Most classes have one to more skills that are typically associated with the class.
Martials are probably the least affected by this. Athletics or acrobatics are probably the most associated skills. These are based on STR and DEX which are the primary stats for martial classes. Rogues have Stealth, Sleight of Hand, and Thieves Tools which are mostly DEX based skills which is the primary stat for rogues. Rangers have Survival which is WIS based and that is the primary stat for rangers. Bards have Performance which is CHA based and that is the primary stat for bards. Wizards and artificers are also good. Arcana is INT based which is their primary start. But then we get to Clerics. Their main skills is Religion but Religion is a INT based skill while the primary stat for clerics is WIS. So in order to properly understand their religious devotion they need to pump a different skill. Same for Sorcerers and Warlocks, their magic is usually still associated with Arcana but Arcane is an INT skill while Sorcerers and Warlocks use CHA. Druids are a toss up. Their primary skill is usually Nature and some GMs use that skill for checks related to their magic. However, some GM still use Arcana.
In my opinion, each classes' skill should be aligned to the typical primary stat for that class...
Make Religion be WIS based. Provide a Inborn Magic skill for Sorcerer Magic that is CHA based. provide a Pact Magic skill for Warlocks that is CHA based.
I agree with you on Religion, Clerics should get something for it although Knowledge Religion is how it was described in the past and Knowledge should remain INT.
Sorcerers, Bards and Warlocks are canonically NOT scholars of magic and it is fitting that they don't have any special access to Arcana.
Actually, as Wisdom is one of the most important saves and Charisma boosts social skills perhaps letting INT casters have Arcana aligned with their casting stat is fine.
For 2024, Choosing Thaumaturge for a divine order literally gives clerics a bonus too their Arcana and Religion checks equal to their Wisdom modifier, I think that is already enough (for skill checks), ultimately knowledge such as knowing a religions dogma does tend to fall more under book smarts making intelligence the correct attribute for it.
I agree with you on Religion, Clerics should get something for it although Knowledge Religion is how it was described in the past and Knowledge should remain INT.
Sorcerers, Bards and Warlocks are canonically NOT scholars of magic and it is fitting that they don't have any special access to Arcana.
Actually, as Wisdom is one of the most important saves and Charisma boosts social skills perhaps letting INT casters have Arcana aligned with their casting stat is fine.
Sure not sorcerers, but both bards and warlocks are scholars of magic.
What would an Innate Magic or Pact Magic check actually represent? When would a DM ask the party to make that check? What if the party doesn’t have a sorcerer or a warlock?
At the same time, if you are trying to identify a spell based on it's "feel" (as a sorcerer), you could ask the DM if an Arcana (Charisma) check could be substituted in. I could see some DMs amenable to specific uses of Arcana that might use CHA as the stat, but that would, obviously, be a DM dependent thing.
I agree with you on Religion, Clerics should get something for it although Knowledge Religion is how it was described in the past and Knowledge should remain INT.
Sorcerers, Bards and Warlocks are canonically NOT scholars of magic and it is fitting that they don't have any special access to Arcana.
Actually, as Wisdom is one of the most important saves and Charisma boosts social skills perhaps letting INT casters have Arcana aligned with their casting stat is fine.
Sure not sorcerers, but both bards and warlocks are scholars of magic.
I'll give you bards... but warlocks are too lazy to study. They just pay someone to do their homework for them.
Oh I agree with that, charisma is a much better stat. But I've been beating this dead horse for a while and fairly often recently the warlock always should have been a int based class. They would be "weaker" but it fits them better. But yeah while it sucks they are usually bad at arcana charisma skills are better which they are good at, and they can't be good at everything.
This is really a stats problem not a skill problem. Nonrolled ( and many rolled stats) force you to dump at least 1 stat to boost primary stats. Then you run into skill problems with the dumped stat. I agree that religion could be a wisdom based skill for clerics but really a knowledge of comparative religions is far more intelligence based than wisdom based. Bards get jack of all trades helping them with every skill so they may not need any extra boost to arcana. Yes warlocks are “students” of magic so giving them access to arcana makes sense. However they don’t do the intense study mages do to get their spells nor do they have the sort of direct access to magic that sorcerors have - instead it is all really gifts from their patron so there is no need for them to have arcana or it’s equivalent as a charisma based skill.
its like no one reads the warlock class description.
You mean like the parts that say "A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being", "The magic bestowed on a warlock ranges from minor but lasting alterations to the warlock’s being (such as the ability to see in darkness or to read any language) to access to powerful spells", "Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells", "your otherworldly patron bestows a gift upon you", "Through occult ceremony, you have formed a pact with a mysterious entity to gain magical powers", "Your patron grants you a magical secret called an arcanum", etc.? Some people like to interpret their warlock as some up by their bootstraps type who did all the learning themselves, but the objective fact is the printed flavor of the class is heavily coded towards you being directly handed power rather than going through the process of learning how to make it happen from scratch.
I agree with you on Religion, Clerics should get something for it although Knowledge Religion is how it was described in the past and Knowledge should remain INT.
Sorcerers, Bards and Warlocks are canonically NOT scholars of magic and it is fitting that they don't have any special access to Arcana.
Actually, as Wisdom is one of the most important saves and Charisma boosts social skills perhaps letting INT casters have Arcana aligned with their casting stat is fine.
Sure not sorcerers, but both bards and warlocks are scholars of magic.
Debatable, depending on how you choose to define "scholar"- Warlocks are largely coded as acquiring knowledge/powers/etc. from either a single very powerful being or a network of arrangements. Yes they are "learning", but it's much closer to skimming wikis and forums to answer a question or follow a series of instructions rather than gaining a fundamental understanding of the basic mechanics of magic the way Wizards do. And Bards are ostensibly working off a softer magic since they're usually coded as "discovering/connecting with the fundamental magic within music/language"- they work out how to cause an effect, but they aren't described as delving into why the cause produces the effect from the same technical perspective a Wizard is.
At the end of the day, the fundamental difference between the way all the other Arcane casters and Wizards learn magic is this- Wizards can theoretically learn their entire class spell list, with enough time and resources. They won't have it all immediately at hand- if only for game balance, but they have the potential capability to prepare any of it. All of the other classes will only ever have access to a relatively small proportion of the potential spells in their field. Wizards have dedicated themselves to the fundamentals enough that they can achieve mastery of a far broader suite of capabilities than anyone else on the Arcane side of the street- and in fact already do so purely based on their core class features. The others range from 15 to 22 learned spells at max level based purely on the class features table. Wizards will have 44 from leveling (6 staring+ 2 spells per level * 19 additional levels). You can spin the flavor of how your character does magic whatever way you like, but the objective fact is that Wizards will know how to do far more magic than anyone else on their side of the street.
This is really a stats problem not a skill problem. Nonrolled ( and many rolled stats) force you to dump at least 1 stat to boost primary stats. Then you run into skill problems with the dumped stat. I agree that religion could be a wisdom based skill for clerics but really a knowledge of comparative religions is far more intelligence based than wisdom based. Bards get jack of all trades helping them with every skill so they may not need any extra boost to arcana. Yes warlocks are “students” of magic so giving them access to arcana makes sense. However they don’t do the intense study mages do to get their spells nor do they have the sort of direct access to magic that sorcerors have - instead it is all really gifts from their patron so there is no need for them to have arcana or it’s equivalent as a charisma based skill.
I disagree. I've crunched the numbers repeatedly. With point buy, you can start a level 1 MAD character with 16 in both stats without dumping anything below 10, assuming you're working off the "wildcard racial ASI bonus" rather than the older fixed bonuses or the more clunky 2024 backgrounds, although I expect there's enough of those that you can bite the bullet and find one that works if you're not set on a particular background feat and aren't hung up on the printed description of the background. For giggles I did a hypothetical INT/WIS MAD here, and you can see nothing got dumped and there were still points left to bump one more stat to a +1. You're not "forced" to dump anything for any class or even most if not all the official subclasses. Now, you're obviously going to have weak points, but that's a deliberate design point of a collaborative game where you're intended to be one part of a party of several distinct characters filling different roles.
It's also worth keeping in mind that Sorcerers, Warlocks, and a lot of Clerics are SAD, so you can easily spread a few points into INT if you want to emphasize that they're knowledgeable, as I essentially illustrated with my example above. Really, I think it's important to keep Nature, Religion, and Arcana regardless of class as INT skills because there's only one INT main class in the PHB, thus making INT an easy dump stat based on most character's performance unless it covered a fairly significant and widely applicable secondary field. Prior editions kept it relevant by giving a bonus to your skill points to allocate on level up based on it, but obviously that doesn't work in 5e.
I wonder if the solution to the "religion is keyed to what is likely to be the religious leader's dump stat" is to give them proficiency and expertise in it. That way, it's always going to be a least an ok roll for them (breaking even at minimum at L1) and likely a solid skill, but it's still tied to Intelligence.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Prior editions kept it relevant by giving a bonus to your skill points to allocate on level up based on it, but obviously that doesn't work in 5e.
I don't think it would have been that hard to give 1+Int (minimum of 1) proficiencies for most classes and a few extra for Bard/Ranger/Rogue, but oh well.
Aside from all the mechanics discussion, I will point out on the Sorcers and Warlocks, neither do any study in order to further their spellcasting. One is a nepo-baby, and the other has a sugar daddy. So they have no lorewise justification for strong Arcana skills.
Most classes have one to more skills that are typically associated with the class.
Martials are probably the least affected by this. Athletics or acrobatics are probably the most associated skills. These are based on STR and DEX which are the primary stats for martial classes. Rogues have Stealth, Sleight of Hand, and Thieves Tools which are mostly DEX based skills which is the primary stat for rogues. Rangers have Survival which is WIS based and that is the primary stat for rangers. Bards have Performance which is CHA based and that is the primary stat for bards. Wizards and artificers are also good. Arcana is INT based which is their primary start. But then we get to Clerics. Their main skills is Religion but Religion is a INT based skill while the primary stat for clerics is WIS. So in order to properly understand their religious devotion they need to pump a different skill. Same for Sorcerers and Warlocks, their magic is usually still associated with Arcana but Arcane is an INT skill while Sorcerers and Warlocks use CHA. Druids are a toss up. Their primary skill is usually Nature and some GMs use that skill for checks related to their magic. However, some GM still use Arcana.
In my opinion, each classes' skill should be aligned to the typical primary stat for that class...
Make Religion be WIS based. Provide a Inborn Magic skill for Sorcerer Magic that is CHA based. provide a Pact Magic skill for Warlocks that is CHA based.
Prior editions kept it relevant by giving a bonus to your skill points to allocate on level up based on it, but obviously that doesn't work in 5e.
I don't think it would have been that hard to give 1+Int (minimum of 1) proficiencies for most classes and a few extra for Bard/Ranger/Rogue, but oh well.
True, but that almost swings it the other way and makes INT something everyone should invest in.
its like no one reads the warlock class description.
You mean like the parts that say "A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being", "The magic bestowed on a warlock ranges from minor but lasting alterations to the warlock’s being (such as the ability to see in darkness or to read any language) to access to powerful spells", "Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells", "your otherworldly patron bestows a gift upon you", "Through occult ceremony, you have formed a pact with a mysterious entity to gain magical powers", "Your patron grants you a magical secret called an arcanum", etc.? Some people like to interpret their warlock as some up by their bootstraps type who did all the learning themselves, but the objective fact is the printed flavor of the class is heavily coded towards you being directly handed power rather than going through the process of learning how to make it happen from scratch.
I agree with you on Religion, Clerics should get something for it although Knowledge Religion is how it was described in the past and Knowledge should remain INT.
Sorcerers, Bards and Warlocks are canonically NOT scholars of magic and it is fitting that they don't have any special access to Arcana.
Actually, as Wisdom is one of the most important saves and Charisma boosts social skills perhaps letting INT casters have Arcana aligned with their casting stat is fine.
Sure not sorcerers, but both bards and warlocks are scholars of magic.
Debatable, depending on how you choose to define "scholar"- Warlocks are largely coded as acquiring knowledge/powers/etc. from either a single very powerful being or a network of arrangements. Yes they are "learning", but it's much closer to skimming wikis and forums to answer a question or follow a series of instructions rather than gaining a fundamental understanding of the basic mechanics of magic the way Wizards do. And Bards are ostensibly working off a softer magic since they're usually coded as "discovering/connecting with the fundamental magic within music/language"- they work out how to cause an effect, but they aren't described as delving into why the cause produces the effect from the same technical perspective a Wizard is.
At the end of the day, the fundamental difference between the way all the other Arcane casters and Wizards learn magic is this- Wizards can theoretically learn their entire class spell list, with enough time and resources. They won't have it all immediately at hand- if only for game balance, but they have the potential capability to prepare any of it. All of the other classes will only ever have access to a relatively small proportion of the potential spells in their field. Wizards have dedicated themselves to the fundamentals enough that they can achieve mastery of a far broader suite of capabilities than anyone else on the Arcane side of the street- and in fact already do so purely based on their core class features. The others range from 15 to 22 learned spells at max level based purely on the class features table. Wizards will have 44 from leveling (6 staring+ 2 spells per level * 19 additional levels). You can spin the flavor of how your character does magic whatever way you like, but the objective fact is that Wizards will know how to do far more magic than anyone else on their side of the street.
like i said its like no one actually reads the class. Yes they have pacts with beings which gives them power. But its clear throughout the class that those pacts are formed through occult/arcane research. Their power comes from knowledge, not from forcing their will upon the weave. They are as int and arcana coded as the wizard.
Prior editions kept it relevant by giving a bonus to your skill points to allocate on level up based on it, but obviously that doesn't work in 5e.
I don't think it would have been that hard to give 1+Int (minimum of 1) proficiencies for most classes and a few extra for Bard/Ranger/Rogue, but oh well.
Heck limit it to tools/language proficiencies. Give it something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Most classes have one to more skills that are typically associated with the class.
Martials are probably the least affected by this. Athletics or acrobatics are probably the most associated skills. These are based on STR and DEX which are the primary stats for martial classes.
Rogues have Stealth, Sleight of Hand, and Thieves Tools which are mostly DEX based skills which is the primary stat for rogues.
Rangers have Survival which is WIS based and that is the primary stat for rangers.
Bards have Performance which is CHA based and that is the primary stat for bards.
Wizards and artificers are also good. Arcana is INT based which is their primary start.
But then we get to Clerics. Their main skills is Religion but Religion is a INT based skill while the primary stat for clerics is WIS. So in order to properly understand their religious devotion they need to pump a different skill.
Same for Sorcerers and Warlocks, their magic is usually still associated with Arcana but Arcane is an INT skill while Sorcerers and Warlocks use CHA.
Druids are a toss up. Their primary skill is usually Nature and some GMs use that skill for checks related to their magic. However, some GM still use Arcana.
In my opinion, each classes' skill should be aligned to the typical primary stat for that class...
Make Religion be WIS based.
Provide a Inborn Magic skill for Sorcerer Magic that is CHA based.
provide a Pact Magic skill for Warlocks that is CHA based.
I agree with you on Religion, Clerics should get something for it although Knowledge Religion is how it was described in the past and Knowledge should remain INT.
Sorcerers, Bards and Warlocks are canonically NOT scholars of magic and it is fitting that they don't have any special access to Arcana.
Actually, as Wisdom is one of the most important saves and Charisma boosts social skills perhaps letting INT casters have Arcana aligned with their casting stat is fine.
For 2024, Choosing Thaumaturge for a divine order literally gives clerics a bonus too their Arcana and Religion checks equal to their Wisdom modifier, I think that is already enough (for skill checks), ultimately knowledge such as knowing a religions dogma does tend to fall more under book smarts making intelligence the correct attribute for it.
Sure not sorcerers, but both bards and warlocks are scholars of magic.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorWhat would an Innate Magic or Pact Magic check actually represent? When would a DM ask the party to make that check? What if the party doesn’t have a sorcerer or a warlock?
Need help with D&D Beyond? Come ask in the official D&D server on Discord: https://discord.gg/qWzGhwBjYr
At the same time, if you are trying to identify a spell based on it's "feel" (as a sorcerer), you could ask the DM if an Arcana (Charisma) check could be substituted in. I could see some DMs amenable to specific uses of Arcana that might use CHA as the stat, but that would, obviously, be a DM dependent thing.
I'll give you bards... but warlocks are too lazy to study. They just pay someone to do their homework for them.
its like no one reads the warlock class description.
Yeah, it does mention that for Warlocks. Although the balancing factor is still there. CHR and WIS are very strong without tying them to more skills.
Oh I agree with that, charisma is a much better stat. But I've been beating this dead horse for a while and fairly often recently the warlock always should have been a int based class. They would be "weaker" but it fits them better. But yeah while it sucks they are usually bad at arcana charisma skills are better which they are good at, and they can't be good at everything.
This is really a stats problem not a skill problem. Nonrolled ( and many rolled stats) force you to dump at least 1 stat to boost primary stats. Then you run into skill problems with the dumped stat. I agree that religion could be a wisdom based skill for clerics but really a knowledge of comparative religions is far more intelligence based than wisdom based. Bards get jack of all trades helping them with every skill so they may not need any extra boost to arcana. Yes warlocks are “students” of magic so giving them access to arcana makes sense. However they don’t do the intense study mages do to get their spells nor do they have the sort of direct access to magic that sorcerors have - instead it is all really gifts from their patron so there is no need for them to have arcana or it’s equivalent as a charisma based skill.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
You mean like the parts that say "A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being", "The magic bestowed on a warlock ranges from minor but lasting alterations to the warlock’s being (such as the ability to see in darkness or to read any language) to access to powerful spells", "Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells", "your otherworldly patron bestows a gift upon you", "Through occult ceremony, you have formed a pact with a mysterious entity to gain magical powers", "Your patron grants you a magical secret called an arcanum", etc.? Some people like to interpret their warlock as some up by their bootstraps type who did all the learning themselves, but the objective fact is the printed flavor of the class is heavily coded towards you being directly handed power rather than going through the process of learning how to make it happen from scratch.
Debatable, depending on how you choose to define "scholar"- Warlocks are largely coded as acquiring knowledge/powers/etc. from either a single very powerful being or a network of arrangements. Yes they are "learning", but it's much closer to skimming wikis and forums to answer a question or follow a series of instructions rather than gaining a fundamental understanding of the basic mechanics of magic the way Wizards do. And Bards are ostensibly working off a softer magic since they're usually coded as "discovering/connecting with the fundamental magic within music/language"- they work out how to cause an effect, but they aren't described as delving into why the cause produces the effect from the same technical perspective a Wizard is.
At the end of the day, the fundamental difference between the way all the other Arcane casters and Wizards learn magic is this- Wizards can theoretically learn their entire class spell list, with enough time and resources. They won't have it all immediately at hand- if only for game balance, but they have the potential capability to prepare any of it. All of the other classes will only ever have access to a relatively small proportion of the potential spells in their field. Wizards have dedicated themselves to the fundamentals enough that they can achieve mastery of a far broader suite of capabilities than anyone else on the Arcane side of the street- and in fact already do so purely based on their core class features. The others range from 15 to 22 learned spells at max level based purely on the class features table. Wizards will have 44 from leveling (6 staring+ 2 spells per level * 19 additional levels). You can spin the flavor of how your character does magic whatever way you like, but the objective fact is that Wizards will know how to do far more magic than anyone else on their side of the street.
I disagree. I've crunched the numbers repeatedly. With point buy, you can start a level 1 MAD character with 16 in both stats without dumping anything below 10, assuming you're working off the "wildcard racial ASI bonus" rather than the older fixed bonuses or the more clunky 2024 backgrounds, although I expect there's enough of those that you can bite the bullet and find one that works if you're not set on a particular background feat and aren't hung up on the printed description of the background. For giggles I did a hypothetical INT/WIS MAD here, and you can see nothing got dumped and there were still points left to bump one more stat to a +1. You're not "forced" to dump anything for any class or even most if not all the official subclasses. Now, you're obviously going to have weak points, but that's a deliberate design point of a collaborative game where you're intended to be one part of a party of several distinct characters filling different roles.
It's also worth keeping in mind that Sorcerers, Warlocks, and a lot of Clerics are SAD, so you can easily spread a few points into INT if you want to emphasize that they're knowledgeable, as I essentially illustrated with my example above. Really, I think it's important to keep Nature, Religion, and Arcana regardless of class as INT skills because there's only one INT main class in the PHB, thus making INT an easy dump stat based on most character's performance unless it covered a fairly significant and widely applicable secondary field. Prior editions kept it relevant by giving a bonus to your skill points to allocate on level up based on it, but obviously that doesn't work in 5e.
I wonder if the solution to the "religion is keyed to what is likely to be the religious leader's dump stat" is to give them proficiency and expertise in it. That way, it's always going to be a least an ok roll for them (breaking even at minimum at L1) and likely a solid skill, but it's still tied to Intelligence.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I don't think it would have been that hard to give 1+Int (minimum of 1) proficiencies for most classes and a few extra for Bard/Ranger/Rogue, but oh well.
Aside from all the mechanics discussion, I will point out on the Sorcers and Warlocks, neither do any study in order to further their spellcasting. One is a nepo-baby, and the other has a sugar daddy. So they have no lorewise justification for strong Arcana skills.
Monks have: Acrobatics, Athletics, History, Religion, Stealth , Insight...🤔
True, but that almost swings it the other way and makes INT something everyone should invest in.
like i said its like no one actually reads the class. Yes they have pacts with beings which gives them power. But its clear throughout the class that those pacts are formed through occult/arcane research. Their power comes from knowledge, not from forcing their will upon the weave. They are as int and arcana coded as the wizard.
Heck limit it to tools/language proficiencies. Give it something.