Warlock Based off INT?

[MachineWraith]

Does anything break if you were to swap all of the Warlock's CHA-dependent features to INT instead? I know it'll gut some multiclass setups, but I'm ambivalent about that. From a design perspective it feels weird to me that we have two caster types for each stat except Intelligence - Cleric/Druid for Wisdom, Bard/Sorcerer for Charisma, and then the Wizard just kind of flying solo. It just feels right from a fluff perspective to me, too. Like, why is my ability to forge a pact with a devil based on Charisma?

[stoutstien]

It was that was in most of the playtest and honestly I wish it stayed that way or even have different patrons have individual governing ability.

[Amnestic]

it feels weird to me that we have two caster types for each stat except Intelligence - Cleric/Druid for Wisdom, Bard/Sorcerer for Charisma, and then the Wizard just kind of flying solo.

Artificer apparently doesn't exist anymore, RIP :(

Changing Warlock from Cha to Int doesn't break anything. Makes it a less enticing dip for the Charisma-Crew of course, and moreso for the Intelligence-Infantry but nothing "breaks".

[Psyren]

Yeah it's fine - especially for Tomelocks though I'd say you could justify it for any of them.

I would also consider making Clockwork Soul Sorcerer run off Int while you're changing things.


Artificer apparently doesn't exist anymore, RIP :(

Ha, my thought exactly :smallbiggrin:

[Greywander]

I don't think anything really breaks if you switch around some stats, particularly mental stats, since those don't really do much else aside from ability checks. Yeah, switching casting over to DEX would be unbalanced, since you'd also get an AC boost from higher DEX, and you'd have better weapon attacks with a dagger or crossbow. But mental stats are fine to switch around. The only thing it would really change are potential multiclass builds, preferred skills, and saving throws. INT is generally regarded as the worst of the three mental stats (unless you like spending downtime learning tools and languages), so if anything moving to INT would be a slight nerf.

[MachineWraith]

Artificer apparently doesn't exist anymore, RIP :(


Ha, my thought exactly :smallbiggrin:

Haha, I knew someone would say something about the Artificer. I love Artificer! They just feel less like a full casting class to me, I guess.

[Tanarii]

IMO it's a good change to make. Warlocks are the only class to get all 5 Int skills as class skills, their class description says that they come from a background of delving into forbidden lore, and IIRC they actually were Int-based in the playtest. It definitely fits them thematically, and doesn't really hurt them mechanically. Except for warlock multiclass dips on Paladins, Bards, and Sorcs.

[Kane0]

Does anything break if you were to swap all of the Warlock's CHA-dependent features to INT instead?

Yeah, it works fine. I allow Warlocks to choose between Int or Cha, and the same for Paladins between Cha and Wis (neither being able to change once they make the decision)

[J-H]

The only reason I won't go for it is that all but one of my players use DND Beyond, and DNDB doesn't support making changes like that.

[gorfnab]

Order of the Profane Soul Bloodhunter has half Warlock casting that uses Int for the casting stat. However, that is technically unofficial material (made by Matt Mercer/Critical Role).

[kingcheesepants]

Haha, I knew someone would say something about the Artificer. I love Artificer! They just feel less like a full casting class to me, I guess.

Well yeah Artificer doesn't feel like a full casting class in the same way that Paladin and Ranger don't feel like full casting classes. They advance in spells at half the rate of sorcerer's, wizards, etc.

So looking at the classes as they stand there are 2 Wis based casters (druid, cleric) and 1 Wis based half caster (ranger). 3 Cha based casters (bard, sorcerer, warlock) and 1 cha based half caster (paladin), 1 Int based caster (wizard) and 1 Int based half caster (artificer).

Given the obvious difference in number and the fact that in terms of class flavor Int definitely feels like it fits most warlocks better (my image of a warlock at least is one of a person who was looking into those things man was not meant to know and got in touch with a supernatural being of great power and made a bargain with it, and the quest for forbidden knowledge is definitely an Int based thing) it seems fitting to make warlocks Int based so that the numbers of casters and half casters would be 2,1 for every mental stat.

Doing so will break many popular multiclassing builds (which are honestly too munchkiny anyways so who cares) and potentially allow for some different multiclassing builds with Wizards and Artificers. And it will change party dynamics so that the warlock has a harder time functioning as the party face but an easier time functioning as the party brains. So if you're okay with that I would 100% say go for it and make warlock Int based instead.

[Psyren]

Haha, I knew someone would say something about the Artificer. I love Artificer! They just feel less like a full casting class to me, I guess.

You know, that does make me curious what a 9th-level casting Artificer would look like, i.e. what 6th+ spells would we add to their list if they had the Wizard progression.

...Actually, that's not a bad idea for a thread...

[Pildion]

Yeah it's fine - especially for Tomelocks though I'd say you could justify it for any of them.:

I'm with Psyren on this one, I think Tomelock would be better off as a INT based caster then a Cha based. It really doesn't break anything changing the casting stat around, Locks get proficiency with Arcana, Nature, Investigate.

[Sigreid]

Frankly, excepting dexterity and con it really doesn't matter which stat you use as a casting stat. And the only reason that it matters for dex and con is because of the other primary benefits of those two stats. It would make them too good/beneficial and reduce the impact of stat arrangement decisions.

[nickl_2000]

I would argue that is slightly weaken a single classed warlock overall since char skills come up more often than int skills, or have a larger impact.

However, with most of things like this, I would only allow it on a single classed PC. It would *probably* be fine allowing it, but I don't want things to come up that I don't think about and multiclassing can cause that.

That being said, now I want to play an int based warlock/ Arcane Trickster Rogue spy. It would be absolutely amazing.

[Joe the Rat]

Int-Warlock feels completely natural, and would not break anything. The absolute worst thing is then it becomes a 2-dip for Wizards instead of Sorcerers.
HexBladeLock3/Bladesinger2+ would make for a fun build

[Kvess]

I feel like this question pops up once a month. I don’t think anyone would accuse changing the warlock’s casting stat to Intelligence of being gamebreaking, but it could lead to unexpected interactions with Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster.


Int-Warlock feels completely natural, and would not break anything. The absolute worst thing is then it becomes a 2-dip for Wizards instead of Sorcerers.
HexBladeLock3/Bladesinger2+ would make for a fun build
Warlock would still be a better dip for sorcerers because of metamagic, due to interactions with Eldritch Blast and Quicken as well as Pact Magic spellslots and Font of Magic.

I can’t think of anything Wizards would really get except for a couple of extra spellslots for Shield… and even then it’s not as good as Arcane Recovery.

[Joe the Rat]

I feel like this question pops up once a month. I don’t think anyone would accuse changing the warlock’s casting stat to Intelligence of being gamebreaking, but it could lead to unexpected interactions with Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster.
Oh, it's indeed monthly - not always on here though.


Warlock would still be a better dip for sorcerers because of metamagic, due to interactions with Eldritch Blast and Quicken as well as Pact Magic spellslots and Font of Magic. It would take a bit more finesse - you'd need to get EB as a sorcerer spell unless you want to do beam spam on a secondary casting trait. I'm wondering if the Pact-Font Barista would have been picked up as much if they'd left Warlock on Int. It's an obvious twist, but it also requires two different casting stats, which is apparently heretical.
If, however, you're a sick and twisted fellow like myself who is more inclined to main Warlock and dip Sorcerer...

[Ganryu]

Honestly, almost any of the mental stats, especially in spell casting can change, and it doesn't make a big deal. Biggest thing is multiclassing, but Sorcerer/Paladin/Warlock are already together as Cha, how much more broken can you get...?

Biggest thing is to recall major/minor saves. But both charisma and int already are minor. {Every class gets one major save: Dex/Con/Wis, and one minor save: Str/Int/Cha}

Hell, my DM probably lets us homebrew too much. He lets us reflavor anything, pick our casting/mental stat of our choosing, AND pick our saving throws as long as they follow major/minor. Hasn't broken anything too far. Our monk uses charisma, and our Cleric and Druid intelligence, wizard Wisdom. Hasn't broken anything so far.

[Tanarii]

I would argue that is slightly weaken a single classed warlock overall since char skills come up more often than int skills, or have a larger impact.
Thats a pretty huge campaign specific assumption.

As a general rule, I'd say that every campaign and more importantly adventure / official play game of 3e, 4e, and 5e I've run and played in, knowledge / lore checks are more common than charisma checks. I suppose more impactful might be occasional times when something important has turned on a single cha check, but generally speaking knowledge/lore takes the lead there too, from sheer weight of all those frequent checks value added up.

But I absolutely can see the kind of campaign where cha checks are very important, both more frequent and have far more impact.

[Psyren]

I would argue that is slightly weaken a single classed warlock overall since char skills come up more often than int skills, or have a larger impact.

While this is true, the thing about Charisma is that:

(a) way more classes use it, so the average party's chances of the stat being uncovered tend to be lower than Int.
(b) corollary to the above, generally having more than one person with "face proficiency" is redundant since social interactions tend to be 1:1. Int skills however tend to apply to exploration and combat, so the more people that have it the better your odds of success. Multiple characters succeeding can even be better than just one.



However, with most of things like this, I would only allow it on a single classed PC. It would *probably* be fine allowing it, but I don't want things to come up that I don't think about and multiclassing can cause that.

That being said, now I want to play an int based warlock/ Arcane Trickster Rogue spy. It would be absolutely amazing.

I understand where you're coming from with this concern, but personally I think a multiclass Int-SAD Tomelock/Chainlock Wizard, Bladelock/EK or Bladelocksinger, or Talislock Artificer would feel phenomenally synergistic in play :smallsmile: And the ones you listed would be great too!

[Khrysaes]

The only reason I won't go for it is that all but one of my players use DND Beyond, and DNDB doesn't support making changes like that.

You can actually change it by making a homebrew subclass and choosing the bonus spell list as warlock, and the casting stat as int. The rest can be made as subclass features or feats. You can add feats through the manage feats option on the character’s features tab.

Edit. Let me note that this changes rhe spellcasting. Not the invocations or class features that are cha based. Some can be modified elsewise, such as adjusting the damage of the hexweapon by hand, but others like agonizing blast cant. Subclass features can be changed.

[paladinn]

Silly question.. Why wouldn't a Warlock be based off WIS? His/her power is tied to a relationship with.. something. In this they are the arcane equivalents of clerics. If clerics key off WIS, so should 'Locks.

I don't think INT works, because a Warlock doesn't get power through studying. Except Maybe the tomepact. CHA works for sorcerers because they are The "innate" power class.

Just my $.02

[nickl_2000]

Thats a pretty huge campaign specific assumption.

As a general rule, I'd say that every campaign and more importantly adventure / official play game of 3e, 4e, and 5e I've run and played in, knowledge / lore checks are more common than charisma checks. I suppose more impactful might be occasional times when something important has turned on a single cha check, but generally speaking knowledge/lore takes the lead there too, from sheer weight of all those frequent checks value added up.

But I absolutely can see the kind of campaign where cha checks are very important, both more frequent and have far more impact.

This is a very fair statement, I guess I should say that at my tables we tend to see Cha checks a lot more often than int checks and they tend to be more important.

Also, we have a 3-4 player table. So, we tend not to have multiple people in the face role.

[Tanarii]

This is a very fair statement, I guess I should say that at my tables we tend to see Cha checks a lot more often than int checks and they tend to be more important.

Also, we have a 3-4 player table. So, we tend not to have multiple people in the face role.
For 5e specifically, people defaulting to the face role seems more common than to the lore role, just because there are 3-1/2 Cha caster classes and 1-2/3 Int ones.

[loki_ragnarock]

Well yeah Artificer doesn't feel like a full casting class in the same way that Paladin and Ranger don't feel like full casting classes. They advance in spells at half the rate of sorcerer's, wizards, etc.

So looking at the classes as they stand there are 2 Wis based casters (druid, cleric) and 1 Wis based half caster (ranger). 3 Cha based casters (bard, sorcerer, warlock) and 1 cha based half caster (paladin), 1 Int based caster (wizard) and 1 Int based half caster (artificer).


You've discounted the two 1/3rd casters, which both key off of int.

So between them, the artificer, and the wizard, there are two and a sixth int based casting classes. Which is only a little behind wis based casting classes.

[Ganryu]

Silly question.. Why wouldn't a Warlock be based off WIS? His/her power is tied to a relationship with.. something. In this they are the arcane equivalents of clerics. If clerics key off WIS, so should 'Locks.

I don't think INT works, because a Warlock doesn't get power through studying. Except Maybe the tomepact. CHA works for sorcerers because they are The "innate" power class.

Just my $.02

I'd argue this for why aren't Clerics Charisma casters. I'd swap them with Sorcerers. Clerics commune, Sorcerers feel, but that's a whole can of worms.

And a lot of warlocks get their powers through forbidden knowledge, occult knowledge, and contracts. All of those can fall into int. You didn’t have to convince your patron. In fact, they're so powerful, it's weird if you did. Maybe they convinced you?

[Khrysaes]

I'd argue this for why aren't Clerics Charisma casters. I'd swap them with Sorcerers. Clerics commune, Sorcerers feel, but that's a whole can of worms.

And a lot of warlocks get their powers through forbidden knowledge, occult knowledge, and contracts. All of those can fall into int. You didn’t have to convince your patron. In fact, they're so powerful, it's weird if you did. Maybe they convinced you?

There has always been some overlap between some aspects of wisdom and charisma. Namely in the wisdom was literally tied to willpower, while charisma is “force of
Personality”

I would probably agree that clerics should be charisma based and sorcerers wisdom based given those aspects of the casting stats. And that clerics are all about talking to gods.

[Psyren]

You've discounted the two 1/3rd casters, which both key off of int.

So between them, the artificer, and the wizard, there are two and a sixth int based casting classes. Which is only a little behind wis based casting classes.

While nominally those two are spellcasters that use Int, they don't really fill the caster role in a party. They don't have the loadout or ammunition for much in the way of utility or control, and prioritizing Int tends to weaken them in combat besides, so they typically don't bring the benefits of a maxed or near-maxed mental stat that other casters do at the most common tiers of play.

Compare that to an Artificer - even with only half-casting, they bring a lot of magical utility to a group, and can generally afford to prioritize their Int score since they invariably have features that apply it to combat even early on - much like a Wizard does.

[Evaar]

Does anything break if you were to swap all of the Warlock's CHA-dependent features to INT instead?

I’ll refer you to this tweet from Crawford answering this exact question:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/810537044351086592?s=21

[Psyren]

I’ll refer you to this tweet from Crawford answering this exact question:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/810537044351086592?s=21

Interesting that they originally wanted Int but bowed to the feedback.

If 5.5e allowed Warlocks to pick their casting stat, even if only as a sidebar suggestion, I'd be 100% all for that.

[jaappleton]

Interesting that they originally wanted Int but bowed to the feedback.

If 5.5e allowed Warlocks to pick their casting stat, even if only as a sidebar suggestion, I'd be 100% all for that.

The "D&D Next" playtest materials were... They're incredibly interesting. Its a bit of a trip if you manage to track them down (Not saying where, but you totally can) and comb through them, and see the design process implemented from early playtest to the PHB print.

Other unique notes include Paladin Smite could do Necrotic damage.

The Warlock is super interesting because there was an AMA with Mearls shortly after 5e's release, where he mentioned how the 5e Warlock was incredibly different at various points in its playtest. During various points of development, aspects of the patron were much closely tied / much more divorced to the pact boons.

Regarding 5.5e allowing Warlocks to pick their casting stat...?

This is not any sort of an 'informed opinion', but my guess is that 5.5e will have a few 'alternative classes'. Classes fully compatible with existing subclasses, but one or two spots might be moved or altered. The example I always use is the hypothetical Warpriest, where its fully compatible with all existing Cleric Domains, but the second channel divinity use is moved from lv6 to lv8, the lv8 feature is removed entirely, extra attack is added at lv6, and at lv14 (where Clerics existing lv8 feature is improved).

This is where you'll find the 'Warblade' to as a Fighter replacement, etc.

5e's philosophy has never been to outright replace something. If something is terrible, eventually, they present 'alternative features'. To them, the PHB Beast Master Ranger and SCAG Undying Patron are completely, fully playable with no issues. They've never stated they're bad and are replaced. Instead, we have 'alternative features' and 'alternative subclasses'. This trend is 100% going to continue. If you hate something in 5e, if its going to get changed, you should instead expect something new with a similar vibe (alternative features in the case of the Beast Master, and Undead patron instead of Undying).

This way they only have to ever present one subclass to cover multiple aspects. A new martial archetype would be applicable to both Fighter and Warblade, and Domains cover both Cleric and Warpriest, etc.

Circling back to the point of why the heck I'm going off on this sidebar: I am incredibly curious to see what the 'alternate' Warlock would be. Very, very interested. Would they bring back the Binder?

[Amnestic]

Would they bring back the Binder?

Binder's definitely an 'advanced' class to me, since it (to me) involves a subsystem other than spellcasting. Its whole thing is binding multiple "mini-patrons" which you swap out daily (or more often, even), so it doesn't gel with the single pact stuff Warlocks do.

Wouldn't mind seeing a return of the playtest Sorcerer concept (casually shills my own version (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/-LfWZyiMRfAq) of it). It's the sort of unique mechanical identity I want from a sorcerer beyond 'metamagic'.

[Skyrender]

Haha, I knew someone would say something about the Artificer. I love Artificer! They just feel less like a full casting class to me, I guess.

That's because they're NOT a full casting class! They're a half-caster, rounded up. With quirky spellcasting rules that only really make sense if you're on mind-altering substances. Seriously, can anyone explain why they can use a lockpick or a ball-peen hammer as a spellcasting focus? Anyone? I just have this image in my head of a Harry Potter knockoff attending magic school with a pair of needle nose pliers instead of a real wand.

[Khrysaes]

That's because they're NOT a full casting class! They're a half-caster, rounded up. With quirky spellcasting rules that only really make sense if you're on mind-altering substances. Seriously, can anyone explain why they can use a lockpick or a ball-peen hammer as a spellcasting focus? Anyone? I just have this image in my head of a Harry Potter knockoff attending magic school with a pair of needle nose pliers instead of a real wand.

In 3.5 the wouldnt cast spells, but put temporary enchantments on items that gave similar effects as spells. They tried to keep that flavor by having tools as their casting focus.

[Psyren]

If you don't like the machinist fluff, just envision them as runecasters who use tools to scratch complex sigils on stuff, that then activate their spell effects. Like the runes for "distant" and "explode" which then launches a Fireball. Infusions would then just be slapping various runes onto the party's otherwise mundane gear.




Regarding 5.5e allowing Warlocks to pick their casting stat...?

This is not any sort of an 'informed opinion', but my guess is that 5.5e will have a few 'alternative classes'. Classes fully compatible with existing subclasses, but one or two spots might be moved or altered. The example I always use is the hypothetical Warpriest, where its fully compatible with all existing Cleric Domains, but the second channel divinity use is moved from lv6 to lv8, the lv8 feature is removed entirely, extra attack is added at lv6, and at lv14 (where Clerics existing lv8 feature is improved).

That would be interesting indeed. I'd love a new base chassis to put an existing subclass onto, provided they did it well.



Circling back to the point of why the heck I'm going off on this sidebar: I am incredibly curious to see what the 'alternate' Warlock would be. Very, very interested. Would they bring back the Binder?


Binder's definitely an 'advanced' class to me, since it (to me) involves a subsystem other than spellcasting. Its whole thing is binding multiple "mini-patrons" which you swap out daily (or more often, even), so it doesn't gel with the single pact stuff Warlocks do.

It does fit with Warlock the best. Pact slots work as a form of mini-pact each short rest, just one that you make retroactively. (e.g. I cast fireball and counterspell this rest, thanks Karsus!")

[Arkhios]

Does anything break if you were to swap all of the Warlock's CHA-dependent features to INT instead? I know it'll gut some multiclass setups, but I'm ambivalent about that. From a design perspective it feels weird to me that we have two caster types for each stat except Intelligence - Cleric/Druid for Wisdom, Bard/Sorcerer for Charisma, and then the Wizard just kind of flying solo. It just feels right from a fluff perspective to me, too. Like, why is my ability to forge a pact with a devil based on Charisma?

Ah, the question as old as 5th edition itself. As confirmed by both Crawford and Mearls back then, and plenty of other players and DM's through experience: nothing breaks. They even considered it themselves before 5e's release.

[Rav]

That's because they're NOT a full casting class! They're a half-caster, rounded up. With quirky spellcasting rules that only really make sense if you're on mind-altering substances. Seriously, can anyone explain why they can use a lockpick or a ball-peen hammer as a spellcasting focus? Anyone? I just have this image in my head of a Harry Potter knockoff attending magic school with a pair of needle nose pliers instead of a real wand.

The 3rd sentence of the Spellcasting feature of Artificers says:

"To observers, you don’t appear to be casting spells in a conventional way; you look as if you’re producing wonders using mundane items or outlandish inventions."

The goal isn't that you cast spells like a wizard or sorcerer, or pray for divine intervention like clerics, or any of that. You instead have tools and gadgets that perform wonders and unleash magical effects. You achieve the spell effects through the magical gizmos you build and unleash.

Edit: Oh right! The on topic thing to say: I allow warlock players to pick Cha or Int when they make their character and it has never broken anything, they either are more sorc-lite or wiz-lite casters that recharge on short instead of long rests. It's fine, nothing breaks. The closest anyone ever got to "breaking it" is multiclassing bladesinger with an int-hexblade and honestly that wasn't even all that bad all things considered.

[Tanarii]

Artificers also don't count because they are either Campaign World Specific, or require The Expansion That Shall Not Be Named (Or Used).

[Amnestic]

Excising the Artificer - a balanced, effective, flavourful class that slots into literally nearly any setting you can think of without issue - because it showed up in Tasha's is a very odd choice.

Gonna delete the entire PHB because it's where Simulacrum and Wish show up.

[Tanarii]

Excising the Artificer - a balanced, effective, flavourful class that slots into literally nearly any setting you can think of without issue - because it showed up in Tasha's is a very odd choice
Good point. They also don't count because they're a thematic mess that doesn't fit most campaign worlds other than the specific one they were designed for, and very poorly balanced.

[Psyren]

Artificers also don't count because they are either Campaign World Specific, or require The Expansion That Shall Not Be Named (Or Used).

They are definitely not campaign-world-specific any longer, if they ever were in this edition.


Good point. They also don't count because they're a thematic mess that doesn't fit most campaign worlds other than the specific one they were designed for, and very poorly balanced.

I mean, do as you please at your table - but also, *guffaws*

[Mastikator]

That's because they're NOT a full casting class! They're a half-caster, rounded up. With quirky spellcasting rules that only really make sense if you're on mind-altering substances. Seriously, can anyone explain why they can use a lockpick or a ball-peen hammer as a spellcasting focus? Anyone? I just have this image in my head of a Harry Potter knockoff attending magic school with a pair of needle nose pliers instead of a real wand.

The artificer class explains it pretty well IMO

You've studied the workings of magic and how to cast spells, channeling the magic through objects. To observers, you don't appear to be casting spells in a conventional way; you appear to produce wonders from mundane items and outlandish inventions.
And


As an artificer, you use tools when you cast your spells. When describing your spellcasting, think about how you're using a tool to perform the spell effect. If you cast cure wounds using alchemist supplies, you could be quickly producing a salve. If you cast using tinker's tools, you might have a miniature mechanical spider that binds wounds. [etc]

Thieve's tools aren't just a lockpick, when the artificer casts Grease using the tools he may be pulling out a spray hose filled with oil. How did he get that? He prepared it in the morning while recovering spell slots.

Thirdly artificers can also use items they have infused as an arcane focus, meaning if you have your Repeating Shot infused hand crossbow in hand and cast Faerie Fire it may be a special bolt that explodes into glitter midair.

[Amnestic]

They also don't count because they're a thematic mess that doesn't fit most campaign worlds other than the specific one they were designed for,

They fit into literally any setting that also fits wizards, which as it turns out is every official 5e setting there is.

I don't know enough about Dark Sun but that might be the only one in which the idea of "someone who uses magic to enhance items" somehow doesn't fit since iirc they've got some weirdness about (arcane?) magic in that setting, but Dark Sun's not got a 5e adaptation, so I'm good to go with my statement.

If you're gonna sit there and pretend to me that most homebrew settings don't "fit wizards" then I'm going to call absolute shenanigans on that assertion.


and very poorly balanced.

Better balanced than literally any full caster, so again, better delete the PHB if that's your metric.

[Slipjig]

Seriously, can anyone explain why they can use a lockpick or a ball-peen hammer as a spellcasting focus? Anyone?.

The idea is that they are selecting an appropriate tool from their kit and using it an a magically-McGyver-ish way. They have enough tool proficiencies that if an artificer is carrying all their toolkits a creative player can probably find something for just about any spell. For example, if an Artificer is casting Mending, he pulls out a tube of glue (or needle and thread) and fixes the object to an improbable degree. If they cast a heal, they slap a pre-prepared salve onto the wound. If they cast Fire Bolt, it's pulling out a pyrotechnic flare and shooting it at their target (or launching it out of their crossbow, if you want to fluff it that way).

If your DM is letting the Artificer cast Catapult by waving around a lockpick, well, it's their table and I suppose it's RAW.

[Asmotherion]

Warlocks are traditionally Cha casters since 3.5 and there is good reason for it. It's their Charisma that allows them to make a pact, not their intelligence.

I wouldn't like a Warlock based on Int as there would be no reason for it. The Warlock is perfect as it is.

[Slipjig]

I think it makes more sense. When you think of a sinister Warlock as an archetype, their unifying theme is that they are almost invariably book-smart. Sure there are some who are Sexy Bad Boys/Girls, but there are also plenty that are sniveling wretches with zero social skills.

OTOH, I'm having a hard time naming any diabolists who are sexy and dumb as a post.

As for what breaks, I'd say nothing, really, except for certain multiclass builds. I'd probably leave it as an either/or, though.

[loki_ragnarock]

They fit into literally any setting that also fits wizards, which as it turns out is every official 5e setting there is.

Mmm... that's a broad brush there, don't ya think?

There's some pretty substantial differences between wizards and artificers, thematically.

If you think of artificers as wizards with some brass gears hotglued on, then, kinda. But there are plenty settings/tables where you don't want hot glue on your wizards.

[Amechra]

I'm using this as a house rule in my home game, and so far it hasn't caused any problems.


They fit into literally any setting that also fits wizards, which as it turns out is every official 5e setting there is.

I disagree with this sentiment (this is kinda like saying that Paladins fit into any setting where Monks also fit — the fact that this works out in every official setting is because of a policy decision by WotC, not because they cohere thematically with each-other)... but I'm not one to talk, since neither class is allowed in my home game for setting reasons anyway — it's a few centuries early for Wizards, and Artificers don't fit the general vibe I'm going for.

[stoutstien]

Warlocks are traditionally Cha casters since 3.5 and there is good reason for it. It's their Charisma that allows them to make a pact, not their intelligence.

I wouldn't like a Warlock based on Int as there would be no reason for it. The Warlock is perfect as it is.

The problem is for half the patrons charisma is not going to help you. Cha doesn't effect having a good eye for the written agreement or the subtlety to leech off the power without them noticing. Speaking of artificer, I know when type of character I'd want to read over a contract with a devil if I was going to make one.

[Tanarii]

They fit into literally any setting that also fits wizards, which as it turns out is every official 5e setting there is.Magitech is a very specific campaign setting dependency. Unlike Wizards.


Warlocks are traditionally Cha casters since 3.5 and there is good reason for it. It's their Charisma that allows them to make a pact, not their intelligence.
The 5e lore points heavily towards them being researchers of forbidden Magics that leads them to make a pact. Despite the mechanics being wildly different, their lore seems very much like a Wizard that ended up making a pact for power.

[Amnestic]

Mmm... that's a broad brush there, don't ya think?

No, not even slightly.

Does your setting have magic potions? Then the alchemist fits.
Does your setting have magic armour? Then the armourer fits.
Does your setting have golems or other artificial constructs? Then the battlesmith(/artillerist) fits.
Does your setting have magic rods, wands, or quarterstaffs? Then the artillerist fits.

All official 5e settings contain the above. I would wager the vast majority of homebrew settings will also have all of the above. Some won't, sure. That's fine, I'm an advocate of DMs selectively banning classes/races that don't fit with their worlds. But saying that they don't fit in 'most' settings when they fit into all of the official 5e settings, which will by default serve as templates for many homebrew settings? Ridonk.

Wizards are casters who use their enormous super brains to work out how magic works to cast spells. Artificers are casters who use their enormous super brains to work out how magic works to cast spells on/through items. That specialisation makes them half-casters in return for infusions.


Magitech is a very specific campaign setting dependency. Unlike Wizards.

Cool, it's a good job Artificers aren't reliant on magitech then, unless literally any magical item is "magitech".

[Tanarii]

Cool, it's a good job Artificers aren't reliant on magitech then, unless literally any magical item is "magitech".All their spellcasting is magictech.

[Amnestic]

All their spellcasting is magictech.


Artificers use a variety of tools to channel their arcane power. To cast a spell, an artificer might use alchemist's supplies to create a potent elixir, calligrapher's supplies to inscribe a sigil of power, or tinker's tools to craft a temporary charm. The magic of artificers is tied to their tools and their talents, and few other characters can produce the right tool for a job as well as an artificer.

I didn't realise arcane sigils were magitech now. Someone tell Glyph of Warding.

[Mastikator]

Magitech is a very specific campaign setting dependency. Unlike Wizards.
Yeah Artificers are only available in Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Exandria, Ravnica, Eberron, Theros. What other official campaign settings do we have for 5th edition? I think it would be appropriate for Planescape and Spelljammer for sure. If you're running a homebrew ported Dark Sun then artificers would be as common as other half casters.

[stoutstien]

All their spellcasting is magictech.

Or rune casting, or hedge magic, cooking so good it's magical, weave siphoning, curse based blood magic, elemental totem magic,.....

[Psyren]

No, not even slightly.

Does your setting have magic potions? Then the alchemist fits.
Does your setting have magic armour? Then the armourer fits.
Does your setting have golems or other artificial constructs? Then the battlesmith(/artillerist) fits.
Does your setting have magic rods, wands, or quarterstaffs? Then the artillerist fits.

All official 5e settings contain the above. I would wager the vast majority of homebrew settings will also have all of the above. Some won't, sure. That's fine, I'm an advocate of DMs selectively banning classes/races that don't fit with their worlds. But saying that they don't fit in 'most' settings when they fit into all of the official 5e settings, which will by default serve as templates for many homebrew settings? Ridonk.

Wizards are casters who use their enormous super brains to work out how magic works to cast spells. Artificers are casters who use their enormous super brains to work out how magic works to cast spells on/through items. That specialisation makes them half-casters in return for infusions.



Cool, it's a good job Artificers aren't reliant on magitech then, unless literally any magical item is "magitech".

This.



Artificers don't fit the general vibe I'm going for.

And that's fine. "Artificers don't fit my setting" is fine. But "Artificers don't fit WotC settings" is just factually wrong.

[Amechra]

Does your setting have magic potions? Then the alchemist fits.
Does your setting have magic armour? Then the armourer fits.
Does your setting have golems or other artificial constructs? Then the battlesmith(/artillerist) fits.
Does your setting have magic rods, wands, or quarterstaffs? Then the artillerist fits.

This argument kinda collapses if the setting doesn't follow the general thematic thrust of the Artificer (which is that magic items are something that you can intentionally make, can be made from pre-existing mundane items, and can be mass-produced). Now, the fact that the "canon" D&D settings all have magic items that work like that is... neither here nor there, because that was a conscious decision by WotC.

I also get a bit of a chuckle that apparently the "I want to be the fantasy version of Iron Man" subclass fits into any setting with magical armor. While Tony Stark would fit right in at King Arthur's court, I dunno about the whole "armor that lets you shoot lasers out of your hands and project force-fields" thing.

EDIT: Also... all of the settings that WotC and friends have put out for 5e are either very kitchen-sink-y or were designed with the Artificer in mind, which kinda skews things. If they released a Dark Sun book, they'd honestly either have to say that the Artificer (along with a bunch of other character options) are off the table, or they'd have to warp the setting to add in the Artificer. Given how they've been approaching stuff, though, I'm reasonably sure they'd go with the latter (heck, Strixhaven doesn't restrict what classes you can play, and that's literally a campaign book about being a student at a school for spellcasters!).

[Mastikator]

This argument kinda collapses if the setting doesn't follow the general thematic thrust of the Artificer (which is that magic items are something that you can intentionally make, can be made from pre-existing mundane items, and can be mass-produced). Now, the fact that the "canon" D&D settings all have magic items that work like that is... neither here nor there, because that was a conscious decision by WotC.

I also get a bit of a chuckle that apparently the "I want to be the fantasy version of Iron Man" subclass fits into any setting with magical armor. While Tony Stark would fit right in at King Arthur's court, I dunno about the whole "armor that lets you shoot lasers out of your hands and project force-fields" thing.

Both the DMG and Xanathar's contain rules for intentionally making magic items. Artificers aren't especially good at it until 10th level, before that they can't mass produce it better than anyone else.

[Amnestic]

I also get a bit of a chuckle that apparently the "I want to be the fantasy version of Iron Man" subclass fits into any setting with magical armor. While Tony Stark would fit right in at King Arthur's court, I dunno about the whole "armor that lets you shoot lasers out of your hands and project force-fields" thing.

Wizards/warlocks/sorcerers can fire magical beams out of a gem (arcane focus: orb/crystal) or a stick (arcane focus: rod/quarterstaff/wand), but Artificers put the magic gem in a suit of armour and suddenly it's unreasonable?

What is magic missile if not a magic laser bolt? What is Shield if not a magic forcefield? Enchanting items to be magical shows up on a number of non-artificer spell lists and class features including but not limited to wizard, druid, ranger, paladin, cleric (forge). Yes, a DM who wants to excise all of these certainly could do in their quest to remove artificers. They can remove all magical potions and glyphs and armour and golems and all the rest.

But that is going to be an exception, not the rule.



EDIT: Also... all of the settings that WotC and friends have put out for 5e are either very kitchen-sink-y or were designed with the Artificer in mind, which kinda skews things. If they released a Dark Sun book, they'd honestly either have to say that the Artificer (along with a bunch of other character options) are off the table, or they'd have to warp the setting to add in the Artificer. Given how they've been approaching stuff, though, I'm reasonably sure they'd go with the latter (heck, Strixhaven doesn't restrict what classes you can play, and that's literally a campaign book about being a student at a school for spellcasters!).

I am not familiar with every official DnD setting listed here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings) but again, I would wager that the vast majority of them support the concept of the artificer even before 5e's release. And, I mean, so what if the settings were designed with the Artificer in mind? Isn't that true of most of the classes that show up? As a general rule they have gods granting powers to clerics, paladin orders, monastic traditions, wizardly academies, bardic colleges/mentors, etc. etc.

We don't need to be Fair And Balanced™ in this situation: Tanarii said something that was wrong. It has been corrected.

[Amechra]

Both the DMG and Xanathar's contain rules for intentionally making magic items. Artificers aren't especially good at it until 10th level, before that they can't mass produce it better than anyone else.

Mass-production in the sense that an Artificer can touch a sword and... boom, you have a magic sword! Or the fact that they can replicate particular magic items as a matter of course (like Bags of Holding or Gauntlets of Ogre Strength).

"Mass-produced" is probably not the best way to phrase what I'm getting at... "reproducible", maybe?

...

There's also the fact that Artificers not only carry assumptions about how magic items work, but they also carry the assumption that magic items are something you can produce on the fly. Which... while WotC says that that's thematically consistent with how stuff works in the Forgotten Realms, they also have a strong financial interest in getting people to buy more books, even if doing so messes up how the settings work for some people. If WotC had published a Clown class in Witchlight, there would have been plentiful assurances that the class fits into every published setting ever, and that you should totally buy the book so that you can play it.

Like, to get back to the OP... the "problem" with a Warlock based off of Intelligence is that it would have potentially lost WotC some sales. That's... not something that we have to worry about. At all.

EDIT: You know what? I give up.

[Psyren]

While Tony Stark would fit right in at King Arthur's court, I dunno about the whole "armor that lets you shoot lasers out of your hands and project force-fields" thing.

Just to note - there is in fact a Marvel universe (Marvel 1602) that is set in "medieval" fantasy times, and uses a combination of magic and steampunk stuff to reimagine many of their iconic heroes. Their Iron Man (https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Anthony_Stark_(Earth-311)) would work quite well interpreted as a D&D Armorer.


Also... all of the settings that WotC and friends have put out for 5e are either very kitchen-sink-y or were designed with the Artificer in mind, which kinda skews things.

How is it "skewed" if they're being intentional? :smallconfused:

They don't want Artificers to be an Eberron-only thing, end of.

[Slipjig]

Mass-production in the sense that an Artificer can touch a sword and... boom, you have a magic sword! Or the fact that they can replicate particular magic items as a matter of course (like Bags of Holding or Gauntlets of Ogre Strength).

There's also the fact that Artificers not only carry assumptions about how magic items work, but they also carry the assumption that magic items are something you can produce on the fly.

If your first paragraph is referring to Infusions or the Spell Storing Item ability those both must be produced at the end of a long rest. The implication being that you've been tinkering with the item overnight. I suppose RAW you could imbue someone's sword who arrives right as your rest ends, but that's clearly not fluff-as-intended.

For your second paragraph, what rules allow artificers to produce magic items on the fly? If you are referring to casting their spells, every table I've played at assumes the Artificer is pulling out something he whipped up ahead of time (which is why they have a limited number of prepared spells). Their spells may LOOK like magic items to an observer, but they aren't ACTUALLY magic items because they (generally) can't be passed off for someone else to use.

I do agree that some artificer subclasses feel more appropriate in some settings than others. Alchemists fit anywhere, but the Armorer and Artillerist both feel very out-of-place in most games set in Krynn or The Realms.

[Psyren]

I do agree that some artificer subclasses feel more appropriate in some settings than others. Alchemists fit anywhere, but the Armorer and Artillerist both feel very out-of-place in most games set in Krynn or The Realms.

Lantan. Imaskar. Mount Nevermind.

[Mastikator]

Mass-production in the sense that an Artificer can touch a sword and... boom, you have a magic sword! Or the fact that they can replicate particular magic items as a matter of course (like Bags of Holding or Gauntlets of Ogre Strength).

Magic Weapon is a 2nd level spell on the wizards list. A wizard can make a mundane weapon magical for 10 minutes (concentration) using a bonus action literally just by touching it, that is from the PHB. An artificer can make ONE weapon magical until they die or make another weapon magical, they trade full spell casting for making a 2nd level spell last indefinitely. That is fair and not "mass produced". Artificer infusions are painfully limited, they can not mass produce magic items any better than wizards. Making ONE bag of holding is not mass produced.

Again: Everyone can mass produce magic weapons according to the DMG and Xanathar's. Artificers are no better than anyone at this, not at least until level 10 when they do it faster and at a discount.

[Yora]

I had not thought about it, but the campaign I am working on definitely needs Int Warlocks.
Probably keep Cha as an option instead of figting players about it, but the worldbuilding will assume they are almost all Int focused and try to understand their powers instead of just using force.

[Slipjig]

Lantan. Imaskar. Mount Nevermind.

Sure, individual authors have made their own corner of published worlds very Steampunk-y. I didn't say those subclasses don't exist or that they shouldn't be allowed, I just said that they didn't feel like a good thematic fit in MOST parts of those worlds, the same way a Monk would need a major refluffing to not be a huge thematic mismatch in a Vikings-themed game.

If you want to recreate the War of the Lance with a battalion of Vampiric-Gnome-Jetpack-Ninjas in a starring role, hey, it's your table.