Why does D and D next hate nerds?

[left]

Ask yourself, what is a nerd in D and D terms.

Answer, high int, low Char.

Now list all the classes and sub classes in the players handbook. How many have intelligence as a primary or secondary attribute. The correct answer is 1, the wizard. You may have been thinking arcane trickster or eldritch knight but you would have been wrong. They use their spell slots for buffs.

Now ask yourself how many classes or subclasses require charisma as a primary or secondary attribute. Bards, sorcerers, warlocks, paladins, swashbucklers.

Intelligence effects about the same number of skills as wisdom, charisma or dexterity. Almost no effects require intelligence as a savings throw.

Anyway, it would be nice to have some subclasses with intelligence riders. Maybe something similar to the 4e warlord. Sometimes I miss 4e.

[LeighTheDwarf]

Escapism. A lot of people with low CHA in real life wish they had high CHA.

[Tanarii]

Now list all the classes and sub classes in the players handbook. How many have intelligence as a primary or secondary attribute. The correct answer is 1, the wizard. You may have been thinking arcane trickster or eldritch knight but you would have been wrong. They use their spell slots for buffs.
An EK who doesn't use Int is giving up AoEs. That's a huge drop in power. They're also giving up really effective ranged attacks when needed if they're a Str-based EK.

An AT who doesn't use Int is giving up direct affect Enchantments, and making many of their illusions weaker too. That's a pretty big drop in power. They're also hurting their Investigation skill, which hurts their ability to deal with Traps.

Lots of other classes can benefit from tertiary Int scores for skill checks. Especially Bards, Knowledge Clerics, and Rangers, who all can Expertise (or equivalent ability) in related skills. But it's not a bad tertiary stat (paired with Int skills) for Warlocks or Druids either.

[Giant2005]

Anyway, it would be nice to have some subclasses with intelligence riders. Maybe something similar to the 4e warlord. Sometimes I miss 4e.

I disagree with your premise (personally I think nerds tend to have really high charisma) but I do agree that the game needs more classes that rely on intelligence.
The answer is homebrew. Things don't need to be official for them to be fun and now with the DMsGuild in our midst, if something is supported enough it might actually become official.
So write and publish your own fix, or review and support something else that strives to fix your issues. Now, no post is complete without a shameless plug, so I'll direct you to the homebrew named "Intelligence Matters" in my sig. Take a look - if you like it, then support it and maybe one day WotC will notice it too.

[BrianDavion]

this arguement might hold more water if the wizard wasn't one of the most powerful (if not THE most powerful) classes in D&D.

honestly I always felt the sorc and warlock where two differant versions of the same concept ultimately. if I was ever put in charge of a hypothetical 6th edition I'd proably just merge the two classes together

[Karion]

You seem to suggest that WotC took a top-down approach when designing classes and said "We hate Int, so we'll only have the wizard using that".
I'd think that they just took some classes they wanted in the game, said "What makes sense as a spellcasting mod based on the fluff", and came up with a lot of Cha casters, who cast based on their personal power (or at least that's how I interpret Charisma), Druid and Cleric using Wisdom due to their divine(-ish) nature, and the Wizard was the only one that made sense with Int (as well as EK/AT who also learn their spells). This is more of a crunch-meets-fluff consideration rather than a ballance-abilities question.
Also, we would probably get some more classes, based on Int anyways. Psionics will definitely be Int-based, for example.

[Gastronomie]

honestly I always felt the sorc and warlock where two differant versions of the same concept ultimately. if I was ever put in charge of a hypothetical 6th edition I'd proably just merge the two classes togetherPlease don't be in charge of 6th edition. Never be in charge of 6th edition. Really.
I beg you.

On Topic: For Sorcerer and Warlock, it's probably the other way around. It's not that you need to be super smexy in order to be a powerful Sorcerer or Warlock. It's actually that powerful Sorcerers and Warlocks are always super smexy due to their utter awesomeness and outstanding badassness.

[RyumaruMG]

It's not that you need to be super smexy in order to be a powerful Sorcerer or Warlock. It's actually that powerful Sorcerers and Warlocks are always super smexy due to their utter awesomeness and outstanding badassness.

Power is supposed to be attractive....

[Professor Gnoll]

Please don't be in charge of 6th edition. Never be in charge of 6th edition. Really.
Agreed. Sorcerers and Warlocks are completely different fluff wise (born with power vs. made a deal to get power) and have become highly differentiated mechanically as well. No need to merge them.

On Topic: For Sorcerer and Warlock, it's probably the other way around. It's not that you need to be super smexy in order to be a powerful Sorcerer or Warlock. It's actually that powerful Sorcerers and Warlocks are always super smexy due to their utter awesomeness and outstanding badassness.
I'll agree with you on Sorcerers, but the reason Warlocks need good Charisma is so that they can make favourable deals with their patrons to get their best powers. So you do need to be charismatic to become a powerful Warlock.

[Waazraath]

I agree with the assessment that this was probably not done on purpose as a top down design choice. Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind if one or more int based (sub)classes were added. Int is a rather weak ability this edition. Something like third edition did, where a high int gave access to more skills, would have been nice (mabye 1 extra skill or tool proficiency for every +1 modifier, though that could be a bit too strong).

[MrStabby]

Well it looks bad only because you count classes, not archetypes. If you count archetypes then int gets 8 and cha gets 10, not counting splat.

[Socratov]

and it has been the opposite for 3.5

In 3.5 Int centered classes were the strongest since 12: they had their class abilites, 2, they got free skillmonkeyism through skillpoints by intmod.

Charisma was in 3.5 the absolute worst atrribute to take. And I think that this time CHA's turn to shine, which to me is fine.

[RickAllison]

There is another reason why no one should take an Int of 8 or below: Maze. With at least 10 Int (or the Jack of All Trades feature), the person has a chance of breaking out early. With 8 or below, it becomes a 10-minute, concentration, no-save imprisonment.

[BrianDavion]

Please don't be in charge of 6th edition. Never be in charge of 6th edition. Really.
I bet you.

On Topic: For Sorcerer and Warlock, it's probably the other way around. It's not that you need to be super smexy in order to be a powerful Sorcerer or Warlock. It's actually that powerful Sorcerers and Warlocks are always super smexy due to their utter awesomeness and outstanding badassness.

well in fairness I've kinda felt sorcs kinda lost their important niche with the changes to the magic system (changes I like) and I've always had sort of mixed feelings about the warlock (I know a lot of people, including people in my gaming group who love it) as I felt a lot of the later Splatbook races and classes added in 3.5 where unnesscary bloat.

I also thematicly have mixed feelings about warlocks, as a DM I'm really not sure I wanna have one of my PCs literally be someone whose made a Faustian pact and am sure I'm not alone, so I'd rather see one class built around an "innate caster" and leave it open to the player to figure out "did I aquire this power by an accident of birth? am I in fact like this because I sold my soul to Asmodous for arcane power?" etc.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I agree with most of the people above. WotC is not trying to antagonise 'nerds' by making more classes use Charisma than Intelligence for spellcasting. They're just choosing the stat that fits the fluff.

There are plenty of subclasses that use intelligence, and they can introduce more Int-casters via psionics. Homebrew can help fill the gap, especially with the DMs Guild making it easier to access and peer-review. And at the end of the day, intelligence probably should be the least important stat for a fantasy adventurer. Nice to have, of course, but most folk can get by without it.

[Lombra]

In the party in which my character plays there's a wizard of the divination school and is rocking a 20 intelligence score: he probably is the most powerful character of the party (currently level 4)

[SharkForce]

warlocks are probably the least strong of the full casters. sorcerers had all of their best stuff given to the wizard, and then had more stuff taken away from them still, relative to 3rd edition... they've basically been given only one toy to play with (metamagic), and not nearly enough of it imo.

i find it rather doubtful that WotC is favouring charisma classes over intelligence classes.

[R.Shackleford]

Writing for intelligence is hard. Add in actual intelligence based features and you have to start writing for intelligent characters instead of leaving it up to role-playing.

[D.U.P.A.]

Escapism. A lot of people with low CHA in real life wish they had high CHA.

The problem is when DM want the player to express Cha through the character. Like how to speak when flirting and such for example, while you are not good at it in RL. Because otherwise I would be hitting chick instead of d&d :>

[Slipperychicken]

The game does almost nothing to encourage knowledge skills. This is bad because DMs are reluctant to give helpful knowledge results on their own, or else quickly tire of homebrewing an entire skill system on top of their usual duties.


If the rules explicitly rewarded knowledge skill successes with information that is unambiguously useful, such as monster strengths and weaknesses, that would make intelligence worth taking. Additionally, knowledge skills should explicitly work on monsters and other things the character has not seen or heard of before (as the character is then making educated guesses and intuition instead of recalling previously-known information), although the check should be made at disadvantage to represent that. That would make knowledge skills far more versatile and reliable.

[Toofey]

The problem is when DM want the player to express Cha through the character. Like how to speak when flirting and such for example, while you are not good at it in RL. Because otherwise I would be hitting chick instead of d&d :>

Free tip. Don't call it "hitting", no one wants to be hit.

I really don't see why people are saying the wizard is the highest power class. they get to change around their spells more but they have the same spell selection as the Sorcerer, don't get sorcery points or meta-magic. IMO as a previous 2nd ed player the blunted spell table and move away from more spell variety (1 perlevel + int is far less variety than a vancian memorizer) I find the wizard class feels quite underpowered.

That said, that's part of the tradeoff when you move to a single XP tree based system.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

I really don't see why people are saying the wizard is the highest power class. they get to change around their spells more but they have the same spell selection as the Sorcerer, don't get sorcery points or meta-magic. IMO as a previous 2nd ed player the blunted spell table and move away from more spell variety (1 perlevel + int is far less variety than a vancian memorizer) I find the wizard class feels quite underpowered.

That said, that's part of the tradeoff when you move to a single XP tree based system.

1. The Wizard spell list is probably the best in the game, particularly at high levels. Far from having 'the same spell selection as the Sorcerer', there are a vast number of spells a Wizard gets that the Sorcerer does not. The Sorcerer gets a very few spells the Wizard doesn't, but they're nothing to write home about. He can also make far better use of his long spell list, since he doesn't need to worry about blowing a precious spell known on something useless.

2. The Wizard gets better spell variety than any non-prepared caster - assuming a half-decent Intelligence, he will likely have more spells prepared than they have known. Combined with superior ritual access, this arguably puts him ahead of the other prepared full casters as well.

3. Many of the Wizards sub-class features are extremely powerful - to name a few, Arcane Ward gives a Wizard similar HP to a Fighter, Portent allows for guaranteed success or failure when convenient, Bladesinging gives the Wizard the best AC in the game, and Illusory Reality allows for reliable no-save CC with a first level spell slot.

4. The Wizard has access to Simulacrum.

If you want to break the game, the Wizard is the class you do it with.

[SharkForce]

apart from their use in powering metamagic, sorcery points are not a class feature to write home about.

sorcerers have a smaller list of spells they can choose from than wizards, fewer spells known than a *paladin* has, and their subclass features typically leave something to be desired.

wizards get arcane recovery, spell mastery, signature spell, and subclass features that are often downright amazing.

sorcerers are not terrible, and well-used metamagic can make them a bit stronger in specific situations than another caster, but generally speaking, they are not remotely close to being the strongest full caster. i could see arguing that bards or druids are as strong or potentially stronger than wizards when it comes to be being the strongest full caster, but sorcerers just are not there.

[Coidzor]

I think it's mostly because WOTC has always been afraid of having PCs who were too skilled or knew too many languages, that they removed that component from Intelligence along with a pseudo-retro proficiency system for skills.


honestly I always felt the sorc and warlock where two differant versions of the same concept ultimately. if I was ever put in charge of a hypothetical 6th edition I'd proably just merge the two classes together

Have you never read the fluff for either? Otherwise, where on earth did you get such a strange idea as inborn magical power = being granted magical power by an otherworldly force?

[manny2510]

Free tip. Don't call it "hitting", no one wants to be hit.

Unless they do.

[JackPhoenix]

Nerd (or is that a geek?) in D&D terms would be a rogue who took Expertise: Arcana, Religion, History or possibly Nature.

[evannave55]

I really don't see why people are saying the wizard is the highest power class. they get to change around their spells more but they have the same spell selection as the Sorcerer


1. The Wizard spell list is probably the best in the game, particularly at high levels. Far from having 'the same spell selection as the Sorcerer', there are a vast number of spells a Wizard gets that the Sorcerer does not. The Sorcerer gets a very few spells the Wizard doesn't, but they're nothing to write home about. He can also make far better use of his long spell list, since he doesn't need to worry about blowing a precious spell known on something useless.


Actually, if I remember correctly in 5e the wizard gets 37 unique spells (spells no other class has on their list) the sorcerer does´t have any.

[MrStabby]

1. The Wizard spell list is probably the best in the game, particularly at high levels. Far from having 'the same spell selection as the Sorcerer', there are a vast number of spells a Wizard gets that the Sorcerer does not. The Sorcerer gets a very few spells the Wizard doesn't, but they're nothing to write home about. He can also make far better use of his long spell list, since he doesn't need to worry about blowing a precious spell known on something useless.



This seems reasonable. I think the spell list is supposed to be the big feature of the wizard. To be honest I think the wizard is the class least in need of subclasses in the whole game, although I wish it were not so.

Personally I would love to see wizards be more specialised round their schools - maybe magical secrets but only select within their school and more limited access to spells outside their school.

[Easy_Lee]

Consider how many wizard subclasses there are, how many spells they get, and the popularity of the class, and 5e seems a lot more INT-friendly. With their spell list, wizards can solve any problem with just a spell or two, if they're properly prepared. And some of their spells, such as contingency and fabricate, can do ridiculous things.

From the title of the thread, I thought this was going to be a discussion of how difficult it is to combine mechanics, using these features to enhance those features and produce an advantage, in this generation compared with, say, 3.5e. But I don't mean to derail.

[BrianDavion]

The game does almost nothing to encourage knowledge skills. This is bad because DMs are reluctant to give helpful knowledge results on their own, or else quickly tire of homebrewing an entire skill system on top of their usual duties.


If the rules explicitly rewarded knowledge skill successes with information that is unambiguously useful, such as monster strengths and weaknesses, that would make intelligence worth taking. Additionally, knowledge skills should explicitly work on monsters and other things the character has not seen or heard of before (as the character is then making educated guesses and intuition instead of recalling previously-known information), although the check should be made at disadvantage to represent that. That would make knowledge skills far more versatile and reliable.

not everything needs a direct combat application. Knowledge skills are pretty handy if you're DM is running an adventure whose components consist of something more then "kill monster take it's stuff" some times those come up. and I'm sure a DM'll happily let you roll knowledge to ID a monster you may not be familer with

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Actually, if I remember correctly in 5e the wizard gets 37 unique spells (spells no other class has on their list) the sorcerer does´t have any.

The Sorcerer doesn't have any unique spells, but he does get a couple that aren't on the Wizard list (but are on other lists), like Earthquake and Enhance Ability. Still, the Wizard very much gets the better side of the deal.

[Rainbownaga]

The worst part about this, in my opinion, is they made a race with an intelligence focus. So you have a whole race that is typecast as being wizards.

[Submortimer]

I don't know that it hates nerds...wizards are, and have always been, the strongest class in the game.

[Socratov]

Actually, if I remember correctly in 5e the wizard gets 37 unique spells (spells no other class has on their list) the sorcerer does´t have any.

Then again, your Wizard is supposed to be the problem solver, but, to use a hollywood term, the sorcerer is a fixer. When all else fails the wizard can't measure up to the nova of the sorcerer. And the sorcerer (through metamagic) can do stuff not evne the high and mighty wizard can: twin spell to cast a targeted concentration spell twice on different targets.

That said, I think that sorcerers should get every metmagic, either spread out over levels, or all at once. It's not as if sorcerers can chain metamagic up the wazoo as apart from empower you can only use one at a time.

I'd like to see a few more spells knwon for the sorcerer though, maybe a one time magical secrets or something.

[SharkForce]

the sorcerer nova is not that much larger than the wizard nova. they pretty much get to add in a cantrip on top of whatever the wizard can do, and... that's about it.

twin is sorta nice, but most offensive spells can scale to twin and most buffs are not generally worth concentration (i'm not saying they're *never* worth concentration mind, but even something as good as twin haste is unlikely to be as good as throwing a hypnotic pattern in the right place. twin polymorph is, of course, hilariously strong until there are no more appropriate CR creatures)

[RickAllison]

the sorcerer nova is not that much larger than the wizard nova. they pretty much get to add in a cantrip on top of whatever the wizard can do, and... that's about it.

twin is sorta nice, but most offensive spells can scale to twin and most buffs are not generally worth concentration (i'm not saying they're *never* worth concentration mind, but even something as good as twin haste is unlikely to be as good as throwing a hypnotic pattern in the right place. twin polymorph is, of course, hilariously strong until there are no more appropriate CR creatures)

Two potent spells I can think of for Twin are Disintegrate and Power Word Kill. For a Favored Soul (Life) or a MC with bard or cleric, Twinned Healing Word is a great way to get the party back in action.

[TheProfessor85]

Why not a homebrew for warlocks. Depending on the patron, depends on the casting stat. Devil patronage is Int, Demon is Cha, and Wis for Feywild. Fluff-wise it works. Outsmarting a devil for power, charming a demoness or knowing the difference when dealing with the Fey

[SharkForce]

Two potent spells I can think of for Twin are Disintegrate and Power Word Kill. For a Favored Soul (Life) or a MC with bard or cleric, Twinned Healing Word is a great way to get the party back in action.

wizards (enchanters in particular) can twin power word kill for free.

disintegrate... eh, i'm not sold on it being a particularly great spell in general. twinned or otherwise. fairly high single-target damage that's reasonably hard to resist? you mean, like, the thing that the fighter (or barbarian, paladin, ranger, rogue, warlock, etc) can do all day every day without spending any significant resources whatsoever? i'm just not seeing the excitement. even when it's 75 damage to two targets instead of one (particularly since that's save for none, as far as i can tell, and the sorcerer just burned 6 sorcery points that could have been used in far more interesting ways).

twinned healing word is nice, i suppose, but i'd rather not build around the assumption that my party is going to routinely get into situations where i'm going to need to revive two of them per round. in fact, if that is your expectation, screw twinned healing word... you need to find something that will let your party run away, or avoid fights.

[RickAllison]

wizards (enchanters in particular) can twin power word kill for free.

disintegrate... eh, i'm not sold on it being a particularly great spell in general. twinned or otherwise. fairly high single-target damage that's reasonably hard to resist? you mean, like, the thing that the fighter (or barbarian, paladin, ranger, rogue, warlock, etc) can do all day every day without spending any significant resources whatsoever? i'm just not seeing the excitement. even when it's 75 damage to two targets instead of one (particularly since that's save for none, as far as i can tell, and the sorcerer just burned 6 sorcery points that could have been used in far more interesting ways).

twinned healing word is nice, i suppose, but i'd rather not build around the assumption that my party is going to routinely get into situations where i'm going to need to revive two of them per round. in fact, if that is your expectation, screw twinned healing word... you need to find something that will let your party run away, or avoid fights.

I will address these in reverse order!!!

Hope for the best, plan for the worst! The Bardlock is probably the more likely of the two, and he would probably have a few other tricks to go with it. For both of those MCs, Twinned Revivify or Raise Dead can save significant amounts of diamonds... Okay, the people I play with tend to get themselves into trouble and I usually have to bail them out :smalltongue:

Disintegrate... I'm trying to find some uses, and there aren't that many that couldn't be done by other methods!

How does a wizard twin PWK?

[Burley]

Without having read every reply here:

You're working assumption is that "nerds" are the only people this game is for, or that everybody who plays D&D is smart. I've played with some real bologna-heads, but I'm positive they could have thrown me through a wall, but they didn't always play as barbarians.

Also, I'm a classically trained actor and I'm a comedian and improviser. People who role-play a character well generally have decent charisma. Not all of them, sure. I'm running a game now and I had a demon climb out of the monk's mouth just so he'd shut up for a bit.
If you were to get the stereotypical popular, cool, suave people (the ones with the assumed high charisma) and tell them to make pretend they're an aged wizard, or a slimy pickpocket, or an oafish brute with a heart of gold... Dimes-to-dollars they sit there awkwardly and break immersion.

"Charisma" is a statistic that should stay in game. "Nerds" may not have the same social mores, but after sitting on the fringe, I think many learn to adapt themselves to new situations, much better than those who excel only in their comfort zone.

[Knaight]

Without having read every reply here:

You're working assumption is that "nerds" are the only people this game is for, or that everybody who plays D&D is smart. I've played with some real bologna-heads, but I'm positive they could have thrown me through a wall, but they didn't always play as barbarians.

There's also the definition of nerds as intelligent and uncharismatic, which doesn't hold to begin with. There's a set of things arbitrarily classed as nerdy, and while meaningful interest in a few of them (most of which more properly belong to other groups anyways) does take some specific skills that can be grouped into intelligence, there's plenty that doesn't - and it shows. Similarly, while uncharismatic people are disproportionately represented within nerd communities*, there are also plenty of charismatic people.

*Through the pretty typical mechanism of "groups show up more often in places not openly hostile to them".

[SharkForce]

I will address these in reverse order!!!

Hope for the best, plan for the worst! The Bardlock is probably the more likely of the two, and he would probably have a few other tricks to go with it. For both of those MCs, Twinned Revivify or Raise Dead can save significant amounts of diamonds... Okay, the people I play with tend to get themselves into trouble and I usually have to bail them out :smalltongue:

Disintegrate... I'm trying to find some uses, and there aren't that many that couldn't be done by other methods!

How does a wizard twin PWK?

bardlock is not a sorcerer. at best, it has 3 levels splashed from sorcerer (which, depressingly, gives you alarmingly close to 50% of the benefit of 20 levels of sorcerer if you're already a full caster).

like i said, disintegrate, not that amazing.

a wizard (specifically an enchanter) twins PWK because it is an enchantment spell.

[RickAllison]

bardlock is not a sorcerer. at best, it has 3 levels splashed from sorcerer (which, depressingly, gives you alarmingly close to 50% of the benefit of 20 levels of sorcerer if you're already a full caster).

like i said, disintegrate, not that amazing.

a wizard (specifically an enchanter) twins PWK because it is an enchantment spell.

Bardlock was an error, I've been thinking about warlocks a lot (Barcerer? Sorcerard?). Ahhh, I'm AFB, but that is quite a boost.

Dang, nerds have it good in this edition...

[Tanarii]

The more important question here is why does your ability to interact effectively with others, which is the 5e definition of Charisma per the PHB, drive your ability to cast spells for Bards, Sorcs and Warlocks? Even allowing for it including 'confidence' as an aspect of effectively interacting with others, that still doesn't make much sense.

As far as I can see the answer is 'it's a game don't worry about it too much'.

[RickAllison]

The more important question here is why does your ability to interact effectively with others, which is the 5e definition of Charisma per the PHB, drive your ability to cast spells for Bards, Sorcs and Warlocks? Even allowing for it including 'confidence' as an aspect of effectively interacting with others, that still doesn't make much sense.

As far as I can see the answer is 'it's a game don't worry about it too much'.

Warlock's power is based off a contract with a higher being, and higher Charisma lets him negotiate more power at the primal, contractual level. Sorcerers' magic comes from projecting their will onto the world; charisma also represents force of personality, which is why Banishment is a Cha save, it is asserting your right to be in that plane. Bards use charisma because they are pushing their personality through their heart and soul into the songs/orations that accompany their magic.

In a nutshell, the three charisma casters represent the three aspects of Charisma. They cover the ability to influence others (Warlock), your force of personality (Sorcerer), and your ability to express yourself (Bard).

[Slipperychicken]

not everything needs a direct combat application. Knowledge skills are pretty handy if you're DM is running an adventure whose components consist of something more then "kill monster take it's stuff" some times those come up. and I'm sure a DM'll happily let you roll knowledge to ID a monster you may not be familer with

That's true. I believe that the rules should more explicitly reward intelligence skills both in combat and outside it. I used monster ID because it's an obvious and intuitive example, but I think that non-combat uses are also important.


However, my gripe stems from the fact the DMs are, with notable frequency, not happy to let me roll knowledge for monster weaknesses or other things. They often allow it for a session or two, but after that they deny it saying something like "you've never seen it before", "it's nothing like anything you've ever heard of", or "you could not possibly know, regardless of your experience or training", and maintain similar excuses for nearly every monster, holy symbol, and wall-writing we see thereafter.

[RickAllison]

That's true. I believe that the rules should more explicitly reward intelligence skills both in combat and outside it. I used monster ID because it's an obvious and intuitive example, but I think that non-combat uses are also important.


However, my gripe stems from the fact the DMs are, with notable frequency, not happy to let me roll knowledge for monster weaknesses or other things. They often allow it for a session or two, but after that they deny it saying something like "you've never seen it before", "it's nothing like anything you've ever heard of", or "you could not possibly know, regardless of your experience or training", and maintain similar excuses for nearly every monster, holy symbol, and wall-writing we see thereafter.

I just think that is bad DMing. Never having seen or heard of something before is not a reason to prohibit rolling for it, it is a reason to up the DC by 5 or 10.

Are there any resources out there that have DCs for identifying creatures? If not, I think we should make a separate topic about that.

[BrianDavion]

That's true. I believe that the rules should more explicitly reward intelligence skills both in combat and outside it. I used monster ID because it's an obvious and intuitive example, but I think that non-combat uses are also important.


However, my gripe stems from the fact the DMs are, with notable frequency, not happy to let me roll knowledge for monster weaknesses or other things. They often allow it for a session or two, but after that they deny it saying something like "you've never seen it before", "it's nothing like anything you've ever heard of", or "you could not possibly know, regardless of your experience or training", and maintain similar excuses for nearly every monster, holy symbol, and wall-writing we see thereafter.


that's a problem with the GM and honestly a silly one. that said I did like how in some of the later third edition monster manuals (and only the later ones it wasn't a thing in the first one) they gave a DC chart for knowledge checks to detirmine what the player knows. but as I said that type of thing is a DM thing. D&D 5th edition is a somewhat loose system. it has some solid rules but only for stuff that really needs it like combat, by and large it CLEARLY enchourages DM creativity.

[Tanarii]

Warlock's power is based off a contract with a higher being, and higher Charisma lets him negotiate more power at the primal, contractual level.Good one. But they are also described as arcane students of lore & seekers of eldritch secrets. Int totally would have been appropriate as well.


They are also Sorcerers' magic comes from projecting their will onto the world; charisma also represents force of personalityYeah. I understand that's the theory. But I'm looking at the way the 5e PHB describes Charisma, and it talks about your ability to interact with others. OTOH I suppose 'determination' = 'force of personality', so I guess I'm really just overlooking what's written.


In a nutshell, the three charisma casters represent the three aspects of Charisma. They cover the ability to influence others (Warlock), your force of personality (Sorcerer), and your ability to express yourself (Bard).Interesting take.

[Tanarii]

Are there any resources out there that have DCs for identifying creatures?Note that none of the Lore skills cover this information anyway. It'd be a straight Int check. (One which Rangers get advantage on vs Favored Enemies.)

Edit: Generally be a straight Int check. There might be specific details of "remember stuff about a monster" that falls under a specific Lore skill.

[SharkForce]

there aren't specific "mosnter lore" skills, but most monsters would fall under some form of knowledge or other.


arcana includes a knowledge of the planes, which should extend at least somewhat to the inhabitants of said planes. as well as many constructs, which will have been made using magic. potentially even some undead (liches are created using magical rituals, after all). it could also include some other animals which are the results of magical experiments (depending on cosmology, that often includes creatures like gargoyles, manticores, owlbears, and others).

religion will most likely include information about the servants of various deities. it won't necessarily be extremely inclusive, but there's a fairly good chance that most any extraplanar creature is a servant of some deity or another (or has been worshipped as a deity themselves by a cult or whatever somewhere), and you may know things about various intelligent groups that have religions simply by the fact that you know something about their religion.

history could include knowledge about almost anything, provided it isn't a completely new unheard-of threat. in the case of specific famous individual beings, it may include quite a bit of information.

nature can easily include knowledge about any number of creatures you might find in the wilderness as part of the ecosystem. which is most of them. i mean, it's unlikely you have someone who knows all about caves, knows everything there is to know about stalagmites, but has no idea that a roper likes to pretend to be one.

now, they won't necessarily know every single detail, like what the save DC on a specific creature's poison might be (though they're likely to have a general idea of relative potency). but you should be able to get some information about almost any creature you encounter (potentially) with those 4 knowledge skills.

[Tanarii]

now, they won't necessarily know every single detail, like what the save DC on a specific creature's poison might be (though they're likely to have a general idea of relative potency). but you should be able to get some information about almost any creature you encounter (potentially) with those 4 knowledge skills.
I disagree that everything needs to be shoehorned under a lore skill. 5e encourages the use of straight ability checks for things, as opposed to forcing things to be under an existing skill.

I agree certain details of certain creatures might fall under existing Lore. Religion might tell you what kind of creatures typically serve certain deities. Arcana might tell you what creatures are natives to certain plains, or common spells associated with certain non-extraplanar creatures.

But that's a far cry from remembering all specifics of such creatures. Even if a DM allows remembering combat-related stats, which is already old edition thinking, trying to fit a creature to a skill for the check really is old edition thinking.

Edit: lol plains = planes. Otherwise it'd be Nature. ;)

[SharkForce]

knowing about the creature will most likely tell you at least a few things about how it fights. imagine finding someone who can recognize a black widow on sight, but has no clue that it is poisonous, or knows when the major battles in the US civil war were fought but has absolutely no clue whether it was fought with blowguns, pointy sticks, formations of pikemen, muskets, or the F-22 falcon.

now someone might not know exactly how many minutes it will take for black widow venom to kill you, or how to tell the difference between a confederate or union issued rifled musket (but then again, they might), or what the exact range at which an officer was expected to order their troops to fire those muskets, but they're not going to be completely clueless.

it is extremely implausible that an individual in D&D knows that something is a chain devil, knows that devils like to corrupt people into doing evil, but has no idea that it uses chains to fight with. that's just silly. they most likely have a rough idea where they fall in the devil hierarchy (which gives a rough idea on CR), that they can see in natural and magical darkness, that they are resistant to normal weapons (and possibly even what kind of weapons get past that resistance), and immune to fire (maybe also knowing about immunity to poison), and that it grapples enemies with chains that have blades on them. they probably won't know the precise DC of the escape check from the grapple, or the exact strength of a chain devil, but they're likely to know that they're quite strong (so you probably don't want to use strength saving throws on them if you have other options). they'll probably even know about the unnerving mask attack (though again, they likely won't be able to get an exact DC, though they most likely will know enough information to make a guess as to what save it is resisted with). given that it is a devil, and a common response would be to banish it, they may even have a rough idea (easy, hard, etc) of the difficulty of banishing such a creature would be.

are they going to get to know the specific numbers? probably not. but enough to know that they don't want to fight the chain devil in a room full of chains, and to be prepared for the creature to try and grapple you? well, if your DM isn't giving you at least some of that information above on a successful check, i'd say you're probably being cheated. and, i would add, it is entirely possible that you could know something about this creature as a result of a religion, arcana, or history check; any of those could apply. you might know of a historical figure that had to fight the creature and struggled with the binding chains and the terrible visage. you might know that bane has a number of chain devils serving him and that their responsibilities include capturing fleeing souls with their binding chains or even using the very fetters the miserable souls are shackled with to stop them from fleeing. you might know that they often live in planes where extreme heat and even eternally burning flames are typical, where the very air itself can be poisonous, without suffering harm. but knowing absolutely no combat-relevant information? frankly, that sounds absurdly improbable. you may not get *all* the information you would like, but you should bloody well get something.

[RickAllison]

I disagree that everything needs to be shoehorned under a lore skill. 5e encourages the use of straight ability checks for things, as opposed to forcing things to be under an existing skill.

I agree certain details of certain creatures might fall under existing Lore. Religion might tell you what kind of creatures typically serve certain deities. Arcana might tell you what creatures are natives to certain plains, or common spells associated with certain non-extraplanar creatures.

But that's a far cry from remembering all specifics of such creatures. Even if a DM allows remembering combat-related stats, which is already old edition thinking, trying to fit a creature to a skill for the check really is old edition thinking.

Edit: lol plains = planes. Otherwise it'd be Nature. ;)

I agree that creatures shouldn't necessarily be shoehorned into one skill, because different creatures could give different information based on the check done. Here is how I see things as being kind of split up:

History: Covers famous beasts and their mythical capabilities. This is the kind of check for creatures like aboleths, the tarrasque, dinosaurs, etc. This seems to be the check that gives the greatest variety of information (covering everything from myth), but the least details.

Nature: How does this creature work? What is its place in the world? This could provide very comprehensive information for natural-born creatures of nature (beasts, fey, maybe more detailed information about dinosaurs while being more specific), but isn't restricted to that. I could see it giving information about how aberrations and monstrosities relate to the world, like beholders and aboleths, but the information would be heavily restricted. I could also see it giving information on affronts to nature, like undead; in that case, it would be things like how to kill them.

Religion: Outsiders, predominantly, but other creatures could feature as well. Tales of how clerics and paladins eradicated monstrosities in the name of the gods sounds like the information gained through this. Due to the unique nature of this field of study, I feel like this one provides the least information for most creatures, but is the primary source material for the rest.

Arcana: How do creatures interact with the Weave/other magical matrix of choice?

Let me use the Tarrasque as an example, say that the scholar is trying to evaluate it for the King. He might start with a History check, finding that it was an ancient, nigh-unstoppable brute, unintelligent but indestructible. Thinking that the invincibility could be a magical effect, he tries an Arcana check, manipulating the Weave to test the beast; he finds that the tarrasque not only seems disconnected from the magic, he seems to be shutting it out. He then tries Nature, where he notices the resemblance between the beast and the tyrannosaurus. This would seem to indicate that he is predatory, fast, strong, with a bite great enough to bind smaller creatures and a powerful tail. His arms are long enough that they could still pose a potential threat, unlike the source material. He seems to have a thick carapace not unlike an ankylosaur. Depending on the DM, Religion may or may not be helpful. There might be a story about an ancient hero, but it is a toss-up.

[Tanarii]

ithey most likely have a rough idea where they fall in the devil hierarchy (which gives a rough idea on CR), that they can see in natural and magical darkness, that they are resistant to normal weapons (and possibly even what kind of weapons get past that resistance), and immune to fire (maybe also knowing about immunity to poison), and that it grapples enemies with chains that have blades on them. they probably won't know the precise DC of the escape check from the grapple, or the exact strength of a chain devil, but they're likely to know that they're quite strong (so you probably don't want to use strength saving throws on them if you have other options). they'll probably even know about the unnerving mask attack (though again, they likely won't be able to get an exact DC, though they most likely will know enough information to make a guess as to what save it is resisted with). given that it is a devil, and a common response would be to banish it, they may even have a rough idea (easy, hard, etc) of the difficulty of banishing such a creature would be.Wow. You're really generous with your Lore checks. Unless those are all Very Hard (at least) DC checks.

I prefer (both as a player and DM) to learn creatures capabilities through experience, or research. Now, Lore checks can of course represent time spent researching. But I get the feeling you're giving all this info on the fly, similar to 4e Monster Knowledge checks. To me, that's incredibly generous. And I thought it was in 4e too. I was glad to see Monster Knowledge checks removed as a default option.

[Tanarii]

I agree that creatures shouldn't necessarily be shoehorned into one skill, because different creatures could give different information based on the check done. Here is how I see things as being kind of split up:i like the way you split it up, and I think you give out similar kinds of info to that which I do on a successful check.

For things like specific combat vulnerabilities, maneuvers, or powers/spells, that's the kind of thing I'd use straight Int checks for.

[Karion]

...projecting their will onto the world; charisma also represents force of personality..
This.
It also comes with the added possibility of making a character with high charisma and poor interpersonal skills - they have a very strong personality, but lack of training means that they tend to be very polarizing among other people.

[RickAllison]

i like the way you split it up, and I think you give out similar kinds of info to that which I do on a successful check.

For things like specific combat vulnerabilities, maneuvers, or powers/spells, that's the kind of thing I'd use straight Int checks for.

For me, it would depend on the creature. For a Treant, I think everything could be obtained by a high enough Nature check (it is a tree...). I would probably give out its resistance to bludgeoning and piercing damage on a 15, vulnerability to fire on a 20, and its ability to animate trees on a 25. If Treants were particularly rare, I would boost those by 5 and maybe 10 if he party really shouldn't know them ("I rolled a 32! What do I know of this strange creature?" "It's a tree. You are fairly confident that beating it with a hammer only compacts the bark, stabbing it would be more likely to cover you in sap, and it probably is flammable." "Wait, it can throw rocks???" "It looked like a tree, how were you supposed to know it threw rocks?"). For Arcana, I would probably only give the animate trees ability on either 25 or 30, while History might tell of an old army that fought Treants, but never seemed to deal much damage to them until the cavalry arrived with their sabers, and Religion would likely give a story of such-and-such Light god burning down heretical tree-beasts. These would just be particularly easy for Nature proficiency people.

I don't like to use straight ability checks because I feel that it devalues the skill choices players make and the skills and tools are generally comprehensive enough for everything.

[Tanarii]

I don't like to use straight ability checks because I feel that it devalues the skill choices players make and the skills and tools are generally comprehensive enough for everything.I can see that.

I don't feel that there should be an assumption that everything is a Skill check (or Tool check) of one kind or another. I feel over values skills and tools, and discourages players from making checks unless they have a skills or tool.

[RickAllison]

I can see that.

I don't feel that there should be an assumption that everything is a Skill check (or Tool check) of one kind or another. I feel over values skills and tools, and discourages players from making checks unless they have a skills or tool.

I can see that, and I definitely see situations where it makes more sense, though I also feel that checks like that overemphasize bards. As for people being discouraged, tough toenails. Someone who has the proficiency has spent resources (background, class features, the better part of a year and gold) to gain that and should be better. Making straight ability checks says to a player "No, you don't get to ever become better at this. You can try, but you don't ever get to focus on this."

Ability checks I could see include a trivia contest (Int), arm-wrestling (Str), common sense (Wis, not sure why this would have to be ruled, but I'm staying open), etc. I'm not sure whether there are any Dex or Cha checks that really don't have an appropriate skill or tool.

It's more of a personal preference. I like to have the knowledge that my choices matter, that I can choose to improve in something. Straight ability checks remove that sense of choice for me.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why does D and D next hate nerds?
1. Because familiarity breeds contempt. :smallcool:

The other thing to consider on the Charisma issue: a bully can have a high charisma, in terms of being a powerful personality (a feared leader, not necessarily an admired one).

[Vogonjeltz]

well in fairness I've kinda felt sorcs kinda lost their important niche with the changes to the magic system (changes I like) and I've always had sort of mixed feelings about the warlock (I know a lot of people, including people in my gaming group who love it) as I felt a lot of the later Splatbook races and classes added in 3.5 where unnesscary bloat.

I also thematicly have mixed feelings about warlocks, as a DM I'm really not sure I wanna have one of my PCs literally be someone whose made a Faustian pact and am sure I'm not alone, so I'd rather see one class built around an "innate caster" and leave it open to the player to figure out "did I aquire this power by an accident of birth? am I in fact like this because I sold my soul to Asmodous for arcane power?" etc.

Well, also in fairness, the Warlock fulfills one of the three primary paths to magical power: Makes a compact to unlock hidden knowledge about the multiverse.

The Sorcerer fulfills a very distinct path to power: Inborn capacity.

They are not, nor should they be, conflated, lest we lose out on the meaningful variety. The Wizard is a third archetype, the scholarly pursuit.

As a DM you can always say no if something simply doesn't fit thematically with the campaign (i.e. faustian bargains) but that still leaves open room for the other kinds of Warlock (chance meeting resulting in entering into service with the fey, or research leading to maddening truths about the universe) as listed in the PHB.

[SharkForce]

Wow. You're really generous with your Lore checks. Unless those are all Very Hard (at least) DC checks.

I prefer (both as a player and DM) to learn creatures capabilities through experience, or research. Now, Lore checks can of course represent time spent researching. But I get the feeling you're giving all this info on the fly, similar to 4e Monster Knowledge checks. To me, that's incredibly generous. And I thought it was in 4e too. I was glad to see Monster Knowledge checks removed as a default option.

all of it, every time? probably not. chain devils are not terribly common (i'd almost definitely allow you to know most of what bears do, on the other hand, if you're proficient in nature, as bears are quite common).

but all of those things are fairly noteworthy pieces of information that people who have faced these enemies before are likely to have noticed. they are therefore pieces of information that someone could have written down in a book, told in a story, included in a song, etc. if someone has extensively studied the appropriate kind of information, there is a reasonable chance that they have, at some point, heard something about this creature. and a reasonable chance means it's time to bust out the dice and start rolling.

[gfishfunk]

Wow. You're really generous with your Lore checks. Unless those are all Very Hard (at least) DC checks.

I prefer (both as a player and DM) to learn creatures capabilities through experience, or research. Now, Lore checks can of course represent time spent researching. But I get the feeling you're giving all this info on the fly, similar to 4e Monster Knowledge checks. To me, that's incredibly generous. And I thought it was in 4e too. I was glad to see Monster Knowledge checks removed as a default option.

Lore checks are more of a carrot at my table. The carrot is giving them information that they can use so that they do not just approach the fight as a bash-fest but can come up with a plan or a contingency. There really is no stick, but I suppose that if the don't know much about the creature or fail to make the check, they might not realize that something is a fiend, and not an aberration or other kind of monstrocity.

I let my characters do a lore check during combat as a bonus action. I have seen and heard of anything between Lore checks are automatic and no action (you either know the info or you don't) and Lore checks take an action because all skill checks are action. I encourage my players to make lore checks and I give them information in the form of lore: you have heard a tale where such and such happened. I do not let them know the difficulty. If the roll is too low but high enough to maybe be acceptable, I might give them something incorrect and qualify it with 'but you are not sure if it is true'; I do the same with low rolls that are high enough and I give them correct info.

My players run with it. I had a group of very obviously basilisks attacking the party. One of my players lore checked it and failed miserably. "You are fairly certain that these are nothing more than feral badgers. The lizard-faces aside, you are fairly certain." The player proceeded to chastise others about being unable to handle the feral badgers, and later told towns-people that badgers were capable of turning flesh-to-stone. They listened to him because he was a bard.

[JackPhoenix]

I love giving the players information about the world, it's one of my favorite parts of being a GM. I usualy give them the option of two or more skills, depending on the circumstances, with different info from each, and often give them the information even without rolling. Each character also have access to different kind of knowledge, depending on their background.

One character is a paladin of the Silver Flame, raised in monastery. Her knowledge is mostly theoretical, as she was sheltered most of her life. Given the focus of the CotSF, she's got good knowledge of lycanthropes, native fiends (rakshasas and night hags), undead and similar monsters. Mostly rolls Religion and History.

Next is valor bard, refluffed as divine caster and an Inquisitor of the Silver Flame. She's got similar knowledge base, but is more focused on various cults, and as she's from Sharn and not Thrane like the others, often including aberrations and other monsters lurking in the city. She's also secretly a cultist of the Shadow in the Flame, and she's got almost incomparable knowledge of its servants. Mostly rolls Arcana and Religion.

The last one is aasimar favored soul sorcerer. His grandfather is an archon from Shavarath, summoned to Eberron to help Thrane in the Last War, and stayed there. As a result, the character has a great knowledge of demons, devils and archons originating from there, and also has a general interest in the planes. He doesn't care much about creatures native to Eberron, but hates fiends with passion. Mostly rolls for Arcana or History.

So if they encounter a demon, almost each of them will try a different skill, and get a different knowledge even with the same roll

[RickAllison]

Lore checks are more of a carrot at my table. The carrot is giving them information that they can use so that they do not just approach the fight as a bash-fest but can come up with a plan or a contingency. There really is no stick, but I suppose that if the don't know much about the creature or fail to make the check, they might not realize that something is a fiend, and not an aberration or other kind of monstrocity.

I let my characters do a lore check during combat as a bonus action. I have seen and heard of anything between Lore checks are automatic and no action (you either know the info or you don't) and Lore checks take an action because all skill checks are action. I encourage my players to make lore checks and I give them information in the form of lore: you have heard a tale where such and such happened. I do not let them know the difficulty. If the roll is too low but high enough to maybe be acceptable, I might give them something incorrect and qualify it with 'but you are not sure if it is true'; I do the same with low rolls that are high enough and I give them correct info.

My players run with it. I had a group of very obviously basilisks attacking the party. One of my players lore checked it and failed miserably. "You are fairly certain that these are nothing more than feral badgers. The lizard-faces aside, you are fairly certain." The player proceeded to chastise others about being unable to handle the feral badgers, and later told towns-people that badgers were capable of turning flesh-to-stone. They listened to him because he was a bard.

The way my DM and I run it is players can make one lore check at the start of an encounter of their choice, representing the knowledge that you can immediately and reflexively recall. After, it takes an action as you are actively recalling the information.

So in a battle against a sphinx, a wizard might think Arcana, but not roll well enough to get useful information by that means. He figures he might have heard about it in a story somewhere (History), but he has to take the time to actually recall it.

Edit: Do also note that we rather firmly enforce the 6-second round. It's great to recall some information on the fly about creatures, but you only have six seconds of speech per round to communicate with your teammates. Like when we fought some succubi and my wizard rolled over a 30 on his lore check and just got to consult the MM. He had every little detail in front of him (we mocked that he had spent a LOT of time studying that particular type of demon :smallwink:), but he had to communicate the most important pieces of information in short chunks.