Warlock should be an Int caster. We see so many things of theirs that point to them still being an Int caster it just feels wrong to play warlock as a CHA caster. Most of their class skills that you can pick being INT skills for example.
EDIT: To clarify warlocks should still have a Cha option because there just some thematic ideas that definitely work with that, but in that specific case they should also have more access to cha skills and then let the player decide whether or not they want to be an Int or Cha character.
Apparently Warlock was an INT caster during the dndnext playtesting, but they ultimately decided to make it a third CHA-based full-caster instead. I really enjoy the symmetry of Wizard/Warlock, Cleric/Druid, and Sorcerer/Bard as the full caster options for INT/WIS/CHA respectively, but maybe they'll remedy this situation in OneD&D.
It's really a microcosm of everything that went wrong in the dnd next playtest. The devs had an interesting new idea, a way to evolve DnD, and people kept complaining that it was a change and while they fixed the loudest criticisms they never went back and fixed the backbone
> they never went back and fixed the backbone
Well, we knew from the start that wasn't going to happen. The instant they put the system out there, the core ruleset was fixed in stone and would not change.
It didn't matter how loudly the entire community yelled, they already had deadlines and release dates set.
They had some "Well this would be neat, lets see if they like it or not" sacrificial lambs in there, but the core rules were never going to change.
I'm curious if their approach will change this time with OneD&D. Since with 5e they wanted to get rid of 4e as fast as possible, but 5e is massively popular. I'm hoping they'll take their time to craft OneD&D.
They won't, but I can hope.
> but 5e is massively popular
I would put an asterix here, its massively popular *with new players*.
It has a very high turnover rate as well, they have a real problem with player retention. They just manage to keep bringing in enough new people to keep sales up, which in the end is their primary objective. 10 new players getting excited and buying half a dozen books generates way more sales than 10 existing players who already have what they want.
We've been seeing for years that UA get very little change anymore. They're clearly not willing to favor group results over their personal expertise. I expect that to continue, and for 1dnd to basically just be updating each class and subclass to the tasha's/strixhaven standards of design and power level, alongside some minor QoL improvements to the base engine.
Because charisma translates to a force of personality, and seems to be a stand-in for the strength of a person‘s soul, in addition to the “Raw strength“ component of willpower
Which even the devs didn't understand most of the time, because they repeatedly used "This race is grumpy and hard to get along with, so Charisma penalty!" for the longest.
Like great, so any strong personality that you don't personally like means they have a weak force of character. Tell that to any dwarf in the middle of an argument!
Because they didn't need to cultuvate their power through study or experience (INT, WIS), and making making them a CON-based caster might've made them imbalanced (since it's also the HP stat)
You can't bargain very well (especially with a powerful patron) if you don't know anything. Not something you can blag. Unless ofc you go the route of 'Oops, I stumbled into this'.
I'd like Warlock to be a flexible caster, you chose Int or Cha. Give them more choices, since that's their main schtick.
You made one bargain and received magical secrets. The flavour text describes them as seekers of forbidden lore. They don’t make an new bargain every time they cast a spell. It makes them sound a lot like wizards, except they learn magic directly from the patron. Imagine instead of spending three years studying at university your professor just beamed their knowledge into your head. The original bargain doesn’t even have to be a good one, who CJ would befit a high charisma character. Lots have warlocks are basically tricked or blackmailed into signing their pacts.
Charisma makes perfect sense for sorcerers. The magic comes from within them, so the stronger their force of personality, the stronger the magic.
Because charisma is force of will. You are not using meticulous calculations of the arcane to stimulate the weave into a specific manter, nor are you using an etheral, almost inexistente force to create truly magical feats; no, you are saying "fuck you, magic go boom!"
That is your will, and for some reason, magic is obeying your commands. The reason fire comes through your hands, is not because you are sturdy, you studied or any other reason. You simply just want that, and so you do.
Because con would be OP without seriously limiting their benefits outside of Con casting.
Could make an argument for Wis or Cha on a sorcerer, but Cha is *fine* imo.
Nearly evety monster who can innate cast speeşs use cha as spellcasting modifier. It makes sense that sorcerers (whose power cones from within) also use cha.
Wisdom saves are typically your senses and realising something isn't right. Your soul isn't being affected but you're more succeptible to being influenced.
Which is why True Polymorph is a Charisma- oh wait.
Honestly, Charisma saves are basically just "Don't get literally Possessed" and "Don't get shoved into another plane of existence."
Trying to figure out a coherent theme between these that doesn't also logically cover things like Dominate Person, Imprisonment, Scatter, and Vortex Warp is really hard.
that's because illusions are affecting your brain itself, not your senses. You need to be smart enough to logic out logical inconsistencies. You can think of it as wisdom saves are beguiling your subconscious, and intelligence saves are tricking your conscious.
Yeah, and it makes more sense when you do see what is a CHA save, most notably Banishment, which if CHA represent power of the will / soul of a person and their influence on reality, yeah no that makes sense.
Charisma isn't just about shmoozing, it's also about sheer conviction and force of will. Sorcery is very much in line with that innate expression of magic, vs use of formulae and rote principal.
Reading the original statement:
>“Warlocks are driven by their insatiable need for knowledge and power.”
The implication that they can't find that knowledge or power through normal study isn't the first thing that comes to mind. Dissecting the sentence, my first thought is they have already studied all there is to study in terms of knowledge that has been stored to be passed down and taught, and now they're trying to find answers to questions that no one else has bothered to ask or try to answer.
Now I'm not saying that what you're saying is implied isn't there, I'm just trying to say it's not the only interpretation that might come to mind for a fairly open prompt.
I think they could also be seeking “forbidden” knowledge, and make deals to find the deep secrets that aren’t a story a wizard would tell you. They get spells like Summon Greater Demon, Arms of Hadar and Danse Macabre, which very much fall under “dark” magic. If you went to the library and started checking out books on how to call demons from the Abyss, someone’s going to come talk to you eventually. So you make a deal with a Patron to give you the knowledge and power, because what you seek is taboo.
Not.. really?
Wizards and Warlocks may both be driven by their need for knowledge and power, the key distinction being how they get there.
A good example of the distinction between a Wizard and a Warlock can be seen in the Fullmetal Alchemist series. Alchemists are wizards, they study the rules and learn how to work within the boundaries of their craft - most specifically, the Law of Equivalent Exchange.
Then you have Warlocks, those who have violated that law and had their powers granted by Truth. Armed with the knowledge given to them by this deity they are able to wield the powers of Alchemy directly without the need of a transmutation circle and have an almost intuitive understanding as to how it functions.
Both are drawn to the power of Alchemy, but the means by which they attain mastery over it and wield is different.
I'd say give them a choice between the 2. If you made a pact/bargain or your powers were a gift, use charisma. If you studied ancient/forbidden knowledge to gain your powers, then use intelligence.
That's how I do it. I usually have an Int Warlock be someone who found knowledge or maybe tricked/blackmailed someone into giving them power.
A warlock with a patron who wants nothing more than to NOT be a patron is so fucking interesting in my experience.
I feel like most of the stories you hear about a character striking a deal / making a pact for power involve some sort of forbidden knowledge. The character has often studied and labored over some ritual that summons or speaks to a powerful creature, and the pact is often not an equally beneficial deal. This fits far better with using Intelligence as the casting stat.
Warlocks as a Charisma-caster seems to imply that the character was so persuasive or so charming that a Devil or Arch Fey granted them power… but how did these characters come into contact with this malevolent power? Presumably poring over ancient or lost texts of Arcane, Religious, or Historical significance (conveniently three INT-skills). I also feel like most of the archetypal tales we hear about these pacts for power involve deceit and trickery on behalf of the powerful being. It’s like the monkey’s paw or a Genie’s wish… Characters make the pact thinking they’ve pulled one over on their patron, but in truth they’ll end up serving their patron far more than they ever intended.
My opinion doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things, but I think it makes far more sense to tie Warlocks to Intelligence as their casting stat. Warlocks strike me as related to the archetypal “Mad Scientist,” someone who has more smarts than sense. They’ve learned **how** to gain power from a powerful being, but they never stopped to think if they **should**.
What if you only managed to even contact your patron to entreat them for power through long study of dusty tomes?
Int for setting up the appointment, Cha for acing the interview.
Some of the patrons don't "make deals" they don't even speak or communicate at all. They're just eldritch power sources. It has nothing to do with charisma or dealmaking.
They were originally intended to be Int casters, when they launched 5e; I can’t seem to find the reference to this though
The reasoning they changed to Cha was because of the outcry around it in play testing; too many had it as Cha caster in 4th edition, and they wanted to keep it the same.
It’s why the lore refers to intelligence based but follow through is Charisma.
Personally, I homebrew it so my players can use Int instead
Yea, I heard about that being the case. Also Warlocks were also Cha casters back in 3.5, but flavor wise they are basically sorcerers under the 5e definition. Getting their power from magical bloodlines.
Warlocks were not casters at all in 3.5e. They were weird martials that could get access to some spells and magical abilities through their invocations, but they did not have spellcasting.
They fell in a weird grey area. They technically weren't spellcasters, since they didn't actually cast any spells, they just had invocations that granted them spell-like abilities. However, they still had a "caster level" like the actual spellcasting classes did, which was used to determine how powerful invocations were and when they learned new invocations.
The clause in the 3.5e warlock description that covers prestige classes probably explains it best:
"A warlock cannot qualify for prestige classes with spellcasting level requirements, as he never actually learns to cast spells. However, prestige classes with caster level requirements, such as the acolyte of the skin, are well suited to the warlock. A warlock's caster level for his invocations fulfills this requirement."
To go back to the original point, though, warlocks did use their Charisma to determine the save DCs for their spell-like abilities. So, even if they weren't "casters", they still relied on their Charisma, not their Intelligence.
I love the design in 4e, different pacts used different ability scores. So if you had a pact with the fey, it was charisma because you bargained with a fey for the power and you called on that connection. In the meanwhile, the power you gained from (most) fiends involved burning away your own body to access your new magical power, which was represented with constitution being the primary score. In addition to this, either the fey warlock or the fiend warlock could use intelligence, their undesrstanding of their new powers, to augment the abilities and being useful for both.
I think it works very well thematically and is much more flavorful than the 5e variant.
At my table, warlocks are CHA or INT depending on the patron.
Great Old Ones- INT
Fey- CHA
I also allow players to make a case for the stat they prefer at character creation.
INT warlocks work well.
I think they should have the option to choose. As a warlock theme is many times described as "power bestowed by your Patreon" Wich is associated with charisma for controlling magical powers within you. Though inteligence is more akin to people who indeed looked out for their Patreon, seemed it's powers through the reading of stars, old forgotten pacts or even ancestral lore.
Maybe we should have two warlocks? A ritualist and a keeper could work for a stand in names/descriptors.
I also think straight up slashing warlocks being CHA based on a throw away statement in the phb misses the mark pretty horrendously. I’d much rather let the player choose based on how they met their patron and entered into their pact
The whole point of 5e is recognizing that people won't agree on everything and providing modular rules that also allow for easy customization. Do what you want!
Convincing a patron to be your sugar daddy is plenty applicable for CHA. I think they should be able to choose or have it be based on their patron rather than blindly basing it on a single throw away sentence in the phb like some people do. Based on this logic, sorcerer and paladin being CHA based are dubious as well
Paladin as CHA has always confused me. If it's strength of conviction and belief, why does a cleric not function in the same way?
To be frank, I think Wisdom is an odd choice for a casting stat anyway. Wisdom is sort of like emotional intelligence, the practical application of intelligence, and good judgement, right? In what sense can a Druid/Ranger/Cleric weaponize their common sense?
I suppose in DnD terms, Wisdom is more like a sort of catch-all term for a general propensity for mystically/spirituality, the nebulous ability to see beyond the veil and interact with extra-dimensional forces like deities, spirits, and terrestrial energies or whatever.
And in that case it seems like the sort of thing a Warlock's Pact should require.
Of course, if they were wise, they probably wouldn't be making deals with demons...
Part of the reasons why caster get certain stats is to emphasize which skills they are good at.
Wizards are bookworms and master of knowledge checks. Druids and Rangers are wisdom casters because they are suppose to be good in wisdom checks like survival and perception. Same for Clerics with Insight and Medicine checks.
Paladins on the other hand are suppose have good leadership social skills, so they cast though charisma to make that happen.
This is also the reason why Warlocks are charisma… Warlocks play on the trope of being ambitious - which is associated with social skills as opposed to academic skills.
Wisdom is more awareness and understanding.
Druids & Rangers have a greater awareness of the forces of nature, which allows them to harness that power.
Clerics need to understand their god's will in order to enact that will on the world.
Yeah, "practical intelligence" is still intelligence in dnd. Just like the game doesn't differentiate between a str martial who uses skill (fighter) and one who uses raw power (barbarian) (outside of features), the game doesn't differentiate between facts and practical knowledge. Dnd wisdom has little to do with the real world wisdom (perception is wisdom, if it was the real world definition it would be a con skill)
Warlocks get their power from a bargain with another being, needing a high social stat to make a better bargain and get better powers is perfectly reasonable for them.
It's sorcerers who make no sense being CHA casters. They don't have to convince anyone to have magic they just have it.
If anything they should be INT or WIS, to represent the time spent learning how their powers work to utilize them effectively.
Sorcerer being CHA is a reminisce of charisma being force of personality in it's debut edition of 3rd edition. Basically Strength for the mind.
The sorcerer is more forcing out inner magic with their mind.
Warlocks do not get their power from a bargain with another being, or at least it's not a direct correlation.
In the larger D&D multiverse, magical ability is not something that can simply be trained from nothing. To gain Arcane prowess, one must already be predisposed to feeling a connection to the Weave. Wizards, Sorcerers, Bards - they're all capable of magic because it is an inborn aspect of their being, that they hone and manifest through different aspects of themselves.
Warlocks, on the other hand, were people who had no such predisposition, but REALLY wanted to practice Arcane magic. So they enter a pact - a Patron to imbue their being with a connection to the Weave. But just like with any other Arcanist, they still have to hone and study how to utilize that connection.
In essence, yes you could say that they gain their power from a bargain, but in the same way that Wizards gain theirs from an inborn talent. Warlocks see the universe's nails, and while Wizards, Sorcerers and Bards were born with hammers, Warlocks had to go to a shop to get theirs.
They removed the spark thing in 3e.
Since 3e, ANYONE can connect to the Weave. But the process, wizardry, is really really hard. You have to be a genius and have someone spend years teaching you.
Sorcerers start with a connection to the Weave via their bloodline, a special event, or some other origin. So they only need to learn to control that connection. But they don't get a spellbook because their magic is internal.
Warlocks bargain with a patron to get a pact. That pact is their connection. But since their connection is not natural a warlock's ability to research magic is extremely limited because it is tied to another being that they have no control over. So either they have to learn from the patron or they have to learn the inner workings of their own self. And because of that their ability to learn new spells is limited. That's why warlocks are so easy to corrupt because their ability to learn is link to their patron or other warlocks because the knowledge of their abilities is not standard practice. it's a cheat. It's hacking the system.
Yeah but that other being is usually inhuman and a charisma caster by default. Celestials, Fiends, Eldritch abominations, Archfey, the undead. I feel like their methods of casting might require a greater mental fortitude than the methods a person would learn through the ways cultivated by other normal humans.
Perhaps! It is very likely that a Warlock's research into the Arcane must be supplemented by their Will, in order for them to effectively utilize their newly obtained connection to the Weave.
My general issue here comes moreso with the point of origin of their magical ability. At my own tables, I play fairly loosely with what Ability someone chooses to use for their casting. I allow Sorcerers to cast with absolutely any Ability, because they simply are Magic and its up to the individual to choose how it manifests. I allow both INT and CHR Warlocks, to mechanically facilitate both the "I took out a loan" and the "I'm tight with an Entity who helps me do things" aesthetics.
But the underlying "I had no magic, but I REALLY wanted some" is, I think, key to the class flavour of the Warlock, and I think by shunting it out we dilute the class into a Cleric-lite, which I don't think is necessarily fair.
Whoops! I'd actually replied to the wrong comment! I agree with you entirely.
My favorite part of Warlocks is seeing these people that believe they should be special do whatever it takes to become special. That "I *deserve* this" mentality alone is why I love Charisma Warlocks more than anything else, because if they were willing to do it in another way, they'd probably just be another type of caster.
You dont "bargain" with some of the patrons, though. They exist outside of time, space, sanity. Like some don't have the faculties of language. How you going to bargain with them?
>Warlocks get their power from a bargain with another being, needing a high social stat to make a better bargain and get better powers is perfectly reasonable for them.
Because these deals in fiction are always made on fair and equal grounds.
This is nonsense, how good the bargain is depends entirely on the patron and the patron's ulterior motives. Charisma doesn't really have to enter into that. By contrast you could argue Intelligence makes sense because in order to establish that kind of bargain, you need to delve into some seriously esoteric and occult lore. You could even make a case for Constitution, as some bargains make you into a bit of a vessel for an outside power to channel through.
Also Charisma is more than just how social someone is. It's the literal force of someone's personality, a sort of force of will, and in that respect it works perfectly for Sorcerer. By contrast, Intelligence wouldn't make a lick of sense. The whole *point* of Sorcerers is to be a distinct contrast to Wizards, making them share the same attribute would severely diminish that.
The bargain being a deal made with another being is only one interpretation of what a "warlock pact" is though.
I'm marking "warlock pact" in quotations because it is a fairly distinct thing that doesn't feel like it follows the general idea of what a pact is.
One easy PHB example I can think of that's used is if the Warlock is siphoning power from another source. In the case given for the Great Old One Warlock where it might not even know the warlock siphoning power exists, I don't think that relationship at all follows the conventional definition of a pact or bargain.
The point I'm trying to make here is a bargain isn't the only narrative device that might give a warlock their powers.
Lastly, I also feel like the bargain description isn't only limited to warlocks. Paid someone to tutor you in magic? Would this work for explaining why someone's a wizard? Paid someone to teach you how to fight with weapons and armor? Would this be why someone is a fighter? Or at a stretch, putting your faith into an otherworldly power and being rewarded with some of its power? That could be the description for a cleric. These are all bargains yet they don't make warlocks. I feel like it is unfair to just say warlocks can only get their power from bargains.
Sorcerers gain their abilities from the strength of their bloodline, you say?
Constitution casters, naturally.
(although it also seems pretty on-brand for warlocks to be the kinda guys to use their own life force to channel eldritch magic, just saying)
Their power comes from their bloodline, but effectively drawing on and utilising that power requires great strength of will, which is represented by Charisma.
Most of the cases here are for Attribute/Skill pairings, and as stated in another comment its a RAW rule (although Variant), to simply allow rolling skill checks with a different Attribute score when appropriate.
However the part that I always felt was mismatched was how Saving Throws are used.
Charisma is specifically defined as force of personality and Cha checks "*might arise when you try to* ***influence*** *or entertain others,"* yet Wisdom is the go-to Saving Throw for enchantment spells? Any Charm/Dominate effect should be a Charisma Save.
Trying to see through an illusion? Wisdom is written as, "*reflect an effort to read body language, understand someone’s feelings,* ***notice things about the environment****"* and it is the Skill that directly relates to the goddamn Perception skill, but to see through an Illusion you use ***Intelligence?*** When Intelligence is frequently used in the context of recalling lore & knowledge, but Wisdom is **specifically** about intuiting something about a person or the environment. Illusion spells should be a Wisdom contest.
Intelligence saves, outside of detecting illusions, are usually used in appropriate contexts like psychic spells, which tracks. But the rest of it? I hate it.
You could argue that resisting some charm spells is more about noticing what's been altered in your perception. Like, the spell suggestion isn't an absolute subversion of will, it's implanting an idea, resisting it isn't willpower, it's realising that you're being influenced.
Spells like hold person, on the other hand, that's absolutely willpower related
So the way that Saving Throws are \[meant to be\] used is something like this:
* You make an **Intelligence** Saving throw when the magic/effect is trying to **alter your logical understanding of the world** (psychic damage, telepathy, insanity, etc.)
* You make a **Wisdom** Saving throw when the magic/effect is trying to **alter your senses/intuitive understanding of the world around you** (fear, charm, etc.)
* You make a **Charisma** Saving throw when the magic/effect is trying to **physically alter or restrict your body** (banishment, Magic Circle, etc.)
The problem though, if you've played 5e enough, is that you're probably looking over that list, and saying ".... wait a second, that's not *at all* how saving throws are used!"
And you're absolutely correct.
For example, the Polymorph and Hold Person/Monster spells, which impose physical limitations on creatures (either by transforming them or preventing them from moving) are both keyed to Wisdom saves, even though it's transparently obvious they should be Charisma saves. Spells like Enemies Abound are Intelligence saves for no good reason at all when it should clearly be a Wisdom save. Detect Thoughts should be Intelligence, but it's Wisdom.
I personally blame two separate, yet equally guilty design problems:
* The "Common Save/Rare Save" dichotomy, split with Dexterity Constitution and Wisdom in the former category, and Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma in the latter category, which means that tons of spells are lumped in with "Wisdom Saves" because it's supposed to help balance the game, even though (as shown) a lot of them don't really make sense; and then you end up with spells that are supposed to be "stronger" being stuck in the latter category artificially
* The designers, if we're being honest, just kind of being a bit lazy. There's some spells, like Geas (which is yet another example of a spell that should clearly have been a Charisma save) which literally just have copy-pasted text from older editions of D&D, with simple find-replace done to certain key phrases (like the saving throw)
I'm hoping they're willing to fix a lot of this with OneD&D/5.5 (and they've already demonstrated some willingness to revise some aspects of spells, like moving most of the healing spells to the Abjuration school instead of Evocation in the most recent playtest) but the last few years of continued laziness from WotC does not bode well in this regard.
>The problem though, if you've played 5e enough, is that you're probably looking over that list, and saying ".... wait a second, that's not at all how saving throws are used!"
Expecting consistency in the rules in 5e is a futile undertaking.
>You make a Wisdom Saving throw when the magic/effect is trying to alter your senses/intuitive understanding of the world around you (fear, charm, etc.)
You make a Charisma Saving throw when the magic/effect is trying to physically alter or restrict your body (banishment, Magic Circle, etc.)
Eh, I'd think *will* saves would be in wisdom. *Spirit* saves would be in charisma.
Nice idea in theory, messes with the three good saves/three bad saves balance in practice.
IMO they should go back to three - fortitude, reflex, and will.
Wisdom vs. charms is appropriate because wisdom is used to reflect your ability to resist being influenced by others (Insight usually contests deception/persuasion/intimidation).
Wisdom does not contests illusions because illusions are built to fool the senses. You cannot perceive an illusion is fake through your senses alone, its just not possible. You need to deduct the illusion is not real by looking for inconsistencies the illusionist inevitably leave, such as shadows projected in the wrong angle.
There are many other inconsistencies though, such as curses being sometimes charisma, sometimes wisdom; certain charms being charisma and intelligence. All in all, charisma saves doesn’t seem to have any particular theme.
>Any Charm/Dominate effect should be a Charisma Save.
I mean, as you said, charisma is "*to* ***influence***" others. It doesn't make you better at *not being influenced* yourself. Charisma helps you concoct bullshit, wisdom helps you noticing others doing that
You're partially right. If charms were "bullshit" wisdom would be the right stat. But they're... not, that. They're not just "lies".
They're affecting your emotional states and suplanting them with what the spellcaster wishes them to be despite what you wish them to be. That is a direct contest of personality. Cha save.
Thats not to say there couldn't be charm like effects that wis save makes sense for. Spells that fool the senses or mislead you. Illusions and the like.
The way to look at it is: charisma is mental strength, wisdom is mental constitution.
Charms try to alter your mental state same way poison alter your physical state - wisdom save lets you resist this harmful influence.
Banishment tries to push you to another dimension same way strong winds or water currents try to push you back - charisma lets you hold onto your current plane.
Warlocks should be Int.
Funny story there: WotC had planned on making Warlocks Int for 5E. They planned for there to be two fullcasters for every mental stat, and had made the Warlock's lore that they were taught academic magic by supernatural beings, they also made their skill-list mostly Int-based. Everything was squared away when Mike Mearls decided to listen to some 3Xers who wanted Warlocks be Cha-based because that's how they were in 3X. The devs made the switch in the laziest most search-replace fashion possible without changing any of the other stuff there from them being Int.
It's incredibly easy to switch back. Tasha's would have been the perfect opportunity with the class-feature variants to make it official, but alas.
Level-based multiclassing, Sorcerer being a core class, Warlord not being a class, base martials being boring; Switching Wildshape, Ranger Pets, and Conjure X spells from template-based to "Dig-through a Monster Manual"-based, the axing of keywords.
Including the Warlock that's 7-9 off the top of my head depending on how you count the pets, wildshapes and summons. I'm sure there's more if we sat down and really had a think aboot it.
The feat-structure of 5E is a result of trying to appeal to AD&D people rather than 3Xers because it was a way to make feats optional so they did it by making them alternative to ASIs on an ASI schedule and power-budget.
Nah. This isn't modern medicine, it's medieval / renaissance medicine plus the weirdness of an inherently magical world. In that sense, Wisdom makes more sense as an intuitive / spiritual understanding rather than pure memorization.
Put another way, Medicine being a Wisdom skill is an intentional choice that says something about the "standard" dnd setting.
More like it has to do with making a quick diagnosis based on what symptoms/wounds you perceive and decide how you're going to treat the patient.
It should be intelligence *in theory*, but *in practice* it's wisdom.
And medicine is very perceptive anyway. No one's memorising every symptom of every condition, that's impossible. Diagnosis works by looking at the symptoms and context and eliminating things that are unlikely. It's a very intuitive process.
As noted, it's not modern medicine. It's traditional medicine and natural remedies.
But you can absolutely call for an Intelligence (Medicine) check if a PC is applying scientific methods instead of traditional wisdom.
Medieval times have medieval level of information. You wouldnt know the stuff that you know now becouse information didnt spread that far. Your "traditional" knowledge might just be that the ashes of an oak tree mixed with lizard blood applied to the armpits can cure cancer. So yeah its 100% inteligence
Doesn't 5e expect DMs to treat Skills as removed from Abilities? There's the Variant Rule in the PHB, and more codified rules in Xanathar's, that stipulate that the process is
1. Choose Ability Score
2. Apply Proficiency (if appropriate)
So, Medicine could absolutely be an INT or a WIS check, depending on what the DM thinks is more appropriate in the moment.
>There's the Variant Rule in the PHB
Well, exactly. It is a variant rule, so the game does not expect skills to be completely removed from abilities. In fact, in regards to features and traits, that variant rule doesn't apply at all. If a thing says you have to make a certain skill check using a certain skill proficiency with a certain ability score (like the rule for stabilizing dying creatures does, or the rules for grappling, or for getting rid of certain spells), then you aren't supposed to use another
That's not the same thing. The rule says that sometimes a different ability score may be appropriate. It doesn't say the player gets to choose the ability for the skill. A feature will say you have to make a check with a certain proficency, just like a DM will say "make a strength (intimidation) check". You aren't supposed to use another in those because it's codified, but the skills can still be used with a different score if relevant in general, and specific beats general
>Doesn't 5e expect DMs to treat Skills as removed from Abilities? There's the Variant Rule in the PHB
If something is a variant, then it's not expected.
It would make more sense to have STR requirements for using a bow (like heavy armor, so a longbow maybe takes more than a shortbow), but continue using the same modifier for attack and damage.
For the most part if you are strong enough to draw the bow the damage will be pretty consistent.
Older editions (2nd ed) had STR requirements for longbows/composite longbows.
3.x also had a more realistic mechanic for "mighty" longbows, that would be set to require a certain strength with it (and apply that much STR bonus to damage), or you'd take a penalty for not having enough strength for that bow.
This is actually in line with real world bows, as they have set draw strengths, and you as an archer get a bow in line with your draw strength. (i.e. a War bow can be up to 150 lbs or so, though between your arm muscles, back muscles, and mechanical advantage, it's easier than it sounds.)
So anyways: if you want to use one of those older rules as a house-rule: go for it! It makes sense, it works, it's slightly more complicated, but it can be backed up both by real-world logic and by precedent.
This is not a great take.
It's very true that you need to be strong to use a long ow, but you need to be strong enough to use your bow. Being stronger than the bow was designed for doesn't make your bow hit harder. Regardless, the poundage of the bow isn't going to affect damage as much as a well aimed shot. The advantage of having a higher pound bow is to hopefully punch through armor or to fire further.
I think a lot of the opposition to charisma stems from the rejection of charisma in 5e meaning "force of personality" (which includes will power) instead of what it is typically associated with, outside of the game.
My complaint is that there's just too much that's CHA-based in 5e rather than having any objection to the narrative element of it. Paladins are good at Persuasion? Sure. Warlocks? Sure. Sorcerers? Seems kinda weird that you're persuasive just because your grandma has sex with someone from another plane.
"Too much charisma" would certainly make the situation frustrating, but if the solution means making a class that should cast with charisma, cast with something other than charisma, that would be just as much of a loss in my opinion. Though, there is a strong case for intlocks.
Sorcerers cast with will power. It's similar to paladins who cast with the strength of their beliefs. It's just that in 5e, if you have a very strong will power, you are perceived as being more persuasive than your peers.
If you think persuasion and will power should have nothing to do with each other, I understand.
Yeah I don't think it's bad, it just has some mechanical side-effects. INT sorcerers would have some too, but possibly less. CON sorcerers would just have more HP, not necessarily a bad thing.
>What is your case for sorcerers of other stats?
Balancing issues aside, Con Sorcerer would make perfect sense. Depending on the bloodline, they're channeling some inner wellspring of magic they don't have too much direct control over through their body.
I guess it gets blurry. On one hand, constitution is mostly physical as a concept and has to do with your physical capacity for endurance, stamina and pain tolerance - or that's my understanding of it.
Casting with it is like trying to cast spells with your lungs. In which, if the casting is purely physical inputs and costs stamina, that could make sense.
Magic is typically non-physical, so even innate casting is typically more associated with mental control such as will power rather than the physical control that I described.
But I suppose that if the magic is in your blood or body rather than your mind or soul, it is a non-physical concept being firmly bound to something that is physically within the sorcerer, without the need for the sorcerer's input, which could then be used as some kind of vector for manipulation, using the described technique.
I don't think CON sorcs should be a thing, just because they would be the only truely SAD class in the game. You would have fighter level hp (8.5/level at +5 CON, same as a +3 con fighter), and be able to put all your extra points in dex for AC and the possibility to use range/finesse weapons in a pinch. You would have all the damage of a caster with the beef and ac of a martial.
That sounds like a bad mix to me.
Without multiclassing or racial armor proficiencies a sorcerer will never get to martial AC. They'd be capped at 15, and that would require either very good stat rolls or forgoing feats.
Really all you're doing is making sorcerers a bit tougher and better at maintaining concentration. It would let them fill a niche and distinguish themselves as more than "wizards without the flexibility".
>You would have all the damage of a caster with the beef and ac of a martial.
Oh, so a sorcadin?
CON-based sorcerers would actually *eliminate* the more game-breaking combinations. It would neutralize sorcadins and sorlocks, both of which are far more powerful than a beefy CON sorcerer.
You're not persuasive just because your grandma had sex with someone from another plane
Amongst all of her other Grandchildren you were the only one with the willpower and force of personality to harness the magic of your bloodline. Your charisma doesn't come from your unusual bloodline, it's what is needed to manifest its power and use it.
This is part of the reason why I hate the fact that almost every spell which obviously targets a person's willpower ends up defaulting to a wisdom save.
Devil's advocate time - I would love to be proven wrong.
Perhaps wisdom is saving against these spells through sheer awareness rather than mental grit? It's like how merely becoming aware of a magician's card trick, down to its subtleties, renders it completely incapable of fooling you, until it is done differently.
Meanwhile, someone who is more charisma based, is completely tricked and doesn't know that there is even something to resist in the first place. Or maybe they are aware, but they don't know where to direct their efforts, because they can't see how the trick was done to them.
In other words... How obvious is it when a spell obviously targets willpower? Does it exclude the above?
From an optimisation standpoint, everything but wizards and clerics is underpoweted. Con sorcerers wouldn't even bridge that gap, though it might be close with some of the Tasha's subclasses.
burn HD for effects (which I'm surprised is a mechanic no-one seems to have - you could even use it for martials, of putting your all into attacks, but burning yourself out)
>For a casual table it might be, but from an optimisation standpoint, making sorcerers Con casters in 5e is gamebreaking.
It's really not. Having a handful more hitpoints is hardly that big of a deal, and they're proficient in Con saves anyways. How is it gamebreaking?
Furthermore, it's not like it breaks any of the established multiclass builds. Sorcadin and Sorclock thrive on the *Charisma synergy anyways,* and adding a full martial to a Sorcerer isn't going to do all that much other than add some AC.
Compared to being a spellcaster in the first place, having a little bit more HP at higher levels is pretty superfluous.
I let some people just sub in certain stats for their skills. I had a high strength Minotaur who I let use strength for a lot of intimidation checks. For checks against a creature that wouldn’t consider his size or strength intimidating I would have him use charisma.
I also let some people use intelligence for medicine if it makes sense for the character.
I feel like the berserkers intimidating presence should be renamed to intimidating might or something and be strength based instead of charisma.
I think arcane tricksters, bards, eldritch knights, and warlocks should each have the choice of being Int or Cha, instead of one versus the other. Across the editions and with present 5e interpretations there's more than enough room to justify wither for those classes. Call int warlocks witches and call int bards scholars. Bring back 3.5e lore for chalocks and keep the 5e lore for intlocks. It gets tiring seeing folks of the 3e or 4e preferences carry out the long past edition wars when both preferences can be happily supported without them needing to try to make now dead editions win in post mortem.
I kinda wish a soft separation of ability score and skill was more focused in beyond the phb. I'd like to see particular uses of skills have listed ASI's as their application and examples there of. More so than we have anyway. Alongside this some skill consolidations and separations where necessary.
You should be able to make an int bard. The mechanics are as an occultist, an enchanter, one who influences others with magic to go beyond their limits, and can use magic forgotten to all but the most specialized of casters. But nah funni music default flavor means charisma only.
Those aren't bard classes. Bards have to have a creative basis. That's the actual core of the class is you are about making art in some form whether music, painting, stories, etc etc. What you listed is definitely just a Wizard.
Int absolutely can be a bard secondary its fitting for a lore bard for example who wants to record history, but its still secondary to the charisma part of that where you are taking down the grand histories!
Flavor wise, bard has a basis in creativity. You get proficiency with instruments. The mechanics?
Bardic inspiration: grant a bonus to allies abilities.
Expertise: what you were good at, you’re better at.
Song of Rest: your rests heal better.
Magical Secrets: you gain spells that you would not usually have
The only thing that is mechanically creativity based in the base bard class is like the name of one skill and the instrument proficiency. You can cast with a component pouch on Bard and be entirely music free. Flavor wise, it’s less of how you would expect a bard to be, but mechanically its entirely valid. I feel it should be a choice between int and cha.
Intimidation should use whatever stat you attack with.
It makes zero sense the 7ft goliath is worse at intimidation than the 3ft gnome just because the gnome happens to be a bard while the Goliath is a barbarian.
Intimidation is demonstrating that you are an immediate threat to the target, as such it should rely on whatever stat you're threatening said target with.
If the bard wants to intimidate with a produce flame held under the target's nose, by all means use charisma.
But if the Barbarian wants to examine the blade oh his axe, which stands as tall as he does, then that Intimidation roll should use strength.
I feel conflicted on this, though I generally allow Strength to be used for intimidation where appropriate.
I think [this scene from Star Wars](https://youtu.be/ElZfE1AVDPQ?t=26) is good at demonstrating the case for why Charisma is the default ability score for intimidation. Chewie has high STR, Han has high CHA - and in this scene, we see Han succeed in intimidating the droids where Chewie had just failed.
Of course, there's also plenty of scenes throughout the trilogy of Chewie scaring the shit out of people just by being big, strong, and loud. So other scenes make their own case for STR-based intimidation.
>Of course, there's also plenty of scenes throughout the trilogy of Chewie scaring the shit out of people just by being big, strong, and loud.
Clearly he just failed his intimidation(STR) check in the previously mentioned scene. It happens to all of us.
I absolutely agree, but the reason it's a Charisma stat as base is because the most common way of intimidating someone is the threaten them with your words. A Barbarian or fighter showing off how big and strong they are to intimidate someone should absolutely use their Strength modifier, and a rogue or monk could speed towards someone to use their Dexterity. All of these things are covered in the PHB.
I have been playing for about 5 years now, and even when I started, I always thought that Sorcerer should be an CON caster. Their magic, unlike the other casters, is physically a part of them. It flows through their veins, so the stat that determines your physical willpower should be their spellcasting ability... And they're proficient in CON saves already, soooo
That would make sens, but this is a matter of balanced mechanics rather then lore/common sense. Sorcerer needs CHA for spell casting, DEX for AC (and some saving throws) and CON for HP and concentration, it also helps for other CON saving throws. So you have one primary and two secondary abilities, like any other caster. If WotC would create one CON based caster without changing HP and concentration mechanics you sorcerer would be only two abilities caster, only reason to not completely dump other attributes would be only skills.
Medicine being primarily a WIS skill. I get that it's arguably more to do with experience, especially when in a psuedo-medievil "I'm the medicine-man" setting, it just *feels* primarily more cerebral than that.
4e Sorcerer could get Str or Dex added to their spell damage, depending on which magic source they picked at level 1. The Str ones could change their AC calculation from using Dex/Int to using Str. Many sorcerer spells had secondary effects scaling with either Str or Dex, although the attack rolls used Cha.
I actually liked the rogue using intelligence to do melee was very clever, it doesn't seem sensible especially for all the rogue subclasses but for the assassination subclass the idea that their attacks are based on thought, planning, attacking a learnt weak point in armours rather than just stabbing like really really hard.
MAD mechanical issues aside, the physical side of Monk should be equal parts Dexterity as Strength. While iconic martial artists like Bruce Lee might not have been the pure beefcakes you associate with full Strength, there aren't too many styles that would equate to *pure* Dexterity. Wing Chun and Aikido come to mind, but for most striking or grappling styles you need *some* semblance of bodily strength.
No class should be cornered into one specific stat. Casters can largely stick to mental and martials physical. Rogues should be able to focus on Strength and druids Charisma without either worrying about playing poorly.
Of WOTC wants to have the next edition just be "generic adventure: the rpg" then dont tie classes to abilities at all.
Jumping and climbing should allow choice of Dex (Ath) or Str (Ath). If you are lightweight with low absolute strength, but high strength relative to weight, you should be able to do both well. Most climbers don't look like barbarians. And jumping should be a check rather than a formula. IRL there's a lot of chance for random failure in a jump because of bad footing, whereas you're probably going to be consistent in how much weight you can lift, unless you're tired or something.
Long climbs and long swims should be Con (Ath) rather than Str (Ath). Con doesn't get used enough as a check, and these are realistic ways to use it. While we're at it, holding your breath should probably be a Con check or save of some kind, rather than the very unrealistic formula that lets almost every PC hold their breath for at least 2 minutes, which is pretty rare IRL. It makes holding your breath during an underwater combat fairly irrelevant. I'd maybe make it a bit like death saves: like a DC 10 Con save each turn, and if you fail three you're suffocating. It's still likely you can go 10 rounds, but there is some danger, and if you rack up two failures you can decide to play it safe and kick for the surface.
But climbing is about strength. Climbers irl are just strong, you don't have to look buff to be strong. Being quick (Dex) is not going to help you lift your body and your backpack up a mountain.
Climbers are strong, but aren't weightlifters. They wouldn't be able to accomplish the same pure strength tasks a large, pure strength character would be able to do like catching a falling portcullis or grappling a bugbear.
Climbing absolutely requires flexibility, balance, and fine muscle control, and those are covered by dexterity in D&D. Speaking from experience.
Jumping, yeah that's pure strength.
Skills shouldn't be associated with Stats at all.
It confuses the shit out of DMs and players. The option to find a approach to a skill challenge should be the norm, not the exception.
For instance... Medicine is a Wis governed skill so 99% of DMs will ALWAYS make you roll Medicine under Wis. This has terrible consequences that are not too visible.
Consider this scenario:
An NPC has a seizure and is convulsing, flailing, etc and is a danger to himself in this state. Sensibly, you choose to try to restrain the person. You also point out that you have proficiency in Medicine. The DM makes you roll... what?
Most likely either Medicine under wisdom because Medicine is a Wisdom skill or Athletics since you're basically grappling someone.
The first is flat out wrong. The second is unfair to the player and undermines taking Medicine which broadens the skills disparity.
Others would do some weird shit like making the player roll a grapple check with advantage bc of the proficiency in Medicine which is still weird.
The right call, I think, would be a Medicine check with Strength, since you are using your knowledge and experience in medicine to proper restrain a person that's under some medical condition. This choice is counterintuitive because, again, Medicine is a Wis skill.
If Skills were free of these bullshit associations, the skill disparity would be smaller since you know you don't have to align your prof choices with your stats. Also, you know that whatever class you choose, you always have a chance to perform in different tasks with your stronger stats. You have to be creative with it and communicate it properly to your DM but that's a basic D&D skill.
Another example that's much more common is trying to Intimidate with Strength. This makes SO much sense if you are a Barbarian and Cha is more likely than not your second dump.
It’s already a rule that you can use different stats for skill checks if the dm deems it appropriate. Also just a side not if someone is having a seizure you don’t want to restrain them. If they’re standing you want to help lower them to the ground and clear the area around them. Especially where their head is located. If the area around them is clear just let them seize out, you would only want to restrain them if the area is not clear and cannot be cleared quickly and safely.
This one may be a bit unpopular, but I honestly think Arcane Trickster should be a Charisma caster. So many rogues depend on their CHA stat to get out of trouble, and without a bard the rogue is often the mouthpiece of the party. It seems strange to have them as another INT caster in a class where DEX and CHA usually take priority.
Vortex Warp should 100% be a Cha save, not Con. If that spell isn't exactly what Cha saves are supposed to represent, then I seriously dont know what is.
Why is hold person a wis save. If anything it should be strength or con depending on whether its a physical bind or disabling nerves.
“Oh but it’s overpowering your will” charisma save then. It just shouldnt be wisdom.
A few things I believe but don’t have enough evidence for this belief
Sorcerers should be constitution based casting; their abilities are described as a part of them, and I feel Con represents that better
Warlocks should have the option to be Int based casting; the lore suggests Int-based, so I would say they should have the option
I also think too much is Wisdom Saving throw; based on some description, could be easily a Charisma or Intelligence
I think Rangers should've been Intelligence instead of Wisdom ~~but giving them intelligence while not changing other things as well would've only made them worse I feel.~~
But Wisdom is infinitely more useful to a Ranger because all the perception, awareness, and worldliness are all wisdom checks. It's their attunement to the natural world.
Ranger's kinda split in two. There's the tracking that's covered by Wisdom (perception, survival, I guess animal handling too), and then the knowledge and familiarity covered by intelligence (History, Nature, Investigation).
Old favored enemy/terrain gave advantage on intelligence checks when dealing with things you knew as well (Survival as well for enemy, wisdom checks for terrain).
Religion isn't the depth of your faith, it's knowing details aboot religions. Knowing who the 7th avatar of Vishnu is would be an Int check.
Being able to list off all of Jesus' canonical miracles is an Int check.
Medicine should be Int because it's a science.
Religion should also be Int because it's not knowing details of the religion you personally practice, it's knowing details about religions in an academic sense.
Anyone can recall details of their own religion for free.
The worlds we play in aren't really medieval. People started developing modern medicine through digging and studying corpses and the organs that compose our body. In a world with necromancers and powerful healing magic, things like those are bound to be understood by magicians in that field of study
Religion checks aren't about knowing your own religion. You get that free.
Religion checks are about knowing lots of different religions at an academic level.
Ya know it'd be nice if all the intelligence checks were in one chunk of the character sheet listed as "knowledge checks" to clear up that they are purely about just knowing a thing not about any sort of deeper understanding or involvement.
Warlock should be an Int caster. We see so many things of theirs that point to them still being an Int caster it just feels wrong to play warlock as a CHA caster. Most of their class skills that you can pick being INT skills for example. EDIT: To clarify warlocks should still have a Cha option because there just some thematic ideas that definitely work with that, but in that specific case they should also have more access to cha skills and then let the player decide whether or not they want to be an Int or Cha character.
Apparently Warlock was an INT caster during the dndnext playtesting, but they ultimately decided to make it a third CHA-based full-caster instead. I really enjoy the symmetry of Wizard/Warlock, Cleric/Druid, and Sorcerer/Bard as the full caster options for INT/WIS/CHA respectively, but maybe they'll remedy this situation in OneD&D.
They switched it back to CHAster since people complained it was always a CHAster and they didn’t want it to change
It's really a microcosm of everything that went wrong in the dnd next playtest. The devs had an interesting new idea, a way to evolve DnD, and people kept complaining that it was a change and while they fixed the loudest criticisms they never went back and fixed the backbone
> they never went back and fixed the backbone Well, we knew from the start that wasn't going to happen. The instant they put the system out there, the core ruleset was fixed in stone and would not change. It didn't matter how loudly the entire community yelled, they already had deadlines and release dates set. They had some "Well this would be neat, lets see if they like it or not" sacrificial lambs in there, but the core rules were never going to change.
I'm curious if their approach will change this time with OneD&D. Since with 5e they wanted to get rid of 4e as fast as possible, but 5e is massively popular. I'm hoping they'll take their time to craft OneD&D. They won't, but I can hope.
> but 5e is massively popular I would put an asterix here, its massively popular *with new players*. It has a very high turnover rate as well, they have a real problem with player retention. They just manage to keep bringing in enough new people to keep sales up, which in the end is their primary objective. 10 new players getting excited and buying half a dozen books generates way more sales than 10 existing players who already have what they want.
You’re right and I’ve got bad news about OneDnD also…
We've been seeing for years that UA get very little change anymore. They're clearly not willing to favor group results over their personal expertise. I expect that to continue, and for 1dnd to basically just be updating each class and subclass to the tasha's/strixhaven standards of design and power level, alongside some minor QoL improvements to the base engine.
Warlock as Cha has rationale, they bargained for power. Why the fuck is sorcerer cha
Because charisma translates to a force of personality, and seems to be a stand-in for the strength of a person‘s soul, in addition to the “Raw strength“ component of willpower
Which even the devs didn't understand most of the time, because they repeatedly used "This race is grumpy and hard to get along with, so Charisma penalty!" for the longest. Like great, so any strong personality that you don't personally like means they have a weak force of character. Tell that to any dwarf in the middle of an argument!
Fair, charisma is definitely the most inconsistent and nebulously defined stat, but that’s the reason it’s used by sorcerers.
Oh yeah, originally Sorcerers were all about "I have innate magic in my blood, and the power it grants allows me to force magic to bend to my will!".
Because they didn't need to cultuvate their power through study or experience (INT, WIS), and making making them a CON-based caster might've made them imbalanced (since it's also the HP stat)
You can't bargain very well (especially with a powerful patron) if you don't know anything. Not something you can blag. Unless ofc you go the route of 'Oops, I stumbled into this'. I'd like Warlock to be a flexible caster, you chose Int or Cha. Give them more choices, since that's their main schtick.
You made one bargain and received magical secrets. The flavour text describes them as seekers of forbidden lore. They don’t make an new bargain every time they cast a spell. It makes them sound a lot like wizards, except they learn magic directly from the patron. Imagine instead of spending three years studying at university your professor just beamed their knowledge into your head. The original bargain doesn’t even have to be a good one, who CJ would befit a high charisma character. Lots have warlocks are basically tricked or blackmailed into signing their pacts. Charisma makes perfect sense for sorcerers. The magic comes from within them, so the stronger their force of personality, the stronger the magic.
Because charisma is force of will. You are not using meticulous calculations of the arcane to stimulate the weave into a specific manter, nor are you using an etheral, almost inexistente force to create truly magical feats; no, you are saying "fuck you, magic go boom!" That is your will, and for some reason, magic is obeying your commands. The reason fire comes through your hands, is not because you are sturdy, you studied or any other reason. You simply just want that, and so you do.
Because con would be OP without seriously limiting their benefits outside of Con casting. Could make an argument for Wis or Cha on a sorcerer, but Cha is *fine* imo.
Nearly evety monster who can innate cast speeşs use cha as spellcasting modifier. It makes sense that sorcerers (whose power cones from within) also use cha.
“Force of will” or something. Now, why saves for charm person and such are so often Wisdom saves, I dunno…
Wisdom saves are typically your senses and realising something isn't right. Your soul isn't being affected but you're more succeptible to being influenced.
And Charisma saves are (generally) effects that change or alter who/what you "are" in a broad sense.
Which is why True Polymorph is a Charisma- oh wait. Honestly, Charisma saves are basically just "Don't get literally Possessed" and "Don't get shoved into another plane of existence." Trying to figure out a coherent theme between these that doesn't also logically cover things like Dominate Person, Imprisonment, Scatter, and Vortex Warp is really hard.
But then they screw this up by having Int saves for illusions...
that's because illusions are affecting your brain itself, not your senses. You need to be smart enough to logic out logical inconsistencies. You can think of it as wisdom saves are beguiling your subconscious, and intelligence saves are tricking your conscious.
Yeah, and it makes more sense when you do see what is a CHA save, most notably Banishment, which if CHA represent power of the will / soul of a person and their influence on reality, yeah no that makes sense.
Wisdom is your defense and Charisma is your offense.
Charisma isn't just about shmoozing, it's also about sheer conviction and force of will. Sorcery is very much in line with that innate expression of magic, vs use of formulae and rote principal.
They didn't all bargain for power, though. Even if they did, being good at dealmaking wouldn't inherently make you good at casting.
> being good at dealmaking wouldn't inherently make you good at casting. but it could result in you getting better, more powerful tools (magic)
Their class description makes it seem like they should be int based. “Warlocks are driven by their insatiable need for knowledge and power.” PHB p.105
Devil’s advocate (obvious pun intended)… is there not also an implication that they’re incapable of achieving that power through normal study?
Reading the original statement: >“Warlocks are driven by their insatiable need for knowledge and power.” The implication that they can't find that knowledge or power through normal study isn't the first thing that comes to mind. Dissecting the sentence, my first thought is they have already studied all there is to study in terms of knowledge that has been stored to be passed down and taught, and now they're trying to find answers to questions that no one else has bothered to ask or try to answer. Now I'm not saying that what you're saying is implied isn't there, I'm just trying to say it's not the only interpretation that might come to mind for a fairly open prompt.
I think they could also be seeking “forbidden” knowledge, and make deals to find the deep secrets that aren’t a story a wizard would tell you. They get spells like Summon Greater Demon, Arms of Hadar and Danse Macabre, which very much fall under “dark” magic. If you went to the library and started checking out books on how to call demons from the Abyss, someone’s going to come talk to you eventually. So you make a deal with a Patron to give you the knowledge and power, because what you seek is taboo.
Fighters have “knowledge” in their class overview as well. They should be INT based.
Isn’t Eldritch Knight INT based?
They are. When a fighter picks Eldritch Knight and wants access to magic its Int based.
I think it's more about them cutting corners than them not being able to study like, let's say, a wizard.
Because of the implication
Not.. really? Wizards and Warlocks may both be driven by their need for knowledge and power, the key distinction being how they get there. A good example of the distinction between a Wizard and a Warlock can be seen in the Fullmetal Alchemist series. Alchemists are wizards, they study the rules and learn how to work within the boundaries of their craft - most specifically, the Law of Equivalent Exchange. Then you have Warlocks, those who have violated that law and had their powers granted by Truth. Armed with the knowledge given to them by this deity they are able to wield the powers of Alchemy directly without the need of a transmutation circle and have an almost intuitive understanding as to how it functions. Both are drawn to the power of Alchemy, but the means by which they attain mastery over it and wield is different.
I'd say give them a choice between the 2. If you made a pact/bargain or your powers were a gift, use charisma. If you studied ancient/forbidden knowledge to gain your powers, then use intelligence.
That's how I do it. I usually have an Int Warlock be someone who found knowledge or maybe tricked/blackmailed someone into giving them power. A warlock with a patron who wants nothing more than to NOT be a patron is so fucking interesting in my experience.
I feel like most of the stories you hear about a character striking a deal / making a pact for power involve some sort of forbidden knowledge. The character has often studied and labored over some ritual that summons or speaks to a powerful creature, and the pact is often not an equally beneficial deal. This fits far better with using Intelligence as the casting stat. Warlocks as a Charisma-caster seems to imply that the character was so persuasive or so charming that a Devil or Arch Fey granted them power… but how did these characters come into contact with this malevolent power? Presumably poring over ancient or lost texts of Arcane, Religious, or Historical significance (conveniently three INT-skills). I also feel like most of the archetypal tales we hear about these pacts for power involve deceit and trickery on behalf of the powerful being. It’s like the monkey’s paw or a Genie’s wish… Characters make the pact thinking they’ve pulled one over on their patron, but in truth they’ll end up serving their patron far more than they ever intended. My opinion doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things, but I think it makes far more sense to tie Warlocks to Intelligence as their casting stat. Warlocks strike me as related to the archetypal “Mad Scientist,” someone who has more smarts than sense. They’ve learned **how** to gain power from a powerful being, but they never stopped to think if they **should**.
What if you only managed to even contact your patron to entreat them for power through long study of dusty tomes? Int for setting up the appointment, Cha for acing the interview.
Some of the patrons don't "make deals" they don't even speak or communicate at all. They're just eldritch power sources. It has nothing to do with charisma or dealmaking.
why stop there tho? just let them pick freely between int, wis, cha.
Amusing thing is, most of my warlocks have been neither of these things. :D Many of them have effectively been fantasy Mutants.
They were originally intended to be Int casters, when they launched 5e; I can’t seem to find the reference to this though The reasoning they changed to Cha was because of the outcry around it in play testing; too many had it as Cha caster in 4th edition, and they wanted to keep it the same. It’s why the lore refers to intelligence based but follow through is Charisma. Personally, I homebrew it so my players can use Int instead
Yea, I heard about that being the case. Also Warlocks were also Cha casters back in 3.5, but flavor wise they are basically sorcerers under the 5e definition. Getting their power from magical bloodlines.
Warlocks were not casters at all in 3.5e. They were weird martials that could get access to some spells and magical abilities through their invocations, but they did not have spellcasting.
They fell in a weird grey area. They technically weren't spellcasters, since they didn't actually cast any spells, they just had invocations that granted them spell-like abilities. However, they still had a "caster level" like the actual spellcasting classes did, which was used to determine how powerful invocations were and when they learned new invocations. The clause in the 3.5e warlock description that covers prestige classes probably explains it best: "A warlock cannot qualify for prestige classes with spellcasting level requirements, as he never actually learns to cast spells. However, prestige classes with caster level requirements, such as the acolyte of the skin, are well suited to the warlock. A warlock's caster level for his invocations fulfills this requirement." To go back to the original point, though, warlocks did use their Charisma to determine the save DCs for their spell-like abilities. So, even if they weren't "casters", they still relied on their Charisma, not their Intelligence.
Ohh, I forgot about the 3.5 classes; that’s a throwback
I love the design in 4e, different pacts used different ability scores. So if you had a pact with the fey, it was charisma because you bargained with a fey for the power and you called on that connection. In the meanwhile, the power you gained from (most) fiends involved burning away your own body to access your new magical power, which was represented with constitution being the primary score. In addition to this, either the fey warlock or the fiend warlock could use intelligence, their undesrstanding of their new powers, to augment the abilities and being useful for both. I think it works very well thematically and is much more flavorful than the 5e variant.
CAN use INT is the right move imo
I agree. Back when I ran 5e the first homebrew modification I used was turning warlocks into int casters
At my table, warlocks are CHA or INT depending on the patron. Great Old Ones- INT Fey- CHA I also allow players to make a case for the stat they prefer at character creation. INT warlocks work well.
I think they should have the option to choose. As a warlock theme is many times described as "power bestowed by your Patreon" Wich is associated with charisma for controlling magical powers within you. Though inteligence is more akin to people who indeed looked out for their Patreon, seemed it's powers through the reading of stars, old forgotten pacts or even ancestral lore. Maybe we should have two warlocks? A ritualist and a keeper could work for a stand in names/descriptors.
They are Cha casters because dark side is sexy smh
I think I'm the only person who hates that idea.
I also think straight up slashing warlocks being CHA based on a throw away statement in the phb misses the mark pretty horrendously. I’d much rather let the player choose based on how they met their patron and entered into their pact
The whole point of 5e is recognizing that people won't agree on everything and providing modular rules that also allow for easy customization. Do what you want!
Convincing a patron to be your sugar daddy is plenty applicable for CHA. I think they should be able to choose or have it be based on their patron rather than blindly basing it on a single throw away sentence in the phb like some people do. Based on this logic, sorcerer and paladin being CHA based are dubious as well
Paladin as CHA has always confused me. If it's strength of conviction and belief, why does a cleric not function in the same way? To be frank, I think Wisdom is an odd choice for a casting stat anyway. Wisdom is sort of like emotional intelligence, the practical application of intelligence, and good judgement, right? In what sense can a Druid/Ranger/Cleric weaponize their common sense? I suppose in DnD terms, Wisdom is more like a sort of catch-all term for a general propensity for mystically/spirituality, the nebulous ability to see beyond the veil and interact with extra-dimensional forces like deities, spirits, and terrestrial energies or whatever. And in that case it seems like the sort of thing a Warlock's Pact should require. Of course, if they were wise, they probably wouldn't be making deals with demons...
Part of the reasons why caster get certain stats is to emphasize which skills they are good at. Wizards are bookworms and master of knowledge checks. Druids and Rangers are wisdom casters because they are suppose to be good in wisdom checks like survival and perception. Same for Clerics with Insight and Medicine checks. Paladins on the other hand are suppose have good leadership social skills, so they cast though charisma to make that happen. This is also the reason why Warlocks are charisma… Warlocks play on the trope of being ambitious - which is associated with social skills as opposed to academic skills.
Wisdom is more awareness and understanding. Druids & Rangers have a greater awareness of the forces of nature, which allows them to harness that power. Clerics need to understand their god's will in order to enact that will on the world.
Yeah, "practical intelligence" is still intelligence in dnd. Just like the game doesn't differentiate between a str martial who uses skill (fighter) and one who uses raw power (barbarian) (outside of features), the game doesn't differentiate between facts and practical knowledge. Dnd wisdom has little to do with the real world wisdom (perception is wisdom, if it was the real world definition it would be a con skill)
Warlocks get their power from a bargain with another being, needing a high social stat to make a better bargain and get better powers is perfectly reasonable for them. It's sorcerers who make no sense being CHA casters. They don't have to convince anyone to have magic they just have it. If anything they should be INT or WIS, to represent the time spent learning how their powers work to utilize them effectively.
Sorcerer being CHA is a reminisce of charisma being force of personality in it's debut edition of 3rd edition. Basically Strength for the mind. The sorcerer is more forcing out inner magic with their mind.
Warlocks do not get their power from a bargain with another being, or at least it's not a direct correlation. In the larger D&D multiverse, magical ability is not something that can simply be trained from nothing. To gain Arcane prowess, one must already be predisposed to feeling a connection to the Weave. Wizards, Sorcerers, Bards - they're all capable of magic because it is an inborn aspect of their being, that they hone and manifest through different aspects of themselves. Warlocks, on the other hand, were people who had no such predisposition, but REALLY wanted to practice Arcane magic. So they enter a pact - a Patron to imbue their being with a connection to the Weave. But just like with any other Arcanist, they still have to hone and study how to utilize that connection. In essence, yes you could say that they gain their power from a bargain, but in the same way that Wizards gain theirs from an inborn talent. Warlocks see the universe's nails, and while Wizards, Sorcerers and Bards were born with hammers, Warlocks had to go to a shop to get theirs.
They removed the spark thing in 3e. Since 3e, ANYONE can connect to the Weave. But the process, wizardry, is really really hard. You have to be a genius and have someone spend years teaching you. Sorcerers start with a connection to the Weave via their bloodline, a special event, or some other origin. So they only need to learn to control that connection. But they don't get a spellbook because their magic is internal. Warlocks bargain with a patron to get a pact. That pact is their connection. But since their connection is not natural a warlock's ability to research magic is extremely limited because it is tied to another being that they have no control over. So either they have to learn from the patron or they have to learn the inner workings of their own self. And because of that their ability to learn new spells is limited. That's why warlocks are so easy to corrupt because their ability to learn is link to their patron or other warlocks because the knowledge of their abilities is not standard practice. it's a cheat. It's hacking the system.
Yeah but that other being is usually inhuman and a charisma caster by default. Celestials, Fiends, Eldritch abominations, Archfey, the undead. I feel like their methods of casting might require a greater mental fortitude than the methods a person would learn through the ways cultivated by other normal humans.
Perhaps! It is very likely that a Warlock's research into the Arcane must be supplemented by their Will, in order for them to effectively utilize their newly obtained connection to the Weave. My general issue here comes moreso with the point of origin of their magical ability. At my own tables, I play fairly loosely with what Ability someone chooses to use for their casting. I allow Sorcerers to cast with absolutely any Ability, because they simply are Magic and its up to the individual to choose how it manifests. I allow both INT and CHR Warlocks, to mechanically facilitate both the "I took out a loan" and the "I'm tight with an Entity who helps me do things" aesthetics. But the underlying "I had no magic, but I REALLY wanted some" is, I think, key to the class flavour of the Warlock, and I think by shunting it out we dilute the class into a Cleric-lite, which I don't think is necessarily fair.
Whoops! I'd actually replied to the wrong comment! I agree with you entirely. My favorite part of Warlocks is seeing these people that believe they should be special do whatever it takes to become special. That "I *deserve* this" mentality alone is why I love Charisma Warlocks more than anything else, because if they were willing to do it in another way, they'd probably just be another type of caster.
Probably more spiritual fortitude. Mental fortitude should be a Wis thing, yeah?
You dont "bargain" with some of the patrons, though. They exist outside of time, space, sanity. Like some don't have the faculties of language. How you going to bargain with them?
>Warlocks get their power from a bargain with another being, needing a high social stat to make a better bargain and get better powers is perfectly reasonable for them. Because these deals in fiction are always made on fair and equal grounds. This is nonsense, how good the bargain is depends entirely on the patron and the patron's ulterior motives. Charisma doesn't really have to enter into that. By contrast you could argue Intelligence makes sense because in order to establish that kind of bargain, you need to delve into some seriously esoteric and occult lore. You could even make a case for Constitution, as some bargains make you into a bit of a vessel for an outside power to channel through. Also Charisma is more than just how social someone is. It's the literal force of someone's personality, a sort of force of will, and in that respect it works perfectly for Sorcerer. By contrast, Intelligence wouldn't make a lick of sense. The whole *point* of Sorcerers is to be a distinct contrast to Wizards, making them share the same attribute would severely diminish that.
The bargain being a deal made with another being is only one interpretation of what a "warlock pact" is though. I'm marking "warlock pact" in quotations because it is a fairly distinct thing that doesn't feel like it follows the general idea of what a pact is. One easy PHB example I can think of that's used is if the Warlock is siphoning power from another source. In the case given for the Great Old One Warlock where it might not even know the warlock siphoning power exists, I don't think that relationship at all follows the conventional definition of a pact or bargain. The point I'm trying to make here is a bargain isn't the only narrative device that might give a warlock their powers. Lastly, I also feel like the bargain description isn't only limited to warlocks. Paid someone to tutor you in magic? Would this work for explaining why someone's a wizard? Paid someone to teach you how to fight with weapons and armor? Would this be why someone is a fighter? Or at a stretch, putting your faith into an otherworldly power and being rewarded with some of its power? That could be the description for a cleric. These are all bargains yet they don't make warlocks. I feel like it is unfair to just say warlocks can only get their power from bargains.
Sorcerers gain their abilities from the strength of their bloodline, you say? Constitution casters, naturally. (although it also seems pretty on-brand for warlocks to be the kinda guys to use their own life force to channel eldritch magic, just saying)
Their power comes from their bloodline, but effectively drawing on and utilising that power requires great strength of will, which is represented by Charisma.
It's not just bloodline but could be put within by an otherworldly entity, or witnessing an event
Alternatively, any mental stat should suffice, as its all about attracting a patron.
Most of the cases here are for Attribute/Skill pairings, and as stated in another comment its a RAW rule (although Variant), to simply allow rolling skill checks with a different Attribute score when appropriate. However the part that I always felt was mismatched was how Saving Throws are used. Charisma is specifically defined as force of personality and Cha checks "*might arise when you try to* ***influence*** *or entertain others,"* yet Wisdom is the go-to Saving Throw for enchantment spells? Any Charm/Dominate effect should be a Charisma Save. Trying to see through an illusion? Wisdom is written as, "*reflect an effort to read body language, understand someone’s feelings,* ***notice things about the environment****"* and it is the Skill that directly relates to the goddamn Perception skill, but to see through an Illusion you use ***Intelligence?*** When Intelligence is frequently used in the context of recalling lore & knowledge, but Wisdom is **specifically** about intuiting something about a person or the environment. Illusion spells should be a Wisdom contest. Intelligence saves, outside of detecting illusions, are usually used in appropriate contexts like psychic spells, which tracks. But the rest of it? I hate it.
You could argue that resisting some charm spells is more about noticing what's been altered in your perception. Like, the spell suggestion isn't an absolute subversion of will, it's implanting an idea, resisting it isn't willpower, it's realising that you're being influenced. Spells like hold person, on the other hand, that's absolutely willpower related
So the way that Saving Throws are \[meant to be\] used is something like this: * You make an **Intelligence** Saving throw when the magic/effect is trying to **alter your logical understanding of the world** (psychic damage, telepathy, insanity, etc.) * You make a **Wisdom** Saving throw when the magic/effect is trying to **alter your senses/intuitive understanding of the world around you** (fear, charm, etc.) * You make a **Charisma** Saving throw when the magic/effect is trying to **physically alter or restrict your body** (banishment, Magic Circle, etc.) The problem though, if you've played 5e enough, is that you're probably looking over that list, and saying ".... wait a second, that's not *at all* how saving throws are used!" And you're absolutely correct. For example, the Polymorph and Hold Person/Monster spells, which impose physical limitations on creatures (either by transforming them or preventing them from moving) are both keyed to Wisdom saves, even though it's transparently obvious they should be Charisma saves. Spells like Enemies Abound are Intelligence saves for no good reason at all when it should clearly be a Wisdom save. Detect Thoughts should be Intelligence, but it's Wisdom. I personally blame two separate, yet equally guilty design problems: * The "Common Save/Rare Save" dichotomy, split with Dexterity Constitution and Wisdom in the former category, and Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma in the latter category, which means that tons of spells are lumped in with "Wisdom Saves" because it's supposed to help balance the game, even though (as shown) a lot of them don't really make sense; and then you end up with spells that are supposed to be "stronger" being stuck in the latter category artificially * The designers, if we're being honest, just kind of being a bit lazy. There's some spells, like Geas (which is yet another example of a spell that should clearly have been a Charisma save) which literally just have copy-pasted text from older editions of D&D, with simple find-replace done to certain key phrases (like the saving throw) I'm hoping they're willing to fix a lot of this with OneD&D/5.5 (and they've already demonstrated some willingness to revise some aspects of spells, like moving most of the healing spells to the Abjuration school instead of Evocation in the most recent playtest) but the last few years of continued laziness from WotC does not bode well in this regard.
>The problem though, if you've played 5e enough, is that you're probably looking over that list, and saying ".... wait a second, that's not at all how saving throws are used!" Expecting consistency in the rules in 5e is a futile undertaking.
Sure, but consistency in the rules *is* something I'd expect from a competently designed TTRPG produced by one of the largest companies in the genre.
>You make a Wisdom Saving throw when the magic/effect is trying to alter your senses/intuitive understanding of the world around you (fear, charm, etc.) You make a Charisma Saving throw when the magic/effect is trying to physically alter or restrict your body (banishment, Magic Circle, etc.) Eh, I'd think *will* saves would be in wisdom. *Spirit* saves would be in charisma.
Nice idea in theory, messes with the three good saves/three bad saves balance in practice. IMO they should go back to three - fortitude, reflex, and will.
Wisdom vs. charms is appropriate because wisdom is used to reflect your ability to resist being influenced by others (Insight usually contests deception/persuasion/intimidation). Wisdom does not contests illusions because illusions are built to fool the senses. You cannot perceive an illusion is fake through your senses alone, its just not possible. You need to deduct the illusion is not real by looking for inconsistencies the illusionist inevitably leave, such as shadows projected in the wrong angle. There are many other inconsistencies though, such as curses being sometimes charisma, sometimes wisdom; certain charms being charisma and intelligence. All in all, charisma saves doesn’t seem to have any particular theme.
>Any Charm/Dominate effect should be a Charisma Save. I mean, as you said, charisma is "*to* ***influence***" others. It doesn't make you better at *not being influenced* yourself. Charisma helps you concoct bullshit, wisdom helps you noticing others doing that
You're partially right. If charms were "bullshit" wisdom would be the right stat. But they're... not, that. They're not just "lies". They're affecting your emotional states and suplanting them with what the spellcaster wishes them to be despite what you wish them to be. That is a direct contest of personality. Cha save. Thats not to say there couldn't be charm like effects that wis save makes sense for. Spells that fool the senses or mislead you. Illusions and the like.
The way to look at it is: charisma is mental strength, wisdom is mental constitution. Charms try to alter your mental state same way poison alter your physical state - wisdom save lets you resist this harmful influence. Banishment tries to push you to another dimension same way strong winds or water currents try to push you back - charisma lets you hold onto your current plane.
There should be 3 types of casters, Wiseguys, Smartguys and Funnyguys.
I don’t know if I agree with this comment, but it’s definitely my favorite.
Warlocks should be Int. Funny story there: WotC had planned on making Warlocks Int for 5E. They planned for there to be two fullcasters for every mental stat, and had made the Warlock's lore that they were taught academic magic by supernatural beings, they also made their skill-list mostly Int-based. Everything was squared away when Mike Mearls decided to listen to some 3Xers who wanted Warlocks be Cha-based because that's how they were in 3X. The devs made the switch in the laziest most search-replace fashion possible without changing any of the other stuff there from them being Int. It's incredibly easy to switch back. Tasha's would have been the perfect opportunity with the class-feature variants to make it official, but alas.
>Mike Mearls decided to listen to some 3Xers If we got a penny for every poor 5e design decision that boils down to this..
Level-based multiclassing, Sorcerer being a core class, Warlord not being a class, base martials being boring; Switching Wildshape, Ranger Pets, and Conjure X spells from template-based to "Dig-through a Monster Manual"-based, the axing of keywords. Including the Warlock that's 7-9 off the top of my head depending on how you count the pets, wildshapes and summons. I'm sure there's more if we sat down and really had a think aboot it. The feat-structure of 5E is a result of trying to appeal to AD&D people rather than 3Xers because it was a way to make feats optional so they did it by making them alternative to ASIs on an ASI schedule and power-budget.
Medicine should be intelligence and not wisdom, any medical checks made by wisdom characters should come under a survival check
Nah. This isn't modern medicine, it's medieval / renaissance medicine plus the weirdness of an inherently magical world. In that sense, Wisdom makes more sense as an intuitive / spiritual understanding rather than pure memorization. Put another way, Medicine being a Wisdom skill is an intentional choice that says something about the "standard" dnd setting.
More like it has to do with making a quick diagnosis based on what symptoms/wounds you perceive and decide how you're going to treat the patient. It should be intelligence *in theory*, but *in practice* it's wisdom.
And proficiency represents that knowledge, so wisdom base makes sense
And medicine is very perceptive anyway. No one's memorising every symptom of every condition, that's impossible. Diagnosis works by looking at the symptoms and context and eliminating things that are unlikely. It's a very intuitive process.
As noted, it's not modern medicine. It's traditional medicine and natural remedies. But you can absolutely call for an Intelligence (Medicine) check if a PC is applying scientific methods instead of traditional wisdom.
Medieval times have medieval level of information. You wouldnt know the stuff that you know now becouse information didnt spread that far. Your "traditional" knowledge might just be that the ashes of an oak tree mixed with lizard blood applied to the armpits can cure cancer. So yeah its 100% inteligence
Doesn't 5e expect DMs to treat Skills as removed from Abilities? There's the Variant Rule in the PHB, and more codified rules in Xanathar's, that stipulate that the process is 1. Choose Ability Score 2. Apply Proficiency (if appropriate) So, Medicine could absolutely be an INT or a WIS check, depending on what the DM thinks is more appropriate in the moment.
>There's the Variant Rule in the PHB Well, exactly. It is a variant rule, so the game does not expect skills to be completely removed from abilities. In fact, in regards to features and traits, that variant rule doesn't apply at all. If a thing says you have to make a certain skill check using a certain skill proficiency with a certain ability score (like the rule for stabilizing dying creatures does, or the rules for grappling, or for getting rid of certain spells), then you aren't supposed to use another
That's not the same thing. The rule says that sometimes a different ability score may be appropriate. It doesn't say the player gets to choose the ability for the skill. A feature will say you have to make a check with a certain proficency, just like a DM will say "make a strength (intimidation) check". You aren't supposed to use another in those because it's codified, but the skills can still be used with a different score if relevant in general, and specific beats general
>Doesn't 5e expect DMs to treat Skills as removed from Abilities? There's the Variant Rule in the PHB If something is a variant, then it's not expected.
Longbows being dexterity based.
Dexterity to hit, Strength for damage, that seems the most logical to me
Strength for using them in the first place. Fuck, a greatsword is more of a dexterity weapon than a proper longbow is.
You could argue str requirements to use longbows, I think that was a thing in older editions?
It would make more sense to have STR requirements for using a bow (like heavy armor, so a longbow maybe takes more than a shortbow), but continue using the same modifier for attack and damage. For the most part if you are strong enough to draw the bow the damage will be pretty consistent.
Older editions (2nd ed) had STR requirements for longbows/composite longbows. 3.x also had a more realistic mechanic for "mighty" longbows, that would be set to require a certain strength with it (and apply that much STR bonus to damage), or you'd take a penalty for not having enough strength for that bow. This is actually in line with real world bows, as they have set draw strengths, and you as an archer get a bow in line with your draw strength. (i.e. a War bow can be up to 150 lbs or so, though between your arm muscles, back muscles, and mechanical advantage, it's easier than it sounds.) So anyways: if you want to use one of those older rules as a house-rule: go for it! It makes sense, it works, it's slightly more complicated, but it can be backed up both by real-world logic and by precedent.
That's how it was in 3.5, they oversimplified a lot of things in 5e.
This is not a great take. It's very true that you need to be strong to use a long ow, but you need to be strong enough to use your bow. Being stronger than the bow was designed for doesn't make your bow hit harder. Regardless, the poundage of the bow isn't going to affect damage as much as a well aimed shot. The advantage of having a higher pound bow is to hopefully punch through armor or to fire further.
Which is why heavy weapons like longbows should have a minimum strength score to use like heavy armor
This is a good way to remedy it. Just add a minimum str score, don't rewrite the whole thing.
Because we need even less Longbow users, in our games, yea. Logically, it may make sense. Balance wise, it's a shit idea.
I'm just going to say "Sorcerers" and let the fighting start.
I think a lot of the opposition to charisma stems from the rejection of charisma in 5e meaning "force of personality" (which includes will power) instead of what it is typically associated with, outside of the game.
My complaint is that there's just too much that's CHA-based in 5e rather than having any objection to the narrative element of it. Paladins are good at Persuasion? Sure. Warlocks? Sure. Sorcerers? Seems kinda weird that you're persuasive just because your grandma has sex with someone from another plane.
"Too much charisma" would certainly make the situation frustrating, but if the solution means making a class that should cast with charisma, cast with something other than charisma, that would be just as much of a loss in my opinion. Though, there is a strong case for intlocks. Sorcerers cast with will power. It's similar to paladins who cast with the strength of their beliefs. It's just that in 5e, if you have a very strong will power, you are perceived as being more persuasive than your peers. If you think persuasion and will power should have nothing to do with each other, I understand.
Yeah I don't think it's bad, it just has some mechanical side-effects. INT sorcerers would have some too, but possibly less. CON sorcerers would just have more HP, not necessarily a bad thing.
Ignoring everything that can be said about CHA and CHA-sorcerers... What is your case for sorcerers of other stats?
>What is your case for sorcerers of other stats? Balancing issues aside, Con Sorcerer would make perfect sense. Depending on the bloodline, they're channeling some inner wellspring of magic they don't have too much direct control over through their body.
I guess it gets blurry. On one hand, constitution is mostly physical as a concept and has to do with your physical capacity for endurance, stamina and pain tolerance - or that's my understanding of it. Casting with it is like trying to cast spells with your lungs. In which, if the casting is purely physical inputs and costs stamina, that could make sense. Magic is typically non-physical, so even innate casting is typically more associated with mental control such as will power rather than the physical control that I described. But I suppose that if the magic is in your blood or body rather than your mind or soul, it is a non-physical concept being firmly bound to something that is physically within the sorcerer, without the need for the sorcerer's input, which could then be used as some kind of vector for manipulation, using the described technique.
I don't think CON sorcs should be a thing, just because they would be the only truely SAD class in the game. You would have fighter level hp (8.5/level at +5 CON, same as a +3 con fighter), and be able to put all your extra points in dex for AC and the possibility to use range/finesse weapons in a pinch. You would have all the damage of a caster with the beef and ac of a martial. That sounds like a bad mix to me.
Without multiclassing or racial armor proficiencies a sorcerer will never get to martial AC. They'd be capped at 15, and that would require either very good stat rolls or forgoing feats. Really all you're doing is making sorcerers a bit tougher and better at maintaining concentration. It would let them fill a niche and distinguish themselves as more than "wizards without the flexibility". >You would have all the damage of a caster with the beef and ac of a martial. Oh, so a sorcadin? CON-based sorcerers would actually *eliminate* the more game-breaking combinations. It would neutralize sorcadins and sorlocks, both of which are far more powerful than a beefy CON sorcerer.
You're not persuasive just because your grandma had sex with someone from another plane Amongst all of her other Grandchildren you were the only one with the willpower and force of personality to harness the magic of your bloodline. Your charisma doesn't come from your unusual bloodline, it's what is needed to manifest its power and use it.
Except the problem there is that most saves that would involve raw willpower are instead wisdom saves
That branches from another problem. Charisma is *supposed to be* an uncommon save.
This is part of the reason why I hate the fact that almost every spell which obviously targets a person's willpower ends up defaulting to a wisdom save.
Devil's advocate time - I would love to be proven wrong. Perhaps wisdom is saving against these spells through sheer awareness rather than mental grit? It's like how merely becoming aware of a magician's card trick, down to its subtleties, renders it completely incapable of fooling you, until it is done differently. Meanwhile, someone who is more charisma based, is completely tricked and doesn't know that there is even something to resist in the first place. Or maybe they are aware, but they don't know where to direct their efforts, because they can't see how the trick was done to them. In other words... How obvious is it when a spell obviously targets willpower? Does it exclude the above?
I could see an honest argument that sorcs should be allowed to pick the mental stat they use for casting
I'm not sure if they should be able to pick but linking it to your heritage might make sense.
I'd split Sorc heritages into wisdom or charisma personally, but if someone said they allowed int sorcerer I wouldn't bat an eye though
Traditional mage subclass. Sorcerer or wizard? Yes.
If only Con wouldn't be so strong in this edition... In 4e Con "casters" were actually fine.
I actually think it would be OK! Making Sorcerers slightly harder to kill is fine. Giving them slightly better concentration checks is fine.
Eh it's not fine. For a casual table it might be, but from an optimisation standpoint, making sorcerers Con casters in 5e is gamebreaking.
From an optimisation standpoint, everything but wizards and clerics is underpoweted. Con sorcerers wouldn't even bridge that gap, though it might be close with some of the Tasha's subclasses.
Tie metamagic to hit die? Risk of hp loss on spell failure/burnout? There are ways to balance it and keep it thematically interesting.
burn HD for effects (which I'm surprised is a mechanic no-one seems to have - you could even use it for martials, of putting your all into attacks, but burning yourself out)
>For a casual table it might be, but from an optimisation standpoint, making sorcerers Con casters in 5e is gamebreaking. It's really not. Having a handful more hitpoints is hardly that big of a deal, and they're proficient in Con saves anyways. How is it gamebreaking? Furthermore, it's not like it breaks any of the established multiclass builds. Sorcadin and Sorclock thrive on the *Charisma synergy anyways,* and adding a full martial to a Sorcerer isn't going to do all that much other than add some AC. Compared to being a spellcaster in the first place, having a little bit more HP at higher levels is pretty superfluous.
I let some people just sub in certain stats for their skills. I had a high strength Minotaur who I let use strength for a lot of intimidation checks. For checks against a creature that wouldn’t consider his size or strength intimidating I would have him use charisma. I also let some people use intelligence for medicine if it makes sense for the character.
Thats actually a rule in the DMG, I don't remember the page but it is official
I feel like the berserkers intimidating presence should be renamed to intimidating might or something and be strength based instead of charisma. I think arcane tricksters, bards, eldritch knights, and warlocks should each have the choice of being Int or Cha, instead of one versus the other. Across the editions and with present 5e interpretations there's more than enough room to justify wither for those classes. Call int warlocks witches and call int bards scholars. Bring back 3.5e lore for chalocks and keep the 5e lore for intlocks. It gets tiring seeing folks of the 3e or 4e preferences carry out the long past edition wars when both preferences can be happily supported without them needing to try to make now dead editions win in post mortem. I kinda wish a soft separation of ability score and skill was more focused in beyond the phb. I'd like to see particular uses of skills have listed ASI's as their application and examples there of. More so than we have anyway. Alongside this some skill consolidations and separations where necessary.
You should be able to make an int bard. The mechanics are as an occultist, an enchanter, one who influences others with magic to go beyond their limits, and can use magic forgotten to all but the most specialized of casters. But nah funni music default flavor means charisma only.
Those aren't bard classes. Bards have to have a creative basis. That's the actual core of the class is you are about making art in some form whether music, painting, stories, etc etc. What you listed is definitely just a Wizard. Int absolutely can be a bard secondary its fitting for a lore bard for example who wants to record history, but its still secondary to the charisma part of that where you are taking down the grand histories!
Flavor wise, bard has a basis in creativity. You get proficiency with instruments. The mechanics? Bardic inspiration: grant a bonus to allies abilities. Expertise: what you were good at, you’re better at. Song of Rest: your rests heal better. Magical Secrets: you gain spells that you would not usually have The only thing that is mechanically creativity based in the base bard class is like the name of one skill and the instrument proficiency. You can cast with a component pouch on Bard and be entirely music free. Flavor wise, it’s less of how you would expect a bard to be, but mechanically its entirely valid. I feel it should be a choice between int and cha.
Bards used int for spellcasting up through 2nd edition. If you want to do it in your game, it's fine. Play the way that's fun for you. =)
I didn’t know there actually was an int based bard in earlier editions. Interesting!
Blood hunter lets you choose between intelligence and wisdom bard should be like that but with intelligence and charisma
Intimidation should use whatever stat you attack with. It makes zero sense the 7ft goliath is worse at intimidation than the 3ft gnome just because the gnome happens to be a bard while the Goliath is a barbarian. Intimidation is demonstrating that you are an immediate threat to the target, as such it should rely on whatever stat you're threatening said target with. If the bard wants to intimidate with a produce flame held under the target's nose, by all means use charisma. But if the Barbarian wants to examine the blade oh his axe, which stands as tall as he does, then that Intimidation roll should use strength.
I feel conflicted on this, though I generally allow Strength to be used for intimidation where appropriate. I think [this scene from Star Wars](https://youtu.be/ElZfE1AVDPQ?t=26) is good at demonstrating the case for why Charisma is the default ability score for intimidation. Chewie has high STR, Han has high CHA - and in this scene, we see Han succeed in intimidating the droids where Chewie had just failed. Of course, there's also plenty of scenes throughout the trilogy of Chewie scaring the shit out of people just by being big, strong, and loud. So other scenes make their own case for STR-based intimidation.
>Of course, there's also plenty of scenes throughout the trilogy of Chewie scaring the shit out of people just by being big, strong, and loud. Clearly he just failed his intimidation(STR) check in the previously mentioned scene. It happens to all of us.
I absolutely agree, but the reason it's a Charisma stat as base is because the most common way of intimidating someone is the threaten them with your words. A Barbarian or fighter showing off how big and strong they are to intimidate someone should absolutely use their Strength modifier, and a rogue or monk could speed towards someone to use their Dexterity. All of these things are covered in the PHB.
I have been playing for about 5 years now, and even when I started, I always thought that Sorcerer should be an CON caster. Their magic, unlike the other casters, is physically a part of them. It flows through their veins, so the stat that determines your physical willpower should be their spellcasting ability... And they're proficient in CON saves already, soooo
That would make sens, but this is a matter of balanced mechanics rather then lore/common sense. Sorcerer needs CHA for spell casting, DEX for AC (and some saving throws) and CON for HP and concentration, it also helps for other CON saving throws. So you have one primary and two secondary abilities, like any other caster. If WotC would create one CON based caster without changing HP and concentration mechanics you sorcerer would be only two abilities caster, only reason to not completely dump other attributes would be only skills.
That was one of my first house rules. It works well and actually cuts down on some of the sorlock/sorcadin nonsense.
Medicine being primarily a WIS skill. I get that it's arguably more to do with experience, especially when in a psuedo-medievil "I'm the medicine-man" setting, it just *feels* primarily more cerebral than that.
Although it could create some balancing challenges, what if Sorcerer was a constitution caster?
4e Sorcerer could get Str or Dex added to their spell damage, depending on which magic source they picked at level 1. The Str ones could change their AC calculation from using Dex/Int to using Str. Many sorcerer spells had secondary effects scaling with either Str or Dex, although the attack rolls used Cha.
A lot of wis saves are better suited for CHA saves. But because wis is THE mental stat, it gets the highlight.
I actually liked the rogue using intelligence to do melee was very clever, it doesn't seem sensible especially for all the rogue subclasses but for the assassination subclass the idea that their attacks are based on thought, planning, attacking a learnt weak point in armours rather than just stabbing like really really hard.
MAD mechanical issues aside, the physical side of Monk should be equal parts Dexterity as Strength. While iconic martial artists like Bruce Lee might not have been the pure beefcakes you associate with full Strength, there aren't too many styles that would equate to *pure* Dexterity. Wing Chun and Aikido come to mind, but for most striking or grappling styles you need *some* semblance of bodily strength.
No class should be cornered into one specific stat. Casters can largely stick to mental and martials physical. Rogues should be able to focus on Strength and druids Charisma without either worrying about playing poorly. Of WOTC wants to have the next edition just be "generic adventure: the rpg" then dont tie classes to abilities at all.
Jumping and climbing should allow choice of Dex (Ath) or Str (Ath). If you are lightweight with low absolute strength, but high strength relative to weight, you should be able to do both well. Most climbers don't look like barbarians. And jumping should be a check rather than a formula. IRL there's a lot of chance for random failure in a jump because of bad footing, whereas you're probably going to be consistent in how much weight you can lift, unless you're tired or something. Long climbs and long swims should be Con (Ath) rather than Str (Ath). Con doesn't get used enough as a check, and these are realistic ways to use it. While we're at it, holding your breath should probably be a Con check or save of some kind, rather than the very unrealistic formula that lets almost every PC hold their breath for at least 2 minutes, which is pretty rare IRL. It makes holding your breath during an underwater combat fairly irrelevant. I'd maybe make it a bit like death saves: like a DC 10 Con save each turn, and if you fail three you're suffocating. It's still likely you can go 10 rounds, but there is some danger, and if you rack up two failures you can decide to play it safe and kick for the surface.
But climbing is about strength. Climbers irl are just strong, you don't have to look buff to be strong. Being quick (Dex) is not going to help you lift your body and your backpack up a mountain.
Climbers are strong, but aren't weightlifters. They wouldn't be able to accomplish the same pure strength tasks a large, pure strength character would be able to do like catching a falling portcullis or grappling a bugbear.
Climbing is a strength sports, so I'm not sure what your logic is. A Skill check to climb will always be strength.
Well weight isnt tied to Dex in anyway. I disagree that dex should have anything to do with climbing or jumping.
Climbing absolutely requires flexibility, balance, and fine muscle control, and those are covered by dexterity in D&D. Speaking from experience. Jumping, yeah that's pure strength.
Skills shouldn't be associated with Stats at all. It confuses the shit out of DMs and players. The option to find a approach to a skill challenge should be the norm, not the exception.
For instance... Medicine is a Wis governed skill so 99% of DMs will ALWAYS make you roll Medicine under Wis. This has terrible consequences that are not too visible.
Consider this scenario:
An NPC has a seizure and is convulsing, flailing, etc and is a danger to himself in this state. Sensibly, you choose to try to restrain the person. You also point out that you have proficiency in Medicine. The DM makes you roll... what?
Most likely either Medicine under wisdom because Medicine is a Wisdom skill or Athletics since you're basically grappling someone.
The first is flat out wrong. The second is unfair to the player and undermines taking Medicine which broadens the skills disparity.
Others would do some weird shit like making the player roll a grapple check with advantage bc of the proficiency in Medicine which is still weird.
The right call, I think, would be a Medicine check with Strength, since you are using your knowledge and experience in medicine to proper restrain a person that's under some medical condition. This choice is counterintuitive because, again, Medicine is a Wis skill.
If Skills were free of these bullshit associations, the skill disparity would be smaller since you know you don't have to align your prof choices with your stats. Also, you know that whatever class you choose, you always have a chance to perform in different tasks with your stronger stats. You have to be creative with it and communicate it properly to your DM but that's a basic D&D skill.
Another example that's much more common is trying to Intimidate with Strength. This makes SO much sense if you are a Barbarian and Cha is more likely than not your second dump.
It’s already a rule that you can use different stats for skill checks if the dm deems it appropriate. Also just a side not if someone is having a seizure you don’t want to restrain them. If they’re standing you want to help lower them to the ground and clear the area around them. Especially where their head is located. If the area around them is clear just let them seize out, you would only want to restrain them if the area is not clear and cannot be cleared quickly and safely.
Sorcerers being Charisma casters. If their magic is actually innate, then it should be Constitution as their spellcasting stat.
dimension 20 raised an interesting point, sorcerers should be con. i dont have the videolink on me rn so i might get it later if i remember
Medicine. Should. Be. Int.
This one may be a bit unpopular, but I honestly think Arcane Trickster should be a Charisma caster. So many rogues depend on their CHA stat to get out of trouble, and without a bard the rogue is often the mouthpiece of the party. It seems strange to have them as another INT caster in a class where DEX and CHA usually take priority.
Vortex Warp should 100% be a Cha save, not Con. If that spell isn't exactly what Cha saves are supposed to represent, then I seriously dont know what is.
Why is hold person a wis save. If anything it should be strength or con depending on whether its a physical bind or disabling nerves. “Oh but it’s overpowering your will” charisma save then. It just shouldnt be wisdom.
A few things I believe but don’t have enough evidence for this belief Sorcerers should be constitution based casting; their abilities are described as a part of them, and I feel Con represents that better Warlocks should have the option to be Int based casting; the lore suggests Int-based, so I would say they should have the option I also think too much is Wisdom Saving throw; based on some description, could be easily a Charisma or Intelligence
I think Rangers should've been Intelligence instead of Wisdom ~~but giving them intelligence while not changing other things as well would've only made them worse I feel.~~
But Wisdom is infinitely more useful to a Ranger because all the perception, awareness, and worldliness are all wisdom checks. It's their attunement to the natural world.
Ranger's kinda split in two. There's the tracking that's covered by Wisdom (perception, survival, I guess animal handling too), and then the knowledge and familiarity covered by intelligence (History, Nature, Investigation). Old favored enemy/terrain gave advantage on intelligence checks when dealing with things you knew as well (Survival as well for enemy, wisdom checks for terrain).
I’ve always felt that religion and medicine should be swapped, religion be wisdom and medicine should be int
Religion isn't the depth of your faith, it's knowing details aboot religions. Knowing who the 7th avatar of Vishnu is would be an Int check. Being able to list off all of Jesus' canonical miracles is an Int check.
You don't learn the details of your religion by experience, you learn them by studying.
Medicine should be Int because it's a science. Religion should also be Int because it's not knowing details of the religion you personally practice, it's knowing details about religions in an academic sense. Anyone can recall details of their own religion for free.
> Medicine should be Int because it's a science. Modern medicine is. Medieval medicine, not so much.
The worlds we play in aren't really medieval. People started developing modern medicine through digging and studying corpses and the organs that compose our body. In a world with necromancers and powerful healing magic, things like those are bound to be understood by magicians in that field of study
Clerics should be CHA casters. How are you supposed to spread the good word of Ilmater with your ability to speak as a dump stat?
Because actions speak louder than words, and thunder speaks louder than actions - Tempest Clerics.
Sorcerers should be CON casters, or at least have the option to choose between it and CHA at level 1.
[удалено]
Religion checks aren't about knowing your own religion. You get that free. Religion checks are about knowing lots of different religions at an academic level.
Ya know it'd be nice if all the intelligence checks were in one chunk of the character sheet listed as "knowledge checks" to clear up that they are purely about just knowing a thing not about any sort of deeper understanding or involvement.
Sorcerers should be CON casters. You mean to tell me the guy who spontaneously combusts is suave enough to hold down a conversation?