What would happen if Warlocks were Int-based?

[Sans.]

Any thoughts?

[Drackolus]

Well, this is what Jeremy Crawford thinks. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/16/why-are-warlock-charisma-casters/)
I tend to agree.
The only thing that would be different, really, is that warlock becomes a better multiclass for wizards. I don't think that really breaks anything. Metamagic is what makes Sorlock so good, but Wizard doesn't have that. Eldritch Knights would love that 2-level dip maybe. If they use a ranged weapon, specifically. But I don't think that's too much of an abuse either.

[Foxhound438]

It would certainly make the 3 levels of sorcerer for quicken a lot harder to justify, which I think would be a good thing for the game, as it's widely regarded as the most broken thing in the game, as the way it is now it requires no stat sacrifice and minimal resource investment for some of the best DPR in the game. Wizard doesn't have anything that screams "broken combo material" with warlock multiclasses (else we would see more MC builds trying their hardest to get the 13 in whichever stat is worse); perhaps I'm missing something, maybe something like necromancer x/ warlock 5 for short rest animate dead, but if you really wanted you can already do that with non-variant human no problem.

Flavor wise, I can see either stat working: charisma because you have to convince an otherworldly being to bestow power on you, int because the blurb definitely implies that they study arcana for their powers.



TL;DR: it'd be fine, perhaps even good.

[KnotaGuru]

Well, this is what Jeremy Crawford thinks. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/16/why-are-warlock-charisma-casters/)
I tend to agree.
The only thing that would be different, really, is that warlock becomes a better multiclass for wizards. I don't think that really breaks anything. Metamagic is what makes Sorlock so good, but Wizard doesn't have that. Eldritch Knights would love that 2-level dip maybe. If they use a ranged weapon, specifically. But I don't think that's too much of an abuse either.

So JC is blaming the fans? INT would be a nice change imo. Could even change the invocation that gives proficiency in persuasion & deception to INT based skills.

[MeeposFire]

Well, this is what Jeremy Crawford thinks. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/16/why-are-warlock-charisma-casters/)
I tend to agree.
The only thing that would be different, really, is that warlock becomes a better multiclass for wizards. I don't think that really breaks anything. Metamagic is what makes Sorlock so good, but Wizard doesn't have that. Eldritch Knights would love that 2-level dip maybe. If they use a ranged weapon, specifically. But I don't think that's too much of an abuse either.

Actually since high int is not really needed for an EK (though having it can be rewarding and helps make your spell diversity greater) it is already simple to go high cha and use EB with war magic. It works really well especially if you mix in some rogue.

[Dudu]

Warlocks with high Int would see the that the bargain would not be worth it, therefore never being warlocks. :smallbiggrin:

I don't know how Int would work, though. But I do find it mechanically interesting. Right now, there are 3 full Cha casters, 2 full Wis casters and 1 full Int caster. Having Warlock tied with Int instead would make it 2/2/2. And Warlock/Wizard could be a viable, flavourful multiclass.

[Steampunkette]

Let it be either.

Allow characters to be charismatic enough to make a bargain with fiends or seduce arch fey with their charms, or smart enough to research elder evils without losing their minds while being cunning enough to write a contract with a devil or leprechaun that favors themselves.

Let your players choose at chargen which they want to be.

[gkathellar]

It'd mostly just change multiclass synergies. Bardlock, Sorclock, and Paladlock would fall out of favor, while Wizlock would become more popular. That's basically it.


Warlocks with high Int would see the that the bargain would not be worth it, therefore never being warlocks. :smallbiggrin:

Right, they'd know that Wizard is the better choice. :smallbiggrin:

[Logosloki]

Well, it would make them a bit more MAD to gain access to Agonizing Blast, as well as making multiclass options closer to Fighter/Wizard/Rogue rather than Paladin/Bard/Sorcerer.

It would bring the warlock back to the more historical roots (summoning Demons requires attention to detail in rituals designed to placate, contain and gain from the summoned rather than needing to risk yourself in any sort of peky trickery) rather than the modern fantasy version (you sold your soul, you sold your soul nananana you sold your soul and now I am going to be a douche about it).

[Theodoxus]

Warlocks with high Int would see the that the bargain would not be worth it, therefore never being warlocks. :smallbiggrin:

That's more an aspect of Wisdom than Int...

[Joe the Rat]

One engages in deep scholarly study to learn spells. The other engages in deep scholarly study to find an entity to give them the knowledge of spells.
But there is the issue that nothing in the current iteration of Warlock requires you to be the one to seek out these deals. They can come to you. Like Lending Tree.
I would love to see more Int-based casters. I would love to see an Int-based Pact Magic caster. But it doesn't have to be the Warlock.


That's more an aspect of Wisdom than Int...Indeed. Intelligence might get you a better contract, but it's still a bad idea.

[Tanarii]

That's more an aspect of Wisdom than Int...
Not 5e Wisdom. It doesn't have any more to do with good decision making than Int does.

Int includes deductive ability, so it can analyze the best decision.
Wis includes gut feelings, so it can feel out the best decision.

But 5e Wisdom has almost nothing to do with real world wisdom, which is usually taken to mean something like common sense or insightful.

[Beelzebubba]

5e Wisdom has almost nothing to do with real world wisdom, which is usually taken to mean something like common sense or insightful.

PHB page 12

Wisdom: Measures: Awareness, intuition, insight

:smalltongue:

[Tanarii]

PHB page 12

Wisdom: Measures: Awareness, intuition, insight

:smalltongue:
Likewise, Insight doesn't have anything to do with that kind of being insightful. Only with the kind that means 'understanding what makes a person tick', or even more limiting 'are they lying'.

Edit: It's worth noting that the PHB pg 12 'measures' descriptions actually are flat out wrong for several of the abilities, once you go read what they actually are used for later in the PHB. Either that, or (like the wisdom case) they're using a game meaning of a word like Insight, and not a more general meaning.

[Cybren]

So JC is blaming the fans? INT would be a nice change imo. Could even change the invocation that gives proficiency in persuasion & deception to INT based skills.

It's hardly "blaming the fans", he's just saying that they made a decision based on market desire.

[Cybren]

Likewise, Insight doesn't have anything to do with that kind of being insightful. Only with the kind that means 'understanding what makes a person tick', or even more limiting 'are they lying'.

Edit: It's worth noting that the PHB pg 12 'measures' descriptions actually are flat out wrong for several of the abilities, once you go read what they actually are used for later in the PHB. Either that, or (like the wisdom case) they're using a game meaning of a word like Insight, and not a more general meaning.

I think it's the opposite, you're confusing the games Insight skill with the generic use of 'insight'.


Let it be either.

Allow characters to be charismatic enough to make a bargain with fiends or seduce arch fey with their charms, or smart enough to research elder evils without losing their minds while being cunning enough to write a contract with a devil or leprechaun that favors themselves.

Let your players choose at chargen which they want to be.

I considered this for an upcoming game, or tying each of the subclasses to a specific ability score, but I think I'm just going to make them solely an int class. There's too many cha casters as is imo

[Tanarii]

I think it's the opposite, you're confusing the games Insight skill with the generic use of 'insight'.Wisdom, if you go read the chapter on Ability Scores, doesn't actually have anything to do with the generic use of 'insight'. How is pointing out that they are two different things, and the ability score has nothing to do with one of them, in any way confusing them?

[Flashy]

It does make the agonizing blast dip a heck of an option for Eldritch Knights.

[Tanarii]

It does make the agonizing blast dip a heck of an option for Eldritch Knights.
It'd be especially attractive for ranged EKs after going 7 levels for War Magic.

[Dr.Samurai]

Let it be either.

Allow characters to be charismatic enough to make a bargain with fiends or seduce arch fey with their charms, or smart enough to research elder evils without losing their minds while being cunning enough to write a contract with a devil or leprechaun that favors themselves.

Let your players choose at chargen which they want to be.
Vote Steampunkette for Lead Design!!!

Yeah, I agree 100%. I'd definitely prefer to have my GOO tomelock be intelligence-based rather than charisma based.

[Cybren]

Wisdom, if you go read the chapter on Ability Scores, doesn't actually have anything to do with the generic use of 'insight'. How is pointing out that they are two different things, and the ability score has nothing to do with one of them, in any way confusing them?

I think you're making a mistake in confusing game mechanical instances where you'd roll the ability check with the full breadth of what the ability score measures.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, the either or would have been great.

Cha seems appropriate for a cult-leader-type, ie with the Charlatan background (per the PHB quick-build), working to put together a following for her patron. Whereas Int is definitely feels more appropriate to the delver-into-eldritch-lore type. And the PHB archetype seems to cover both.

OTOH it's possible to go to far in that kind of thinking. It's how you end up with people arguing that Clerics should be Cha-based, because proselytizing.


I think you're making a mistake in confusing game mechanical instances where you'd roll the ability check with the full breadth of what the ability score measures.
I am not. I'm reading what the PHB *says* the score represents, in the actual ability score chapter, along with the various mechanical checks it covers
"Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition."
+ checks for being attuned to the world around you (Animal Handling, Survivival, Medicine), Perception, and Insight (in regards to people), and gut-senses (general intuition).

Nothing about common-sense decision making, nor cosmic insight. Which is what people often conflate with wisdom (the generic thing), and thus try to apply to a high Wisdom (the ability score).

(I'm guessing I should have been clear when I wrote it the first time, and called it 'cosmic insight' right off the bat.)

[King539]

Let it be either.

Allow characters to be charismatic enough to make a bargain with fiends or seduce arch fey with their charms, or smart enough to research elder evils without losing their minds while being cunning enough to write a contract with a devil or leprechaun that favors themselves.

Let your players choose at chargen which they want to be.

I agree. I very much agree.

[Cybren]

Yeah, the either or would have been great.

Cha seems appropriate for a cult-leader-type, ie with the Charlatan background (per the PHB quick-build), working to put together a following for her patron. Whereas Int is definitely feels more appropriate to the delver-into-eldritch-lore type. And the PHB archetype seems to cover both.

OTOH it's possible to go to far in that kind of thinking. It's how you end up with people arguing that Clerics should be Cha-based, because proselytizing.


I am not. I'm reading what the PHB *says* the score represents, in the actual ability score chapter, along with the various mechanical checks it covers
"Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition."
+ checks for being attuned to the world around you (Animal Handling, Survivival, Medicine), Perception, and Insight (in regards to people), and gut-senses (general intuition).

Nothing about common-sense decision making, nor cosmic insight. Which is what people often conflate with wisdom (the generic thing), and thus try to apply to a high Wisdom (the ability score).

(I'm guessing I should have been clear when I wrote it the first time, and called it 'cosmic insight' right off the bat.)
The ability score section isn't all inclusive. It specifically uses the language that it might cover those things.

[Tanarii]

The ability score section isn't all inclusive. It specifically uses the language that it might cover those things.Are you talking about what each ability score says it measures, or what the skills cover, or what other ability checks they might be used for? Because I'm talking about what Wisdom (the ability score) measures, per the PHB, vs what people think wisdom (colloquially) is.

[Cybren]

Are you talking about what each ability score says it measures, or what the skills cover, or what other ability checks they might be used for? Because I'm talking about what Wisdom (the ability score) measures, per the PHB, vs what people think wisdom (colloquially) is.

I'm talking the full breadth of what the ability score represents within the game world, which is explained in the brief summary at the beginning of the book. The description of what the ability scores are used for is a non-inclusive list of suggestions for when you might want to roll the ability check, and the list of skills are list of things that adventurers might have specific training in to broadly represent the kinds of things a person might learn over their life.

[Tanarii]

I'm talking the full breadth of what the ability score represents within the game world, which is explained in the brief summary at the beginning of the book.They're actually explained in Chapter 8, underneath each ability score, at the beginning of each one. The summary on page 12, as I pointed out, is slightly off.


The description of what the ability scores are used for is a non-inclusive list of suggestions for when you might want to roll the ability check, and the list of skills are list of things that adventurers might have specific training in to broadly represent the kinds of things a person might learn over their life.I agree.

None of what you're saying changes my point. BOTH what Wisdom is said to measure, AND what Wisdom is actually used to make checks for explicitly, do not directly cover the common interpretation of wisdom (colloquially) as either common sense nor making good decision. Except as I noted in my original post.

[Cybren]

They're actually explained in Chapter 8, underneath each ability score, at the beginning of each one. The summary on page 12, as I pointed out, is slightly off.

I agree.

None of what you're saying changes my point. BOTH what Wisdom is said to measure, AND what Wisdom is actually used to make checks for explicitly, do not directly cover the common interpretation of wisdom (colloquially) as either common sense nor making good decision. Except as I noted in my original post.



Wisdom
Measures: Awareness, intuition, insight.

Intuition and insight are common sense. Their use of insight there is clearly not a game mechanical use of the skill Insight, as that hasn't been introduced yet. Notice how the strength one says "natural athleticism"

[Tanarii]

Intuition and insight are common sense
No. That's not what common sense is. Now I understand why you're continually objecting. Common sense is either:
1) the thing that makes sense to the majority of people
2) good decision making and sound judgement

[Cybren]

No. That's not what common sense is. Now I understand why you're continually objecting. Common sense is either:
1) the thing that makes sense to the majority of people
2) good decision making and sound judgement

I mean, common sense is one of those terms that doesn't really have any particular meaning. Colloquially common sense usually just means "I want to make someone with more education than myself feel bad about a mistake they made". But if we're using that definition of common sense than no ability score reflects it

[MeeposFire]

It'd be especially attractive for ranged EKs after going 7 levels for War Magic.

Funny enough it already is.

[KorvinStarmast]

I wish they'd have gone with their gut and used Int.
Arcana, Lore, History, etc ... Warlocks as people with a never ending thirst for knowledge ... but a different niche than Wizards.

[Tanarii]

I mean, common sense is one of those terms that doesn't really have any particular meaning. Colloquially common sense usually just means "I want to make someone with more education than myself feel bad about a mistake they made". But if we're using that definition of common sense than no ability score reflects it
It has a particular meaning. Two in fact. It's just one of those terms that's regularly misused by people. Like 'logically'. People constantly misuse it to mean 'this thing that makes the most sense to me'. And 5e D&D Wisdom isn't really common-sense, ie sound or good decision making.

However, I'll concede that despite my seeing it as not generally 'cosmically' insightful, it kind of is. By which I mean seeing into the Truth of the Universe and uttering apt Sayings / Proverbs at the appropriate time, ie the wise-man sitting on top of a pole / mountain top. But generically 'insight' just means seeing to the core of things. So I stand corrected on that by you and Beelzebubba.


Funny enough it already is.
Generally speaking it's better to go to level 10 and instead pick up a saving throw cantrip. Advantage on those puts them on par with EB, especially when you take into account having to dip 2 levels and pump Cha.

(Edit: combined two posts into one.)

[Consensus]

Warlocks with high Int would see the that the bargain would not be worth it, therefore never being warlocks. :smallbiggrin:

That would be if warlock was a WIS caster, and not INT. Not to mention you can be plenty intelligent and lazy too :smalltongue:

EDIT: didn't read the whole thread before responding and thus was ninja'd before I ever posted.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

Common thought brought in as a tangent:


Warlocks with high Int would see the that the bargain would not be worth it, therefore never being warlocks. :smallbiggrin:


and...


Indeed. Intelligence might get you a better contract, but it's still a bad idea.

Not necessarily so at all!

Not all pacts are contracts at all. Like real pacts, they are often mutually beneficial.

Pact A...
Fiend: Here, take this awesome power of destruction! All I ask is that you use it. No, no, I won't *force* you to do anything with it you didn't want to do. I am utterly confident in your incorruptibility.

Pact B...
Warlock-to-be: You mean that I'll be able to blast all those phony hypocrites who think they're so much better than me, and all you demand is that I do so, especially those darned interfering kids? Cool!

Pact C...
Warlock: Ha! I so got the better of this deal! I get incredible power, and all I have to do is say Mwub-mwub at least once a week.
Smeewmasferh, the Guardian of the outer frmblgh and gmerlxrlings: (roughly translated) My best arrangement yet! I have done nothing other than blmexicate, and have gained total mwub-mwub-glemeghi!

Pact D...
Warlock: After years of research and meditation, I have aligned myself with the Great Names of Sambataligatiel and Tzumishedai-Nigru-Pashtalin-Bneu, dwellers in the mimetic planes, unsullied by the innate imperfection of the material. Only now do I begin to understand! My powers are incidental. I can see! I can see!
S&TNPB: <don't notice anything at all, being unsullied by the innate imperfection of the material>

Anyway,

Ken

[Millstone85]

The weird thing is that Charisma seems to be treated as the intuitive spellcasting ability.
With bards, you could say their powers rely on an audience.
With warlocks, it can be connected to the bargaining aspect.
But then you have sorcerers and here it is all about willpower.

I like to imagine these classes actually replace their Charisma with magic.
The musicality of their voice, their devilish smile, their energetic temperament...
None of it is actually them. Not the mundane part of them anyway.

[Cybren]

Hi,

Common thought brought in as a tangent:



and...


Not necessarily so at all!

Not all pacts are contracts at all. Like real pacts, they are often mutually beneficial.

Contracts are by definition mutually beneficial, else you wouldn't sign them. An exchange of something is actually necessary for a contract to be legally binding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration

[Millstone85]

Warlocks with high Int would see the that the bargain would not be worth it, therefore never being warlocks. :smallbiggrin:Alternatively, having both high Int and an interest in Arcana, they would already be wizards.

[Tanarii]

Alternatively, having both high Int and an interest in Arcana, they would already be wizards.The intro text for Warlocks strongly suggests that many of them are in effect Wizards ... that instead took the easy route to power, or delved into 'forbidden' eldritch powers.

[Steampunkette]

Vote Steampunkette for Lead Design!!!

Yeah, I agree 100%. I'd definitely prefer to have my GOO tomelock be intelligence-based rather than charisma based.


I agree. I very much agree.

We've kind of gotten to the point where we acknowledge that Fighter Types can shift around their combat stats between Dex and Str. Why not let Arcane Casters choose between Intelligence and Charisma?

Have Divine Casters choose between Wisdom and Charisma.

It'd be a neat change!

[Drackolus]

We've kind of gotten to the point where we acknowledge that Fighter Types can shift around their combat stats between Dex and Str. Why not let Arcane Casters choose between Intelligence and Charisma?

Have Divine Casters choose between Wisdom and Charisma.

It'd be a neat change!

I've been tempted to allow any casting class to use any mental stat, but my fear is that wisdom is generally a better stat overall (due almost entirely to perception and major saves). My table probably won't ever abuse that anyway, so it's probably not a real supported fear in my particular case.

[Ruslan]

Any thoughts?
Sorcerers, Bards and Paladins would suddenly place high value on their souls and no longer sell them out for two levels of Agonizing Blast. Wizards, on the other hand, would cackle madly as their summon Fiends, Fey or eldritch abominations to deal with.

[Ovarwa]

Contracts are by definition mutually beneficial, else you wouldn't sign them. An exchange of something is actually necessary for a contract to be legally binding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration

Spoken by someone who has never signed a 'service' agreement with Comcast!

[toapat]

I've been tempted to allow any casting class to use any mental stat, but my fear is that wisdom is generally a better stat overall (due almost entirely to perception and major saves). My table probably won't ever abuse that anyway, so it's probably not a real supported fear in my particular case.

and then you discover that a paladin with Proficiency and Divine Grace and +5 Wisdom when hit with modify memory just reverse the spell onto the caster

[BurgerBeast]

Contracts are by definition mutually beneficial, else you wouldn't sign them. An exchange of something is actually necessary for a contract to be legally binding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration

This is patently false. Worse, the opposite is true. If they were mutually beneficial, they would never need to be signed. The reason you sign them is to guarantee that the other party will continue to honour the arrangement even after they start thinking the arrangement is not beneficial.

Contracts are merely evidence that someone thought they were getting a good deal at the time they signed it. It's really not hard to point to situations (real-life, literary, or imagined) in which someone (a) felt like the other party got a bad deal, and was content with it or (b) regretted the deal because their perceptions changed.

[Cybren]

This is patently false. Worse, the opposite is true. If they were mutually beneficial, they would never need to be signed. The reason you sign them is to guarantee that the other party will continue to honour the arrangement even after they start thinking the arrangement is not beneficial.

Contracts are merely evidence that someone thought they were getting a good deal at the time they signed it. It's really not hard to point to situations (real-life, literary, or imagined) in which someone (a) felt like the other party got a bad deal, and was content with it or (b) regretted the deal because their perceptions changed.

That's not what "patently false" means

[DanyBallon]

We've kind of gotten to the point where we acknowledge that Fighter Types can shift around their combat stats between Dex and Str. Why not let Arcane Casters choose between Intelligence and Charisma?

Have Divine Casters choose between Wisdom and Charisma.

It'd be a neat change!

I think one the reason why it's not available as well to spellcaster, is that fighting type using Dex over Str will favor range attack or fight in melee with lighter weapon that deal less damage overall. Where as for a spellcaster using a different attibute, only the fluff will change, mechanically everything else would be the same.
An other idea would be that using an alternate ability would alter the effectiveness of their spell (i.e. spell DC is from regular ability, or no proficiency with alternate ability, etc.)

P.S. one more reason to let only fighting type able to choose between Str and Dex; Martials can have nice thing too! :smallwink:

[Misterwhisper]

I think one the reason why it's not available as well to spellcaster, is that fighting type using Dex over Str will favor range attack or fight in melee with lighter weapon that deal less damage overall. Where as for a spellcaster using a different attibute, only the fluff will change, mechanically everything else would be the same.
An other idea would be that using an alternate ability would alter the effectiveness of their spell (i.e. spell DC is from regular ability, or no proficiency with alternate ability, etc.)

P.S. one more reason to let only fighting type able to choose between Str and Dex; Martials can have nice thing too! :smallwink:

Also because nobody would ever pick int as their casting stat considering how many so much better skills their are in wisdom and charisma.

[Theodoxus]

Also because nobody would ever pick int as their casting stat considering how many so much better skills their are in wisdom and charisma.

:smallconfused:

My last 4 characters have all excelled in Int based skills - primarily because no one else tends to pick them (though the amnesiatic barbarian in one party grabbed all the Int skills sans Nature and made me kinda sad...)

My favorite MC at the moment is a level of Knowledge domain with another full caster. And warlocks are, surprisingly, the sole class that isn't Bard (and can choose from any skill) that gets access to all 5 Int based skills. Wizards don't get access to Nature natively.

Not that it's hard to grab all the skills from backgrounds and races... but I've never seen a PB Bard or Warlock that didn't dump Int - and even rolled stats, Int is still likely to be the lowest or second lowest attribute.

So, I guess on the surface I can see your point, but I know in games I run, I tend to provide a lot of information with knowledges and find a party of dummies to be less fun to run than one that has a least a bit of skilled differentiation.

[Submortimer]

It generally works out fine. My Enhanced Warlock patron (http://www.middlefingerofvecna.com/2015/11/the-enhanced.html) does this exact thing, though it does the change at level 6 instead of level one: less appealing for a wizard dip that way.

[Ninja-Radish]

What would happen if Warlocks were Int-based?

They'd be alot smarter. Ba dum bum.

[Astofel]

If warlocks were Int-based instead of the standard tiefling warlock we'd have gnome warlocks.

[Arenabait]

It generally works out fine. My Enhanced Warlock patron (http://www.middlefingerofvecna.com/2015/11/the-enhanced.html) does this exact thing, though it does the change at level 6 instead of level one: less appealing for a wizard dip that way.

I'm looking at the abilities listed here and... So you want me to build a Megaman warlock? Because I'll build a Megaman warlock.

[Kane0]

But dont tieflings also get an int boost?
Not to say i dont encourage more gnomes...

[rollingForInit]

So JC is blaming the fans? INT would be a nice change imo. Could even change the invocation that gives proficiency in persuasion & deception to INT based skills.

"Blame" is a bit harsh, isn't it? :P They listened to the fans, not really blaming, that.


I've played an INT-based Warlock once. It broke absolutely nothing. Was fun.

[mephnick]

Sorcerers, Bards and Paladins would suddenly place high value on their souls and no longer sell them out for two levels of Agonizing Blast..

I've made EB scale by warlock class level only and no one can talk me out of it. I'm considering banning multi-classing with warlock altogether unless it's the last class you take.

I actually like multi-classed characters, but even I can't justify an actual RP reason for a warlock "dip".

[Ruslan]

I've made EB scale by warlock class level only and no one can talk me out of it. I'm considering banning multi-classing with warlock altogether unless it's the last class you take.

I actually like multi-classed characters, but even I can't justify an actual RP reason for a warlock "dip".I was toying with this idea as well. Once you make a pact with the devil, you must stick to it ... he's not going to just release you to keep progressing your musical talents ...

[JakOfAllTirades]

I think it's interesting that when a major change to the Warlock class such its primary spellcasting attribute is under discussion, the #1 issue it raises is multi classing, which seems to have as much to do with other classes as with the Warlock itself. I'm starting to understand why multi classing is an optional rule in 5E, and I'm starting to think the game would be better off without it.

But everyone loves them some multiclassing so I know better than to try and talk them out of it. LOL

Now about Int-based Warlocks: the single classed variety. They'd no longer be the party "face" unless they go seriously MAD to do so. They'd compete with Wizards for the role of the party "know-it-all" instead. Considering the Warlock's class skill list has a good number of Int based skills, they'd excel in this role. They'd also be better at Investigation, and they'd finally be able to make proper use of the Contact Other Plane spell. I mean, why is that spell on a Charisma caster's spell list at all, and was there ever a Warlock who didn't look at that one and say "Oh **** no, let the Wizard take that one!" Spells which use Charisma checks (Friends, Charm Person, Glibness) will be less useful to an Int-based Warlock.

My personal impression is that the Warlock loses at least as much as he gains by switching to Int, possibly more. But I'll admit to being biased in favor of playing "face" characters. For players who like to be a spellcaster with all the answers, rather than a spellcaster who always knows what to say, the Int-based Warlock would be a lot of fun to play.

Steampunkette's idea of letting Warlocks choose gets a vote from me as well.

[BurgerBeast]

That's not what "patently false" means

Um... yes it is.

[Cybren]

Um... yes it is.

Well, no, because that some people misuse contracts does not change the purpose of contracts, which is to provide a clear record of something two parties agree to. And the two parties agreed to because there's some mutual benefit. Contracts signed under duress or deception are typically invalid. "mutually beneficial" does not mean "equally mutually beneficial".

[Millstone85]

The intro text for Warlocks strongly suggests that many of them are in effect Wizards ... that instead took the easy route to power, or delved into 'forbidden' eldritch powers.The way the class is now, I can see some warlocks having been 0th-level wizards. That's how they got proficiency in Arcana and first learned of their patron. But then they realized they didn't really have the brains for wizardry, or just gave up on their education, and took that other route.


I actually like multi-classed characters, but even I can't justify an actual RP reason for a warlock "dip".I believe the easiest to justify is warlock of the Archfey for a paladin of the Ancients. Obviously, your patron is one of the fey before whom you swore your oath. You might have started as a mercenary working for a kingdom of the Feywild, or as what some would call a shaman or a witch, but later found yourself truly committed to the brightest side of nature. Or you could have been blessed with divine power but also a touch of arcane magic, as befits a fey knight.

Also pretty flavorful is warlock of the Great Old One for a wild magic sorcerer. Your exposure to the Far Realm has changed you, given you powerful but erratic abilities, that you have then mastered mostly by yourself. But at times, you have heard a whisper deep within the magic and followed it.


Once you make a pact with the devil, you must stick to it ... he's not going to just release you to keep progressing your musical talents ...Interestingly, the PHB mentions some bards owing their musical gift to a hag. I am quite fond of the idea of applying this to other classes. Training to be a fighter is hard, please make it easier for me.

In any case, why would gaining non-warlock levels release you from the pact you made? It is more a question of developing the power you were given. If you don't, why would the devil care? Or perhaps each new level is its own contract. If you sold your loyalty at level 1, your first born at level 2, and your soul at level 3, what do you have left to offer for level 4?

[Tanarii]

The way the class is now, I can see some warlocks having been 0th-level wizards. That's how they got proficiency in Arcana and first learned of their patron. But then they realized they didn't really have the brains for wizardry, or just gave up on their education, and took that other route.Agreed. That seems to be one of the strongly implied origins for Warlocks. Another being kind of a cult-leader. It's a pretty strong archetype with a lot of heavy 'flavor', and Int would have worked just fine for a lot of the flavor.

I don't allow multiclassing in my current campaign. But Wizard --> Warlock is certainly a good one for any campaign where multiclassing is effectively a career change, at least from a thematic perspective.

[NNescio]

What would happen if Warlocks were Int-based?

Sorcs will cry.

You will also see more Wizards going Magic Initiate: Warlock to pick up Eldritch Blast.

(Wizlocks are not going to be as common as Sorlocks though, because the Wiz chassis by itself is already very good and doesn't need shoring up unlike the Sorc. That said Illusionists do get some powerful synergy with early at-will illusions via Invocations.)


The way the class is now, I can see some warlocks having been 0th-level wizards. That's how they got proficiency in Arcana and first learned of their patron. But then they realized they didn't really have the brains for wizardry, or just gave up on their education, and took that other route.

Warlocks are Wizards who dropped out of Wizard College, this is canon now.

[Millstone85]

Warlocks are Wizards who dropped out of Wizard College, this is canon now.Or as immortalised by TV Tropes... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnEqualRites)
A wizard being called a sorcerer is sort of like having a PhD and someone telling you that you only managed to graduate because you have natural talent.

A wizard being called a warlock is like having a PhD and being told you only managed to graduate because you gave the dean a quickie in the alley behind the movie theater.

[BurgerBeast]

Well, no, because that some people misuse contracts does not change the purpose of contracts, which is to provide a clear record of something two parties agree to.

This is one type of contract, for a single, immediate transaction, and it is the one that is most justifiable.

There is a big difference between this and a contract that arranges for future transactions. The dynamic completely changes.


And the two parties agreed to because there's some mutual benefit. Contracts signed under duress or deception are typically invalid.

There can only be a perceived mutual benefit. There are no crystal balls.


"mutually beneficial" does not mean "equally mutually beneficial".

No ****. But when one side does not benefit, there is no mutual benefit.

[Honest Tiefling]

Warlocks with high Int would see the that the bargain would not be worth it, therefore never being warlocks. :smallbiggrin:

You're thinking of wisdom there. Wisdom is common sense, intelligence is knowing things. And how many scientists have you known or heard of do incredibly stupid things in the pursuit of knowledge? Such as how artificial sweeteners were invented. There's a reason a mad scientist is a trope.

And call me old-fashioned, but I'd like to see the stat one uses to warlock tied to either their patron or to their pact for higher level games. Not only could a DM pick out combos a little better, but the stat could be tied to the fluff with some offering a choice.

Then again, I wouldn't be opposed to a Wisdom based warlock, one who gains power from an ancient oath they feel from within, a pact they never made, but accept. One they tap into from introspection and understanding of themselves. But then again, I have been playing a lot of Baldur's Gate of late.

(Rasaad is my husbando)

[Sception]

I actually like multi-classed characters, but even I can't justify an actual RP reason for a warlock "dip".

Really? You can't see paladins of tyranny or treachery, already very much aligned and often drawing their powers from fiends, augmenting that power with a pact of service to a specific fiend? You can't see Ancients paladins, who have a similar general connection to fey and forest spirits having a similar relationship to a partiular fey patron?

And you can't see sorcerers who draw their magic from a supernatural heritage tracking down the source of their arcane bloodline to forge a more direct connection to it?

Or a spellcaster of any type delving too deeply into the secrets behind magic itself and coming away with an undesired but unbreakable connection to an unknowable alien entity?

Or a eldritch knight or paladin of vengeance forging a pact with the awakened intelligence of a legendary blade to further their quest to exterminate evil?

Or an especially gifted but naive bard drawing the attention of a high ranking fey patron of the arts, and foolishly bargaining away an eternity playing for the amusement of the fey courts in the afterlife in exchange for supernatural talent and secret knowledge of strange and wondrous fey stories and songs in their mortal life?

I can see plenty of reason for small warlock dips, fluff wise.


Anyway, gameplay-wise the main difference, apart from aforementioned multiclassing preferences, is that warlocks will be more knowledgeable (better at history, arcana, religion, and so on), and less charismatic (worse at diplomacy, deception, performance, etc).

Since I see warlocks more as the holders of secret forbidden knowledge obtained from their otherworldly patrons, knowledge that taints their personality rendering them slightly alien and offputting, I think being int based is a better fit for them, but that's really a subjective, aesthetic choice.

[Steampunkette]

Or you could skip the whole "Making a pact with a dark power" fluff and just have it be a different way the character advances their "Main Class" a bit.

A sorcerer getting a couple of short-rest recharging slots and other abilities based on their heritage. A Paladin whose god gives them a bit more -magical- power rather than straight up combat abilities for a level. A fighter who learns a little magic on the side.

Don't get me wrong, the Warlock Fluff is cool as hell. But you don't -HAVE- to use it.

[mephnick]

I can see plenty of reason for small warlock dips, fluff wise..

All of those fit my "unless it's the last class they take" exception of my post. 2 levels of bard and then 18 levels of warlock? No problem.

But no, a patron is not going to let you take a 2 level dip and then abandon them just because you want agonizing blast.

[Sception]

Who says the patron abandoned them? They're still the patron. The pact is still there. The fey patron who took enough interest in the bard's musical talent to ensnare their soul isn't going to complain about the bard continuing training in the same skils that attracted the patron's interest in the first place. The fiendish patron who takes on a dark paladin to do their bidding in the mortal realms isn't going to object to that mortal instrument advancing their strength as an antipaladin alongside their warlock powers. The warlock doesn't "get away" or "get out of" the pact by doing so.

Heck, from the written fluff description of the warlock, the patron has everything they want out of the relationship at level one. The pact is already made. If the warlock only dips instead of taking the entire class, then the patron still has just as much claim to their soul, and only had to offer two levels of power in return instead of many.

If anything, warlock patrons in-universe should prefer warlocks who just dip, as they're getting a better bargain on those souls, the same return for far less investment.

[Millstone85]

But no, a patron is not going to let you take a 2 level dip and then abandon them just because you want agonizing blast.
The warlock doesn't "get away" or "get out of" the pact by doing so.That's what I said earlier. I would like to know how mephnick came to equate an early warlock dip with cheating the patron in any way.


Heck, from the written fluff description of the warlock, the patron has everything they want out of the relationship at level one.It does raise the question of how leveling up in the warlock class works.

If the relationship is like that of a god and a cleric, you are obviously being rewarded or judged worthy of more power. And the fluff of the pact boon does say that "your otherworldly patron bestows a gift upon you for your loyal service". But then, the warlock taking levels in another class is indeed a better return on investment for the patron.

Now, in a more transactional relationship... Is each level a development of the power you were given? Is each level a new pact with higher and higher stakes?

It makes for different stories.

[Tanarii]

That's what I said earlier. I would like to know how mephnick came to equate an early warlock dip with cheating the patron in any way.IMX the majority of AL players that dip warlock effectively 'fluff' the patron right out of the pact. At least in any meaningful way.

[mephnick]

That's what I said earlier. I would like to know how mephnick came to equate an early warlock dip with cheating the patron in any way.
.


IMX the majority of AL players that dip warlock effectively 'fluff' the patron right out of the pact. At least in any meaningful way.

Yeah, that's what I mean. In my experience, a 2 level warlock dip means the whole patron thing will not be focused on by the player at all, because it's a dip and they aren't going to base their RP concept around it when they're really just wanting to roleplay a bard or paladin. If you try to enforce the fluff they get frustrated that it's a small part of the character and shouldn't be focused on. Warlock dips are the closest thing in 5e to 3.5's a la cart power grabbing through multiclassing without any thought of how the character could have actually got there.

[JobsforFun]

Warlocks with high Int would see the that the bargain would not be worth it, therefore never being warlocks. :smallbiggrin:

I don't know how Int would work, though. But I do find it mechanically interesting. Right now, there are 3 full Cha casters, 2 full Wis casters and 1 full Int caster. Having Warlock tied with Int instead would make it 2/2/2. And Warlock/Wizard could be a viable, flavourful multiclass.

It can be worth it in some ways, hen Varsuvius took the soul splices (they're kind of like a warlock getting powers from a ptron) she/he is a wizard and has high intelligence and he/she did it. (Point I am really making is sometimes it can be worth the risk.

[Honest Tiefling]

Yeah, that's what I mean. In my experience, a 2 level warlock dip means the whole patron thing will not be focused on by the player at all, because it's a dip and they aren't going to base their RP concept around it when they're really just wanting to roleplay a bard or paladin. If you try to enforce the fluff they get frustrated that it's a small part of the character and shouldn't be focused on. Warlock dips are the closest thing in 5e to 3.5's a la cart power grabbing through multiclassing without any thought of how the character could have actually got there.

Try talking to the player? I would worry that they are simply more loose with the class interpretation then you are, causing some frustration. Some people just RP the abilities, and not the class they came from, which I think is a valid approach...As long as everyone is on the same page. Such as Steampunkette's suggestion of RPing it as more sorcererous or divine power. Which is obviously not happening.

Also, it wasn't too long ago there was a giant thread about warlocks being super special spotlight-hogging snowflakes. I wouldn't be surprised if they were actively trying to downplay it so they would fit into the party or group better. Is there a chance that the player expected the DM to telegraph some hints as to when the patron would be a part of the plot? I could see a warlock happily blasting away, ignoring the patron until a plot hook reeled them back in, forcing them to ask the party for help.

People also RP different amounts of involvement with the patron, some think the patron will dictate every move, while others believe some patrons play the long game and view the warlock as a minor investment with a potentially high pay-off. Why bother telling the warlock what to do when you get the soul anyway?

[Submortimer]

I'm looking at the abilities listed here and... So you want me to build a Megaman warlock? Because I'll build a Megaman warlock.

Do you not?

Honestly, Warforged Warlocks have always been Mega Man in my head, so I build something to accommodate that!

[Millstone85]

Yeah, that's what I mean. In my experience, a 2 level warlock dip means the whole patron thing will not be focused on by the player at all, because it's a dip and they aren't going to base their RP concept around it when they're really just wanting to roleplay a bard or paladin.But then it has nothing to do with how difficult it would be to properly roleplay a character with a mix of warlock and another class levels. Your players are just not interested in the warlock part beyond the mechanics.

[Captain Morgan]

It can be worth it in some ways, hen Varsuvius took the soul splices (they're kind of like a warlock getting powers from a ptron) she/he is a wizard and has high intelligence and he/she did it. (Point I am really making is sometimes it can be worth the risk.

Pretty questionable example there, given that A) V had other options and B) there have been a ton of negative consequences to that deal.

[Desamir]

I played with an Intelligence Warlock in the party once; it wasn't much different.


You will also see more Wizards going Magic Initiate: Warlock to pick up Eldritch Blast.

Without Agonizing Blast, EB is only marginally better than other Wizard damaging cantrips. Probably not worth a feat.