch of them with Wizards (or any other class) who are barely even Wizards (or any other class) and don't realize it.
How do you plan on getting anybody to have a high Intelligence? It's generally accepted that Charisma and Wisdom are simply superior. I think you'll find, with true flexible casting, that barely anybody will play a Wizard or Artificer with Intelligence, which sucks because flavor-wise a Charisma Wizard/Artificer is stupid, but mechanically just better than an Intelligence Wizard/Artificer. You're just encouraging people to throw their class fantasies out the window in favor of raw mechanical benefits. Don't encourage people to do that.
How do you plan on maintaining any shred of class fantasy? I mean, it's no secret that the biggest difference between Sorcerers and Wizards is spellcasting stat, but now that a ton of Wizards will be Charisma casters because [insert nonsensical background reason that half-assedly justifies Charisma Wizards], that difference is undeniably destroyed. Also, speaking more personally, I think it's really interesting to see how different classes draw from similar sources of power in different ways. Clerics cast through Wisdom, through spiritual connection to their deity, but Divine Soul Sorcerers cast through Charisma, through force of will and otherworldly gift. That's an interesting dichotomy. I think Divine Soul actually says in its description that a lot of Clerics feel threatened by Divine Soul Sorcerers for just that reason. Guess how many Clerics will be threatened by Divine Soul Sorcerers if they both cast through Wisdom and gain their powers the exact same way. Similarly, Wizards are often affronted by Sorcerers because the former learn magic through long, tedious study and Intelligence while the latter learn magic through simply being, and the force of will with which they assert that they be. That's interesting. Then along comes flexible casting, which says either "Wizards actually learn just like Sorcerers now" or "Sorcerers actually learn through Intelligence and tough study," and that interest goes bye-bye. There are plenty more examples, if you'd like to hear them.
Well, I don't plan on getting my players to play something they were not interested in. I am a very player-centered DM and will always try to lean into things that will increase the fun for them rather than force them to adhere to traditions or values I cling to. However, if you would like recommendations on how to force your players to play intelligence wizards, intelligence checks are largely dependent on the DM putting things in the world that can be investigated and pondered, just like perception checks. You could incentivize an intelligence investment by making forward progress in the game or depth of lore highly dependent on at least one person committed to intelligence. Chances are it would be a traditionally perceived 'intelligent' class. But if you want something a bit more concrete, intelligence saves are well known for being pretty important - if you fail, the consequences tend to be awful. Traps and monsters that impose intelligence saves will quickly be noticed.
Clerics have a literal subclass devoted to study. I don't know that I have seen that description of the divine sorcerer though. If I recall, the subclass description for Divine Sorcerer is talking about the ability to access divine power as an outsider and how it may be perceived as a threat to religions, not necessarily clerics. It also follows up by saying in some cultures, religious power can only be seized by such a sorcerer. I also believe that the tension between sorcerers and wizards are being thrust upon the game by biases of the players (or memes), rather than it necessarily being common. It may be more accurate to say that it is a commonly expected conflict rather than being one that actually exists or that is written into the codex of the game.
I don't know why interest in intelligence wizards would wane while interest in intelligence warlocks would surge by the inclusion of flexible casting. Maybe initially for the novelty, but novelty is temporary by definition. Most of the issues you are talking about are problems with flavor but you are living proof that some people are unwilling to let go of the image of what a wizard MUST be. Any mechanical reason someone would want to avoid intelligence wizards is the same reason they would also want to avoid an intelligence warlock.
That subclass is devoted to a god more than it is to study. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a Cleric subclass.
I don't know that I have seen that description of the divine sorcerer though. If I recall, the subclass description for Divine Sorcerer is talking about the ability to access divine power as an outsider and how it may be perceived as a threat to religions, not necessarily clerics.
Potato potato. If it's a threat to existing religious hierarchies, it's a threat to Clerics.
I also believe that the tension between sorcerers and wizards are being thrust upon the game by biases of the players (or memes), rather than it necessarily being common. It may be more accurate to say that it is a commonly expected conflict rather than being one that actually exists or that is written into the codex of the game.
I disagree. I've felt a fair bit of that tension in both games I've seen and played in. Anyways, even if there's not tension, the interesting part is the fundamental difference between how they cast their spells and the different ways that they tap into the same form of power.
I don't know why interest in intelligence wizards would wane while interest in intelligence warlocks would surge by the inclusion of flexible casting.
I never claimed that interest in Intelligence Warlocks would "surge," did I? I've been assuming that, even if Warlocks could cast with Intelligence or Charisma, most would still cast with Charisma, largely due to the mechanical benefits.
Most of the issues you are talking about are problems with flavor but you are living proof that some people are unwilling to let go of the image of what a wizard MUST be.
Well, sor-ry for wanting classes to feel different from each other. Sor-ry for wanting a logical and consistent world. Sor-ry for somehow ruining your nonsensical idea for a Charisma Wizard while Sorcerer is right there, waiting for you with open arms. Sor-ry for wanting to keep the parts of the game that I find interesting. Sor-ry for wanting new players to be able to fulfill a class fantasy without too much knowledge of the game. Sor-ry for not wanting to force players to choose between mechanical benefits and a logical character.
I must just be a horrible old crone, set in my ways and constantly talking about the good old days when you had to be a human or a half-elf to be a Bard. There couldn't possibly be any other reason to oppose your ideas.
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)
Meh. "Followers of these gods study esoteric lore, collect old tomes, delve into the secret places of the earth, and learn all they can."
Not true. A cleric is a cleric irrespective of who believes in their god or who can access what is thought to be divine power.
You felt it in the games you have played in? By whom? Players? Literally what I said then. Where is it written that there must be some conflict between the classes?
That's fair. You believe that warlocks will not see a surge in intelligence casters when given access to it. I strongly disagree and cite the impassioned arguments made here and in several other warlock threads in recent days.
Classes would still be different even if they all used flexible casting. In fact, it would offer an additional layer of diversity within each class and prevent classes from being defined in such shallow ways as their spellcasting ability alone. Not sure why you are offended that someone disagrees with you though; unlike you, I am not attacking your intelligence. Remember that you initiated this conversation and no one is forcing you to continue it. Nothing I have said was nonsensical - that is a very malicious response to you not liking what was said. Reflect. I am not your enemy just because I had an idea that you don't like. It hurts nothing other than maybe some of your ideas. Ideas should not be protected so... viciously. Ironically though, it was you who asked how one might force players to make inconvenient decisions. You can have both mechanical benefits and a logical character with flexible casting and I outlined some ways. They are not mutually exclusive, you just need to let go of some deeply entrenched thinking. Gandalf is a famous wizard that does not fit the mechanics of the class. If you need a more mortal example, Harry Potter is another. They are not 'nonsensical'; it's magic and make-believe, friend. If there is some reason why you oppose my ideas that is not because you are "set in your ways", you have yet to reveal them here in your discussion with me. I'm waiting.
Meh. "Followers of these gods study esoteric lore, collect old tomes, delve into the secret places of the earth, and learn all they can."
Meh. "Followers of these gods." That's what Clerics are, first and foremost.
You felt it in the games you have played in? By whom? Players? Literally what I said then. Where is it written that there must be some conflict between the classes?
Players and DMs. Just because it isn't written doesn't mean it isn't an element of the game.
That's fair. You believe that warlocks will not see a surge in intelligence casters when given access to it. I strongly disagree and cite the impassioned arguments made here and in several other warlock threads in recent days.
I cite the fact that this forum is not representative of the entirety of people who play Dungeons and Dragons, as well as the fact that arguments for game design tend to be more geared towards flavor and balance, while the way that people actually make characters tends to have a heavier emphasis on powerful combos and such. You can dislike the fact that PAM and GWM exist due to balance reasons and still pick them up for your Fighter, just like you can want the option for Intelligence Warlocks due to flavor reasons and still choose Charisma.
Classes would still be different even if they all used flexible casting. In fact, it would offer an additional layer of diversity within each class and prevent classes from being defined in such shallow ways as their spellcasting ability alone.
I don't believe that classes should be defined by their spellcasting abilities alone, but I do think that it is an extra way of adding interesting differences between classes, and not as "shallow" as you claim.
Not sure why you are offended that someone disagrees with you though; I am not attacking your intelligence.
I'm slightly offended because you seemed to have insinuated that my argument is just me holding on to memories of the past, when in reality it's more than that. Disagree with me all you like.
Remember that you initiated this conversation and no one is forcing you to continue it.
I remember, thanks.
Nothing I have said was nonsensical - that is a very malicious response to you not liking what was said.
I didn't call anything you said nonsensical. I called the things that what you said would allow nonsensical.
Reflect. I am not your enemy just because I had an idea that you don't like.
I do not believe that you are my enemy. I am having an argument with you.
It hurts nothing other than maybe some of your ideas. Ideas should not be protected so... viciously.
I am not being vicious.
You can have both mechanical benefits and a logical character with flexible casting and I outlined some ways.
I contest this. If most Wizards in a world "lack the intellectual capacity to attain great wizarding heights, but make up for it in a strong intuitive sense," that's not a very logical world to me. The exceptions become the rule.
Gandalf is a famous wizard that does not fit the mechanics of the game.
I'd hesitate to call Gandalf a Wizard in D&D terms. Middle Earth is a pretty low magic setting, where there aren't really enough people who go around casting spells to put them into as many distinct categories as D&D has. It makes sense to just generalize them as "wizards."
They are not 'nonsensical'; it's magic and make-believe, friend.
Just because it's magic and make-believe doesn't mean everything makes sense. If all Wizards had a class feature that grants them a glock, you could also say "it's magic and make-believe," but that wouldn't mean it makes sense for every Wizard to have a glock.
If there is some reason why you oppose my ideas that is not because you are "set in your ways", you have yet to reveal them here in your discussion with me. I'm waiting.
I suppose, by sheer fact of you arguing for a change and me resisting it, I am technically "set in my ways," but the implication with that statement is that I resist change for the sheer purpose of resisting change, which is false. I have plenty of reasons to resist this specific change. I have already revealed them. Wait no longer.
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)
DMs are players too, with different roles. Thank you for literally proving my point for me using your own lived experience.
The participation from these forums are as good an indication as any of how players will respond to changes. It certainly is better than what you are using, which is "I don't like it so no one else will". Not all players are min/maxers. I would argue that for every min/maxer, there is someone who plays sub-optimally because of an interesting idea they had they want to explore. By coincidence, I alluded to this in another thread, but there are players who desire and enjoy playing against type, such as a barbarian that is of a small species.
You seem to be forgetting that other interesting elements of a class exist then if you can dismiss my ideas as leading to players being forced out of intelligence, or that flexible casting will result in less interesting classes. If you think spellcasting ability is an interesting way of adding differences between classes, why is it not an interesting way of adding differences within a class?
Not of memories, no. But I am saying that you are holding fast to biases. That is not a failing of your character though, nor it a criticism of your intelligence. It is literally human behavior that we have to consciously try to control. You do not appear to be making any effort to control that bias here. At least your arguments do not support that notion.
If you do not believe that you called what I had proposed nonsensical, I think you might need to review your posts before posting them. "Sor-ry for somehow ruining your nonsensical idea..." You obviously were not focusing your derision on assumed nonsensical consequences, but rather what I was saying.
Yes, implied insults to other's intelligence can be considered 'vicious', especially in the context of having an idea of allowing flexible casting being applied to any class. It is very disproportionate to anything put forth by me. Big yikes from me.
Aren't you making some rather strained assumptions that 'most' wizards will lack intelligence? What evidence do you have to support this?
My point stands with Gandalf. His power comes from the nature of his celestial origins. You could make the case that he is more sorcerer or druidic, if we want to identify the source of his spellcasting ability and funnel it through the lens of the current game mechanics.
I would argue that if a class feature grants them access to a glock, it would very much make sense that they have a glock. I would argue that it would be rare for a wizard to reject a core feature of the class.
Well, the content of your arguments demonstrate that you are 'set in your ways' far more than your opposition to me does. Everything you have said so far has been countered by an explanation of why this is entrenched thinking (such as your example of players thinking there is inherent conflict between sorcerers and wizards and therefore there must be, or that wizards must be studious and cannot be anything else because of what you believe wizards to be) or it failed to stand up to scrutiny, such as your misunderstanding of the divine sorcerer description or the failure to recognize knowledge clerics as scholars and lifelong learners.
DMs are players too, with different roles. Thank you for literally proving my point for me using your own lived experience.
I fail to see what your point is, then. You said that it wasn't common, just something that was often expected by players but not especially present in actual games. I said that it was present in actual games. And like I said before, the difference can be interesting without necessarily causing tension. You can't deny that the difference is in the game.
My point is that the dichotomy between Sorcerers and Wizards is an interesting one. The fact that it exists in games even despite it not being very explicit in the rules supports this claim, if anything.
The participation from these forums are as good an indication as any of how players will respond to changes. It certainly is better than what you are using, which is "I don't like it so no one else will". Not all players are min/maxers. I would argue that for every min/maxer, there is someone who plays sub-optimally because of an interesting idea they had they want to explore. By coincidence, I alluded to this in another thread, but there are players who desire and enjoy playing against type, such as a barbarian that is of a small species.
You don't have to be a min/maxer to take PAM or GWM, just like you don't have to be a min/maxer to choose a superior casting stat. I know that there are people who enjoy playing against type, but nonetheless I think you'll find a lot more Medium Barbarians than Small ones.
You seem to be forgetting that other interesting elements of a class exist then if you can dismiss my ideas as leading to players being forced out of intelligence, or that flexible casting will result in less interesting classes. If you think spellcasting ability is an interesting way of adding differences between classes, why is it not an interesting way of adding differences within a class?
As things are, I'm much more worried about the significant overlap between a Sorcerer and a Wizard than I am about the overlap between two Wizards. I suppose that's pretty subjective, though.
Not of memories, no. But I am saying that you are holding fast to biases. That is not a failing of your character though, nor it a criticism of your intelligence. It is literally human behavior that we have to consciously try to control. You do not appear to be making any effort to control that bias here. At least your arguments do not support that notion.
This is not a failing of my character, I just have a bunch of biases that everybody else controls but I'm just letting run wild and free and not even making an effort to keep in check. Great, thanks, that definitely makes me feel like I'm not being insulted.
If you do not believe that you called what I had proposed nonsensical, I think you might need to review your posts before posting them. "Sor-ry for somehow ruining your nonsensical idea..." You obviously were not focusing your derision on assumed nonsensical consequences, but rather what I was saying.
I said Charisma Wizards are nonsensical. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've never pointed out the possibility of Charisma Wizards. So I'm calling a possible conclusion of your proposal nonsensical. Which is what I just said I was doing.
Yes, implied insults to other's intelligence can be considered 'vicious', especially in the context of having an idea of allowing flexible casting being applied to any class. It is very disproportionate to anything put forth by me. Big yikes from me.
The only time I've done anything close to that was when you belittled my argument and said it was all just a bunch of biases. Talk about "implied insults to other's intelligence."
Aren't you making some rather strained assumptions that 'most' wizards will lack intelligence? What evidence do you have to support this?
Why would most Wizards have Intelligence? There's no reason to believe that. I mean, if we're going in with as few presumptions as possible, only a third of all Wizards would cast with Intelligence, which by my count isn't most.
My point stands with Gandalf. His power comes from the nature of his celestial origins. You could make the case that he is more sorcerer or druidic, if we want to identify the source of his spellcasting ability and funnel it through the lens of the current game mechanics.
Yeah, in D&D terms, a Wizard's power does not come from the nature of said Wizard's celestial origins. If your point somehow still stands, I fail to see it.
I would argue that if a class feature grants them access to a glock, it would very much make sense that they have a glock. I would argue that it would be rare for a wizard to reject a core feature of the class.
So you really don't care about class identity or anything, huh? I think that all Wizards having glocks wouldn't make sense because it's most often contrary to the core of a Wizard's identity. Obviously, we're on different wavelengths.
Well, the content of your arguments demonstrate that you are 'set in your ways' far more than your opposition to me does. Everything you have said so far has been countered by an explanation of why this is entrenched thinking (such as your example of players thinking there is inherent conflict between sorcerers and wizards and therefore there must be, or that wizards must be studious and cannot be anything else because of what you believe wizards to be) or it failed to stand up to scrutiny, such as your misunderstanding of the divine sorcerer description or the failure to recognize knowledge clerics as scholars and lifelong learners.
I didn't say that there must be conflict between Sorcerers and Wizards, I said that the dichotomy between the two is interesting and that it should be preserved. I didn't misunderstand the Divine Soul description. Like I said, the description includes text about how their mere existence often poses a threats to religious hierarchies, which presumably include Clerics. I never failed to recognize Knowledge Clerics as scholars and lifelong learners. I'm perfectly aware of that fact, and I don't believe I've said anything that contradicts it. I just said that they're followers of gods, by virtue of being Clerics.
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)
My point stands with Gandalf. His power comes from the nature of his celestial origins. You could make the case that he is more sorcerer or druidic, if we want to identify the source of his spellcasting ability and funnel it through the lens of the current game mechanics.
Gandalf arguably isn't any full-caster; he's a Fighter with the Magic Initiate feat to get himself light and thaumaturgy (for the "I am not some conjurer of cheap tricks" cheap trick), plus whatever spell is best for destroying a bridge you're standing on. 😝
I don't think any of the main casters in Lord of the Rings really fit the D&D archetypes very well; magic in LotR seems a lot less accessible than in the Forgotten Realms, requiring more in the way of big grand conjurings, physical enchanting etc. A lot of what is cast in the moment is more like cantrips or 1st-level spells in D&D for the most part.
But if you had to force him into one of the D&D archetypes, Sorcerer definitely seems more appropriate. If you waved the nature of the pact you could maybe model him as a blade Warlock, since the limited casting could represent how little real spellcasting he does.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
If clerics cannot be intelligence based because they are first and foremost followers of gods, then the conclusion that we can reach when employing that logic is that because wizards are intelligence based, they cannot be followers of gods. If that is not what you meant to imply, then your argument needs a lot of work.
Well this is a misrepresentation of my argument and based on the history of our exchange, I suspect this is a deliberate move on your part. I will post my response again. "I also believe that the tension between sorcerers and wizards are being thrust upon the game by biases of the players (or memes), rather than it necessarily being common. It may be more accurate to say that it is a commonly expected conflict rather than being one that actually exists or that is written into the codex of the game." This is in direct response to your comment: "Similarly, Wizards are often affronted by Sorcerers because the former learn magic through long, tedious study and Intelligence while the latter learn magic through simply being, and the force of will with which they assert that they be." Your evidence to support that this occurs often is in total, one lived experience. Yet, ironically, you are also making the case that the entirety of participants on this forum are not representative of the player base. Thank goodness you are here though, to tell us what real D&D players are like.
Perhaps you are correct about barbarian size selection, but I can assure you that I can find roughly as many suboptimal builds as I can optimal. That is really a sidebar discussion anyway, as the claim that intelligence is suboptimal as an invested stat is, at best, a matter of opinion.
I don't know if there would be significant overlap between sorcerers and wizards. If the game took a hard right and just had one stat for every class called "spellcasting ability" you could still fill a book with all the differences between classes. I know this is possible because some game systems already do it.
Hey, I can't make you stop trying to be offended. Do you. I literally said the exact opposite of what you snidely try to put at my feet.
Actually wrong. Very wrong. Superhumanly wrong. It is not belittling to point out that you are holding onto entrenched ideals when you literally are. It is an observation. Observations and analysis of other's thinking are an important part of debate and if I remember correctly, that is exactly what you said you were here for.
You think it is a logical assumption that if there are three options, they will be selected in even measure just because there are three? LOL! I guess if we were all computers and not human beings with implicit biases, sure. Let me know when that happens.
Not at all a surprise that you missed the point. Motivated reasoning is indeed powerful. Gandalf is widely known as a wizard and you might be safe to say that when people select a wizard as a class, they might have him as some level of inspiration. However, he does not fit within the definition of wizard using the current definition set for wizards in D&D. We have a popular example of a wizard who, if put into D&D, would not use intelligence as his spellcasting ability. Gandalf is used as an example us being comfortable referring to him as a wizard despite him being most known as wise (and powerfully influential so a case could be made for bardic) and it being well-understood that his power comes from his celestial nature. If someone were to come to the game with the intention of making a Gandalf-like character, they would simply be unable to if they came to your table should flexible spellcasting be given to all casters. Why? Because of entrenched thinking and personal ideas being more important than player fun. That's a losing game, friend.
I do care about class identity, just not as you define it. I think your definition of class identity is shallow, rigid, and less fun than it could be. A wizard with a glock sounds rad as hell to me. If they put that as a feature in the game... You know what, I think I will just homebrew that. Thanks for the idea.
It can be interesting, but it is not inherently interesting. You can have that same dichotomy between two wizards or two sorcerers. You don't need it to be between a sorcerer and a wizard. You did misunderstand it and I already explained how. I will go ahead and explain how one more time and then block you because it is clear that you are more interested in arguing with the intent to frustrate because of a perceived slight. It is an unfair burden to constantly remind you of your own errors. "I think Divine Soul actually says in its description that a lot of Clerics feel threatened by Divine Soul Sorcerers for just that reason." This is incorrect and demonstrates that you fundamentally misunderstand the description. The subclass description for Divine Sorcerer is talking about the ability to access divine power as an outsider and how it may be perceived as a threat to religious hierarchies, not necessarily clerics. Clerics are not necessarily part of a religious organization. They are favored worshipers of their deity and there is no requirement that these two things intersect. You can be a worshiper without being a participant within a religious organization or hold rank in one. In fact, the cleric description suggests this on their page. Clerics can hold many different kinds of positions, or none at all. It also says that the opposite is true too and far more common, with ranking members of an order oftentimes never having communed with their deity. Divine Agents underscores that there is a difference between religious worker and a cleric. Clerics are called upon by their deity. You can be a cleric without ever having set foot in a temple or spoken with any structured religious organization according to the words we have in the game. This means that contextually, the description of divine sorcerer is not referring to clerics and that you have misunderstood the intended message of the text. You stated that knowledge clerics are devoted to a god more than to study. This is a statement of fact that is not supported by anything in the game. A god can favor a worshiper because of their thirst for knowledge just as much as they can for those who worship hard but also like to study. "The gods of knowledge — including Oghma, Boccob, Gilean, Aureon, and Thoth — value learning and understanding above all". The 'above all' is critical here in that it means that they can consider that to be more important than worship.
If clerics cannot be intelligence based because they are first and foremost followers of gods, then the conclusion that we can reach when employing that logic is that because wizards are intelligence based, they cannot be followers of gods. If that is not what you meant to imply, then your argument needs a lot of work.
A Wizard can't draw its power from being a follower of a god like a Cleric does. A Wizard is, first and foremost, a practitioner of arcane magic. A Cleric is, first and foremost, a follower of a god.
Well this is a misrepresentation of my argument and based on the history of our exchange, I suspect this is a deliberate move on your part. I will post my response again. "I also believe that the tension between sorcerers and wizards are being thrust upon the game by biases of the players (or memes), rather than it necessarily being common. It may be more accurate to say that it is a commonly expected conflict rather than being one that actually exists or that is written into the codex of the game." This is in direct response to your comment: "Similarly, Wizards are often affronted by Sorcerers because the former learn magic through long, tedious study and Intelligence while the latter learn magic through simply being, and the force of will with which they assert that they be." Your evidence to support that this occurs often is in total, one lived experience. Yet, ironically, you are also making the case that the entirety of participants on this forum are not representative of the player base. Thank goodness you are here though, to tell us what real D&D players are like.
It's something that I find interesting. That was my whole claim. I never said that it was present in every single game. I also said that there doesn't necessarily have to be friction between Sorcerers and Wizards for the dichotomy to be interesting. I just like the dichotomy.
Also worth noting that Wizards disliking Sorcerers is fairly present in Critical Role, which is, you know, a bit bigger a phenomenon than "one lived experience."
Perhaps you are correct about barbarian size selection, but I can assure you that I can find roughly as many suboptimal builds as I can optimal. That is really a sidebar discussion anyway, as the claim that intelligence is suboptimal as an invested stat is, at best, a matter of opinion.
You're right, it's a sidebar and we don't have to get too deep into it here. The usefulness of Intelligence definitely depends on the campaign, I agree, but the community as a whole seems to regard the skills associated with it as lesser. It doesn't help that the saving throw associated with it is one of the three weaker saves. Don't take that from me, by the way, that's a developer decision. The strong saves are Constitution, Dexterity, and Wisdom, and the weak saves are Charisma, Intelligence, and Strength. You'll notice that every class has proficiency in one of each, by design.
I don't know if there would be significant overlap between sorcerers and wizards. If the game took a hard right and just had one stat for every class called "spellcasting ability" you could still fill a book with all the differences between classes. I know this is possible because some game systems already do it.
I don't know about you, but I've seen Sorcerers called "Charisma Wizards" more times than I can count. Spellcasting ability is definitely one of the most prominent distinguishing features between the two.
Hey, I can't make you stop trying to be offended. Do you. I literally said the exact opposite of what you snidely try to put at my feet.
I must have misread, then. You said that everybody has biases that they have to control, and then you said, "You do not appear to be making any effort to control that bias here." So you said that I was failing (or not even trying) to do something that humans have to do. Just because you said that you don't think it's a failure of character doesn't mean it isn't offensive. Like, in the extreme, you can't say "you're stupid" and then follow it with "not that there's anything wrong with that."
Also, sidebar, that's another insult. Just pointing that out.
Actually wrong. Very wrong. Superhumanly wrong. It is not belittling to point out that you are holding onto entrenched ideals when you literally are. It is an observation. Observations and analysis of other's thinking are an important part of debate and if I remember correctly, that is exactly what you said you were here for.
It's belittling when you ignore all of my arguments to focus on one perceived flaw in my logic. I gave you plenty of reasons for why I didn't like the change, you kinda-sorta refuted them, didn't wait for a rebuttal, then said that the only thing I've ever had on my side is bias. I dunno about that one.
You think it is a logical assumption that if there are three options, they will be selected in even measure just because there are three? LOL! I guess if we were all computers and not human beings with implicit biases, sure. Let me know when that happens.
I never said that it was a logical assumption. In fact, I said that it wasn't an assumption at all. It was completely devoid of assumptions. It wasn't right, because obviously that's not how it would work out, but the point of the statement was that it wasn't an assumption.
I said that your assumption that most Wizards would be Intelligence-based if they had the choice was just as much an assumption as the assumption that most Wizards would be Charisma- or Wisdom-based, and then went on to point out that, even in an assumption-free environment, the majority of Wizards would not be Intelligence-based.
LOL!
Not at all a surprise that you missed the point. Motivated reasoning is indeed powerful. Gandalf is widely known as a wizard and you might be safe to say that when people select a wizard as a class, they might have him as some level of inspiration. However, he does not fit within the definition of wizard using the current definition set for wizards in D&D. We have a popular example of a wizard who, if put into D&D, would not use intelligence as his spellcasting ability. Gandalf is used as an example us being comfortable referring to him as a wizard despite him being most known as wise (and powerfully influential so a case could be made for bardic) and it being well-understood that his power comes from his celestial nature. If someone were to come to the game with the intention of making a Gandalf-like character, they would simply be unable to if they came to your table should flexible spellcasting be given to all casters. Why? Because of entrenched thinking and personal ideas being more important than player fun. That's a losing game, friend.
You think that somebody who comes to my table and wants to make a Gandalf-like character would be "simply unable to" because they don't think Gandalf should have a high Intelligence? Ignoring the false assumption that the literary use of "wise" immediately equates to Wisdom and only Wisdom, I don't think there's a single person out there who would be pissed at a Gandalf character with a slightly higher Intelligence than Wisdom. I mean, he is a keeper of lore and such, and he's by far the smartest of the Fellowship.
I do care about class identity, just not as you define it. I think your definition of class identity is shallow, rigid, and less fun than it could be. A wizard with a glock sounds rad as hell to me. If they put that as a feature in the game... You know what, I think I will just homebrew that. Thanks for the idea.
Hey, no problem.
I think my definition of class identity is based on archetypes. The classic wizard archetype is someone with a spellbook and a staff who's slingin' spells. The classic wizard archetype doesn't have a glock. If the base Wizard class has a glock, then it's not fulfilling the classic wizard archetype, which means, to me, it's failing at its job. That's how I view things. I don't mind a glock subclass, though, since gun wizard is an archetype, just a less prominent one than the classic wizard.
It can be interesting, but it is not inherently interesting. You can have that same dichotomy between two wizards or two sorcerers. You don't need it to be between a sorcerer and a wizard. You did misunderstand it and I already explained how. I will go ahead and explain how one more time and then block you because it is clear that you are more interested in arguing with the intent to frustrate because of a perceived slight. It is an unfair burden to constantly remind you of your own errors. "I think Divine Soul actually says in its description that a lot of Clerics feel threatened by Divine Soul Sorcerers for just that reason." This is incorrect and demonstrates that you fundamentally misunderstand the description. The subclass description for Divine Sorcerer is talking about the ability to access divine power as an outsider and how it may be perceived as a threat to religious hierarchies, not necessarily clerics. Clerics are not necessarily part of a religious organization. They are favored worshipers of their deity and there is no requirement that these two things intersect. You can be a worshiper without being a participant within a religious organization or hold rank in one. In fact, the cleric description suggests this on their page. Clerics can hold many different kinds of positions, or none at all. It also says that the opposite is true too and far more common, with ranking members of an order oftentimes never having communed with their deity. Divine Agents underscores that there is a difference between religious worker and a cleric. Clerics are called upon by their deity. You can be a cleric without ever having set foot in a temple or spoken with any structured religious organization according to the words we have in the game. This means that contextually, the description of divine sorcerer is not referring to clerics and that you have misunderstood the intended message of the text. You stated that knowledge clerics are devoted to a god more than to study. This is a statement of fact that is not supported by anything in the game. A god can favor a worshiper because of their thirst for knowledge just as much as they can for those who worship hard but also like to study. "The gods of knowledge — including Oghma, Boccob, Gilean, Aureon, and Thoth — value learning and understanding above all". The 'above all' is critical here in that it means that they can consider that to be more important than worship.
I know that not all people in a religious hierarchy are Clerics, and I also know that not all Clerics are in a religious hierarchy. It still feels wild to me that you're assuming no Cleric has ever been in a religious hierarchy. I mean, it's pretty obvious that there's going to be some overlap.
A Cleric gains their power through their god. If they don't have a god, they don't have a class. All Clerics are, first and foremost, defined by deities.
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)
The thing is the superpowerful multiclasses are the charisma ones - hexadins, sorlocks, even sorclockadin if that takes your fancy. I’m in favour of int or cha only, and warlock/wizard or warlock/artificer would absolutely not cause any problems.
I can see a potential issue with warlock/cleric, simply because melee cleric is very powerful already and adding WIS attack/damage, armor of Agathys and eldritch blast forced movement to cleric seems very powerful. But even then, if you plan on minmaxing you should be telling your DM so they can yea or nay for the campaign. I doubt it’d be very much of an issue.
And for the people voting against it who want CHA warlock, it doesn’t actually affect you? You could just.. keep playing cha warlock.
I mean, you could probably exploit something with warlock/wizard, but wizard is already so powerful that there isn't any point, and as you said minmaxing isn't what the game should be primarily designed around. Otherwise, yes, agreed completely, you have excellent DnD rules opinions.
I mean, you could probably exploit something with warlock/wizard, but wizard is already so powerful that there isn't any point, and as you said minmaxing isn't what the game should be primarily designed around. Otherwise, yes, agreed completely, you have excellent DnD rules opinions.
While it shouldn't primarily be designed around minmaxing, they definitely need to consider it more. Solving multiclassing exploits largely comes down to reducing the amount of front loading on classes, or at least making sure those early levels are balanced, because otherwise for classes that have lacklustre higher level features it's going to be really appealing to take 1-3 levels of any class that gets lots of goodies early. Though I guess you can argue the weak later features for other classes are partly to blame for that as well; multiclassing should be a difficult choice to make, with big drawbacks as well as benefits, but for certain combos it really isn't.
Another big part of balancing for multiclassing is avoiding the abundance of features tied to the proficiency bonus, rather than scaling by level in the corresponding class. This is one of the reasons why certain Cleric and Sorcerer dips are appealing because some give you proficiency use abilities at 1st-level so the pure Cleric/Sorcerer gets no more value out of them than someone just taking a quick multiclassing dip. Really that was just a major design blunder in general; only class independent features like feats, magic items etc. should use the proficiency bonus for scaling, class features must be tied to class or they can't be balanced properly.
Warlock's main offence for multiclassing is that it gets a lot of great stuff early, and this is what amplifies the benefit of it being Charisma based (i.e- compatible with a lot of other casting classes). You've got pact magic with unique spells (or spells some Charisma classes can't otherwise get), invocations that can be used to make some really solid combos, and pact boons which are generally very good.
For caster multiclasses in particular the pact magic can be really, really good; for a pure Warlock pact magic is constraining, because the number of slots progresses so slowly. But for a full caster who usually already has a bunch of regular spell slots by the time they multiclass, a couple of pact magic slots can be fantastic because it means you've got more lower level spell slots to burn on things like absorb elements and shield, and those two extra slots come back on a short rest. This weirdly makes pact magic a much better feature for multiclassing than for going pure Warlock. A three level dip gets you two 2nd-level, short rest regained slots which is great on classes like Paladin (who can burn them on Divine Smites) or Bard which has a lot of really useful 2nd-level spells etc.
On that basis I can see the argument for Warlock becoming Intelligence only, because it would make it less accessible to Charisma classes, and as others have said Wizard would benefit a bit less from the Warlock multiclass (aside from certain builds like maybe Blade Singer), but that isn't fixing the real causes of the problems. Most of those Charisma classes could still dip into an Intelligence based Warlock, they'd just be doing with a minimal Intelligence score and then being more careful about what Warlock spells they pick (i.e- spells that don't use the casting score). This would weaken the multiclass a little bit, but probably not enough when having those pact slots in the first place can be so useful, especially in campaigns with lots of short rests.
Ideally they'd fix the real problems so the choice of casting score doesn't matter so much, i.e- restrict pact slots to only being usable with Warlock spells (and vice versa), so no more mixing and matching with regular spell slots, move some invocations to higher levels or have them scale by class somehow, make pact boons less front-loaded but still strong if you invest in Warlock more etc. This way the only consideration is which scores seem appropriate to Warlock, rather than which are most exploitable.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I acknowledge my sentence structure is poor, but the common education of the people replying on these threads can understand that ‘Warlock only’ would exclude all others. The question is presented from the perspective of the Warlock being granted this flexible casting stats and ask who else do you believe should also receive flexible casting stats. In the poll I was limited by letter count and my own inferior understanding of written language, but I’m pretty sure 99% of people who took the time to vote were understood the question and the potential answers.
I think arguing over the semantics is...unhelpful. I thought the poll was clear enough for the last question. if you think that warlocks should be flexible casters and nothing else, then you vote 'warlock only'. Otherwise, you vote for the classes that should get it. I personally am one of the few that voted none at all (to include warlock). I think it would open up a balancing nightmare for multi classing. While I would use it and certainly enjoy it, I do not think that it would be good for the game.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
The thing is the superpowerful multiclasses are the charisma ones - hexadins, sorlocks, even sorclockadin if that takes your fancy. I’m in favour of int or cha only, and warlock/wizard or warlock/artificer would absolutely not cause any problems.
I can see a potential issue with warlock/cleric, simply because melee cleric is very powerful already and adding WIS attack/damage, armor of Agathys and eldritch blast forced movement to cleric seems very powerful. But even then, if you plan on minmaxing you should be telling your DM so they can yea or nay for the campaign. I doubt it’d be very much of an issue.
And for the people voting against it who want CHA warlock, it doesn’t actually affect you? You could just.. keep playing cha warlock.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
Warlock is such a varied bag, that it does beg questions of what certain combos of pacts and patrons should be. Pact of the Tome sounds very Intelligence based while Pact of the Blade, Pact of the Chain and Pact of the Talisman do not. Making a pact with a Celestial or an Archfey is potentially more wise than making a pact with a fiend or undead patron.
Most of the other classes, I don't think Flexible casting makes as much sense, the only one I think it might is Paladin. Paladin is about their power of their faith, which feeds into their ego, thus Charisma, but is the same true of an Oath of the Ancients Paladin? Their beliefs tend to be similar to a Druid or Ranger, Oath of the Watchers also similarly sounds more Wisdom than Charisma. Devotion also can be to a god or religion, so that also potentially shifts towards being closer to a Cleric, or Wisdom.
For sorcerer, their power is innate so is always Charisma; A Wizard is from their arcane study, so always intelligence; for Bard it is their performance and story telling, so Charisma; For a druid or ranger, it is related to nature and so Wisdom and Cleric is their deity, so Wisdom. Even outliers like Divine Soul Sorcerer, their power is innate still, so still Charisma. Warlock is by far the most varied and Paladin I think might have a few oaths that scratch on that side too.
I think an Int Warlock would pair well with the 1/3 caster subclasses like Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster, however there are so many Dex based skills that the latter doesn't gain as much as a combatant like the EK. It would also pair well with Artificer, but like with wizard, it is probably better to stay single class in that case from a power perspective. Possibly the BladeSinger Wizard gets something more impressive, but I was more worried about the (now fixed, thankfully) ability to get infinite Shield spells than a couple points of melee attack bonus on a d6 HP character.
While I agree for the most part with what you have said here, as other folks have pointed out, Bard has a pretty decent argument for using Intelligence (about on par with the Warlock in my opinion). However, I'd probably rather keep flexible casting to only the Warlock.
As Redpelt mentioned, if Wisdom is included as a casting stat for Warlock, I would be rather worried about Warlock/Cleric builds being too powerful (and in addition, I really don't see Wisdom as an appropriate stat for Warlocks).
This thread is pretty interesting in that it gives a little insight into how much people box themselves in on what other classes can or should be. I can see how a cleric or paladin might be intelligent based. Religious leaders can also be academics (think the Pope) but besides that, why could a patron grant someone the ability to use intelligence for their spellcasting, but a god could not? Or rigorous study that leads to a binding oath? A sorcerer could use intelligence. Their natural talent might lend to their mind rather than their will. Wizards might lack the intellectual capacity to attain great wizarding heights, but they make up for it in a strong intuitive sense (wisdom).
Pull the lever on all spellcasters being flexible.
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
Yuck.
How do you plan on getting new players to play Intelligence Wizards? Obviously "intuition magic" is a very niche class fantasy, assuming it makes any sense at all, and the vast majority of Wizards should learn through arcane study, but new players don't necessarily understand that or know all of the stats, so you'll have a bunch of them with Wizards (or any other class) who are barely even Wizards (or any other class) and don't realize it.
How do you plan on getting anybody to have a high Intelligence? It's generally accepted that Charisma and Wisdom are simply superior. I think you'll find, with true flexible casting, that barely anybody will play a Wizard or Artificer with Intelligence, which sucks because flavor-wise a Charisma Wizard/Artificer is stupid, but mechanically just better than an Intelligence Wizard/Artificer. You're just encouraging people to throw their class fantasies out the window in favor of raw mechanical benefits. Don't encourage people to do that.
How do you plan on maintaining any shred of class fantasy? I mean, it's no secret that the biggest difference between Sorcerers and Wizards is spellcasting stat, but now that a ton of Wizards will be Charisma casters because [insert nonsensical background reason that half-assedly justifies Charisma Wizards], that difference is undeniably destroyed. Also, speaking more personally, I think it's really interesting to see how different classes draw from similar sources of power in different ways. Clerics cast through Wisdom, through spiritual connection to their deity, but Divine Soul Sorcerers cast through Charisma, through force of will and otherworldly gift. That's an interesting dichotomy. I think Divine Soul actually says in its description that a lot of Clerics feel threatened by Divine Soul Sorcerers for just that reason. Guess how many Clerics will be threatened by Divine Soul Sorcerers if they both cast through Wisdom and gain their powers the exact same way. Similarly, Wizards are often affronted by Sorcerers because the former learn magic through long, tedious study and Intelligence while the latter learn magic through simply being, and the force of will with which they assert that they be. That's interesting. Then along comes flexible casting, which says either "Wizards actually learn just like Sorcerers now" or "Sorcerers actually learn through Intelligence and tough study," and that interest goes bye-bye. There are plenty more examples, if you'd like to hear them.
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 can see the argument for Bard, but I don't really agree with it. Perhaps certain subclasses could get benefits from intelligence, like lore college could get more magical secret spells or what not but most of how a bard casts spells is not intelligence based, it is song, music, dance or some other type of performance.
Wisdom is slightly abusable by Cleric but to get the levels needed for something like extra attack, it's kinda pointless, you'd sacrifice so many levels of cleric. So it's really the weapon attack, which a cleric can already do well with a club and getting shillelagh. I don't think a cleric/warlock hybrid here is actually as powerful as people might think, Cleric already has better proficiencies than warlock.
Well, I don't plan on getting my players to play something they were not interested in. I am a very player-centered DM and will always try to lean into things that will increase the fun for them rather than force them to adhere to traditions or values I cling to. However, if you would like recommendations on how to force your players to play intelligence wizards, intelligence checks are largely dependent on the DM putting things in the world that can be investigated and pondered, just like perception checks. You could incentivize an intelligence investment by making forward progress in the game or depth of lore highly dependent on at least one person committed to intelligence. Chances are it would be a traditionally perceived 'intelligent' class. But if you want something a bit more concrete, intelligence saves are well known for being pretty important - if you fail, the consequences tend to be awful. Traps and monsters that impose intelligence saves will quickly be noticed.
Clerics have a literal subclass devoted to study. I don't know that I have seen that description of the divine sorcerer though. If I recall, the subclass description for Divine Sorcerer is talking about the ability to access divine power as an outsider and how it may be perceived as a threat to religions, not necessarily clerics. It also follows up by saying in some cultures, religious power can only be seized by such a sorcerer. I also believe that the tension between sorcerers and wizards are being thrust upon the game by biases of the players (or memes), rather than it necessarily being common. It may be more accurate to say that it is a commonly expected conflict rather than being one that actually exists or that is written into the codex of the game.
I don't know why interest in intelligence wizards would wane while interest in intelligence warlocks would surge by the inclusion of flexible casting. Maybe initially for the novelty, but novelty is temporary by definition. Most of the issues you are talking about are problems with flavor but you are living proof that some people are unwilling to let go of the image of what a wizard MUST be. Any mechanical reason someone would want to avoid intelligence wizards is the same reason they would also want to avoid an intelligence warlock.
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
That subclass is devoted to a god more than it is to study. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a Cleric subclass.
Potato potato. If it's a threat to existing religious hierarchies, it's a threat to Clerics.
I disagree. I've felt a fair bit of that tension in both games I've seen and played in. Anyways, even if there's not tension, the interesting part is the fundamental difference between how they cast their spells and the different ways that they tap into the same form of power.
I never claimed that interest in Intelligence Warlocks would "surge," did I? I've been assuming that, even if Warlocks could cast with Intelligence or Charisma, most would still cast with Charisma, largely due to the mechanical benefits.
Well, sor-ry for wanting classes to feel different from each other. Sor-ry for wanting a logical and consistent world. Sor-ry for somehow ruining your nonsensical idea for a Charisma Wizard while Sorcerer is right there, waiting for you with open arms. Sor-ry for wanting to keep the parts of the game that I find interesting. Sor-ry for wanting new players to be able to fulfill a class fantasy without too much knowledge of the game. Sor-ry for not wanting to force players to choose between mechanical benefits and a logical character.
I must just be a horrible old crone, set in my ways and constantly talking about the good old days when you had to be a human or a half-elf to be a Bard. There couldn't possibly be any other reason to oppose your ideas.
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)
@Quar1on:
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
Meh. "Followers of these gods." That's what Clerics are, first and foremost.
Players and DMs. Just because it isn't written doesn't mean it isn't an element of the game.
I cite the fact that this forum is not representative of the entirety of people who play Dungeons and Dragons, as well as the fact that arguments for game design tend to be more geared towards flavor and balance, while the way that people actually make characters tends to have a heavier emphasis on powerful combos and such. You can dislike the fact that PAM and GWM exist due to balance reasons and still pick them up for your Fighter, just like you can want the option for Intelligence Warlocks due to flavor reasons and still choose Charisma.
I don't believe that classes should be defined by their spellcasting abilities alone, but I do think that it is an extra way of adding interesting differences between classes, and not as "shallow" as you claim.
I'm slightly offended because you seemed to have insinuated that my argument is just me holding on to memories of the past, when in reality it's more than that. Disagree with me all you like.
I remember, thanks.
I didn't call anything you said nonsensical. I called the things that what you said would allow nonsensical.
I do not believe that you are my enemy. I am having an argument with you.
I am not being vicious.
I contest this. If most Wizards in a world "lack the intellectual capacity to attain great wizarding heights, but make up for it in a strong intuitive sense," that's not a very logical world to me. The exceptions become the rule.
I'd hesitate to call Gandalf a Wizard in D&D terms. Middle Earth is a pretty low magic setting, where there aren't really enough people who go around casting spells to put them into as many distinct categories as D&D has. It makes sense to just generalize them as "wizards."
Just because it's magic and make-believe doesn't mean everything makes sense. If all Wizards had a class feature that grants them a glock, you could also say "it's magic and make-believe," but that wouldn't mean it makes sense for every Wizard to have a glock.
I suppose, by sheer fact of you arguing for a change and me resisting it, I am technically "set in my ways," but the implication with that statement is that I resist change for the sheer purpose of resisting change, which is false. I have plenty of reasons to resist this specific change. I have already revealed them. Wait no longer.
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)
@Quar1on:
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
Wot? Did I ever say they couldn't?
I fail to see what your point is, then. You said that it wasn't common, just something that was often expected by players but not especially present in actual games. I said that it was present in actual games. And like I said before, the difference can be interesting without necessarily causing tension. You can't deny that the difference is in the game.
My point is that the dichotomy between Sorcerers and Wizards is an interesting one. The fact that it exists in games even despite it not being very explicit in the rules supports this claim, if anything.
You don't have to be a min/maxer to take PAM or GWM, just like you don't have to be a min/maxer to choose a superior casting stat. I know that there are people who enjoy playing against type, but nonetheless I think you'll find a lot more Medium Barbarians than Small ones.
As things are, I'm much more worried about the significant overlap between a Sorcerer and a Wizard than I am about the overlap between two Wizards. I suppose that's pretty subjective, though.
This is not a failing of my character, I just have a bunch of biases that everybody else controls but I'm just letting run wild and free and not even making an effort to keep in check. Great, thanks, that definitely makes me feel like I'm not being insulted.
I said Charisma Wizards are nonsensical. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've never pointed out the possibility of Charisma Wizards. So I'm calling a possible conclusion of your proposal nonsensical. Which is what I just said I was doing.
The only time I've done anything close to that was when you belittled my argument and said it was all just a bunch of biases. Talk about "implied insults to other's intelligence."
Why would most Wizards have Intelligence? There's no reason to believe that. I mean, if we're going in with as few presumptions as possible, only a third of all Wizards would cast with Intelligence, which by my count isn't most.
Yeah, in D&D terms, a Wizard's power does not come from the nature of said Wizard's celestial origins. If your point somehow still stands, I fail to see it.
So you really don't care about class identity or anything, huh? I think that all Wizards having glocks wouldn't make sense because it's most often contrary to the core of a Wizard's identity. Obviously, we're on different wavelengths.
I didn't say that there must be conflict between Sorcerers and Wizards, I said that the dichotomy between the two is interesting and that it should be preserved. I didn't misunderstand the Divine Soul description. Like I said, the description includes text about how their mere existence often poses a threats to religious hierarchies, which presumably include Clerics. I never failed to recognize Knowledge Clerics as scholars and lifelong learners. I'm perfectly aware of that fact, and I don't believe I've said anything that contradicts it. I just said that they're followers of gods, by virtue of being Clerics.
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)
Gandalf arguably isn't any full-caster; he's a Fighter with the Magic Initiate feat to get himself light and thaumaturgy (for the "I am not some conjurer of cheap tricks" cheap trick), plus whatever spell is best for destroying a bridge you're standing on. 😝
I don't think any of the main casters in Lord of the Rings really fit the D&D archetypes very well; magic in LotR seems a lot less accessible than in the Forgotten Realms, requiring more in the way of big grand conjurings, physical enchanting etc. A lot of what is cast in the moment is more like cantrips or 1st-level spells in D&D for the most part.
But if you had to force him into one of the D&D archetypes, Sorcerer definitely seems more appropriate. If you waved the nature of the pact you could maybe model him as a blade Warlock, since the limited casting could represent how little real spellcasting he does.
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.
@Quar1on:
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
A Wizard can't draw its power from being a follower of a god like a Cleric does. A Wizard is, first and foremost, a practitioner of arcane magic. A Cleric is, first and foremost, a follower of a god.
It's something that I find interesting. That was my whole claim. I never said that it was present in every single game. I also said that there doesn't necessarily have to be friction between Sorcerers and Wizards for the dichotomy to be interesting. I just like the dichotomy.
Also worth noting that Wizards disliking Sorcerers is fairly present in Critical Role, which is, you know, a bit bigger a phenomenon than "one lived experience."
You're right, it's a sidebar and we don't have to get too deep into it here. The usefulness of Intelligence definitely depends on the campaign, I agree, but the community as a whole seems to regard the skills associated with it as lesser. It doesn't help that the saving throw associated with it is one of the three weaker saves. Don't take that from me, by the way, that's a developer decision. The strong saves are Constitution, Dexterity, and Wisdom, and the weak saves are Charisma, Intelligence, and Strength. You'll notice that every class has proficiency in one of each, by design.
I don't know about you, but I've seen Sorcerers called "Charisma Wizards" more times than I can count. Spellcasting ability is definitely one of the most prominent distinguishing features between the two.
I must have misread, then. You said that everybody has biases that they have to control, and then you said, "You do not appear to be making any effort to control that bias here." So you said that I was failing (or not even trying) to do something that humans have to do. Just because you said that you don't think it's a failure of character doesn't mean it isn't offensive. Like, in the extreme, you can't say "you're stupid" and then follow it with "not that there's anything wrong with that."
Also, sidebar, that's another insult. Just pointing that out.
It's belittling when you ignore all of my arguments to focus on one perceived flaw in my logic. I gave you plenty of reasons for why I didn't like the change, you kinda-sorta refuted them, didn't wait for a rebuttal, then said that the only thing I've ever had on my side is bias. I dunno about that one.
I never said that it was a logical assumption. In fact, I said that it wasn't an assumption at all. It was completely devoid of assumptions. It wasn't right, because obviously that's not how it would work out, but the point of the statement was that it wasn't an assumption.
I said that your assumption that most Wizards would be Intelligence-based if they had the choice was just as much an assumption as the assumption that most Wizards would be Charisma- or Wisdom-based, and then went on to point out that, even in an assumption-free environment, the majority of Wizards would not be Intelligence-based.
LOL!
You think that somebody who comes to my table and wants to make a Gandalf-like character would be "simply unable to" because they don't think Gandalf should have a high Intelligence? Ignoring the false assumption that the literary use of "wise" immediately equates to Wisdom and only Wisdom, I don't think there's a single person out there who would be pissed at a Gandalf character with a slightly higher Intelligence than Wisdom. I mean, he is a keeper of lore and such, and he's by far the smartest of the Fellowship.
Hey, no problem.
I think my definition of class identity is based on archetypes. The classic wizard archetype is someone with a spellbook and a staff who's slingin' spells. The classic wizard archetype doesn't have a glock. If the base Wizard class has a glock, then it's not fulfilling the classic wizard archetype, which means, to me, it's failing at its job. That's how I view things. I don't mind a glock subclass, though, since gun wizard is an archetype, just a less prominent one than the classic wizard.
I know that not all people in a religious hierarchy are Clerics, and I also know that not all Clerics are in a religious hierarchy. It still feels wild to me that you're assuming no Cleric has ever been in a religious hierarchy. I mean, it's pretty obvious that there's going to be some overlap.
A Cleric gains their power through their god. If they don't have a god, they don't have a class. All Clerics are, first and foremost, defined by deities.
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 mean, you could probably exploit something with warlock/wizard, but wizard is already so powerful that there isn't any point, and as you said minmaxing isn't what the game should be primarily designed around. Otherwise, yes, agreed completely, you have excellent DnD rules opinions.
N/A
While it shouldn't primarily be designed around minmaxing, they definitely need to consider it more. Solving multiclassing exploits largely comes down to reducing the amount of front loading on classes, or at least making sure those early levels are balanced, because otherwise for classes that have lacklustre higher level features it's going to be really appealing to take 1-3 levels of any class that gets lots of goodies early. Though I guess you can argue the weak later features for other classes are partly to blame for that as well; multiclassing should be a difficult choice to make, with big drawbacks as well as benefits, but for certain combos it really isn't.
Another big part of balancing for multiclassing is avoiding the abundance of features tied to the proficiency bonus, rather than scaling by level in the corresponding class. This is one of the reasons why certain Cleric and Sorcerer dips are appealing because some give you proficiency use abilities at 1st-level so the pure Cleric/Sorcerer gets no more value out of them than someone just taking a quick multiclassing dip. Really that was just a major design blunder in general; only class independent features like feats, magic items etc. should use the proficiency bonus for scaling, class features must be tied to class or they can't be balanced properly.
Warlock's main offence for multiclassing is that it gets a lot of great stuff early, and this is what amplifies the benefit of it being Charisma based (i.e- compatible with a lot of other casting classes). You've got pact magic with unique spells (or spells some Charisma classes can't otherwise get), invocations that can be used to make some really solid combos, and pact boons which are generally very good.
For caster multiclasses in particular the pact magic can be really, really good; for a pure Warlock pact magic is constraining, because the number of slots progresses so slowly. But for a full caster who usually already has a bunch of regular spell slots by the time they multiclass, a couple of pact magic slots can be fantastic because it means you've got more lower level spell slots to burn on things like absorb elements and shield, and those two extra slots come back on a short rest. This weirdly makes pact magic a much better feature for multiclassing than for going pure Warlock. A three level dip gets you two 2nd-level, short rest regained slots which is great on classes like Paladin (who can burn them on Divine Smites) or Bard which has a lot of really useful 2nd-level spells etc.
On that basis I can see the argument for Warlock becoming Intelligence only, because it would make it less accessible to Charisma classes, and as others have said Wizard would benefit a bit less from the Warlock multiclass (aside from certain builds like maybe Blade Singer), but that isn't fixing the real causes of the problems. Most of those Charisma classes could still dip into an Intelligence based Warlock, they'd just be doing with a minimal Intelligence score and then being more careful about what Warlock spells they pick (i.e- spells that don't use the casting score). This would weaken the multiclass a little bit, but probably not enough when having those pact slots in the first place can be so useful, especially in campaigns with lots of short rests.
Ideally they'd fix the real problems so the choice of casting score doesn't matter so much, i.e- restrict pact slots to only being usable with Warlock spells (and vice versa), so no more mixing and matching with regular spell slots, move some invocations to higher levels or have them scale by class somehow, make pact boons less front-loaded but still strong if you invest in Warlock more etc. This way the only consideration is which scores seem appropriate to Warlock, rather than which are most exploitable.
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.