Warlocks: Charisma or Intelligence?

[Amechra]

Alright, so here's something that I'm seriously debating: should I houserule Warlocks to be Intelligence-based instead of Charisma-based?

On a flavor basis, I'm kinda weirded out that Warlocks are all super-charismatic - I think it makes them much closer to Sorcerers than I like.

On a mechanical basis, Warlocks kinda suffer from being too good as a dip class for the other Charisma-based casters. I don't have Eberron, so the only Int-based caster I'd have to worry about is the Wizard, who doesn't have the Paladin or Sorcerer's "burn spell slots for fun and profit" abilities, which are really what make the Warlock so tempting.

Is there anything else I'm forgetting? Does this suddenly make races that should be excellent Warlocks suck at it? (Tieflings still get a bonus to Intelligence, Drow are Dex/Cha, which is annoying for this...)

[CheddarChampion]

I prefer player's choice. Int or Cha at their option.
That way you can get a delver into secrets flavor or a magical dealmaker flavor.

[RickAsWritten]

Don't quote me on this, but I believe the playtest/original design of the Warlock was to be Intelligence-based, so that change shouldn't hurt anything. It's an option that I allow my players.

[Composer99]

Flavour wise, drow tend to go in for Lolth worship or wizardry, so I think the fact that they're not the best warlocks isn't a problem.

[UnintensifiedFa]

Your way works pretty well, and I could see a case being made for INT being a Warlock casting stat. (Sure a highly charismatic being could negotiate a better pact, but a Highly Intelligent one can find the loopholes in their existing one).

On the balance side, it really doesn't affect much, it's a decent amount weaker on the multiclass side, and probably slightly weaker for a single class (CHA skills are generally more useful than INT). But if you ran this and I was your player, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it.

This does bring up some interesting things about changing spellcasting abilities, for instance.


A WIS based sorcerer, possibly an "anointed" soul. One who chose their god and their god chose them back, granting them their powers but also having a direct connection. (Like a cleric)
A CHA based Cleric/Druid. Your highly charismatic speech allows you to better commune with (nature spirits/your god) for your powers.
An INT based Bard, you use intelligently crafted orations (cough ted talks cough) to help your allies and point out the flaws in your oppositions strategies, and have a masterful understanding of music theory.
A WIS based paladin, who is basically a battle cleric.
A CHA based ranger, who uses the above justification for a Druids powers.
An INT based sorcerer, who finds himself to be a scientific anomaly against the regularities of magic, and studies his powers to see their true nature and better harness them.



Heck, we already have DEX and STR as functionally interchangeable stats for many martial classes, why not allow this sort of functionality for caster classes.

I might start a thread for this, it's kinda fun. :smallbiggrin:

[Keravath]

If warlocks were an int caster my wizard would dip 2-3 levels of hexblade in an instant :)

Warlock is a good dip for any class that matches the primary stat. However, charisma works for bard, sorcerer, swashbuckler and paladin while intelligence is really only associated with wizard, arcane trickster and eldritch knight so there is less synergy as an int caster.

For a home game, it might give you a different mix of multiclasses and might be fun. I don't think it would break anything.

[stoutstien]

I allow switching out Cha,int, and Wis as primary casting stat for all casters but they cant multiclass if they do.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Warlocks get their magic by bargaining with other-worldly creatures, which pretty much requires Charisma.

The 2-level dipping as a multi-class option would be a bit less popular if Eldritch Blast was a class feature based on Warlock class level instead of a cantrip based on character level. Although some patrons (Hexblade, ugh!) would still be front loaded enough to make it worthwhile.

[TripleD]

Heck, we already have DEX and STR as functionally interchangeable stats for many martial classes, why not allow this sort of functionality for caster classes.

I might start a thread for this, it's kinda fun. :smallbiggrin:

I’ve been tossing that around in my head for a while. One of the things I’m hoping for in 6e is INT, WIS and CHA to function for magic similar to how STR, DEX, and CON are to combat (i.e. each governs in a subtlety different way).

The biggest problem now is that the differences between DEX and STR are baked into the system as a whole. Weapons, armor, and even combat actions themselves make a distinction between the two. A DEX based fighter who dumps STR is going to play very differently than a STR based fighter who dumps DEX.

There is no such distinction for the magic system. From the point of view of the spells there is only a Spell Save DC and a to hit value, and it doesn’t care which stat they come from. We can talk about role playing, and that’s a valid point, but other than a few skills you could swap the casting stat of any of the casters and they would play the same. There is no crunch to back it up.

One idea I’ve been mulling on is making certain spell schools depend on INT, and others depend on WIS, similar to how weapons depend on STR and/or DEX. CHA would become a more defensive stat is the magic system, but I’m not quite sure how to factor it in.

This would be a radical change to the magic system though, and there would be have to be rewrites in almost every part of the game.

[Anderlith]

I would do it based on Patron. Faelock is Cha, GOOlock is Int, etc.

[Lunali]

I allow switching out Cha,int, and Wis as primary casting stat for all casters but they cant multiclass if they do.

I think I'd modify that to allow mutliclassing, but switching a stat switches it for all classes that use those two stats.

[Tanarii]

Warlocks get their magic by bargaining with other-worldly creatures, which pretty much requires Charisma.
They also get their power by delving into eldritch research.

Well, some of them do. Cult Leader type warlocks make more sense as Cha. Faustian warlocks make more sense as scholarly types turned bad.

[JakOfAllTirades]

They also get their power by delving into eldritch research.

Well, some of them do. Cult Leader type warlocks make more sense as Cha. Faustian warlocks make more sense as scholarly types turned bad.

Faust also bargained for power. He's practically the archetypal pact-maker.

[Addaran]

Faust also bargained for power. He's practically the archetypal pact-maker.

You may be the best bargainner, without intelligence, you won't spot the loop-hole or double-cross that malevolant/tricky entity putin the deal. Going for extreme, the 3 int and 18 cha warlock might get insane powers, but miscalculated that he'll go to hell when the next planets alignment happen, which is next week not in a century.

[16bearswutIdo]

You may be the best bargainner, without intelligence, you won't spot the loop-hole or double-cross that malevolant/tricky entity putin the deal. Going for extreme, the 3 int and 18 cha warlock might get insane powers, but miscalculated that he'll go to hell when the next planets alignment happen, which is next week not in a century.

Right, but he's still obtained his power through bargaining/charisma. There's nothing in the warlock fluff that means their deal needs to be fair, balanced, or beneficial in a cosmological sense to the Warlock.

OP, it's your game, but Warlocks have always been a charisma caster since introduction. Their entire fluff and lore is about their making deals with supernatural entities for power. Also fluff-wise, a sorcerer is BORN with innate magical powers whereas a Warlock has a bargain which grants them powers. Saying they overlap because both use Cha is a bit like saying Druid and Cleric overlap with each other because they both use Wis.

[Warlush]

As a DM I address the problem of CHA multiclassing by putting heavy role play restrictions on multiclassing. Your Paladin of vengance can't multiclass Hexblade if they can't find a way to contact a patron. And my players can't just decide to multiclass sorcerer. I decide that. Based on in game events. You wanna multiclass Bard? Better apply for college bro, same with wizard.

As for an Int based Warlock, I agree if the player wants to try it be my guest. I also love the Idea of a CHA cleric and a WIS sorcerer.

[Ravinsild]

Your way works pretty well, and I could see a case being made for INT being a Warlock casting stat. (Sure a highly charismatic being could negotiate a better pact, but a Highly Intelligent one can find the loopholes in their existing one).

On the balance side, it really doesn't affect much, it's a decent amount weaker on the multiclass side, and probably slightly weaker for a single class (CHA skills are generally more useful than INT). But if you ran this and I was your player, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it.

This does bring up some interesting things about changing spellcasting abilities, for instance.


A WIS based sorcerer, possibly an "anointed" soul. One who chose their god and their god chose them back, granting them their powers but also having a direct connection. (Like a cleric)
A CHA based Cleric/Druid. Your highly charismatic speech allows you to better commune with (nature spirits/your god) for your powers.
An INT based Bard, you use intelligently crafted orations (cough ted talks cough) to help your allies and point out the flaws in your oppositions strategies, and have a masterful understanding of music theory.
A WIS based paladin, who is basically a battle cleric.
A CHA based ranger, who uses the above justification for a Druids powers.
An INT based sorcerer, who finds himself to be a scientific anomaly against the regularities of magic, and studies his powers to see their true nature and better harness them.



Heck, we already have DEX and STR as functionally interchangeable stats for many martial classes, why not allow this sort of functionality for caster classes.

I might start a thread for this, it's kinda fun. :smallbiggrin:

Hey...that's a good point!

[Jophiel]

Right, but he's still obtained his power through bargaining/charisma. There's nothing in the warlock fluff that means their deal needs to be fair, balanced, or beneficial in a cosmological sense to the Warlock.
That goes both ways, doesn't it? You can be a charismatic bargainer and fail to correctly read a contract. You can read a contract like a champ but be less likely to talk someone out of their starting position. All that's required of a Warlock is that they made some sort of bargain. It can be the kind where (per the PHB) they get away with doing "minor favors between adventurers" or the kind of agreement where the Patron/DM gets to constantly jack the Warlock around. No one says that being a warlock means you smoothly negotiated yourself into a great deal.

You can make a deal as a silver-tongued used car salesman or make a deal as a dry, stodgy attorney.

[16bearswutIdo]

That goes both ways, doesn't it? You can be a charismatic bargainer and fail to correctly read a contract. You can read a contract like a champ but be less likely to talk someone out of their starting position. All that's required of a Warlock is that they made some sort of bargain. It can be the kind where (per the PHB) they get away with doing "minor favors between adventurers" or the kind of agreement where the Patron/DM gets to constantly jack the Warlock around. No one says that being a warlock means you smoothly negotiated yourself into a great deal.

You can make a deal as a silver-tongued used car salesman or make a deal as a dry, stodgy attorney.

I doubt that most games have a literal paper contract that the Warlock signs. The only patron that makes sense for is fiends - imagine a GOOlock reading through a 30 page contract written by Cthulhu. Hilarious, but probably not very fitting. In your examples, either way the PC has used their charisma in forming the pact. Forming the pact is a social interaction. The entire idea is that a Warlock is able to bargain through force of will with sources of magic that researchers (wizards) don't. It's a pretty core component of the Warlock class, always has been.

Like I said, it's ultimately OP's game and his call. But fluff-wise, a warlock is vastly different than a sorcerer due to one being innate and one being conditional. And crunch-wise, his problem can be avoided by the old adage "balance to the table." Ensure your Paladin/Sorcs don't dip into Hexblade and outshine the rest of the party, or bump the rest of the party up.

To put it another way, what's OP gonna do if it turns out Wizard/Warlock keyed off Int turns out to be as strong as it sounds? Bladesinger/Hexblade sounds like it'd be far stronger than a Paladin/Lock would be

[Dienekes]

Faust also bargained for power. He's practically the archetypal pact-maker.

Yeah but Faust didn’t actually set up the deal, the demon made the deal and tricked him to agree. Faust’s primary attribute is pretty clearly Int. While the Doctor Faustus impels the demon into the agreement by learning base magic through book learning again Int.

Really the only stat you most certainly can’t tie to the bargain is Wisdom.

[Jophiel]

I doubt that most games have a literal paper contract that the Warlock signs. The only patron that makes sense for is fiends - imagine a GOOlock reading through a 30 page contract written by Cthulhu. Hilarious, but probably not very fitting.
No, I'd think that a GOO warlock got there by studying and researching forbidden eldritch texts, not by smooth-talking Cthulhu and saying "Cthulhu, pal, *taps temple* this baby will hold so many invocations. It'd be a shame to let you go home without this but I'll tell you what I'm gonna do so long as you promise not to tell my manager..."

In reality (such as it is), I'd assume most pacts are the Patron laying out terms and the warlock either accepting or staying as a level 0 nobody. The idea that some neophyte warlock with his 14 or 16 charisma is going to sweet talk your demon prince or fey trickster lord or archangel or ancient forgotten god-being into new terms is sort of ridiculous.

Really the only stat you most certainly can’t tie to the bargain is Wisdom.
Arguably a healthy amount of Insight would be helpful.

[Spiritchaser]

Man_over_game has done quite a bit on alternative primary attributes in his thread here

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23638903&postcount=1

[16bearswutIdo]

No, I'd think that a GOO warlock got there by studying and researching forbidden eldritch texts, not by smooth-talking Cthulhu and saying "Cthulhu, pal, *taps temple* this baby will hold so many invocations. It'd be a shame to let you go home without this but I'll tell you what I'm gonna do so long as you promise not to tell my manager..."

In reality (such as it is), I'd assume most pacts are the Patron laying out terms and the warlock either accepting or staying as a level 0 nobody. The idea that some neophyte warlock with his 14 or 16 charisma is going to sweet talk your demon prince or fey trickster lord or archangel or ancient forgotten god-being into new terms is sort of ridiculous.


The exact terms of your pact are between you and your DM, but ultimately obtaining the pact is a social interaction thus Warlocks have obtained their magic through charisma. If the DM wants to change the fluff in his world, he can, but the fluff has very consistently been "Warlock has made a bargain with an outside force, thus obtaining arcane powers." Studying and researching magic text to learn spells is (almost literally) the textbook definition of a Wizard. They even make it a big deal with Pact of the Tome that your Patron has gifted you with a spellbook with rudimentary spells to study.

As an aside, this is why I partially dislike what they did with Warlocks in 5e. Giving them "invocations and spells" instead of "invocations and spell-like abilities" was a mistake IMO.

[Chaosticket]

Charisma based casting is always debatable. All the Arcane Magic is supposed to require understanding the mechanics of the universe, so Intelligence fits well.

Charisma is a casting stat makes you a "Magical Thug" which fits very well thematically. Sorcerers dont know how their magic words, they were just born with it like Marvel Mutants.

Warlock magic also fits that way. They just bought their powers from a Patron.

That actually fits the multiclassing theme well too. You can just Buy some Warlock Powers, just hope your Patron doesnt come calling.

[Dienekes]

Arguably a healthy amount of Insight would be helpful.

I should have been more specific. I was still talking about the Fausts, all of which presents the deal as varying degrees of self destructive which I think means they probably had a penalty in the old Wisdom department.

[Jophiel]

Studying and researching magic text to learn spells is (almost literally) the textbook definition of a Wizard. They even make it a big deal with Pact of the Tome that your Patron has gifted you with a spellbook with rudimentary spells to study.
But that's not what the (INT) warlock is doing. He's not researching the arcane formula to cast fireballs, he's reading up on how to summon an extraplanar power and make the appropriate sacrifices/agreements to get the power to throw fireballs without all that memorizing arcane formula hassle.

I'm well aware of that the 5e fluff is, I just don't think it's very good or fitting fluff in a lot of scenarios where a warlock could come to power.

[Spiritchaser]

From a conceptual point of view, I really don’t see a problem with int warlocks. At least in regards to celestial warlocks, wisdom could make perfect sense as well.

For single class characters I really don’t see too much of an issue.

For MC, yes there could be issues...

[P. G. Macer]

I let one of my players play an INT-based warlock in a campaign; so far it’s caused no problems, and since it’s The Great Old One Patron, INT fits better thematically than Charisma.

In said campaign, the player also had the option of playing a RAW CHA-warlock, but he chose to experiment.


But that's not what the (INT) warlock is doing. He's not researching the arcane formula to cast fireballs, he's reading up on how to summon an extraplanar power and make the appropriate sacrifices/agreements to get the power to throw fireballs without all that memorizing arcane formula hassle.

While that is a valid interpretation, another valid one is the relationship of a warlock and patron being like that of a student and teacher, in which case the Patron instructs the warlock (off-screen) on how to work their spells, invocations, and sometimes other abilities.

[chainer1216]

Gnomes being mechanically the best race for warlocks would be funny.

[Dienekes]

I let one of my players play an INT-based warlock in a campaign; so far it’s caused no problems, and since it’s The Great Old One Patron, INT fits better thematically than Charisma.

In said campaign, the player also had the option of playing a RAW CHA-warlock, but he chose to experiment.

Honestly, don't see why it would be a problem. Int is usually considered a worse stat than Cha in 5e. And it's not like multiclassing with Wizard or Eldritch Knight would somehow be stronger than Paladin/Bard/Sorcerer.

[PhantomSoul]

Honestly, don't see why it would be a problem. Int is usually considered a worse stat than Cha in 5e. And it's not like multiclassing with Wizard or Eldritch Knight would somehow be stronger than Paladin/Bard/Sorcerer.

Really the main one to watch would probably be Bladesinger / Hexblade multiclasses, I suppose.

[Luccan]

It eliminates a caster Dragonborn can be decent at. Gnomes now make some of the best Warlocks, if that matters. In addition to losing Dark Elves, you're moving High Elves into making decent Warlocks.

Warlocks combo well with Paladin and Sorcerer, but on there own there's nothing wrong with them being Charisma casters. You're basically trading out their comboing with Pally and Sorc to comboing with Wizard. Not that I'm aware of any exploits with that, but if Warlocks had always been Int based I'm sure people would be aware of some. That or Warlock combos well regardless and changing its casting to Int won't have as much of an impact as you're hoping for. Do you roll stats or use point buy? If you're just looking to discourage dips, you could just directly tell your players you don't want them taking Warlock just for power purposes.

I'm of the opinion Warlocks being Charisma casters is fine fluff-wise. They made a deal and are infused with a foreign power they must control through strength of character. Naturally, they can make a deal that at least somewhat serves them (hence progressively getting more power even though they already sold their soul/family/whatever; they persuaded whatever entity to keep empowering them after the deal was done). That all speaks to a Cha-focused character to me.

Something else that might work: at level 1 of Warlock, select one of the three mental stats as your casting stat for the class. This replaces (or remains) Charisma for any class effects involving your own Charisma score. At level 3, this also determines your pact boon:

Intelligence is Tome, through your deal you sought knowledge and this empowers you in that regard.
Wisdom is Blade, your iron will is now wrought as a physical weapon not just a mental one.
Charisma is Chain, your force of personality allows you to bind a servant who is more powerful than other familiars.
Talisman from the new UA might be the alternative option for any stat.

[Theodoxus]

One idea I’ve been mulling on is making certain spell schools depend on INT, and others depend on WIS, similar to how weapons depend on STR and/or DEX. CHA would become a more defensive stat is the magic system, but I’m not quite sure how to factor it in.

This would be a radical change to the magic system though, and there would be have to be rewrites in almost every part of the game.

I've been working on this too - though currently still a mental problem, nothing written down.

I'm thinking something like:

Abjuration: Wis
Conjuration: Cha
Divination: Wis
Enchantment: Cha
Evocation: Int
Illusion: Int
Necromancy: Wis
Transmutation: Int

[TripleD]

I've been working on this too - though currently still a mental problem, nothing written down.

I'm thinking something like:

Abjuration: Wis
Conjuration: Cha
Divination: Wis
Enchantment: Cha
Evocation: Int
Illusion: Int
Necromancy: Wis
Transmutation: Int

Similar to my mental list, although I didn’t use CHA.

It’s the defensive CHA that is really giving me trouble. Unlike CON, there isn’t a magic equivalent to “Hit Points”, and I don’t feel like tacking yet another box to keep track of on the character sheet is going to help things.

I’ve thought about tying concentration saving throws to CHA instead (since it is your force of will keeping them active) but I’m not sure if that would be enough to make it worthwhile for casters to invest in.

[Dienekes]

Similar to my mental list, although I didn’t use CHA.

It’s the defensive CHA that is really giving me trouble. Unlike CON, there isn’t a magic equivalent to “Hit Points”, and I don’t feel like tacking yet another box to keep track of on the character sheet is going to help things.

I’ve thought about tying concentration saving throws to CHA instead (since it is your force of will keeping them active) but I’m not sure if that would be enough to make it worthwhile for casters to invest in.

Honestly, always felt mental hit points is sort-kinda the equivalent of the old Will Saving Throw. So I've always pegged it as being Wisdom dependent.

[Slipperychicken]

On a flavor basis, I'm kinda weirded out that Warlocks are all super-charismatic - I think it makes them much closer to Sorcerers than I like.

It's because warlocks get their power from establishing and maintaining a relationship with their patron. Even if it's governed by contract, the social aspect is still a big deal in terms of wiggle room and discretionary parts of the contract. Key words include deal, pact, bargain. Those are undeniably social acts at the center of warlock lore.

High charisma = patron likes the warlock more = patron gives very slightly more power to the warlock = slightly higher save DCs, spell attack modifier, etc. Simple as that.

Of course there's nothing stopping you from using different lore which might emphasize learning, knowledge, and pattern-recognition over social skills (i.e. if the warlock uses obscure means to compel power from his unwilling patron instead of bargaining). If you go with that, then switching to intelligence should be fine.

EDIT: And if the complaint is that all warlocks are super charismatic, for worldbuilding you might consider having poorly-suited warlocks exist; some poor bastard with 7 charisma who somehow squeaked past the rituals needed to gain the patron's power. Same way that you might have a foolish cleric, a weak fighter, a slow rogue, or a dim-witted wizard. After all, player characters are supposed to be exceptional and well-suited to their role. Not everyone is naturally gifted in what they do.

[Arkhios]

Don't quote me on this, but I believe the playtest/original design of the Warlock was to be Intelligence-based, so that change shouldn't hurt anything. It's an option that I allow my players.

But I will, because it's true. Crawford mentioned this on a very old tweet at around the time PHB was first released. I dislike twitter myself and can't be arsed to go search for the exact tweet, but the gist of his tweet was that DM's should feel free to make the swap from charisma to intelligence for warlocks (for all circumstances, including saving throw proficiency) because it doesn't affect balance in any way. You could even read from between the lines, that the choice of Charisma over Intelligence was mostly arbitrary.

NOTE: Tweets aren't official rules, not even official rulings, but rather, designers' own house rules and/or opinions that carry no additional weight towards anything. But as often is the case, this tweet serves as an unofficial approval and affirmation from the Lead Designer that the swap is OK.

[Teaguethebean]

There are 3 crazy good wizard with 1 level of warlock builds that would be made very enticing. First the bladesinger Hexblade with maxed int for casting attacking and ac, second the Hexblade 1 evoked 10 with Hexblades curse your magic missiles do 1d4+1+int+prof so at lv 11 they could do 12.5 per dart, and finally the abjuration wizard with armor of agathys when they are hit arcane ward takes damage first so armor of agathys gets extra hits in on the enemy, admittedly not an op strat as the new mark of Warding dwarf can do it but the evoker and bladesinger are now very strong.

[Tanarii]

Quotes from the PHB:

Warlocks are seekers of knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the universe.

Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as fey nobles, demons, Devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power.

Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power, which compels them into their pacts and shapes their lives.

And sometimes, while poring over tomes of forbidden lore, a brilliant but crazed student's mind is opened to realities beyond the material world and to the alien beings that dwell in the outer void.

Warlocks clearly have a strong association with backgrounds of being a delver into forbidden knowledge, scholars even. Given the PHb class introduction, it's very surprising they didn't make them an Int class. They don't stay that way once they get power though:

Once a pact is made, a warlock's thirst for knowledge and power can't be slaked with mere study and research. No one makes a pact with such a mighty patron if he or she doesn't intend to use the power gained. Rather, the vast majority of warlocks spend their in active pursuit of their goals, which typically means some kind of adventuring.

Cue the newly level 1 warlock who just made their Pact joining a rag-tag group of PCs. And since they're no longer scholarly, having their power driven and advanced by force of personality makes sense.

This just cries out to make a PC that starts as a high Int middling Cha Warlock Sage with a Great Old One patron, who delved into the secrets of the distant stars and the things that dwell among them, but advances Cha (and thus power) with ASIs once she's abandoned her studies in pursuit of power though adventuring.

Edit: also worth noting, warlocks are the only class that gets all 5 Int-based skills as class skills.

[Lavaeolus]

But I will, because it's true. Crawford mentioned this on a very old tweet at around the time PHB was first released. I dislike twitter myself and can't be arsed to go search for the exact tweet, but the gist of his tweet was that DM's should feel free to make the swap from charisma to intelligence for warlocks (for all circumstances, including saving throw proficiency) because it doesn't affect balance in any way. You could even read from between the lines, that the choice of Charisma over Intelligence was mostly arbitrary.

I can't link it because I don't have enough posts yet, but I remember the tweets. So for the curious, here's the text, assuming we're thinking of the same thing:

Warlocks used Charisma in previous editions. Playtest feedback wanted that carried forward. (Our preference was to use Intelligence.) #DnD

[would anything be broken by house ruling it as Intelligence?]

No.

Of course, this was back in December 2016. If I had concerns now, it'd probably be with multiclassing Hexblade and Wizard, but that's mainly down to Hexblade generally being a bit frontloaded.

I will speak a bit in favour of INT Warlocks thematically here. It's true that Warlocks gain powers from Patrons, etc. and I think Charisma is a fine stat for that, but it's also true that I don't think that means they strictly should need to be CHA either. The scholar who masters the occult and researches forbidden lore is one classic image I could think of, and one that's alluded to in the Warlock description.

Especially for more esoteric Patrons, the 'Patronship' of the Warlock doesn't necessarily have to be a strict, literal agreement. The man who dives into forbidden lore to harness something eldritch could be an INT Warlock, or the man who masters various occult practices to bind or otherwise 'tame' and negotiate with devils. Negotiation itself doesn't have to be Charisma-based either, I think. As an example, using the variant rule that opens up skills a bit more, I could feasibly ask for a Intelligence (Persuasion) check were someone to try to argue a point of law in court. Arguments and deals aren't decided solely on force of personality, after all; that helps, but so does basic reasoning ability.

[Genoin]

House ruling that ALL warlocks are Int based is unequivocally wrong. However, giving each warlock a choice (made at character creation) isnt that bad of an idea. Just watch out for stuff like a Bladesinger with 1-2 level hexblade dip.

[Arkhios]

House ruling that ALL warlocks are Int based is unequivocally wrong. However, giving each warlock a choice (made at character creation) isnt that bad of an idea. Just watch out for stuff like a Bladesinger with 1-2 level hexblade dip.

Well, if it gives more love for Int-based classes, let them come! ;)

[Laserlight]

I'd allow it. "Apprentice wizard who became a warlock to skip all the tedious studying" seems reasonable. And last year I played a couple of levels of a tiefling INT GOO tomelock -- I was just a librarian who got a little careless in the Restricted Stacks.

[Millstone85]

An idea I like bringing up is that warlocks are charismatic because of their spellcasting ability, instead of the other way around.

Once the pact is made, a warlock may be gifted with enchanting beauty, exude a devilish charm, or give off a strangely magnetic hint of madness.

[Amechra]

As a side note, I don't allow Hexblade in its canon form. I'm considering folding Hex Warrior into Pact of the Blade (because that's where it should've been in the first place), but yeah. No "mandatory" one-level dips into Warlock to make yourself SAD.

---

I'm somewhat surprised at the level of discussion. I kinda like the suggestion of splitting it up based on the Patron - I'll keep that in mind.

[PhantomSoul]

As a side note, I don't allow Hexblade in its canon form. I'm considering folding Hex Warrior into Pact of the Blade (because that's where it should've been in the first place), but yeah. No "mandatory" one-level dips into Warlock to make yourself SAD.

---

I'm somewhat surprised at the level of discussion. I kinda like the suggestion of splitting it up based on the Patron - I'll keep that in mind.

I put it in as a pre-approved variant for the Goolock in particular and my players thus far have liked that (though they'd already made characters, so it hasn't actually come up in-game!). Phrased as a optional rule that way people could choose if charisma fit their concept better.

(Edit: And I've got exactly that for Hexblade, it's just such a massive and front-loaded benefit to have all of it together)

[Damon_Tor]

Alright, so here's something that I'm seriously debating: should I houserule Warlocks to be Intelligence-based instead of Charisma-based?

On a flavor basis, I'm kinda weirded out that Warlocks are all super-charismatic - I think it makes them much closer to Sorcerers than I like.

On a mechanical basis, Warlocks kinda suffer from being too good as a dip class for the other Charisma-based casters. I don't have Eberron, so the only Int-based caster I'd have to worry about is the Wizard, who doesn't have the Paladin or Sorcerer's "burn spell slots for fun and profit" abilities, which are really what make the Warlock so tempting.

Is there anything else I'm forgetting? Does this suddenly make races that should be excellent Warlocks suck at it? (Tieflings still get a bonus to Intelligence, Drow are Dex/Cha, which is annoying for this...)

If anything, it's sorcerers who should get a different casting stat. There's a strong argument for them casting with Con, but that's the subject of another thread.

Warlocks are guys who made a bargain with an extremely powerful, near-godlike being, maybe not evil but rarely benevolent, and somehow came away with a pretty damn good deal. That's a strong argument for a high-cha character, someone who can make such a pact in the first place. The better the deal, the stronger they are, so a direct cha=power connection is totally justified.

There's an argument for Int too of course. A high int warlock might be able to parse the contract (if there is one) better, spot hidden contradictions and impossible conditions and in so doing make sure he isn't getting swindled. But to me, that's an argument for Int being an important secondary stat, not primary: you've got the get the patron to come to the table with an offer in the first place, and once you've spotted the pitfalls in the deal, you've got to convince the patron to make the deal without them. All of that is solidly in the realm of charisma.

[Damon_Tor]

As a side note, I don't allow Hexblade in its canon form. I'm considering folding Hex Warrior into Pact of the Blade (because that's where it should've been in the first place), but yeah. No "mandatory" one-level dips into Warlock to make yourself SAD.

Pact of the Blade should absolutely include Cha to attacks with the weapon, and always should have. At level 3, it's far more painful for a multiclass character than Hexblade's level 1.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Pact of the Blade should absolutely include Cha to attacks with the weapon, and always should have. At level 3, it's far more painful for a multiclass character than Hexblade's level 1.

I'm not sure if SAD characters are actually good for the game at all. Consider how the Hexblade would look and play without the use of Charisma for weapon attacks. Take that away and it starts to look more balanced.

[Tanarii]

As a side note, I don't allow Hexblade in its canon form. I'm considering folding Hex Warrior into Pact of the Blade (because that's where it should've been in the first place), but yeah. No "mandatory" one-level dips into Warlock to make yourself SAD.Yeah. Cha I attack is good enough it could have been the only Patron feature at level one and Hexblades would have been balanced. Hexblades are the only subclass banned IMC.

[Max_Killjoy]

The text for Warlock makes it pretty clear that an actual "bargain", a literal pact, isn't mandatory, there are other options.

And then there are those who approach the classes as tools in a kit, not as imposed archetypes.

Warlock should absolutely be CHA or INT option.

[Jophiel]

But to me, that's an argument for Int being an important secondary stat, not primary: you've got the get the patron to come to the table with an offer in the first place
I feel that, traditionally, this isn't something that requires a lot of persuasion. Rather, the devil (or whoever) hears the appropriate ritual opening the path for them and is happy to step through and earn themselves someone's immortal soul or the chance to sow evil. Same with a Great Old One. Charisma might be more appropriate for a Fey patron. Even then, a starting Warlock with a likely charisma of 15-16 feels more like the patron humoring them for their chutzpah than being taken back by their incredible strength of personality. Certainly they're better than the average dirt farmer but they're dealing with personalities of powerful devils, fey, angels, etc. It feels like saying a level 1 Fighter got his skill by arm-wrestling a titan.

I'm not personally planning on changing warlocks or disallowing charisma-based warlocks, etc. But this thread helps clarify some of why their fluff never worked for me or appealed to me as a class. Hard to shake the edgelord label when your origin is going to be some Mary Sue about how you totally talked Asmodeus into a sweet deal 'cause you're just that overwhelming in personality.

[Slipperychicken]

Even then, a starting Warlock with a likely charisma of 15-16 feels more like the patron humoring them for their chutzpah than being taken back by their incredible strength of personality. Certainly they're better than the average dirt farmer but they're dealing with personalities of powerful devils, fey, angels, etc. It feels like saying a level 1 Fighter got his skill by arm-wrestling a titan.

It's worth noting that the patron/warlock relationship isn't oppositional. High charisma can mean a lot of things, like the warlock making himself appear more loyal, likable, useful, respectful or otherwise exaggerating qualities valued by the patron. Basically being on better terms with the patron than the average cultist.

[Dienekes]

I'm not sure if SAD characters are actually good for the game at all. Consider how the Hexblade would look and play without the use of Charisma for weapon attacks. Take that away and it starts to look more balanced.

Were I to rebuild 5e from scratch I’d make certain no character can be SAD at all, and make dumping stats actually hurt regardless of class combination. Even a wizard that dumped Strength would find it slightly prohibitive of their capabilities.

But that’s not the game we have. And I do think as of now any class that gets an ability based on a secondary or tertiary ability is considered ignorable, because often if it’s not being focused on with ability score improvements it doesn’t scale enough to be worth it.

[Jophiel]

It's worth noting that the patron/warlock relationship isn't oppositional. High charisma can mean a lot of things, like the warlock making himself appear more loyal, likable, useful, respectful or otherwise exaggerating qualities valued by the patron. Basically being on better terms with the patron than the average cultist.
I was referring more directly to...
Warlocks are guys who made a bargain with an extremely powerful, near-godlike being, maybe not evil but rarely benevolent, and somehow came away with a pretty damn good deal....which does sound a bit more oppositional. Regardless, "Fooled Devil Prince into thinking he's more loyal/useful/etc than he is" still fits the mold of negotiating with a power who really shouldn't be out-maneuvered by someone with a 16 Charisma.

Edit: I'll leave it at that since I don't need to keep going on about why I think the Warlock is a poorly conceived class from a fluff angle (and how that translates into mechanics). There's a decent argument to be made for some CHA-based warlocks/patrons but most of the traditional choices just don't work for me at all. Any DMing I'm doing right now is AL so I have no say in it anyway; more of a "Oh, hey, that makes sense" moment of clarity coming from the OP.

[TripleD]

Were I to rebuild 5e from scratch I’d make certain no character can be SAD at all, and make dumping stats actually hurt regardless of class combination. Even a wizard that dumped Strength would find it slightly prohibitive of their capabilities.


Preach.

I’d like it if each stat had a different application and value in each “pillar” of gameplay, and that going all in on one would help you succeed in one pillar at the cost of hurting you in another. This would also require rebalancing the pillars so that this was actually a meaningful loss instead of “focus on combat and the rest will sort itself out”.

[Tanarii]

Preach.

I’d like it if each stat had a different application and value in each “pillar” of gameplay, and that going all in on one would help you succeed in one pillar at the cost of hurting you in another. This would also require rebalancing the pillars so that this was actually a meaningful loss instead of “focus on combat and the rest will sort itself out”.
I dunno. I think it's be better if they were all useful in all the pillars of play. As it stands Social is mostly Cha, with a splash of Wis and sometimes Int. Of course it can have some physical precursor action, like sneaking in somewhere to steal incriminating evidence followed by an exciting midnight rooftop chase.

[Theodoxus]

Honestly, I think that was one reason they went away from 4th Ed's defenses. Thinking that all stats would be used for saves. Of course, the lion's share of saves are still the old Fort/Ref/Will, because WotC is too damn lazy to rebalance spell saves to make them all about equal in number, but whatever.

Outside of making a class use Constitution as their attacking and defensive stat, no class is literally SAD. Yeah, you can mostly get away with a ~14 in Con but that's hardly a dump stat, and the few times I've seen players try to make a sub 10 Con work, their character died in the first tier, the vast majority in the first level, of play.

I do think a push away from DAD and making all classes TAD or QAD should be the goal. Making them completely All Attribute Dependent would just push the standard array into being all 15s or 16s... and would do more harm than good for the game.

But at the very least, having every attribute provide a useful function... like, would it have been so hard to grant 1 extra skill for every 2 points of Int Mod? (Either +1 skill at 12/16/20 or +1 skill at 14/18). Everyone likes skills, right? Maybe not...

Shoot, I'd be kinda happy to go back to 2nd Ed style stats, where you only get bonuses at the top end of the attribute pool. That 16 Str giving that +1 to Damage (but nothing to Hit) yeah! Gives a logarithmic curve to stats that make ASI's (not a thing in 2E) actually important. Plus, using Bounded Accuracy on a 2nd Edition attribute chart... lets you keep it gritty!

I have lots of hope for a potential 6th Edition. Daddy wants a complex thinking man's game again!

[Dienekes]

Honestly, I think that was one reason they went away from 4th Ed's defenses. Thinking that all stats would be used for saves. Of course, the lion's share of saves are still the old Fort/Ref/Will, because WotC is too damn lazy to rebalance spell saves to make them all about equal in number, but whatever.

Outside of making a class use Constitution as their attacking and defensive stat, no class is literally SAD. Yeah, you can mostly get away with a ~14 in Con but that's hardly a dump stat, and the few times I've seen players try to make a sub 10 Con work, their character died in the first tier, the vast majority in the first level, of play.

I do think a push away from DAD and making all classes TAD or QAD should be the goal. Making them completely All Attribute Dependent would just push the standard array into being all 15s or 16s... and would do more harm than good for the game.

But at the very least, having every attribute provide a useful function... like, would it have been so hard to grant 1 extra skill for every 2 points of Int Mod? (Either +1 skill at 12/16/20 or +1 skill at 14/18). Everyone likes skills, right? Maybe not...

Shoot, I'd be kinda happy to go back to 2nd Ed style stats, where you only get bonuses at the top end of the attribute pool. That 16 Str giving that +1 to Damage (but nothing to Hit) yeah! Gives a logarithmic curve to stats that make ASI's (not a thing in 2E) actually important. Plus, using Bounded Accuracy on a 2nd Edition attribute chart... lets you keep it gritty!

I have lots of hope for a potential 6th Edition. Daddy wants a complex thinking man's game again!

See, in my dream game it’s less that every class is completely dependent on every stat so much as every character must choose what to focus on and they feel restriction based on each.

Just a random idea, what if your Str determined how much magical energy you could have in your body. So a Str focused wizard would be a self-buff specialist, while those that dump it might only be allowed 1 or perhaps 1 with halved duration for negative modifiers. While a fighter could make an Int focused build that works as a tactician.

That sort of thing. Hopefully done by a designer much more competently than me.