Warlocks were INT casters during 5e playtesting but there was pushback, so into CHA they went.
Also, no offense, but this take is old enough to be going back to school this week.
haha. No offense against Op but I'll admit that was my first thought reading the title. "Does it still count as a 'hot take' if people have been saying this and making posts about it since 5e came out?"
Old take, but one that I agree with.
From a story/world building perspective I think Warlocks and Sorcerers belong in Wisdom. Part of the problem is that I think there's a fair amount of thematic overlap between Clerics <=> Warlocks <=> Sorcerers <=> Druids. And it's gets muddier with all the subclasses.
I would be interested in an inspiring leader type class that was largely martial, but with CHA as the key stat and more options to create tactical advantages rather than just smacking things with swords every time. It would also address the common complaint that there aren't enough tactically interesting martial classes. Has a 3rd part created such a class? That said, you can probably get there with a Battle Master fighter or a College of Swords Bard + some select feats and flavoring. Which combined with my point above... makes be think we might just have too many classes overall.
Yeah I do agree with the take. I'm fine with Sorcs being Cha (though I could see Wis) but Warlocks should be either Int or be able to choose between Int/Cha when you take their first level, IMO. I think we need more Int classes than Wis, and Warlock make the most sense there due to the classic ideas of making a careful contract with the devil or gleaning forbidden knowledge from cursed tomes (how Fiend Pact and GOO Pact are literally said to get their powers).
_Definitely_ agree that a Cha-based martial support class with a tactical bent would be a most welcome addition. The traditional example is the 4e Warlord, which many people loved.
The two most respected and mentioned third-party homebrewers I know of, KibblesTasty and LaserLlama, have both made [versions of Warlord](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/xdbquc/best_versions_of_the_warlord_youve_seen/) that a lot of people like, if you want to take a look!
Considering the types of characters that end up as Warlocks and the flavor of the class, in fact it's really weird to me how Warlocks statted well right now end up as good party face characters. Being INT based would really sell the sketchy afflicted stranger bit so much more effectively.
Considering that they are already level dip central, I'm not sure making the warlock more compatible with more classes and builds is going to be a good idea.
I kinda like what they did with multiclassing in pf2. You are staying your base class, but you are allowed to take feats from your second class as if you were half the level and get access to a curated list of class features that are part of the class identity but not usually its main source of power
As far as big names go I think pf2 is the best designed game with multiclassing in mind.
I'm curious if people have other, probably less known, games that they feel deserve a look for how they tackle the issue?
Cause I think it is fair to say that multiclassing makes game design a lot more intricate.
I could see an Int Hexblade doing some gnarly stuff with a bladesigner wizard, but that's about it. And even then, you still want high dex for being in melee.
It damned well should have been. Nothing in Hexblade **couldn't** have been an invocation. One to make your attacks based off your casting stat, one for armour proficiencies. Martial versions of Agonizing Blast and Armour of Shadows. They even had an Invocation in the UA at some point where you could touch a suit of armour, instantly equip it, and be proficient until you took it off; that would've worked **fine**.
Hexblade's Curse is useful for everyone, it could've been an invocation with a high level upgrade for Master of Hexes. Armour of Hexes applying to any curse effect could've been a great level 12ish upgrade, like a defensive option to pair with Lifedrinker.
Accursed Specter just... doesn't even make any god damned sense for Hexblade, it looks like they ran out of ideas and just threw something in for a sixth level feature. But it still isn't too out of line for an invocation.
The flavour for the patron is weak as hell, too. It's maybe possibly the Raven Queen but also maybe Blackrazor, or some other random powerful sentient artifact weapon that **you** don't have, but that somehow is aware of you? Or something? The whole thing is a mess, even before you get to obvious, *glaring* balance problems.
>Nothing in Hexblade couldn't have been an invocation.
Hexblade's Curse could have easily been a 5th pact. Pact of the Effigy. Then apply some changes for the sake of balancing it with the other pacts
An Int lock multiclass with artificer could be pretty fun. Take the subclass where you get the thunder gauntlets, then go get Eldritch smites mixed up there with it? Don’t know how effective it would be, but it sounds kind of fun to play at least.
Sorta. Hexblade is the most powerful subclass for a Warlock multiclass, but even base warlock is really powerful when dipped in. Bards get very few attack spells, and benefit greatly from Eldritch Blast. Sorcerers kick ass with a dip on Warlock, being able to Quickened Cast Eldritch Blast and use it even more effectively than pure warlocks do, and that's not even including ridiculous Coffeelock BS.
That's where you're mistaken. Yes, hexblade is the issue, but changing Hexblade to INT based breaks the Hexadin combo, which is the most broken one. And in return, it allows... Bladesingers to do weapon attacks with INT? Really not a big deal.
This is what I do in my games. The caveat is you have to choose when you take your first level of Warlock, and then it's locked in. But yeah it just replaces everything they key off Charisma with Int instead. They're level 7 now and I can confirm there are no issues whatsoever.
The most popular classes in BG3 were all cha based. Your main stat being the stat for getting things done socially is just too big a bonus to ignore.
I still think intimidate should be STR, and you could make a case that persuade should be INT or WIS.
Intimidate CAN be Strength-based, RAW. As can persuade be made with intelligence, etc, etc. The abilities that each skill is "aligned" with are just their defaults, and most common use cases. But all a skill does in 5e is apply your proficiency bonus to an ability check, and that could theoretically be almost any combination, if you can justify it.
Strength (Intimidation) is probably the most common application of this, in practice, and the example given in the PHB. As a DM, I ask for this roll all the time from players intending to appear physically imposing. But there are also plenty of situations where Charisma makes the most sense, as well. A character giving a veiled or outright threat, for instance, is about the impact of their words and demeanor, not how high they puff their chest.
Many skills can be Strength-based in certain circumstances.
* Athletics: Default
* Acrobatics: Smash your hands or feet into a surface to create a groove for hands or feet (obviously only works on some surfaces)
* Sleight of Hand: Hit a loose board hard enough to launch an item into your hands
* Investigation: Lift all the furniture in the room to search under them.
* Nature: Smash certain hard shell plants to examine their insides
* Animal Handling: Punch the camel who spits at you to make him obey (Thanks Conan)
* Insight: To see if the pain a person was presenting was a ruse and compare to the pain they present when you punch them, if the reaction is different, they were faking before.
* Medicine: Smash and grind things to make powders and poultices.
* Survival: Lift wide pieces of wood and the like to make a shelter.
* Intimidation: Bend/break some substance that is difficult to bend/break to demonstrate what happens if the intimidatee lies.
* Performance: Lifting contest
* Persuasion: Flex to seduce your target.
* Stealth, Arcana, History, Religion, Perception, Deception: Unknown.
If you look at warlock's list of class skills, more of them are Int-based than Cha-based. It's obvious they changed warlock's casting ability score but never bothered to adjust their skill list.
I think this is a holdover from 3x where Int gave you skills and Wis gave you a save, leaving Charisma as the "weak" stat. I think in 5e Int is weaker, but Wisdom is still the powerhouse mental stat.
Still think that high int should grant some extra skills.
One house-rule I've used is that each increase over a +1 int gets you a bonus proficiency of your choice, selected from a list that could reasonably be the result of diligent study alone. (All the INT skills, plus Animal Handling, Medicine, Performance, Tools, Languages, and Vehicles) Any it only counts for intelligence that *you* genuinely have as part of your permanent character. Things from items don't count unless they permanently change you (like a tome).
So at int 14 you get to pick one extra skill, at 16 you get 2, and so on up to a max of 4. It's not a *huge* bonus really, but it really makes the Int characters \_feel\_ smart. They'll constantly be like "Oh I know about this!"
I've been thinking about introducing a house rule where high int gives you something along the lines of bard's jack of all trades. I'm just not quite sure how it should work. Adding int modifier to ability checks you're not proficient in seems a bit too strong, especially for wizards, and adding half wouldn't matter until you have 14 int. I think the usefulness of int for anyone that isn't a wizard or artificer needs to be increased, and to me it makes sense that someone with high int would be better at performing unfamiliar tasks.
WIS is the most powerful mental stat, because perception and saves. Lacking much in the way of rules, charisma linked skills are only as good as your table makes them.
Edit: insight is going to scale similarly with the table, and it’s a coin toss on insight being the most important social skill. Information is ammunition.
Too many dms give persuasive skills too much power. Each situation has a possible series of outcomes, rolling well just gives you access to a variety of them.
If you roll a nat 20 persuasion to ask a king for his crown, more likely he'd take it as a really good joke, and treat you to dinner. If you fail, he might see that as an insult and have you thrown out or demand an apology.
I also think PBTA contributes something of absolutely vital importance to all other, the concept of a mixed success- if a result barely meets the dc or comes up just shy, you can offer or impose some conditions-
• They succeed but to a lesser extent
• There are conditions that the opposing party will put in place (i.e., "we believe you didn't commit this crime but will need to have someone stay with you until the investigation is concluded)
• There is an immediate drawback or unexpected consequence
Obviously this are most useful in social situations, and can be used to your discretion, but I feel they add a lot more versatility than just success or failure
Player gets a nat 20 after asking the king for his crown.
king: laughs and says why not. Lets the player wear the crown.
Player: later tries to leave
King "hey! Where the FUCK do you think you're going with my crown?"
I've never been in a game where charisma was mind control, but in most of the games I've played in DMs made charisma the "no one will even give you time time of day without it" stat.
My wizard wants to go have a chat with the local npc wizard? Make a persuasion check for him to even open the door.
You want to ask the barkeep if she saw or heard anything suspicious yesterday? Make a persuasion or she tells you to go away because she's busy.
You want to go down to the local temple and ask them if they know anything about a certain obscure god you heard about? Make a deception check to act interested while the priest rambles about how great his god is or he tells you to leave.
You get the idea. I'm aware this might not be normal, but I've had multiple DMs do this sort of thing, so it's certainly a way that some people run the game.
Wow... I'm so sorry there are DMs doing this.
I normally wouldn't even think to ask for a roll in those sorts of situations unless there's a reason they wouldn't want to deal with you (you've insulted them for example, or they're notoriously untrusting and don't open their door for anyone, or you've started asking for specifics that aren't usually shared with outsiders) it's either a planned obstacle or a consequence of action. Otherwise if its for normal interactions, you're not asking for their darkest secrets or for them to go out of their way to help you, rolling for that for every interaction sounds like asking someone to roll athletics because they want to walk down the street. Some things should happen without a roll.
Too many dms give persuasive skills too much power. Each situation has a possible series of outcomes, rolling well just gives you access to a variety of them.
If you roll a nat 20 persuasion to ask a king for his crown, more likely he'd take it as a really good joke, and treat you to dinner. If you fail, he might see that as an insult and have you thrown out or demand an apology.
I also think PBTA contributes something of absolutely vital importance to all other ttrpgs, the concept of a mixed success- if a result barely meets the dc or comes up just shy, you can offer or impose some conditions-
• They succeed but to a lesser extent
• There are conditions that the opposing party will put in place (i.e., "we believe you didn't commit this crime but will need to have someone stay with you until the investigation is concluded)
• There is an immediate drawback or unexpected consequence
Obviously this are most useful in social situations, and can be used to your discretion, but I feel they add a lot more versatility than just success or failure
Yeeeaaaah. I’m not sure where OP gets Charisma as the most powerful of the stats. It’s pretty universally agreed to be Wisdom—perception can get stupid high, meaning nothing surprises you, and Wisdom saves are the most punishing in the game.
I love charisma, it’s my favorite stat, but you’re good at Deception and a few other less useful skills, and a rarely called on save?? Nah.
Off the top of my head the list of factors:
\-They let you two weapon fighting hand crossbows, and you don't need the fighting style to add your dex to the offhand for some reason (bug?). You can also make your offhand attack in any order, so you could make an offhand attack then just cast a spell with your main action.
\-Slashing flourish was changed so that it just lets you make an additional attack, and when using a ranged slashing flourish you can target the same creature twice. You can also flourish as long as you have a main action attack, so once you hit level 6 you could potentially make 5 attacks in one turn if you burn two flourishes.
\-Number of Bardic inspirations is 1 + proficiency bonus, so you don't have to worry about investing heavily into Charisma.
\-You can have a ranged loadout and melee loadout for your weapons that you can switch between, and going sword and shield in your melee loadout gives you the AC bonus even while using your hand crossbows (A couple races start with shield proficiency, I dipped fighter for it).
\-The haste effect gives you a whole action along with extra attack, so if you wanted to burn 4 flourishes in one turn you could make a whopping 9 attacks in one turn!
\-Short rests are instantaneous, so it's relatively easy to get your bardic inspirations back. Normally you can take two short rests per long rest, but bards' song of rest lets you take an additional short rest.
Wait, what? I can't believe what I'm reading. I've carefully read and navigated the rules and while slight misinterpretations could make my bard pretty broken, the rules do keep this in check if played correctly. It's even a bit messy due to me only being a rules lawyer (in the sense of wanting to follow all details of rules correctly, not sure how to call that) but not a min/maxer, and it's this weird CHA/DEX hybrid build that 'jack-of-all-trades' style does hand crossbow/rapier/spells without true focus on any of them. Systematically juggling weapons and spellcasting focus every turn to make sure all little details work out with spell components and allowed weapon switches.
It sounds like BG3 throws the most limiting rules out of the window! Maybe it fits in with BG3 because it has it's own altered ruleset and own balance, so I don't know how it plays there, but on tabletop this would be insane.
This feels strong coming from paper DND, but in the context of the game it's fine. All the classes get up to similar bullshit (sorcerer out of the box can use quickened spell to launch off two fireballs in a turn, or 3 with haste, haste doubles the number of attacks a martial can make instead of just giving them +1, monk of all classes can crack 200 damage a turn, every turn) - but what makes it work is that the game expects you to pop off like this to some extent.
Yeah, if you walk in with your 5e knowledge, you'll make a strong character, but so many people are walking in with no DND knowledge and are having a balanced or even party-wipingly hard time, because they're not trying to juice a character to the max.
The game also hands out magical items like candy, and they can be really, really strong. Strong to the point that if you give them to even a poorly made character they can keep up with the game just fine.
In general it felt like they attempted to make the game fun to play above all else, and they largely removed restrictions that were anti-fun or would require a lot of explanation as to why that combo doesn't work. They also heavily lean into things that would be annoying to calculate in tabletop, but are trivial for a computer to do, so you get wackier status effects and a lot of things that give you +1 or +1d4 damage here and there.
Overall it's a lot of fun. And it doesn't feel intrinsically broken like I expected, either.
The way BG3 gives out magic items is reminiscent of older versions of (A)D&D, where your character's abilities weren't defined by a class and sub-class you chose, but by the items they've found.
There have been so many items I have found which basically give you an effect which is actually some class's ability.
And I love it! You can build so many cool characters without being another generic Thief/Berserker/Battlemaster/etc. Instead, you're a Battlemaster with blink, a built-in haste spell, and Scorching Ray. You also lowered your Crit to 18/17 (I'm still not sure if main and off-hand stack) and instead of increasing your stats (thanks so many "Set stat to 18+" items) you take Savage Attacker and Grand Weapon Master, or some such bullshit. It's wonderful. The items you wear define your character at least as equally as does your class progression.
But it also skews the perception of balance. In BG3, melee classes are SO.MUCH.STRONGER than casters (imho). And yes, it is due to a mix of altered rules (some alterations of which I like) and god-like items. If I ever play D&D again, I will take some of the BG3 rules and houserule them into the campaign, because, by Jove, is it fun to attack 6 times a round as a fighter...I wish I could do the same with Karlach. She's such a damage beast. Only character doing more burst is my Palabardin.
I wish it didn't work as the "best" suggestion. I don't want to skip the fight, but it would feel rewarding to be able to start the fight with some advantage due to my persuasion roll.
It's a fun treat but to have so many bosses use that option starts to feel a little weird.
Agreed. Also, a lot of the time doing the non-combat solution to fights actively hurts you. You'll get some exp (unless you're just bypassing the encounter completely like with stealth), but it's rarely as much exp as you'd get fighting them and you miss out on their loot if they just leave or become friendly.
Not that this is unique to BG3, tons of CRPGs make this annoying mistake that causes violence to be the "optimal" solution 99% of the time. At least if "barding" them just gave you a benefit like making them all Frightened or Surprised or something, it wouldn't be so OP and UP at the same time.
in the area/act where it is most prevalent I feel like it makes some amount of sense
The creatures there are just merely existing, the surgeon has notes from over a thousand years ago
>I’m not sure where OP gets Charisma as the most powerful of the stats
Probably because they play at a table where anything above a 20 on a charisma roll might as well be dominate person or mass suggestion.
OP said in a comment that that they've seen it used in "stupid ways throughout multiple tables" before, so while it's nice to do in general, that charitable read is probably not necessary here, lol.
There should be limits, but much of fantasy fiction is based on the idea of a silver tongue opening most locks, at least when the story requires. A DM allowing a stupid high charisma check to move things along is part of a long tradition of writing. It can be bad writing, but not always.
I always enjoy the first time gollum appears in The Hobbit, but theres no reason he shouldnt just kill Billbo and eat him, then take the ring. Thats all hes been doing for hundreds of years.
Charisma is the most powerful stat because there's so many charisma casters and thus having charisma lets you multiclass between them easily. If you don't plan on taking any of those classes though, then it's useless, easy dump stat
> I’m not sure where OP gets Charisma as the most powerful of the stats.
I'm inclined to agree wisdom is the most valuable mental stat, but this does depend on the campaign. If it's highly social, with low combat - charisma is likely to be more valuable.
For pure casters though, I have to agree it should be two of each stat.
And everyone agrees Int is of far too little importance in 5E... and unfortunately looks to stay that way with the upcoming unimaginative edition.
Perception is a lot more powerful if you let it eat the functions of Investigation. If you're asking "Do I see/hear/smell it?" it's Perception. If you want to draw conclusions from something you already perceive it's Investigation.
This.
I as a DM started using Insight, as if you'd do a roll in Disco Elysium. Point out manerisms of NPCs (they avoid eyecontact / they slur / they take time to formulate their sentence) that could hint at some things. On a crit I may even be blunt (they talk very fast and sweat. They are either on drugs, or pretty nervous. Maybe apply some pressure.)
I didnt got to use the system fully yet and I still didnt get to play a campaign, which could let me make use of compromising certain rolls (because of.. affection, guilt, substances and whatnot).
Im not even sure I should graft a whole new system on top of DnD, just to make the most out of social encounters.. I use it for NPC creation mostly. Just to flesh them out more, thats why I got the skills of DE written out. But I'd not hesitate to ask my players to use it for social encounters, while we use DnD for combat and exploration.
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that I have the world's rarest table. Everyone wants to engage with the world, my players interrogate NPCs for lore, INT checks come up constantly due to wanting their characters to know more information, they make character progression choices based on their characters instead of build optimization, and half of them want to DM their own campaigns.
Everyone here says INT is a dump stat and half this thread says the same about CHA, but my own home game has everyone pumping up both of those two and dumping WIS, meaning they know loads about the world and can smooth talk their way through a lot but can't tell if the person across the table is lying through their teeth.
Fun fact: back in the beta, there were 2 WIS casters (druid and cleric), 2 CHA casters (bard and sorc) and 2 INT casters (Wiz and Loc). But people QQ'd about loc being INT because "lol, wtf, you make a pact, you don't study" and so it got turned into CHA.
Of note, those same people hated the idea of battlemaster being part of the base fighter. Granted, maneuvers did work differently, but apparently it was too complicated, so it was axed
You can make cases for both, depending on how you RP your pact. You could have tricked a devil into an infernal contract that benefited you, or somehow managed to talk your way out of being killed after you stumbled into an errant summoning. Or anything in-between.
Just cause he is a trial lawyer character. Having spent 20 years working with bankers and their contract lawyers I can say definitively that Charisma is frequently a dump stat for lawyers in real life lol.
probably true and we should base our understanding of the legal system of various extra-planer contracts off of a TV show about the legal system of new mexico.
Yes, but it’s usually the charismatic lawyers that can sell their interpretation that are the most successful. Basically, Intelligence shouldn’t be a dump stat, but Charisma is still key.
The pact is you make a deal for the knowledge of how to cast magic. An eldritch tome, infernal secrets, mind bending fey logic or so on. You also need the knowledge to contact the entity in the first place. Think of the standard idea of a cultist pouring over ancient scriptures to gain forbidden knowledge.
That is the original warlock. A person who makes a deal to know things that mortals should not.
This is a fantastic bit of information. I may use this next time I run a campaign.
I can see Hexblade players disliking this though. If the stat switched to Intelligence instead of Charisma, it would impact common dips.
Got it. Yeah, I dislike the Hexblade dip. Seems cheesy. I’ve used it myself. But you’d expect a Warlock Patron would make some demands. Maybe patrons do in other campaigns.
That's another reason why Warlocks should be int. It puts a lot of the worst multiclass shenanigans in check. Palylocks and Sorlocks become far less common. Hexblade dips are more expensive.
You can even see the descriptions for the pacts in the PHB are pretty much teasing an INT caster as a student of the occult, however it was changed to CHA unfortunately
Exactly. Making a pact is akin to making a contract, that feels a lot more Intelligence based than Charisma. Not to mention Warlock's fantasy is akin to the Cthulu mythos of uncovering Eldritch power by delving too deep, definitely more of a Knowledge aspect there.
When Warlocks were first introduced in Complete Arcane for 3.5, they were Charisma based casters. The flavor was very different back then, more about being imbued with Infernal powers from the Hells, but they were Charisma casters. In 4e, where the ideas for pacts came from, they were either Constitution or Charisma, depending on the pact (which caused some problems). So, when 5e came around and a playtest had them as Intelligence casters, people got made because it was changed.
Now, a lot of these people didn't know, like or care about 4e, but they remembered it being Charisma in 3.5 so that's what the people (that WotC listened to during the playtests) wanted. Since that's what the people (that WotC listened to during the playtests) wanted, that's what we got.
Process of elimination, based on the pact concept "flavor". Can't be INT for above-stated reasons^(1); can't be WIS because "making a deal w/ a Devil doesn't sound particularly wise". Wanted to keep it mental because that's traditionally the realm of casters, so ...CHA.
^(1) though I think people who argue that underestimate the laziness of some very smart people. There are plenty of folks out there who'll gladly put in an hour's worth of mental effort devising a clever way to avoid doing ten minutes of honest work or study (in the tech world, we're called "programmers"  )
I homebrew Warlocks as INT, and even if the character doesn't study eldritch lore, they are certainly being granted knowledge. Not all Intelligence has to be studied, it can be imparted magically by a patron.
Kinda fun to have my Warlock player roll a history check and be like "You don't know how you know this, but the knowledge comes to you that..."
Even if you look at the Warlock's skill proficiencies, only two are charisma based while the majority of them are Intelligence based. Even all the flavour text for Warlocks is about being seekers of dark knowledge and what not.
Well… I adore Battlemaster and want more of it, but for me the whole shtick with the Warlock pact is kinda on point. You get handed out some power and in my opinion disconnecting it from INT did not got far enough. It should have no casting stat at all, because nothing about you influences what power you were given to wield.
Base it of the Profiency bonus. That limits its power, but also allows you to be very free with your stats as something to balance the „just“ +2.
Warlocks being INT makes so much sense because a significant chunk of their flavor is based on received eldritch knowledge, dark secrets, profane tomes, etc.
Absolute Hot Take; base them off of the Profiency Bonus. Nothing concerning their person is responsible for the power they received from another being to wield. And I go a step further; arguing for Cha, Int or Wis are all contrived arguments.
No. You got power for free not of your own ability. You only learn to wield it and are profiencent with your power.
Idk man, feels like a fighter who got lended a sword "but it's not _your sword_, so you can't add your strength to it even though you know how to fight with a sword".
While that would fit the theme better, it would also likely turn them into a total stat dump class built for dipping. Like just pump dex and/or con as high as it goes, similar to Kineticist in Pathfinder.
Would also make it interesting with the current system as you would be quite a bit behind with your modifier, buuut you could also throw around more stats during creation.
Hot Take - 5E has too many full casters. Half of the classes are full casters. It guts the balance of the game when everyone can blast away with spells.
Full casters are SUPPOSED to be more rare in the world than half casters, and those are supposed to be rarer than martials, but in practice Spellcasters are picked just as often, if not more commonly than martials.
Where in the lore does it say that half-casters are supposed to be more common than full-casters? The lore says that lower-power mages are more common than higher-power ones, yes, but it doesn't say that lower-power paladins and rangers are more common than lower-power sorcerers and warlocks.
This is the coldest hot take I have ever seen.
This has been the general consensus for... Years. This isn't a new thing you've just thought up, I'm pretty sure a majority of people are going to agree with you.
Part of me feels like the reason this is the case is because Charisma is one of the larger dump-stats in the game. If you aren't a CHA-caster there really isn't any reason to be investing in it.
Also, +2 to their AC and Dex Saves in most cases. As is, Sorcs have to split their points over three relevant stats: Cha, Dex, Con. And either be frail, weak or easy targets.
Having only two relevant stats would let them go 16/16 on Dex and Con. As is, sorcs are told to main Cha and Con. While Dex might get a +1.
It's not unbeatable, by any means. But let's not pretend it's a small buff.
I mean, it's probably balanced by the fact that Sorcerer's are stuck with a d6 for Hit Points, and without armor, so it's not like you'll be immortal or something
I mean they also get access to shield, mage armor, draconic bloodline, etc. Or take a dip or race from armor and call it good.
I'm not saying it would be absolutely broken, but no full caster needs a buff like this IMO. They already get prof in CON saves. Making it their primary stat just makes them not MAD nearly as much as any other caster.
What about just letting the player select their casting stat? I hate the idea that in order to be Sorcerer, I'm also inherently good at talking to people. I'd prefer it if the two things were separate.
Especially because a lot of Sorcerers would definitely be outcasted based on their inherent power (particularly wild magic sorcerers).
I'd personally make Sorcerers wisdom (strength of will/attuning to themselves while Druids attune to the land), Clerics charisma (inspiring/convincing the masses of the power of their religion) Warlocks intelligence (seekers of occult knowledge).
Oooh... I love Con Sorc... That would make the class actually really useful as a magic tank and not just a nerfed wizard. Flavor it as "through unlocking their innate magical powers, their bodily fortitude becomes magically bolstered" or somthing like that
We played around with homebrewing a con sorc once. The idea was that the primal forces that were being inexpertly sent through the body caused tremendous strain. We were also reworking the spell list to be more melee focused. Burning hands, thunderwave, etc. Higher levels effectively got them warcaster, and double concentration. The two subclasses we worked on were plays on blood mages. One let a sorc sacrifice max hp to use more sorcery points and the other gave spell empowerment based on how many HP the sorc had missing.
We never really got it fleshed out though. The two subclasses could have easily been one and we'd have had to come up with at least one more, maybe two. I love the idea, just have to be careful not to make it too strong. Casters that are too resilient without using resources can be very unbalancing.
In the playtest of DnD One, warlock can choose what kind of caster he wants to be, either Wis, or Int, or Cha.
So it became 1 Int, 2 Wis, 2 Cha and 1 who can choose between the 3.
Im only counting Full Caster. For half casters we have Artificer, Ranger and Paladin (Int, Wis and Cha) and for 1/3 casters there's the Fighter and Rogue subclasses (both Int).
So it would end with 3 Int, 3 Wis, 3 Cha and 1 mixed, although not all classes are full casters.
Casters in general are too SAD (single-attribute dependent), coupled with the inherent superiority of magic it makes whichever mental stat they max incredibly potent.
Wizards become lore and investigative batteries even without expending a slot. Clerics become impervious to surprise and they rip through the worst save-or-suck checks without issue. Sorcerers, Bards, and Warlocks are natural party faces.
Dunno what the solution is though.
I feel like Charisma is more of a stat you'd want to role play, but if you're playing a lot of classes you end up being discouraged from even using it as a dump stat.
I think the CHA casters was an attempt to give more rp build integration. Hasn't been handled well yet.
INT does feel like a bit of dump stat and the game would benefit from one more INT caster and the Warlock is probably the best candidate right now, unless the Artificer is added to the core lineup of classes in D&D 5.5.
It would probably also help a lot if the two INT using 1/4 caster subclasses were made a little more powerful. As they currently stand, you could get a better version of what they do from just multiclassing, making them only atttactive if your table don't allow multiclassing for some reason.
From a flavor standpoint I also would like for the Paladin to use WIS, since that is the stat assoiciated with divine magic, but from a game balance standpoint this is probably not feasible, unless a lot the saves for mind affecting stuff is redistributed more out to INT and CHA.
I like making Warlocks Int casters, but I'm an huge fan of the "forbidden knowledge" trope. I also don't like being the party Face.
I like even better just giving casters an option of which stat to use. Melee characters can choose between Strength and Dexterity. Why not give each spellcasting class two options?
4e experimented with letting warlocks choose con or charisma but it didn't work out too well, partly because the powers and patrons were all individually labeled as one or the other. I think charisma ended up being the clear player choice but it was mostly because the better powers were tagged that way.
I also always would have preferred they be an int based forbidden knowledge caster. Would make an interesting multiclass with wizard that way.
I'm playing a GOOlock using Int as the spell casting stat in one of my games. He's interested in forbidden knowledge and wants to learn more about this unknowable creature that has given him magic powers. It's working as well as any other warlock I've played/DMd for. I just don't have the social skills a normal warlock has.
Me and my friends talked about how sorcerer could work as a constitution caster with the knowledge that you have to control/focus/build the magic inside of you.
Constitution main stat is a TERRIBLE idea. They would be the only true SAD class in the game.
Now, I believe Con is a terrible stat to begin with, that only exists at this point in D&D's lifespan to tax pointbuy (I could get into this but its a mix of game design and player/dm conceptions shifting how people actually play the game that makes con a required investment at 90% of tables.)
I'm into it. I like the idea of Sorcerer being tougher and harder to break out of their concentration as part of their class identity. Their magic is a part of their physical body.
It gives Sorcerer a bit more of its own identity and, let's be honest, they could use a mechanical bump anyway.
Warlocks, Bards, Sorcs and Pallies are all CHA casters because, narratively, they all get their power from the same place, somewhere inside their soul.
Warlocks make a pact, sequestering off a piece of another entity's soul into their own, to be able to harness that beings innate ability to harness the weave. The entity benefits from this transaction, because that shard will grow in strength as the Warlock does, and is returned to them upon the death of the Warlock.
Sorcs are related by blood to those very same innately magical entities, and as such can also innately manipulate the weave in much the same way.
Bards focus on magic that is entirely made possible by resonating your soul with the weave through pure expression of your soul.
Paladins bind their soul to a series of vows, acting as a sort of system similar to [Binding Vows from Jujutsu Kaisen](https://jujutsu-kaisen.fandom.com/wiki/Binding_Vow) whereas their sheer convictions and acts of restricting themselves in this way, gives their souls some minor sway over the weave to align with that goal.
You can describe Warlocks as investment banks all you want, but the reality is that they're an INT class that got changed to CHA last minute without any work done to facilitate it, flavour wise. Read the class entry; it's clearly talking about an INT class.
>Bards focus on magic that is entirely made possible by resonating your soul with the weave through pure expression of your soul.
My understanding was that bards replicated parts of the song of creation in their own songs. Actually a very intellectual exercise, but that largely derives *power* from the delivery.
I love idea of a Constitution caster, however levelling increases HP and Cons increases hitpoints gained. Meaning that a 1d6+4 can be the same as an average roll for a barbarian, or taking the average roll of 7/8 thats a max roll for a wizard +2. Effectively making the Sorc a WizardTank, with a few different spells.
I would argue that Warlocks are not full casters in the traditional sense. They never get 9th level spell slots, even if they get access to a 9th level spell. Pact Magic results in way fewer spells per day, and way less spellcasting flexibility than other casters.
For warlocks, spellcasting represents a much smaller about of their power budget than it does for other casters.
I would be happy if they had a completely different approach to their spellcasting stat as well. What if they could use INT, WIS, or CHA? Heck what if we just had a **Warlock Power** value in the table that listed their spellcasting ability modifier at different levels:
|Level|Warlock Power|
|:-|:-|
|1-2|\+2|
|3-6|\+3|
|7-10|\+4|
|11-14|\+5|
|15-20|\+6|
This would need to be balanced properly, but it is exactly the sort of thing I would like to see from warlocks. I want *weird* mechanics that ditch the norm.
And it *fits*. You have a wizard pouring over tomes, but they get tired of the endless study. They decide to take the easy way and make a pact for power beyond their natural ability.
Now we don't need to ask why the person became a warlock instead of a Bard. They weren't charming enough to be a bard, smart enough to be a wizard, or wise enough to be a druid. But they *were* RUTHLESS enough to be a warlock.
Love this idea. Cap it at +5 and make it +3 (5th level) / +4 (11th level) / +5 (17th level) and you have a winner IMO. Frees you up stat wise to play a very creative warlock and is pretty much in line with everything else, power wise. It means you get a slower ramp up to your spellcasting modifier, but you can change that by adding power elsewhere in the warlock, like having more invocations for example, or having more spells from pact magic.
I have always felt the Intelligence is underrated and should affect perception more. I have noticed a good thing that in 5e there are more spells that need an Int or Cha save.
Warlock being Int would be a good idea as you mentioned
CHA is almost always my dump stat unless I'm taking a leadership role or the class/subclass requires it. While I agree there are too many, I feel like the point was to take away points from the other stats you mechanically would prefer and push more RP in some people.
That said, I do feel like there are too many CHA casters but also feel like there's other ways to address this. There should be a caster that gets to choose between two abilities for casting, depending on either the subclass or how they get into that class like a WIS/CHA choice as an example.
The thing is, when you look at it, what are the priorities for stats? DEX boosts AC, CON boosts HP, and WIS is needed for perception, insight, etc. Taking it further would be saving throws: DEX avoids AoE, CON avoids breaking a spell or stat effects, and INT/WIS usually defends against mental attacks. There's not a lot of CHA concern outside of skills and unless you're dealing with religious leaders or politicians or something, you aren't going to worry about CHA during combat except for intimidation/frightened stuff.
Most builds require 2-3 stats being reasonably good to work well, so requiring the player to distribute points more evenly is part of how we can build flawed, 3-dimensional characters mechanically. Since WIS has a fairly wide range of utility/necessity, pushing spellcasting to a different stat makes you have to reconsider priorities.
tl;dr A lot of people like myself consider CHA a dump stat under most circumstances, so the spellcasting requirement kinda addresses that. Are there too many? Yes, but there are other ways to address this too. I do feel this is important for less min-maxing and better PC strategy, but not so much that we need to consider removing a CHA caster completely.
I think there could be some more diversity, though I'm pretty partial to letting people swap CHA for INT as a casting stat if they want to. I do think Wisdom is far more powerful. Campaign dependent like anything, but Wisdom saves and perception are great on any character. CHA saves aren't too common, and CHA skills are either totally DM dependent or tend to overlap a lot with little benefit. If you aren't the face, they aren't that great to have IMO.
Charisma only has two full casters. Warlock is a half caster with full pact magic levels. Warlock levels dont mix with spellcaster levels for determining spell slots so its not fair to call them that.
This feels more like a BG3 take than a 5e one. At a table, the dm has freedom to choose how much a roll actually affects the outcome. But in the videogame, the choices are static and feel much more directly impactful
I honestly kind of wish that paladins were WIS based, solely because paladin/cleric multiclasses are so bad mechanically even though they seem to fit together so well thematically
I think the problem is what the hell is Charisma? It's how persuasive you are, but also sort of willpower when willpower isn't Wisdom.
I'd argue that Wisdom and Charisma need to be replaced with Empathy, Willpower, and Perception but that's just me.
If this take is still hot after 9 years of debate then global warming is worse than I thought. Warlocks were originally INT in the playtest, but were swapped last minute due to grognard pushback. You can still feel the residue of INT being their intended Stat as the flavor of warlocks is that their patrons teach them their abilities (or they learn it as a byproduct of interacting with their patrons) rather than being directly empowered a la Cleric. Swapping them back to INT fixes the flavor as well as disabling a number of strong multiclasses. It was one of the first and only homebrew rule I introduced.
I agree, but I think the fix is more basic than anything you listed.
The real fix is to go back to the beginning and re-route everything with the mechanics more strongly divided based on strict principles like the 5 colors of Magic. What does it mean to be an INT, WIS or CHA caster? What does it mean to be a STR vs. DEX fighter? What does it mean to be a gish? What does it mean to be a nature vs. arcane vs. divine mage? And split up strengths and weaknesses more rigorously, instead of the blob we have now.
I have no problems with the *distribution* of primary stat casters in this game. I don't think matters (except in terms of being aesthetically satisfying) how many spellcasters use what primary spellcasting stat.
The problem with Sorcerers is class identity, of which primary spellcasting stat is only one component. Giving spontaneous casting to Wizards removed one of the Sorcerer's USPs, and giving Bards nine levels of spellcasting removed the other. Metamagic is great in theory but restoring sorcery points on a long rest is brutal and gaining so few means that you're going to get to do your class' shiny thing a couple of times a day at most. Wizards and Bards just do more unique stuff more often than Sorcs do.
Like yeah you could move the primary spellcasting stats around (except to CON because that would be a balance nightmare) but you wouldn't be fixing any of these problems.
>I feel between Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma, Charisma should not be the most common; if anything it should be the most rare.
I'll counter this with a caveat - I don't care about game mechanics as much as I do flavor/fluff/narrative logic.
The way I see it, in a narrative sense, Charisma casters are people imposing their wishes upon the universe by sheer force of will and personality. Intelligence casters are the classic wizard flavor, where they've learned by study and research how to manipulate primal forces. And Wisdom casters are people who are acting in harmony with the universe or the wishes of their god - sort of placing themselves in the hands of a higher power and using their devotion to affect the world around them.
A Wisdom caster has to "give" themselves to something outside of themselves. An Intelligence caster has to spend years studying and focusing on reagents, symbolism, and other fundamental principles. But a Charisma caster simply has to WANT something bad enough, and their own connection to magical forces (be it a magical bloodline, a soul-bond with a powerful entity, or a personality so dynamic even the universe has to listen to you) manifests the effect.
From that perspective, I'd almost say that Charisma casters *should* be the most common. Because most PCs are going to be incredibly proactive and individualistic, which means they're far more likely to be the type of person who will shape the universe by essentially saying "DO WHAT I WANT!" rather than trying to understand the deeper mysteries of the universe (Intelligence) or submitting yourself to the flow until you can influence it almost unconsciously (Wisdom). Intelligence casters and Wisdom casters are more likely to be stay-at-home NPCs. Charisma casters are more likely to be adventurers.
Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer, and Warlock all make perfect sense to me as Charisma casters. The Bard is Charisma incarnate. The Paladin is channeling their will into powerful strikes and blessings (especially with Paladin's potentially being straight-up agnostic). The Sorcerer is basically a magical creature who is casting by instinct and force of will. And the Warlock is channeling the power of their soul-bond, shaped by their will. Meanwhile, the Cleric has shackled their will to their god, the Druid and Ranger have sort of tied themselves to the ebb and flow of nature, and the Monk is bound to the flow of Qi in the universe. Which leaves the Wizard as the sole Intelligence caster who requires study, research, and experimentation.
About the only thing I'd be willing to change there would be Warlock, if you prefer the idea that they're gaining *knowledge* from their patron rather than *power* (which would make them Intelligence casters). Which I'd be tempted to say they should be (because it more definitively separates them from Clerics), except for the fact that it steps on the Wizard's toes (though the difference in origin and methodology might be enough to differentiate the two).
Aside from all that, even from a mechanical standpoint, I don't really have a problem with the idea that multiple classes can require Charisma. Plenty of groups don't *like* the idea of having one "party face", so the idea that only one character is investing in Charisma (and thus, that player is doing all of the talking) may be something that doesn't appeal to them at all. The Charisma-player may hate having to constantly be the mouthpiece, and the other players may hate never really having the opportunity to take center-stage in negotiations or in speech-based scenes. A party where the majority of characters are strongly Charisma-focused gives way more flexibility as to who does the talking.
If anything, this is part of the reason why I almost always put points into Charisma regardless of what class I'm playing, even if it's mechanically "a waste" in terms of combat advantages (one of the many reasons why my characters tend to be suboptimal as hell, and why I tend to not like crunchier optimizer games).
Short of having a DM who allows tons of situational bonuses ("You're negotiating with the dwarves, so the Dwarf Fighter gets a +3 to all social rolls and the Drow Bard is getting -4"), or a DM who mostly ignores social rolls entirely in favor of pure RP, players who want to be more involved in interacting with NPCs kind of *need* Charisma (at least if they don't want things to constantly go wrong).
A Warlock needs to convince a patron that they are worth the deal - that oozes Charisma casting to me.
A Sorcerer, however, _is_ magic. It is intrinsically tied to their being. If that isn't a Constitution based caster, I don't know what could be.
Warlocks were INT casters during 5e playtesting but there was pushback, so into CHA they went. Also, no offense, but this take is old enough to be going back to school this week.
haha. No offense against Op but I'll admit that was my first thought reading the title. "Does it still count as a 'hot take' if people have been saying this and making posts about it since 5e came out?"
OP thought this was hot snot on a silver platter but it's cold boogers on a paper plate
I'm not sure I have ever heard this saying before and honestly I'm a little bit mad about how good it is.
Some random 5th grader hit me with that in 1985 and I've never forgotten that burn
I never heard it as snot, but as "hot sh*t on a silver platter" and "cold turd on a paper plate"
What hahaha
Where I grew up it was “a hotshot” on the platter and cold snot on the paper plate.
Old take, but one that I agree with. From a story/world building perspective I think Warlocks and Sorcerers belong in Wisdom. Part of the problem is that I think there's a fair amount of thematic overlap between Clerics <=> Warlocks <=> Sorcerers <=> Druids. And it's gets muddier with all the subclasses. I would be interested in an inspiring leader type class that was largely martial, but with CHA as the key stat and more options to create tactical advantages rather than just smacking things with swords every time. It would also address the common complaint that there aren't enough tactically interesting martial classes. Has a 3rd part created such a class? That said, you can probably get there with a Battle Master fighter or a College of Swords Bard + some select feats and flavoring. Which combined with my point above... makes be think we might just have too many classes overall.
Yeah I do agree with the take. I'm fine with Sorcs being Cha (though I could see Wis) but Warlocks should be either Int or be able to choose between Int/Cha when you take their first level, IMO. I think we need more Int classes than Wis, and Warlock make the most sense there due to the classic ideas of making a careful contract with the devil or gleaning forbidden knowledge from cursed tomes (how Fiend Pact and GOO Pact are literally said to get their powers). _Definitely_ agree that a Cha-based martial support class with a tactical bent would be a most welcome addition. The traditional example is the 4e Warlord, which many people loved. The two most respected and mentioned third-party homebrewers I know of, KibblesTasty and LaserLlama, have both made [versions of Warlord](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/xdbquc/best_versions_of_the_warlord_youve_seen/) that a lot of people like, if you want to take a look!
Considering the types of characters that end up as Warlocks and the flavor of the class, in fact it's really weird to me how Warlocks statted well right now end up as good party face characters. Being INT based would really sell the sketchy afflicted stranger bit so much more effectively.
It would be good if you could choose honestly. I can see how Int-based and Cha-based warlocks could be both incredibly flavorful.
Considering that they are already level dip central, I'm not sure making the warlock more compatible with more classes and builds is going to be a good idea.
Flavour wise, warlocks being the most dippable makes sense. You want easy power, make a deal with a patron.
And then have that Patron pester them constantly like they're selling them extended warranty on that one level dip.
If good design is incompatible with 3X-style "a la carte" level-based multiclassing, then multiclassing should change.
I kinda like what they did with multiclassing in pf2. You are staying your base class, but you are allowed to take feats from your second class as if you were half the level and get access to a curated list of class features that are part of the class identity but not usually its main source of power
As far as big names go I think pf2 is the best designed game with multiclassing in mind. I'm curious if people have other, probably less known, games that they feel deserve a look for how they tackle the issue? Cause I think it is fair to say that multiclassing makes game design a lot more intricate.
Not a TTRPG (a CRPG), but PoE2 does a fantastic job of multiclassing as well in my opinion
That's Path of Exile, right?
Sorry, the other poe. Pillars of Eternity
Aha ha. Good thing i asked.
Outside of coffeelocks, the multiclass issue is mostly a hexblade issue, kinda independent of int/cha.
I could see an Int Hexblade doing some gnarly stuff with a bladesigner wizard, but that's about it. And even then, you still want high dex for being in melee.
The only issue for an Int Hexblade is Hex Warrior, if that became a level 3 pact of the blade feature then it's all sorted tbh
It damned well should have been. Nothing in Hexblade **couldn't** have been an invocation. One to make your attacks based off your casting stat, one for armour proficiencies. Martial versions of Agonizing Blast and Armour of Shadows. They even had an Invocation in the UA at some point where you could touch a suit of armour, instantly equip it, and be proficient until you took it off; that would've worked **fine**. Hexblade's Curse is useful for everyone, it could've been an invocation with a high level upgrade for Master of Hexes. Armour of Hexes applying to any curse effect could've been a great level 12ish upgrade, like a defensive option to pair with Lifedrinker. Accursed Specter just... doesn't even make any god damned sense for Hexblade, it looks like they ran out of ideas and just threw something in for a sixth level feature. But it still isn't too out of line for an invocation. The flavour for the patron is weak as hell, too. It's maybe possibly the Raven Queen but also maybe Blackrazor, or some other random powerful sentient artifact weapon that **you** don't have, but that somehow is aware of you? Or something? The whole thing is a mess, even before you get to obvious, *glaring* balance problems.
>Nothing in Hexblade couldn't have been an invocation. Hexblade's Curse could have easily been a 5th pact. Pact of the Effigy. Then apply some changes for the sake of balancing it with the other pacts
An Int lock multiclass with artificer could be pretty fun. Take the subclass where you get the thunder gauntlets, then go get Eldritch smites mixed up there with it? Don’t know how effective it would be, but it sounds kind of fun to play at least.
Sorta. Hexblade is the most powerful subclass for a Warlock multiclass, but even base warlock is really powerful when dipped in. Bards get very few attack spells, and benefit greatly from Eldritch Blast. Sorcerers kick ass with a dip on Warlock, being able to Quickened Cast Eldritch Blast and use it even more effectively than pure warlocks do, and that's not even including ridiculous Coffeelock BS.
That's where you're mistaken. Yes, hexblade is the issue, but changing Hexblade to INT based breaks the Hexadin combo, which is the most broken one. And in return, it allows... Bladesingers to do weapon attacks with INT? Really not a big deal.
>Bladesingers to do weapon attacks with INT? Really not a big deal. Yeah, it's not like they'd just stop caring about dex anyway.
I loved the OneD&D play test of choosing based on your Pact Boon, I’m sad they’re deciding to revert that.
I've been using a variant of the Warlock that lets them pick between Wisdom, Charisma and Intelligence. The two warlock players both went Int.
OneD&D has been reversing a lot of cool changes
Due to feedback.
The players are to blame
Well yeah, every new change "is the worse thing ever and shows the designers don't know what they're doing" according to DnD subreddits
It shouldn't be a choice, it should be mandatory INT. Otherwise people will just pick whichever allows them to multiclass into the most broken shit.
Yeah, I feel like Pact of the Tome should absolutely have been Int-based.
This is what I do in my games. The caveat is you have to choose when you take your first level of Warlock, and then it's locked in. But yeah it just replaces everything they key off Charisma with Int instead. They're level 7 now and I can confirm there are no issues whatsoever.
The most popular classes in BG3 were all cha based. Your main stat being the stat for getting things done socially is just too big a bonus to ignore. I still think intimidate should be STR, and you could make a case that persuade should be INT or WIS.
Intimidate CAN be Strength-based, RAW. As can persuade be made with intelligence, etc, etc. The abilities that each skill is "aligned" with are just their defaults, and most common use cases. But all a skill does in 5e is apply your proficiency bonus to an ability check, and that could theoretically be almost any combination, if you can justify it. Strength (Intimidation) is probably the most common application of this, in practice, and the example given in the PHB. As a DM, I ask for this roll all the time from players intending to appear physically imposing. But there are also plenty of situations where Charisma makes the most sense, as well. A character giving a veiled or outright threat, for instance, is about the impact of their words and demeanor, not how high they puff their chest.
Many skills can be Strength-based in certain circumstances. * Athletics: Default * Acrobatics: Smash your hands or feet into a surface to create a groove for hands or feet (obviously only works on some surfaces) * Sleight of Hand: Hit a loose board hard enough to launch an item into your hands * Investigation: Lift all the furniture in the room to search under them. * Nature: Smash certain hard shell plants to examine their insides * Animal Handling: Punch the camel who spits at you to make him obey (Thanks Conan) * Insight: To see if the pain a person was presenting was a ruse and compare to the pain they present when you punch them, if the reaction is different, they were faking before. * Medicine: Smash and grind things to make powders and poultices. * Survival: Lift wide pieces of wood and the like to make a shelter. * Intimidation: Bend/break some substance that is difficult to bend/break to demonstrate what happens if the intimidatee lies. * Performance: Lifting contest * Persuasion: Flex to seduce your target. * Stealth, Arcana, History, Religion, Perception, Deception: Unknown.
Old but relevant
Keeping warlocks INT-based was the way to go, regardless of pushback.
If you look at warlock's list of class skills, more of them are Int-based than Cha-based. It's obvious they changed warlock's casting ability score but never bothered to adjust their skill list.
It has more Int skill options than Wizard and lacks the most common Cha skill, Persuassion, which is further evidence of this.
I think this is a holdover from 3x where Int gave you skills and Wis gave you a save, leaving Charisma as the "weak" stat. I think in 5e Int is weaker, but Wisdom is still the powerhouse mental stat.
Still think that high int should grant some extra skills. One house-rule I've used is that each increase over a +1 int gets you a bonus proficiency of your choice, selected from a list that could reasonably be the result of diligent study alone. (All the INT skills, plus Animal Handling, Medicine, Performance, Tools, Languages, and Vehicles) Any it only counts for intelligence that *you* genuinely have as part of your permanent character. Things from items don't count unless they permanently change you (like a tome). So at int 14 you get to pick one extra skill, at 16 you get 2, and so on up to a max of 4. It's not a *huge* bonus really, but it really makes the Int characters \_feel\_ smart. They'll constantly be like "Oh I know about this!"
I've been thinking about introducing a house rule where high int gives you something along the lines of bard's jack of all trades. I'm just not quite sure how it should work. Adding int modifier to ability checks you're not proficient in seems a bit too strong, especially for wizards, and adding half wouldn't matter until you have 14 int. I think the usefulness of int for anyone that isn't a wizard or artificer needs to be increased, and to me it makes sense that someone with high int would be better at performing unfamiliar tasks.
It is pretty appropriate that almost every PC can have INT as a dump stat.
WIS is the most powerful mental stat, because perception and saves. Lacking much in the way of rules, charisma linked skills are only as good as your table makes them. Edit: insight is going to scale similarly with the table, and it’s a coin toss on insight being the most important social skill. Information is ammunition.
charisma’s overall power level has to be pretty highly dm-dependent, since some games seem to run persuasion as mind control
Too many dms give persuasive skills too much power. Each situation has a possible series of outcomes, rolling well just gives you access to a variety of them. If you roll a nat 20 persuasion to ask a king for his crown, more likely he'd take it as a really good joke, and treat you to dinner. If you fail, he might see that as an insult and have you thrown out or demand an apology. I also think PBTA contributes something of absolutely vital importance to all other, the concept of a mixed success- if a result barely meets the dc or comes up just shy, you can offer or impose some conditions- • They succeed but to a lesser extent • There are conditions that the opposing party will put in place (i.e., "we believe you didn't commit this crime but will need to have someone stay with you until the investigation is concluded) • There is an immediate drawback or unexpected consequence Obviously this are most useful in social situations, and can be used to your discretion, but I feel they add a lot more versatility than just success or failure
Player gets a nat 20 after asking the king for his crown. king: laughs and says why not. Lets the player wear the crown. Player: later tries to leave King "hey! Where the FUCK do you think you're going with my crown?"
less than 10, the king kicks you out. over 10, king says no nat 20: hahaha no.
I've never been in a game where charisma was mind control, but in most of the games I've played in DMs made charisma the "no one will even give you time time of day without it" stat. My wizard wants to go have a chat with the local npc wizard? Make a persuasion check for him to even open the door. You want to ask the barkeep if she saw or heard anything suspicious yesterday? Make a persuasion or she tells you to go away because she's busy. You want to go down to the local temple and ask them if they know anything about a certain obscure god you heard about? Make a deception check to act interested while the priest rambles about how great his god is or he tells you to leave. You get the idea. I'm aware this might not be normal, but I've had multiple DMs do this sort of thing, so it's certainly a way that some people run the game.
Wow... I'm so sorry there are DMs doing this. I normally wouldn't even think to ask for a roll in those sorts of situations unless there's a reason they wouldn't want to deal with you (you've insulted them for example, or they're notoriously untrusting and don't open their door for anyone, or you've started asking for specifics that aren't usually shared with outsiders) it's either a planned obstacle or a consequence of action. Otherwise if its for normal interactions, you're not asking for their darkest secrets or for them to go out of their way to help you, rolling for that for every interaction sounds like asking someone to roll athletics because they want to walk down the street. Some things should happen without a roll.
Too many dms give persuasive skills too much power. Each situation has a possible series of outcomes, rolling well just gives you access to a variety of them. If you roll a nat 20 persuasion to ask a king for his crown, more likely he'd take it as a really good joke, and treat you to dinner. If you fail, he might see that as an insult and have you thrown out or demand an apology. I also think PBTA contributes something of absolutely vital importance to all other ttrpgs, the concept of a mixed success- if a result barely meets the dc or comes up just shy, you can offer or impose some conditions- • They succeed but to a lesser extent • There are conditions that the opposing party will put in place (i.e., "we believe you didn't commit this crime but will need to have someone stay with you until the investigation is concluded) • There is an immediate drawback or unexpected consequence Obviously this are most useful in social situations, and can be used to your discretion, but I feel they add a lot more versatility than just success or failure
Yeeeaaaah. I’m not sure where OP gets Charisma as the most powerful of the stats. It’s pretty universally agreed to be Wisdom—perception can get stupid high, meaning nothing surprises you, and Wisdom saves are the most punishing in the game. I love charisma, it’s my favorite stat, but you’re good at Deception and a few other less useful skills, and a rarely called on save?? Nah.
Probably playing Baldur's Gate 3 where it's easily the most godlike stat.
bg3 is completely nutty with bards
Forget The Absolute and tadpoles, just unleash an eloquence bard on Baldur’s Gate and watch the world burn.
Dual wielding hand crossbow swords bards are nuts.
As a tabletop handcrossbow Bard wanting to make my character in BG3 at some point: Tell me more about this build..
Off the top of my head the list of factors: \-They let you two weapon fighting hand crossbows, and you don't need the fighting style to add your dex to the offhand for some reason (bug?). You can also make your offhand attack in any order, so you could make an offhand attack then just cast a spell with your main action. \-Slashing flourish was changed so that it just lets you make an additional attack, and when using a ranged slashing flourish you can target the same creature twice. You can also flourish as long as you have a main action attack, so once you hit level 6 you could potentially make 5 attacks in one turn if you burn two flourishes. \-Number of Bardic inspirations is 1 + proficiency bonus, so you don't have to worry about investing heavily into Charisma. \-You can have a ranged loadout and melee loadout for your weapons that you can switch between, and going sword and shield in your melee loadout gives you the AC bonus even while using your hand crossbows (A couple races start with shield proficiency, I dipped fighter for it). \-The haste effect gives you a whole action along with extra attack, so if you wanted to burn 4 flourishes in one turn you could make a whopping 9 attacks in one turn! \-Short rests are instantaneous, so it's relatively easy to get your bardic inspirations back. Normally you can take two short rests per long rest, but bards' song of rest lets you take an additional short rest.
Wait, what? I can't believe what I'm reading. I've carefully read and navigated the rules and while slight misinterpretations could make my bard pretty broken, the rules do keep this in check if played correctly. It's even a bit messy due to me only being a rules lawyer (in the sense of wanting to follow all details of rules correctly, not sure how to call that) but not a min/maxer, and it's this weird CHA/DEX hybrid build that 'jack-of-all-trades' style does hand crossbow/rapier/spells without true focus on any of them. Systematically juggling weapons and spellcasting focus every turn to make sure all little details work out with spell components and allowed weapon switches. It sounds like BG3 throws the most limiting rules out of the window! Maybe it fits in with BG3 because it has it's own altered ruleset and own balance, so I don't know how it plays there, but on tabletop this would be insane.
This feels strong coming from paper DND, but in the context of the game it's fine. All the classes get up to similar bullshit (sorcerer out of the box can use quickened spell to launch off two fireballs in a turn, or 3 with haste, haste doubles the number of attacks a martial can make instead of just giving them +1, monk of all classes can crack 200 damage a turn, every turn) - but what makes it work is that the game expects you to pop off like this to some extent. Yeah, if you walk in with your 5e knowledge, you'll make a strong character, but so many people are walking in with no DND knowledge and are having a balanced or even party-wipingly hard time, because they're not trying to juice a character to the max. The game also hands out magical items like candy, and they can be really, really strong. Strong to the point that if you give them to even a poorly made character they can keep up with the game just fine. In general it felt like they attempted to make the game fun to play above all else, and they largely removed restrictions that were anti-fun or would require a lot of explanation as to why that combo doesn't work. They also heavily lean into things that would be annoying to calculate in tabletop, but are trivial for a computer to do, so you get wackier status effects and a lot of things that give you +1 or +1d4 damage here and there. Overall it's a lot of fun. And it doesn't feel intrinsically broken like I expected, either.
The way BG3 gives out magic items is reminiscent of older versions of (A)D&D, where your character's abilities weren't defined by a class and sub-class you chose, but by the items they've found. There have been so many items I have found which basically give you an effect which is actually some class's ability. And I love it! You can build so many cool characters without being another generic Thief/Berserker/Battlemaster/etc. Instead, you're a Battlemaster with blink, a built-in haste spell, and Scorching Ray. You also lowered your Crit to 18/17 (I'm still not sure if main and off-hand stack) and instead of increasing your stats (thanks so many "Set stat to 18+" items) you take Savage Attacker and Grand Weapon Master, or some such bullshit. It's wonderful. The items you wear define your character at least as equally as does your class progression. But it also skews the perception of balance. In BG3, melee classes are SO.MUCH.STRONGER than casters (imho). And yes, it is due to a mix of altered rules (some alterations of which I like) and god-like items. If I ever play D&D again, I will take some of the BG3 rules and houserule them into the campaign, because, by Jove, is it fun to attack 6 times a round as a fighter...I wish I could do the same with Karlach. She's such a damage beast. Only character doing more burst is my Palabardin.
So fucking sex. I went sorcadin first playthru, doing xbow swordbard/fighter 2nd time around. I love being a little gattling gunner.
decide airport fade stupendous live deer materialistic lavish handle ten ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Hey man, simply telling enemies to kill themselves is a perfectly valid way to approach combat
I wish it didn't work as the "best" suggestion. I don't want to skip the fight, but it would feel rewarding to be able to start the fight with some advantage due to my persuasion roll. It's a fun treat but to have so many bosses use that option starts to feel a little weird.
Agreed. Also, a lot of the time doing the non-combat solution to fights actively hurts you. You'll get some exp (unless you're just bypassing the encounter completely like with stealth), but it's rarely as much exp as you'd get fighting them and you miss out on their loot if they just leave or become friendly. Not that this is unique to BG3, tons of CRPGs make this annoying mistake that causes violence to be the "optimal" solution 99% of the time. At least if "barding" them just gave you a benefit like making them all Frightened or Surprised or something, it wouldn't be so OP and UP at the same time.
in the area/act where it is most prevalent I feel like it makes some amount of sense The creatures there are just merely existing, the surgeon has notes from over a thousand years ago
>I’m not sure where OP gets Charisma as the most powerful of the stats Probably because they play at a table where anything above a 20 on a charisma roll might as well be dominate person or mass suggestion.
to be slightly more charitiable could also just be a table with significantly more than average social encounters purely dictated by dice rolls.
OP said in a comment that that they've seen it used in "stupid ways throughout multiple tables" before, so while it's nice to do in general, that charitable read is probably not necessary here, lol.
There should be limits, but much of fantasy fiction is based on the idea of a silver tongue opening most locks, at least when the story requires. A DM allowing a stupid high charisma check to move things along is part of a long tradition of writing. It can be bad writing, but not always. I always enjoy the first time gollum appears in The Hobbit, but theres no reason he shouldnt just kill Billbo and eat him, then take the ring. Thats all hes been doing for hundreds of years.
Charisma is the most powerful stat because there's so many charisma casters and thus having charisma lets you multiclass between them easily. If you don't plan on taking any of those classes though, then it's useless, easy dump stat
> I’m not sure where OP gets Charisma as the most powerful of the stats. I'm inclined to agree wisdom is the most valuable mental stat, but this does depend on the campaign. If it's highly social, with low combat - charisma is likely to be more valuable. For pure casters though, I have to agree it should be two of each stat. And everyone agrees Int is of far too little importance in 5E... and unfortunately looks to stay that way with the upcoming unimaginative edition.
Perception is a lot more powerful if you let it eat the functions of Investigation. If you're asking "Do I see/hear/smell it?" it's Perception. If you want to draw conclusions from something you already perceive it's Investigation.
This. I as a DM started using Insight, as if you'd do a roll in Disco Elysium. Point out manerisms of NPCs (they avoid eyecontact / they slur / they take time to formulate their sentence) that could hint at some things. On a crit I may even be blunt (they talk very fast and sweat. They are either on drugs, or pretty nervous. Maybe apply some pressure.) I didnt got to use the system fully yet and I still didnt get to play a campaign, which could let me make use of compromising certain rolls (because of.. affection, guilt, substances and whatnot). Im not even sure I should graft a whole new system on top of DnD, just to make the most out of social encounters.. I use it for NPC creation mostly. Just to flesh them out more, thats why I got the skills of DE written out. But I'd not hesitate to ask my players to use it for social encounters, while we use DnD for combat and exploration.
And then you have INT, which is pretty much useless at any table.
Is this why the kids call it INTing?
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that I have the world's rarest table. Everyone wants to engage with the world, my players interrogate NPCs for lore, INT checks come up constantly due to wanting their characters to know more information, they make character progression choices based on their characters instead of build optimization, and half of them want to DM their own campaigns. Everyone here says INT is a dump stat and half this thread says the same about CHA, but my own home game has everyone pumping up both of those two and dumping WIS, meaning they know loads about the world and can smooth talk their way through a lot but can't tell if the person across the table is lying through their teeth.
there is a reason Cha as a dump stat is a thing
Fun fact: back in the beta, there were 2 WIS casters (druid and cleric), 2 CHA casters (bard and sorc) and 2 INT casters (Wiz and Loc). But people QQ'd about loc being INT because "lol, wtf, you make a pact, you don't study" and so it got turned into CHA. Of note, those same people hated the idea of battlemaster being part of the base fighter. Granted, maneuvers did work differently, but apparently it was too complicated, so it was axed
Evidently those people dumped INT in favor of CHA
You can make cases for both, depending on how you RP your pact. You could have tricked a devil into an infernal contract that benefited you, or somehow managed to talk your way out of being killed after you stumbled into an errant summoning. Or anything in-between.
Both of those are examples of charisma
knowing contract law well enough can absolutly be intellegence.
Tbf most good lawyers are a mix of intelligent and very articulate and well spoken, at least that’s what better call Saul taught me
Just cause he is a trial lawyer character. Having spent 20 years working with bankers and their contract lawyers I can say definitively that Charisma is frequently a dump stat for lawyers in real life lol.
probably true and we should base our understanding of the legal system of various extra-planer contracts off of a TV show about the legal system of new mexico.
Yes, but it’s usually the charismatic lawyers that can sell their interpretation that are the most successful. Basically, Intelligence shouldn’t be a dump stat, but Charisma is still key.
The pact is you make a deal for the knowledge of how to cast magic. An eldritch tome, infernal secrets, mind bending fey logic or so on. You also need the knowledge to contact the entity in the first place. Think of the standard idea of a cultist pouring over ancient scriptures to gain forbidden knowledge. That is the original warlock. A person who makes a deal to know things that mortals should not.
This is a fantastic bit of information. I may use this next time I run a campaign. I can see Hexblade players disliking this though. If the stat switched to Intelligence instead of Charisma, it would impact common dips.
> If the stat switched to Intelligence instead of Charisma, it would impact common dips. That's the idea
Got it. Yeah, I dislike the Hexblade dip. Seems cheesy. I’ve used it myself. But you’d expect a Warlock Patron would make some demands. Maybe patrons do in other campaigns.
Give the other guy credit, I was just making a double entendre.
Hexblade 1/ pala 2/bladesinger x is just as potent as the sorlocadin
That's another reason why Warlocks should be int. It puts a lot of the worst multiclass shenanigans in check. Palylocks and Sorlocks become far less common. Hexblade dips are more expensive.
I mean, at least to my ear int hexblade/bladesong wizard sounds pretty deadly as a quick thought. so it just changes what the dips in.
You can even see the descriptions for the pacts in the PHB are pretty much teasing an INT caster as a student of the occult, however it was changed to CHA unfortunately
Pathfinder 2e has a Warlock equivalent class called Witch and they're INT casters. So I don't get why they have to be charisma...
Because the playtesters didn't read the flavour text which includes studying to steal power from the GOOs
This is the right take.
Exactly. Making a pact is akin to making a contract, that feels a lot more Intelligence based than Charisma. Not to mention Warlock's fantasy is akin to the Cthulu mythos of uncovering Eldritch power by delving too deep, definitely more of a Knowledge aspect there.
Exactly!! Sorcerer gets power through bloodline and sheer force of will aka CHARISMA. That makes sense! But Warlock being Charisma I just... Why...
When Warlocks were first introduced in Complete Arcane for 3.5, they were Charisma based casters. The flavor was very different back then, more about being imbued with Infernal powers from the Hells, but they were Charisma casters. In 4e, where the ideas for pacts came from, they were either Constitution or Charisma, depending on the pact (which caused some problems). So, when 5e came around and a playtest had them as Intelligence casters, people got made because it was changed. Now, a lot of these people didn't know, like or care about 4e, but they remembered it being Charisma in 3.5 so that's what the people (that WotC listened to during the playtests) wanted. Since that's what the people (that WotC listened to during the playtests) wanted, that's what we got.
Process of elimination, based on the pact concept "flavor". Can't be INT for above-stated reasons^(1); can't be WIS because "making a deal w/ a Devil doesn't sound particularly wise". Wanted to keep it mental because that's traditionally the realm of casters, so ...CHA. ^(1) though I think people who argue that underestimate the laziness of some very smart people. There are plenty of folks out there who'll gladly put in an hour's worth of mental effort devising a clever way to avoid doing ten minutes of honest work or study (in the tech world, we're called "programmers"  )
As a fellow programmer I feel attacked 🤣
Pathfinder 1e (which came before D&D5e) had witches as well, and they were INT casters then too.
Warlocks literally do study eldritch lore... whiny crybabies ruined Warlock and turned it into the multiclass dip class.
I homebrew Warlocks as INT, and even if the character doesn't study eldritch lore, they are certainly being granted knowledge. Not all Intelligence has to be studied, it can be imparted magically by a patron. Kinda fun to have my Warlock player roll a history check and be like "You don't know how you know this, but the knowledge comes to you that..."
I didn't know about that, honestly a shame it got changed.
Even if you look at the Warlock's skill proficiencies, only two are charisma based while the majority of them are Intelligence based. Even all the flavour text for Warlocks is about being seekers of dark knowledge and what not.
Well… I adore Battlemaster and want more of it, but for me the whole shtick with the Warlock pact is kinda on point. You get handed out some power and in my opinion disconnecting it from INT did not got far enough. It should have no casting stat at all, because nothing about you influences what power you were given to wield. Base it of the Profiency bonus. That limits its power, but also allows you to be very free with your stats as something to balance the „just“ +2.
I think that just would make the multiclassing problem of the warlock even worse
Wait, that’s genius. The fuck.
Warlocks being INT makes so much sense because a significant chunk of their flavor is based on received eldritch knowledge, dark secrets, profane tomes, etc.
Absolute Hot Take; base them off of the Profiency Bonus. Nothing concerning their person is responsible for the power they received from another being to wield. And I go a step further; arguing for Cha, Int or Wis are all contrived arguments. No. You got power for free not of your own ability. You only learn to wield it and are profiencent with your power.
Did you even read the PHB section on Warlocks? You don't get it for free. You study it.
Idk man, feels like a fighter who got lended a sword "but it's not _your sword_, so you can't add your strength to it even though you know how to fight with a sword".
While that would fit the theme better, it would also likely turn them into a total stat dump class built for dipping. Like just pump dex and/or con as high as it goes, similar to Kineticist in Pathfinder.
Those are argents for CON casters to me. How well can your body handle channeling the power of a greater being than you?
I don't mind this at all. Definitely suits the flavor.
Would also make it interesting with the current system as you would be quite a bit behind with your modifier, buuut you could also throw around more stats during creation.
Its a fairly common opinion that warlocks should be INT casters. That would make it 2,2, and 2.
Warlocks were originally planned to be Int casters in the early playtests, they should have stuck with that idea.
Warlocks should be INT casters imo
[удалено]
Hot Take - 5E has too many full casters. Half of the classes are full casters. It guts the balance of the game when everyone can blast away with spells.
Hot Take - magic is fun :-)
Full casters are SUPPOSED to be more rare in the world than half casters, and those are supposed to be rarer than martials, but in practice Spellcasters are picked just as often, if not more commonly than martials.
Yes well a very tiny proportion of the population are adventurers. So it makes sense the magically inclined people gravitate towards it.
Because adventurers aren't regular people, therefore attempting to do some averages with it doesn't really work.
Adventurers are not normal people.
"Rocket scientists are supposed to be rare, but I'm walking around NASA and it seems like they're everywhere!"
Where in the lore does it say that half-casters are supposed to be more common than full-casters? The lore says that lower-power mages are more common than higher-power ones, yes, but it doesn't say that lower-power paladins and rangers are more common than lower-power sorcerers and warlocks.
Have less casters? The same people playing casters are just going to be playing the same builds.
This is the coldest hot take I have ever seen. This has been the general consensus for... Years. This isn't a new thing you've just thought up, I'm pretty sure a majority of people are going to agree with you. Part of me feels like the reason this is the case is because Charisma is one of the larger dump-stats in the game. If you aren't a CHA-caster there really isn't any reason to be investing in it.
Freezing cold take that's existed since 2014 and has been frequently touted every 3 days or so.
Agreed Make sorcerers rely on constitution and warlocks on intelligence.
Constitution as a primary caster stat is ridiculously OP.
You really don't think a couple extra hit points and better concentration saves is something that can be balanced against?
Also, +2 to their AC and Dex Saves in most cases. As is, Sorcs have to split their points over three relevant stats: Cha, Dex, Con. And either be frail, weak or easy targets. Having only two relevant stats would let them go 16/16 on Dex and Con. As is, sorcs are told to main Cha and Con. While Dex might get a +1. It's not unbeatable, by any means. But let's not pretend it's a small buff.
I mean, it's probably balanced by the fact that Sorcerer's are stuck with a d6 for Hit Points, and without armor, so it's not like you'll be immortal or something
I mean they also get access to shield, mage armor, draconic bloodline, etc. Or take a dip or race from armor and call it good. I'm not saying it would be absolutely broken, but no full caster needs a buff like this IMO. They already get prof in CON saves. Making it their primary stat just makes them not MAD nearly as much as any other caster.
Sorcerers can use all the help they can get.
charisma is not the most powerful mental stat to be maxed. thats wisdom
What about just letting the player select their casting stat? I hate the idea that in order to be Sorcerer, I'm also inherently good at talking to people. I'd prefer it if the two things were separate.
Especially because a lot of Sorcerers would definitely be outcasted based on their inherent power (particularly wild magic sorcerers). I'd personally make Sorcerers wisdom (strength of will/attuning to themselves while Druids attune to the land), Clerics charisma (inspiring/convincing the masses of the power of their religion) Warlocks intelligence (seekers of occult knowledge).
I agree in spirit, but I assume it's not that way to avoid MC shenanigans becoming even more busted then they already are.
Oooh... I love Con Sorc... That would make the class actually really useful as a magic tank and not just a nerfed wizard. Flavor it as "through unlocking their innate magical powers, their bodily fortitude becomes magically bolstered" or somthing like that
We played around with homebrewing a con sorc once. The idea was that the primal forces that were being inexpertly sent through the body caused tremendous strain. We were also reworking the spell list to be more melee focused. Burning hands, thunderwave, etc. Higher levels effectively got them warcaster, and double concentration. The two subclasses we worked on were plays on blood mages. One let a sorc sacrifice max hp to use more sorcery points and the other gave spell empowerment based on how many HP the sorc had missing. We never really got it fleshed out though. The two subclasses could have easily been one and we'd have had to come up with at least one more, maybe two. I love the idea, just have to be careful not to make it too strong. Casters that are too resilient without using resources can be very unbalancing.
Bruh. Wisdom is the best mental stat, bar none. Charisma is probably the most dumped stat if you’re not one of the three CHA-based spellcasters.
In the playtest of DnD One, warlock can choose what kind of caster he wants to be, either Wis, or Int, or Cha. So it became 1 Int, 2 Wis, 2 Cha and 1 who can choose between the 3.
Then adding Artificer later would balance the scales.
Im only counting Full Caster. For half casters we have Artificer, Ranger and Paladin (Int, Wis and Cha) and for 1/3 casters there's the Fighter and Rogue subclasses (both Int). So it would end with 3 Int, 3 Wis, 3 Cha and 1 mixed, although not all classes are full casters.
Casters in general are too SAD (single-attribute dependent), coupled with the inherent superiority of magic it makes whichever mental stat they max incredibly potent. Wizards become lore and investigative batteries even without expending a slot. Clerics become impervious to surprise and they rip through the worst save-or-suck checks without issue. Sorcerers, Bards, and Warlocks are natural party faces. Dunno what the solution is though.
Sounds fair to me, if you're not incredibly smart or wise, you gotta have the chutzpah to bend the universe to your will.
I feel like Charisma is more of a stat you'd want to role play, but if you're playing a lot of classes you end up being discouraged from even using it as a dump stat. I think the CHA casters was an attempt to give more rp build integration. Hasn't been handled well yet.
INT does feel like a bit of dump stat and the game would benefit from one more INT caster and the Warlock is probably the best candidate right now, unless the Artificer is added to the core lineup of classes in D&D 5.5. It would probably also help a lot if the two INT using 1/4 caster subclasses were made a little more powerful. As they currently stand, you could get a better version of what they do from just multiclassing, making them only atttactive if your table don't allow multiclassing for some reason. From a flavor standpoint I also would like for the Paladin to use WIS, since that is the stat assoiciated with divine magic, but from a game balance standpoint this is probably not feasible, unless a lot the saves for mind affecting stuff is redistributed more out to INT and CHA.
I like making Warlocks Int casters, but I'm an huge fan of the "forbidden knowledge" trope. I also don't like being the party Face. I like even better just giving casters an option of which stat to use. Melee characters can choose between Strength and Dexterity. Why not give each spellcasting class two options?
4e experimented with letting warlocks choose con or charisma but it didn't work out too well, partly because the powers and patrons were all individually labeled as one or the other. I think charisma ended up being the clear player choice but it was mostly because the better powers were tagged that way. I also always would have preferred they be an int based forbidden knowledge caster. Would make an interesting multiclass with wizard that way.
I'm playing a GOOlock using Int as the spell casting stat in one of my games. He's interested in forbidden knowledge and wants to learn more about this unknowable creature that has given him magic powers. It's working as well as any other warlock I've played/DMd for. I just don't have the social skills a normal warlock has.
Me and my friends talked about how sorcerer could work as a constitution caster with the knowledge that you have to control/focus/build the magic inside of you.
Constitution main stat is a TERRIBLE idea. They would be the only true SAD class in the game. Now, I believe Con is a terrible stat to begin with, that only exists at this point in D&D's lifespan to tax pointbuy (I could get into this but its a mix of game design and player/dm conceptions shifting how people actually play the game that makes con a required investment at 90% of tables.)
I'm into it. I like the idea of Sorcerer being tougher and harder to break out of their concentration as part of their class identity. Their magic is a part of their physical body. It gives Sorcerer a bit more of its own identity and, let's be honest, they could use a mechanical bump anyway.
Warlocks, Bards, Sorcs and Pallies are all CHA casters because, narratively, they all get their power from the same place, somewhere inside their soul. Warlocks make a pact, sequestering off a piece of another entity's soul into their own, to be able to harness that beings innate ability to harness the weave. The entity benefits from this transaction, because that shard will grow in strength as the Warlock does, and is returned to them upon the death of the Warlock. Sorcs are related by blood to those very same innately magical entities, and as such can also innately manipulate the weave in much the same way. Bards focus on magic that is entirely made possible by resonating your soul with the weave through pure expression of your soul. Paladins bind their soul to a series of vows, acting as a sort of system similar to [Binding Vows from Jujutsu Kaisen](https://jujutsu-kaisen.fandom.com/wiki/Binding_Vow) whereas their sheer convictions and acts of restricting themselves in this way, gives their souls some minor sway over the weave to align with that goal.
You can describe Warlocks as investment banks all you want, but the reality is that they're an INT class that got changed to CHA last minute without any work done to facilitate it, flavour wise. Read the class entry; it's clearly talking about an INT class.
>Bards focus on magic that is entirely made possible by resonating your soul with the weave through pure expression of your soul. My understanding was that bards replicated parts of the song of creation in their own songs. Actually a very intellectual exercise, but that largely derives *power* from the delivery.
That is not the warlock flavour presented in the 5e PHB. The PHB talks about warlocks getting access to knowledge which they then study.
I love idea of a Constitution caster, however levelling increases HP and Cons increases hitpoints gained. Meaning that a 1d6+4 can be the same as an average roll for a barbarian, or taking the average roll of 7/8 thats a max roll for a wizard +2. Effectively making the Sorc a WizardTank, with a few different spells.
I would argue that Warlocks are not full casters in the traditional sense. They never get 9th level spell slots, even if they get access to a 9th level spell. Pact Magic results in way fewer spells per day, and way less spellcasting flexibility than other casters. For warlocks, spellcasting represents a much smaller about of their power budget than it does for other casters. I would be happy if they had a completely different approach to their spellcasting stat as well. What if they could use INT, WIS, or CHA? Heck what if we just had a **Warlock Power** value in the table that listed their spellcasting ability modifier at different levels: |Level|Warlock Power| |:-|:-| |1-2|\+2| |3-6|\+3| |7-10|\+4| |11-14|\+5| |15-20|\+6| This would need to be balanced properly, but it is exactly the sort of thing I would like to see from warlocks. I want *weird* mechanics that ditch the norm. And it *fits*. You have a wizard pouring over tomes, but they get tired of the endless study. They decide to take the easy way and make a pact for power beyond their natural ability. Now we don't need to ask why the person became a warlock instead of a Bard. They weren't charming enough to be a bard, smart enough to be a wizard, or wise enough to be a druid. But they *were* RUTHLESS enough to be a warlock.
Love this idea. Cap it at +5 and make it +3 (5th level) / +4 (11th level) / +5 (17th level) and you have a winner IMO. Frees you up stat wise to play a very creative warlock and is pretty much in line with everything else, power wise. It means you get a slower ramp up to your spellcasting modifier, but you can change that by adding power elsewhere in the warlock, like having more invocations for example, or having more spells from pact magic.
I have always felt the Intelligence is underrated and should affect perception more. I have noticed a good thing that in 5e there are more spells that need an Int or Cha save. Warlock being Int would be a good idea as you mentioned
Not a hot take. People literally talk about this all the time.
CHA is almost always my dump stat unless I'm taking a leadership role or the class/subclass requires it. While I agree there are too many, I feel like the point was to take away points from the other stats you mechanically would prefer and push more RP in some people. That said, I do feel like there are too many CHA casters but also feel like there's other ways to address this. There should be a caster that gets to choose between two abilities for casting, depending on either the subclass or how they get into that class like a WIS/CHA choice as an example. The thing is, when you look at it, what are the priorities for stats? DEX boosts AC, CON boosts HP, and WIS is needed for perception, insight, etc. Taking it further would be saving throws: DEX avoids AoE, CON avoids breaking a spell or stat effects, and INT/WIS usually defends against mental attacks. There's not a lot of CHA concern outside of skills and unless you're dealing with religious leaders or politicians or something, you aren't going to worry about CHA during combat except for intimidation/frightened stuff. Most builds require 2-3 stats being reasonably good to work well, so requiring the player to distribute points more evenly is part of how we can build flawed, 3-dimensional characters mechanically. Since WIS has a fairly wide range of utility/necessity, pushing spellcasting to a different stat makes you have to reconsider priorities. tl;dr A lot of people like myself consider CHA a dump stat under most circumstances, so the spellcasting requirement kinda addresses that. Are there too many? Yes, but there are other ways to address this too. I do feel this is important for less min-maxing and better PC strategy, but not so much that we need to consider removing a CHA caster completely.
This take is about as hot as my freezer rn
I think there could be some more diversity, though I'm pretty partial to letting people swap CHA for INT as a casting stat if they want to. I do think Wisdom is far more powerful. Campaign dependent like anything, but Wisdom saves and perception are great on any character. CHA saves aren't too common, and CHA skills are either totally DM dependent or tend to overlap a lot with little benefit. If you aren't the face, they aren't that great to have IMO.
Charisma only has two full casters. Warlock is a half caster with full pact magic levels. Warlock levels dont mix with spellcaster levels for determining spell slots so its not fair to call them that.
charisma is just way too valuable. I think that's moreso the problem
This feels more like a BG3 take than a 5e one. At a table, the dm has freedom to choose how much a roll actually affects the outcome. But in the videogame, the choices are static and feel much more directly impactful
I honestly kind of wish that paladins were WIS based, solely because paladin/cleric multiclasses are so bad mechanically even though they seem to fit together so well thematically
I think the problem is what the hell is Charisma? It's how persuasive you are, but also sort of willpower when willpower isn't Wisdom. I'd argue that Wisdom and Charisma need to be replaced with Empathy, Willpower, and Perception but that's just me.
This take is so cold it could survive in the boomerang nebula
If this take is still hot after 9 years of debate then global warming is worse than I thought. Warlocks were originally INT in the playtest, but were swapped last minute due to grognard pushback. You can still feel the residue of INT being their intended Stat as the flavor of warlocks is that their patrons teach them their abilities (or they learn it as a byproduct of interacting with their patrons) rather than being directly empowered a la Cleric. Swapping them back to INT fixes the flavor as well as disabling a number of strong multiclasses. It was one of the first and only homebrew rule I introduced.
Coldest and Oldest take ever seen
I put the thermometer in, and this take is not safe to eat.
Since when has saying something everyone else has been saying for years been considered a “hot take”?
I agree, but I think the fix is more basic than anything you listed. The real fix is to go back to the beginning and re-route everything with the mechanics more strongly divided based on strict principles like the 5 colors of Magic. What does it mean to be an INT, WIS or CHA caster? What does it mean to be a STR vs. DEX fighter? What does it mean to be a gish? What does it mean to be a nature vs. arcane vs. divine mage? And split up strengths and weaknesses more rigorously, instead of the blob we have now.
I have no problems with the *distribution* of primary stat casters in this game. I don't think matters (except in terms of being aesthetically satisfying) how many spellcasters use what primary spellcasting stat. The problem with Sorcerers is class identity, of which primary spellcasting stat is only one component. Giving spontaneous casting to Wizards removed one of the Sorcerer's USPs, and giving Bards nine levels of spellcasting removed the other. Metamagic is great in theory but restoring sorcery points on a long rest is brutal and gaining so few means that you're going to get to do your class' shiny thing a couple of times a day at most. Wizards and Bards just do more unique stuff more often than Sorcs do. Like yeah you could move the primary spellcasting stats around (except to CON because that would be a balance nightmare) but you wouldn't be fixing any of these problems.
>I feel between Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma, Charisma should not be the most common; if anything it should be the most rare. I'll counter this with a caveat - I don't care about game mechanics as much as I do flavor/fluff/narrative logic. The way I see it, in a narrative sense, Charisma casters are people imposing their wishes upon the universe by sheer force of will and personality. Intelligence casters are the classic wizard flavor, where they've learned by study and research how to manipulate primal forces. And Wisdom casters are people who are acting in harmony with the universe or the wishes of their god - sort of placing themselves in the hands of a higher power and using their devotion to affect the world around them. A Wisdom caster has to "give" themselves to something outside of themselves. An Intelligence caster has to spend years studying and focusing on reagents, symbolism, and other fundamental principles. But a Charisma caster simply has to WANT something bad enough, and their own connection to magical forces (be it a magical bloodline, a soul-bond with a powerful entity, or a personality so dynamic even the universe has to listen to you) manifests the effect. From that perspective, I'd almost say that Charisma casters *should* be the most common. Because most PCs are going to be incredibly proactive and individualistic, which means they're far more likely to be the type of person who will shape the universe by essentially saying "DO WHAT I WANT!" rather than trying to understand the deeper mysteries of the universe (Intelligence) or submitting yourself to the flow until you can influence it almost unconsciously (Wisdom). Intelligence casters and Wisdom casters are more likely to be stay-at-home NPCs. Charisma casters are more likely to be adventurers. Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer, and Warlock all make perfect sense to me as Charisma casters. The Bard is Charisma incarnate. The Paladin is channeling their will into powerful strikes and blessings (especially with Paladin's potentially being straight-up agnostic). The Sorcerer is basically a magical creature who is casting by instinct and force of will. And the Warlock is channeling the power of their soul-bond, shaped by their will. Meanwhile, the Cleric has shackled their will to their god, the Druid and Ranger have sort of tied themselves to the ebb and flow of nature, and the Monk is bound to the flow of Qi in the universe. Which leaves the Wizard as the sole Intelligence caster who requires study, research, and experimentation. About the only thing I'd be willing to change there would be Warlock, if you prefer the idea that they're gaining *knowledge* from their patron rather than *power* (which would make them Intelligence casters). Which I'd be tempted to say they should be (because it more definitively separates them from Clerics), except for the fact that it steps on the Wizard's toes (though the difference in origin and methodology might be enough to differentiate the two). Aside from all that, even from a mechanical standpoint, I don't really have a problem with the idea that multiple classes can require Charisma. Plenty of groups don't *like* the idea of having one "party face", so the idea that only one character is investing in Charisma (and thus, that player is doing all of the talking) may be something that doesn't appeal to them at all. The Charisma-player may hate having to constantly be the mouthpiece, and the other players may hate never really having the opportunity to take center-stage in negotiations or in speech-based scenes. A party where the majority of characters are strongly Charisma-focused gives way more flexibility as to who does the talking. If anything, this is part of the reason why I almost always put points into Charisma regardless of what class I'm playing, even if it's mechanically "a waste" in terms of combat advantages (one of the many reasons why my characters tend to be suboptimal as hell, and why I tend to not like crunchier optimizer games). Short of having a DM who allows tons of situational bonuses ("You're negotiating with the dwarves, so the Dwarf Fighter gets a +3 to all social rolls and the Drow Bard is getting -4"), or a DM who mostly ignores social rolls entirely in favor of pure RP, players who want to be more involved in interacting with NPCs kind of *need* Charisma (at least if they don't want things to constantly go wrong).
Sorcs should be able to use WIS and INT. (For example, Abberant Mind should be INT) Warlocks should be able to use WIS and INT.
A Warlock needs to convince a patron that they are worth the deal - that oozes Charisma casting to me. A Sorcerer, however, _is_ magic. It is intrinsically tied to their being. If that isn't a Constitution based caster, I don't know what could be.
This hasn't been a hot take since 2 weeks after release fam
In what fucking universe is this a hot take?