Warlocks should be able to CHOOSE their casting stat.

[Spore]

Yes I said it. Any mental stat should be available. Of course minmaxers would pick wisdom but of course giving options to the minmax community grows them more.

Why flexible? Because in my honest opinion, Warlock is kinda prestige-y as a class (similar to Paladins, Rangers and any caster after 5th level spell slots/10th level, no I wasnt there for AD&D and D&D 1ed.). Who are the famous warlocks of popular culture?

Warcraft Warlocks, which are "fallen" shamans (druids or elemental-y clerics = wisdom)
Warcraft Demon Hunters (fallen mages = intelligence, but also charisma, since many elves feel like their casting is based on sorcery)
Corrupted summoners (often charisma based due to their obvious commanding nature)
Forbidden knowledge (also intelligence) Elder Mythos style
People with destinies and birthrights (varied stats) so the argument here is made that the crunch should fold for the fluff, not the other way around.

One could construct an argument even for con-based casting but honestly blood mages are kinda rare an deemed kinda edgy these days. (And honestly I kinda like the approach of permanent HP damage for warlocks rather.

Last and maybe the least argument is that I am kinda tired seeing Paladins "dipping" their toes into dark arts for a bit of a combat buff. Sor-locks are fine though.

[PhantomSoul]

Alternatively,
(a) Dumping warlock being separate (or being a class?), but relocating mechanics because it's nice actually having casters with some mechanical differences
(b) Less radically, just shifting casting stat to fit the patron and giving a text box or something in the DMG saying DMs might want to adjust things to story

[MoiMagnus]

Yes and no.

It's difficult for me to say "no" since changing ability scores is already an homebrew we accept at our table (we had a Charisma-instead-of-Wisdom monk recently), and Warlock would not be an exception if a player wanted to.

But I don't really buy your argument about the Warlock being particularly flexible. Bards could as easily be argued over being Intelligence based depending on their background, and the Sorcerer using Charisma always felt barely justified.

Giving them and only them a free choice (outside of homebrew) just feels wrong to me. IMO it would at least need to be bound to the pact, for example Pact of the Tome -> Intelligence, Chain -> Charisma, Blade -> Wisdom, but that would require you to commit to your pact boon at level 1 which is kind of awkward for tables that don't start at level 3 or higher.

[Amnestic]

Last and maybe the least argument is that I am kinda tired seeing Paladins "dipping" their toes into dark arts for a bit of a combat buff. Sor-locks are fine though.

It's important to remember that warlocks in 5e are not necessarily dark arts. Celestial's the obvious, but Archfey is 'whimsical', Fathomless is a fairly 'neutral' aligned pact, and Great Old One basically has 'Uncaring Unknown' as their alignment.

Frankly I blame multiclassing. I expect if it wasn't so prevalent (despite being 'optional' like feats are) that characters being able to change casting stats would have been a printed variant/optional rule for warlocks already.

[Joe the Rat]

I am totally on board with this idea. Just remember to shift the "lesser" save to Intelligence if you lean that way.

I'd almost rather cook up different classes for each, with different spells and invocations and archetypes. But DAMN that's a lot of work.
(Wis-based "Spirit Shaman", with Totem/Ancestor, Nature/Land, and Dragon options; Int-based "Arcanist" with Alienist (Far Realms / CoC Investigator themes), Vocabilist (Hekau/True Names/Words of Power), and Transcendentalist (Psionics) leanings).


Alternatively,
(a) Dumping warlock being separate (or being a class?), but relocating mechanics because it's nice actually having casters with some mechanical differences

Spell Point Sorcerers, Pact-Slot-and-Invocation Warlocks, Spell Slot Wizards. So tempted...

[PhantomSoul]

I am totally on board with this idea. Just remember to shift the "lesser" save to Intelligence if you lean that way.

I'd almost rather cook up different classes for each, with different spells and invocations and archetypes. But DAMN that's a lot of work.
(Wis-based "Spirit Shaman", with Totem/Ancestor, Nature/Land, and Dragon options; Int-based "Arcanist" with Alienist (Far Realms / CoC Investigator themes), Vocabilist (Hekau/True Names/Words of Power), and Transcendentalist (Psionics) leanings).

Not as bad if it seems if you follow the base structure of the class directly I suppose -- then each patron/source within a theme can be a subclass, and those you just build as needed!


Spell Point Sorcerers, Pact-Slot-and-Invocation Warlocks, Spell Slot Wizards. So tempted...

YUPPPPPP

[Jervis]

Yes I said it. Any mental stat should be available. Of course minmaxers would pick wisdom but of course giving options to the minmax community grows them more.

Oh yeah, it’s Int EB HexBladesinger time. Same stat to Save DC, AC, and Attack rolls with 3 attacks a turn at level 8.

[Pildion]

Yes I said it. Any mental stat should be available. Of course minmaxers would pick wisdom but of course giving options to the minmax community grows them more.

Why flexible? Because in my honest opinion, Warlock is kinda prestige-y as a class (similar to Paladins, Rangers and any caster after 5th level spell slots/10th level, no I wasnt there for AD&D and D&D 1ed.). Who are the famous warlocks of popular culture?

Warcraft Warlocks, which are "fallen" shamans (druids or elemental-y clerics = wisdom)
Warcraft Demon Hunters (fallen mages = intelligence, but also charisma, since many elves feel like their casting is based on sorcery)
Corrupted summoners (often charisma based due to their obvious commanding nature)
Forbidden knowledge (also intelligence) Elder Mythos style
People with destinies and birthrights (varied stats) so the argument here is made that the crunch should fold for the fluff, not the other way around.

One could construct an argument even for con-based casting but honestly blood mages are kinda rare an deemed kinda edgy these days. (And honestly I kinda like the approach of permanent HP damage for warlocks rather.

Last and maybe the least argument is that I am kinda tired seeing Paladins "dipping" their toes into dark arts for a bit of a combat buff. Sor-locks are fine though.

I wouldn't use Warcraft for justification in anything lol, that said I've always been fine with Int based Warlocks. It would even out the casters between the 3 stats and as you put, the Forbidden Knowledge route is what it logically should be anyways.

[Psyren]

I'm cool with it.

Worth noting that JC has stated he's okay (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/810215324784193536?lang=en) with Warlocks choosing between Int and Cha ("Would it break anything?" "No.") So show that to your DM if you're looking for extra ammunition. I'd certainly allow it at my table.

Wis wasn't specifically mentioned, but given his stance on Int/Cha then I don't think adding Wis to the mix would change much of anything.

[Jervis]

I'm cool with it.

Worth noting that JC has stated he's okay (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/810215324784193536?lang=en) with Warlocks choosing between Int and Cha ("Would it break anything?" "No.") So show that to your DM if you're looking for extra ammunition. I'd certainly allow it at my table.

Wis wasn't specifically mentioned, but given his stance on Int/Cha then I don't think adding Wis to the mix would change much of anything.

Huh, neat. Didn’t know he chimes in on that. I usually allow people to swap casting stats around so long as it’s not in service of multiclassing. Arcana clerics using Int or other clerics using charisma is fine, breakdancing wizards that use charisma are fun. Though sort of in reference with the joke I posted above i’m not a fan of using it for multiclassing to avoid stat madness.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes I said it. Any mental stat should be available.
I disagree. Warlock should be INT casters. :smallsmile: (I am aware that this opens up Wizard/Warlock MC shenanigans, but I already ban hexblades, so to me it doesn't matter).

[PhantomSoul]

I disagree. Warlock should be INT casters. :smallsmile:

A 5e purist I see! (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/810215324784193536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5E tweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E810215324784193536%7Ctwgr%5E %7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2Fwhy-are-warlock-charisma-casters%2F)
(Yes, it's the same link as upthread for INT being the playtest and dev preference)

[JLandan]

I don't think it's breaking in and of itself. The biggest change is in potential multiclassing, rather than internal. That could result in breakage, i.e. Jervis' Hexbladesinger. I haven't put much thought into that combo, so maybe it's not too overpowered.

Personally, I'm not sure I would allow it. My reasoning is that since the source of the power is a bargain with a Patron, Cha is the ability for being persuasive. If the modifying ability is changed to say... Int, the source of power would be more from study. I suppose you could be studying the Patron though. Food for thought.

[PhantomSoul]

I don't think it's breaking in and of itself. The biggest change is in potential multiclassing, rather than internal. That could result in breakage, i.e. Jervis' Hexbladesinger. I haven't put much thought into that combo, so maybe it's not too overpowered.

Personally, I'm not sure I would allow it. My reasoning is that since the source of the power is a bargain with a Patron, Cha is the ability for being persuasive. If the modifying ability is changed to say... Int, the source of power would be more from study. I suppose you could be studying the Patron though. Food for thought.

Even as per the class introduction, it isn't necessarily a bargain! (But I like casting stat varying by patron to reflect that different patrons are more "accessible" by different means; Charisma seems less likely than Int for many Great Old Ones, but Charisma seems more plausible for some Fey/Fiend options.)

[JLandan]

Even as per the class introduction, it isn't necessarily a bargain! (But I like casting stat varying by patron to reflect that different patrons are more "accessible" by different means; Charisma seems less likely than Int for many Great Old Ones, but Charisma seems more plausible for some Fey/Fiend options.)

I think that if I allowed Ability to change, I wouldn't make it player choice. I would make it setting specific, or possibly by Patron.

Would you allow player choice for any other class? Like say Cha Druids?

Or allow for non-caster classes too? Like a Dex Barbarian?

[GooeyChewie]

I would consider allowing it, but I would want to hear the player’s rationale for the change. If it makes sense in character and doesn’t cause a big balance issue, cool. If the player is just trying to get a mechanical advantage with no in-character reason, no go. And I do agree with @PhantomSoul that some subclass/ability score combos will be an easier sell than others.

[Psyren]

I don't think it's breaking in and of itself. The biggest change is in potential multiclassing, rather than internal. That could result in breakage, i.e. Jervis' Hexbladesinger. I haven't put much thought into that combo, so maybe it's not too overpowered.

Personally, I'm not sure I would allow it. My reasoning is that since the source of the power is a bargain with a Patron, Cha is the ability for being persuasive. If the modifying ability is changed to say... Int, the source of power would be more from study. I suppose you could be studying the Patron though. Food for thought.

As others have said, it's not necessarily a bargain. You may not have had any agency (and barely even awareness) in forming the Pact at all.


I would consider allowing it, but I would want to hear the player’s rationale for the change. If it makes sense in character and doesn’t cause a big balance issue, cool. If the player is just trying to get a mechanical advantage with no in-character reason, no go. And I do agree with @PhantomSoul that some subclass/ability score combos will be an easier sell than others.

I think this is reasonable.

[Guy Lombard-O]

I think that if I allowed Ability to change, I wouldn't make it player choice. I would make it setting specific, or possibly by Patron.

Would you allow player choice for any other class? Like say Cha Druids?

I'd argue that the same logic applies to clerics. Their casting stat should be determined by domain/deity. While most would probably still be Wis, I'd think that Trickster domains should use Cha (or maybe even arguably Dex, but that'd be pretty nuts!), Arcana should use Int, maybe War & Tempest could use Str or Con.

[Cikomyr2]

Can i make a suggestion? A thematic suggestion?

I wouldn't mind allowing that. But then id add one big power limiter: the warlock effectively "poisons the well" of the mental stat he picks as his Pact magic.

So an Int wizard can never be a Wizard. A Wis Warlock can never be a Druid or cleric.

A Cha warlock cant cast as a paladin.

[Frogreaver]

The day my Fighter can swing his greatsword with WIS is the day I'll consider it.

[Kane0]

Ive been allowing alternate casting stats for some classes for years, so this is fine with me.

[ender241]

The day my Fighter can swing his greatsword with WIS is the day I'll consider it.

With a 3-level "dip" into a Wis-based hexblade, your dream can become reality.

[Jervis]

With a 3-level "dip" into a Wis-based hexblade, your dream can become reality.

Shillelagh lets you do something similar as well I suppose. Battlesmith is a way to grab it with Int. There are a surprising number of ways to accomplish it.


I think that if I allowed Ability to change, I wouldn't make it player choice. I would make it setting specific, or possibly by Patron.

Would you allow player choice for any other class? Like say Cha Druids?

Or allow for non-caster classes too? Like a Dex Barbarian?

I personally think locking barbarians to Dex is somewhat pointless. For melee strength is preferable anyway because PAM GWM combing and better damage dice. I don’t see any reason to prevent them for using a throwback to 3.5 and making a dexbarian. I also actually prefer Cha Druids, but that’s mostly because of the bard association from previous editions. Just a thing that makes sense in my brain.

5e spheres of power uses something similar. Raw you can make a con based caster but doing so is discouraged.


Can i make a suggestion? A thematic suggestion?

I wouldn't mind allowing that. But then id add one big power limiter: the warlock effectively "poisons the well" of the mental stat he picks as his Pact magic.

So an Int wizard can never be a Wizard. A Wis Warlock can never be a Druid or cleric.

A Cha warlock cant cast as a paladin.

Sensible as a rule for changing mods though i’m not sure I agree with locking them out of Cha multiclassing by default. Buuut warlock is a detestably good 2-3 level dip so it makes sense.

[kazaryu]

Warcraft Warlocks, which are "fallen" shamans (druids or elemental-y clerics = wisdom)
Warcraft Demon Hunters (fallen mages = intelligence, but also charisma, since many elves feel like their casting is based on sorcery)
Corrupted summoners (often charisma based due to their obvious commanding nature)
Forbidden knowledge (also intelligence) Elder Mythos style
People with destinies and birthrights (varied stats) so the argument here is made that the crunch should fold for the fluff, not the other way around.
well...first and foremost, just because 2 types of media use the same word to describe a specific type of caster, doesn't mean they actually represent the same type of caster. Harry potter is a great example: all of the 'wizards' in harry potter are objectively sorcerers in 5e fluff. they just have a school where they can learn to harness their power. but their power does not come from that education. In essence, you can have hogwarts in DnD, it'd just be a place for sorcerers to go to (relatively) safely learn how to control their magic. by this logic:
warcraft warlocks are actually just...druids...that are evil
warcraft demon hunters...are demon hunters...not warlocks...im confused why they're even mentioned here. a paladin (5e) would make more sense as analogous to a demon hunter...
corrupted summoners: again...not analogous to 5e warlocks at all, why compare them?
forbidden knowledge: finally, you actually touched on a part of what 5e calls a warlock, i'll circle back to this.
people with destinies/birthrights: birthrights is objectively 5e sorcerers...and destinies, well, if it exists in your setting, it likely describes any 5e PC. none of the 5e classes have 'destiny' as part of their fluff.

ok, back to forbidden knowledge. yes, some warlocks seek forbidden knowledge...but thats not how they cast in 5e. In 5e they cast much the same way a sorcerer does. Their patron essentially imbues them with inherent magic. they become pseudo sorcerers. sometimes its via a deliberate deal, other times not so deliberate. the closest a 5e warlock comes to having fluff that support non-cha casting is their book of many secrets invocation.

One could construct an argument even for con-based casting but honestly blood mages are kinda rare an deemed kinda edgy these days. (And honestly I kinda like the approach of permanent HP damage for warlocks rather. why are you saying that blood magic, specifically, belongs to warlocks? i mean, 1 blood magic doesn't really exist in 5e, and the few examples that do exists belong to wizards primarily (life transerence, overchannel, create homunculus). so no..one could not construct an argument for con casting, at least not from a fluff standpoint, since there's no reason why 'blood mages' have to be warlocks.



Last and maybe the least argument is that I am kinda tired seeing Paladins "dipping" their toes into dark arts for a bit of a combat buff. Sor-locks are fine though.
so a few things here:
1. allowing warlock players to choose their casting stat wouldn't address this
2. this 'problem' can be solved without doing anything to the warlock. your overall idea is based on the premise that, in this case, crunch should give way to fluff...why not just start with the same premise, and do it here. 'making a deal with a devil is not compatible with your pact as a paladin'.
3. even without considering expansions (i.e. celestial pact warlock) warlocks in 5e are not inherently connected to the 'dark arts.' they aren't inherently evil, even fiend/GOO warlocks. but fey lock don't even have to have an evil/malicous patron. All a warlock is is someone that made a deal with a powerful entity in exchange for power. in some cases they don't even have to know they made the deal, and while its a *risky* proposition trying to deal with a devil, or a fey, you don't actually have to be evil, or dark, to do it.


TL:DR overall it really seems to me that you're adding a LOT of fluff to the warlock that just..isn't there based on the book reading. which is fine for your table, but the problem you described literally only exists as a result of the fluff that *you* added. or so it seems. mechanically speaking you're probably not gonna break anything by freeing up the warlocks casting stat, but the 5e fluff supports cha just fine, and i don't really see the conflict that you do.

[PhantomSoul]

2. this 'problem' can be solved without doing anything to the warlock. your overall idea is based on the premise that, in this case, crunch should give way to fluff...why not just start with the same premise, and do it here. 'making a deal with a devil is not compatible with your pact as a paladin'.

And if the crunch is a problem (sounds like it's part of it), just (a) dumping Hexblades as should have been the case to begin with barring homebrew fixes, and/or (b) capping some cross-class interactions (e.g. your damage cap from a Paladin's Smite matches the damage from your maximum slot only taking into account Paladin levels, so a nice and simple "look at Paladin Table to determine maximum slot level you can benefit from") [insert gripes about something like this being a general rule being such a simple option that could have fixed so many issues as a lovely variant/optional rule...]

[strangebloke]

Disagree.

The class is about getting powerful/forbidden knowledge from a patron, wisdom and charisma make little sense. Sure, none of the stats have clear definitions and you can justify anything, but insofar as stats have meaning, its clear which one applies here.

Being able to pick whatever stat you want mostly opens the door wide open to loads of jank multiclass builds which IMO don't make much sense from a flavor perspective. Warlock dips are everywhere as it is, we don't need to make it easier.

With that said, not a deal breaker to me.

[Psyren]

I think Warlock dips are everywhere in part because Hexblade is too strong. Some of its benefits should at the very least be part of Blade Pact, or outright pushed to later in the class.

But as far as Warlock being the multiclass king - I'm definitely okay with that being part of the class fantasy. A patron would logically want a wide variety of schmucks pactees on their payroll from all walks of life, and furthermore Warlocks are pitched as the "easy-to-learn but dangerous" path to power similar to how Binders were flavored in 3e. (Hell, Binder itself became a Warlock "subclass" in 4e.)

[Chronos]

I've even heard the argument that warlocks shouldn't be based on any stat, due to that whole "easy path to power" thing. Anywhere that the rules currently call for adding a Cha bonus, use proficiency bonus instead (doubling it where applicable).

Might be too powerful, to let warlocks be basically Con-SAD, but it'd make thematic sense, at least.

[PhantomSoul]

I've even heard the argument that warlocks shouldn't be based on any stat, due to that whole "easy path to power" thing. Anywhere that the rules currently call for adding a Cha bonus, use proficiency bonus instead (doubling it where applicable).

Might be too powerful, to let warlocks be basically Con-SAD, but it'd make thematic sense, at least.

It would be cute if it didn't even double -- you just don't get a bonus (or the remaining bonus is explicitly a class feature). Then it's thematic while being fitting for NPCs and low-level characters, but not as effective as a shortcut to extreme levels of power. But oh well, not like it was ever going to happen and it certainly ain't gunna be coming out of WOTC now lol

[Kane0]

To be more accurate, here's the cheat-sheet of what I use:

Learned casters use INT
Granted casters use WIS
Innate casters use CHA

Artificers: Learned or Innate
Bard: Learned or Innate
Cleric: Granted only
Druid: Granted only
EK: Learned or Innate
Paladin: Granted or Innate
Ranger: Learned or Innate
AT: Learned or Innate
Sorcerer: Innate only
Warlock: Learned or Granted
Wizard: Learned only

If your class allows for a choice you choose once you get access to your spellcasting (so level 1 for full casters, 2 for half casters and 3 for subclasters) and cannot be changed once you make this decision (excluding full character rebuilds). Most class/subclass features also change to match your spellcasting stat and spell DC (eg Cleric domain wis mod times per Long rest, Hexblade and Artificer casting stat for weapon attacks, etc).

Monks are a special case where Ki is functionally Innate but operates on WIS. I've also considered making some kind of arrangement to accommodate the Archivist concept of a divine caster that is purely intellectual and thus Learned, but so far I think there's enough caster options already.

[Luccan]

I have pictured this as dictating your pact boon: pick Wisdom? Your will is hardened into physical steel and you get the Blade Pact. Pick Intelligence? You gain a tome of forbidden knowledge that further unlocks the magical secrets you study, Tome Pact. Charisma gives you control over a more powerful and useful familiar, as your force of personality overwhelms the will of others.

[Azara5]

I have pictured this as dictating your pact boon: pick Wisdom? Your will is hardened into physical steel and you get the Blade Pact. Pick Intelligence? You gain a tome of forbidden knowledge that further unlocks the magical secrets you study, Tome Pact. Charisma gives you control over a more powerful and useful familiar, as your force of personality overwhelms the will of others.

What ability score would you give to the Pact of the Talisman?

[PhantomSoul]

What ability score would you give to the Pact of the Talisman?

If it's deemed to exist... :)

[Luccan]

What ability score would you give to the Pact of the Talisman?

That's a good question. I am inclined to give it as an alternate option. You pick your stat at level 1 and either get the assigned boon or you can take the Talisman at level 3. Though, admittedly, I'm not as familiar with Talisman or what different invocations it provides, so I might be persuaded to lock it into a stat as well.

[Jervis]

Reading through this thread I had a idea. Warlocks can choose whichever stat they want to cast their spells with no restrictions on multiclassing, BUT they need a 13-15 in Cha, Int, and Wis to do it. Sure you can dip warlock but your stats aren’t going to work for anything else. No restriction in single class warlocks obviously, just for multiclassing. Probably a bad idea but something to consider


If it's deemed to exist... :)

At this point it’s pretty fair to say anything “optional” about Tasha’s won’t remain so for very long, given the new PHB reprint in 2024 and how WotC is erasing older books they reprinted content from their storefront.

[PhantomSoul]

At this point it’s pretty fair to say anything “optional” about Tasha’s won’t remain so for very long, given the new PHB reprint in 2024 and how WotC is erasing older books they reprinted content from their storefront.

It's a homebrewing/house-ruling thread essentially (so selective inclusion seems like a baseline), and no matter what nonsense WOTC does there's no reason to assume absolutely every piece of spaghetti that WOTC has thrown at the fridge is going to be introduced into a game. (If my groups are any indication, it looks like trust for WOTC content and assumed-inclusion of that content has dropped immensely.)

[Jervis]

It's a homebrewing/house-ruling thread essentially (so selective inclusion seems like a baseline), and no matter what nonsense WOTC does there's no reason to assume absolutely every piece of spaghetti that WOTC has thrown at the fridge is going to be introduced into a game. (If my groups are any indication, it looks like trust for WOTC content and assumed-inclusion of that content has dropped immensely.)

That is fair, one of my problems with 5e right now is how it’s becoming more fragmented with time. More “variant” rules designed to the default. More reprintings of older content that are meant to be replacements without being stated directly. Errata out the wazoo, not a new problem but still. If you aren’t keeping up with Twitter and current events then it’s kinda hard to keep up with what is “cannon” for lack of a better word. Pretty soon there’s gonna be a new PHB that I see being a case of Wii to Wii U where a lot of the casual fans 5e attracted won’t know the difference and will cause some issues with playing with unfamiliar groups.

There’s also the… not necessarily problem but the situation of a lot of people using 5e as a universal system skeleton for a lot of games that don’t really fit it well in which case a lot of character options just kinda don’t work and the game gets janky. Example I’ve seen a lot of people hammer the system into everything from the walking dead to JoJo and the result is a LOT of weird jank and underbaked houserules. This was tangent but I felt like saying it say meh.

[PhantomSoul]

There’s also the… not necessarily problem but the situation of a lot of people using 5e as a universal system skeleton for a lot of games that don’t really fit it well in which case a lot of character options just kinda don’t work and the game gets janky. Example I’ve seen a lot of people hammer the system into everything from the walking dead to JoJo and the result is a LOT of weird jank and underbaked houserules. This was tangent but I felt like saying it say meh.

And it looks like it'll probably increase in frequency, if anything... :/

[Jervis]

And it looks like it'll probably increase in frequency, if anything... :/

Personally I like 5e for running the kind of games it was built for. Fantasy adventure games with combat and exploration and roleplay in more or less equal amounts of one of them being favored depending on the session. That’s not to disparage people who use it for other things but I have a lot of experience with other systems and I’ve seen personally that 5e as a system can throw a wrench in a lot of games that stray very far from that unless it’s modified heavily. It’s a good tool, but it’s not universal.

I’ve actually left some dnd related communities because of how often people asked for advice on contorting 5e to do things it just wasn’t built for, example off the top of my head trying to play Star Trek, and how toxic people got if you just suggested a different system better built for that kind of setting. At the risk of sounding like a 24 year young grumpy old man shaking his selfie stick, it’s like seeing people only watch a single TV show or read a single book and them getting mad when you suggest something that you think they might like.

[Ganryu]

Hotter take. All casters should be able to! {But especially warlock.}

DM I'm with has two rules. Pick your mental stat, pick your saves {One major, one minor}. Hasn't broken anything so far. Sure, multiclassing can break game in new ways, but... honestly, multiclassing is already broken.

We had a wisdom based wizard, cha monk, int druid and cleric.

It was pretty fun, and didn't feel too much different in combat. Out of combat, it was interesting what people ended up doing that was different than their regular roles. Our monk got to be the face, the wizard the scout, and any lore questions went to the druid.

[clash]

Hotter take. All casters should be able to! {But especially warlock.}

DM I'm with has two rules. Pick your mental stat, pick your saves {One major, one minor}. Hasn't broken anything so far. Sure, multiclassing can break game in new ways, but... honestly, multiclassing is already broken.

We had a wisdom based wizard, cha monk, int druid and cleric.

It was pretty fun, and didn't feel too much different in combat. Out of combat, it was interesting what people ended up doing that was different than their regular roles. Our monk got to be the face, the wizard the scout, and any lore questions went to the druid.

Even hotter take. There should only be one casting stat. I call it magic and that's what it's good for.

[Jervis]

Even hotter take. There should only be one casting stat. I call it magic and that's what it's good for.

I want to complain, but only one mental stat maters for saves 90% of the time, and the other two are situational for skill checks to the point of usually being dumped… I… I can’t argue against this. And I love arguing against things.

[Kane0]

I want to complain, but only one mental stat maters for saves 90% of the time, and the other two are situational for skill checks to the point of usually being dumped… I… I can’t argue against this. And I love arguing against things.

Okay but I want a proper luck stat too, so my DM can stop making me roll straight d20s

[Chronos]

People have been shoehorning D&D into other genres since before D&D was even D&D.

[greenstone]

I like charisma for warlocks because charisma is the ability score for negotiating deals, and a warlock is just someone who negotiated a deal. Power for "something"…

Warlocks should be charismatic people. They should be intense and forceful personalities. Often they will be charismatic leaders (up to and including cult leaders). They are driven people who will pay any price for power.

Wizards can be loner bookworms, happier in a library than a tavern. Bards might spend more time in taverns than libraries, but they still have to study and practice and rehearse. Clerics spend time in prayer, meditation and comtemplation, probably also time speld studying scripture. I don't see any of these as places for warlocks. Warlocks don't study hard, they don't work out, they don't spend years of physical and/or mental effort - they buy their way to power.

[Skrum]

What an excellent thread. I wish I played with a group that was more willing to mess around with this kind of stuff. It's something of a silly distinction, but while I have no interest whatsoever in homebrewed classes, races, feats, etc., I love tinkering with mechanics.

I particularly like the Proficiency Bonus Warlock. I think it really fits their theme of "any person can make a deal with an eldritch entity." Also should do quite a bit to discourage multiclassing (at least for hexblade, which seems to be most people's problem with lock dips...it would encourage other types of dips, which I think is kind of cool and again, very thematically fitting).

[Hytheter]

I like charisma for warlocks because charisma is the ability score for negotiating deals, and a warlock is just someone who negotiated a deal. Power for "something"…

But that's not actually a universal truth. There's an array of stated or implied patron relationships that don't necessarily suggest negotiation.

"Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity"

"Sometimes a traveler in the wilds comes to a strangely beautiful tower, meets its fey lord or lady, and stumbles into a pact without being fully aware of it."

"...or did your patron find and choose you?"

"Your patron has guided and helped your family for generations"

"he Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it."

These are all just from the PHB. The scope of what it means to be a warlock clearly goes beyond mere haggling, and even if you do I would say it's misguided to assume that the aspiring warlock is actually talented at it - isn't getting a raw deal a pretty standard trope for this kind of thing?

[Spore]

I particularly like the Proficiency Bonus Warlock. I think it really fits their theme of "any person can make a deal with an eldritch entity." Also should do quite a bit to discourage multiclassing (at least for hexblade, which seems to be most people's problem with lock dips...it would encourage other types of dips, which I think is kind of cool and again, very thematically fitting).

To be perfectly honest this is awesome.


I like charisma for warlocks because charisma is the ability score for negotiating deals, and a warlock is just someone who negotiated a deal. Power for "something"…

You're probably one of the people who needs bards to be music focussed. It is a scope that is too narrow for the class. I know D&D is a system of carefully defined class archetypes, and the Faustian Pact is one of the archetypical warlock things.

But on D&D classes are also catch-all terms for many tropes that are not necessarily singular. Celtic "druids" were essentially bards who shared their knowledge via mouth-to-mouth propaganda. They were nature-loving healers and leaders, but their expertise (not the game mechanic) was among all mental stats. They were tribe leaders (cha), supositories of knowledge before/instead of written accords (int) and wise men concerning healing (wis). And the concept of a celtic druid does not even work with any D&D class.

Plus might I mention Faust is a scholar that romances a minor and never truly shows any magical capabilities on his own. Mephisto, the devil allied with Faust does all the heavy lifting. This feels more like a mid level wizard summoning a devil to do his bidding for a few years until eventually the devil gains his soul and the souls of the people whose life Faust destroyed.

Yes, Faust expects himself to be superior and charming, but if you have ever dealt with young girls, you know it takes little charisma to charm them as an adult. (and here I stop the topic of dating minors because holy heck is this post bordering on breaking the forum rules).

Along with a magic stat and reforming magic into schools instead of classes, I would love for D&D to leave old comfortable ways and redo its magic system.

Some spell class choices in 5e just dont make any sense. Yes, it would be powerful if Warlocks got access to Animate Dead on a short rest basis. But raising the dead is a warlock-ish topic. Necromancer wizards might be on the forefront, but that hasn't stopped necromancer clerics and sorcerers from popping up (heck, even Eldritch Knights). Why is Animate Dead off limits for Warlocks? Because designers think they know optimizers until they read a few optimized builds. But that is a side rant.

[Amechra]

People have been shoehorning D&D into other genres since before D&D was even D&D.

And those people have been wrong to do so, in the same way that it's wrong to use a drill to hammer in nails when there's a perfectly good hammer right there.

I honestly blame the fact that D&D is incredibly expensive to get into, at least as far as the tabletop hobby goes. It's surprisingly tricky to convince people that getting into a new RPG doesn't necessarily require them to buy 3+ books and learn dozens of pages of mechanics. Also, it has first mover advantage like woah, so that doesn't help matters much.


I particularly like the Proficiency Bonus Warlock. I think it really fits their theme of "any person can make a deal with an eldritch entity." Also should do quite a bit to discourage multiclassing (at least for hexblade, which seems to be most people's problem with lock dips...it would encourage other types of dips, which I think is kind of cool and again, very thematically fitting).

It's a neat idea — I have this sinking feeling that it has some... quirky... interactions that you'd have to look out for, but nothing legitimately broken comes to mind.

[Psyren]

To be more accurate, here's the cheat-sheet of what I use:

Learned casters use INT
Granted casters use WIS
Innate casters use CHA

Artificers: Learned or Innate
Bard: Learned or Innate
Cleric: Granted only
Druid: Granted only
EK: Learned or Innate
Paladin: Granted or Innate
Ranger: Learned or Innate
AT: Learned or Innate
Sorcerer: Innate only
Warlock: Learned or Granted
Wizard: Learned only

If your class allows for a choice you choose once you get access to your spellcasting (so level 1 for full casters, 2 for half casters and 3 for subclasters) and cannot be changed once you make this decision (excluding full character rebuilds). Most class/subclass features also change to match your spellcasting stat and spell DC (eg Cleric domain wis mod times per Long rest, Hexblade and Artificer casting stat for weapon attacks, etc).

Monks are a special case where Ki is functionally Innate but operates on WIS. I've also considered making some kind of arrangement to accommodate the Archivist concept of a divine caster that is purely intellectual and thus Learned, but so far I think there's enough caster options already.

I could see Clockwork Soul and Aberrant Mind being Learned sorcerers. They would both work a lot like psions, learning through mental exercises like koans and logical conundrums rather than studying written formulae but still requiring intelligence.

Warlock I think could be all three, but they'd need to be less frontloaded.

[Amnestic]

Warlock I think could be all three, but they'd need to be less frontloaded.

More and more I'm starting to hate multiclassing as its implemented, it screws around with so much design/build stuff.

[strangebloke]

More and more I'm starting to hate multiclassing as its implemented, it screws around with so much design/build stuff.

It isn't a problem if you're willing to start with a 14 in one of your 'main' stats, or if your DM is generous with base stats.

And really, I sorta feel like the multiclassing is kind of broken-strong for most characters? I honestly struggle to think of a single class that doesn't want to take at least a 1 level dip at some point before level ten. So I'm skeptical that removing the only restriction on multiclassing is a good idea that will improve build options.

[Psyren]

More and more I'm starting to hate multiclassing as its implemented, it screws around with so much design/build stuff.

I honestly think 5e multiclassing is in a better place than it's ever been. They've found a way to simultaneously reduce the fiddly class-based math but also still make multiclassing a meaningful tradeoff by delaying ASIs and milestone features like Extra Attack or acquisition of high-level spells. I think only a few minor tweaks (especially to specific classes like Warlock) will get the system from good to great.

[Amechra]

More and more I'm starting to hate multiclassing as its implemented, it screws around with so much design/build stuff.

I think it's a massive shame that WotC decided to model 3e's multiclassing off of 2e's terrible dual-class rules. And I think it's even worse that 5e followed suit.

[Jervis]

I honestly think 5e multiclassing is in a better place than it's ever been. They've found a way to simultaneously reduce the fiddly class-based math but also still make multiclassing a meaningful tradeoff by delaying ASIs and milestone features like Extra Attack or acquisition of high-level spells. I think only a few minor tweaks (especially to specific classes like Warlock) will get the system from good to great.

I think the opposite. Multiclassing in 5e is a trap option that’s terrible outside of a few specific interactions like warlock. The fact that a fighter 3/ Barbarian 2 doesn’t have extra attack while a Druid 3/ cleric 2 still has 3rd level slots (though admittedly not 3rd level spells) will never not annoy me. Remove the good 1-2 level dips and you have an option that exists only to be terrible and screw players over.

[strangebloke]

I think the opposite. Multiclassing in 5e is a trap option that’s terrible outside of a few specific interactions like warlock. The fact that a fighter 3/ Barbarian 2 doesn’t have extra attack while a Druid 3/ cleric 2 still has 3rd level slots (though admittedly not 3rd level spells) will never not annoy me. Remove the good 1-2 level dips and you have an option that exists only to be terrible and screw players over.

Oh, nah, hard disagree. Like if you're only looking at sub-5th level builds, sure, but once you get up to higher levels things change. Barbarians from levels 9-13 usually only get one class feature that's worth anything, relentless rage, and while its reasonably strong, its nothing compared to what you get from 4 fighter levels, or 5 rogue levels, or 5 druid levels. Paladins don't usually want to take sorcerer levels before level 6, but after either 6 or 7 the benefits of being able to quicken spells and cast shield are just too big to ignore, and you'll catch up to where you would have otherwise been in spell levels pretty quickly anyway.

There's a few classes where they only ever really want to dip, like monk and wizard, but everything else is very happy taking multiple classes.

[Psyren]

I think the opposite. Multiclassing in 5e is a trap option that’s terrible outside of a few specific interactions like warlock. The fact that a fighter 3/ Barbarian 2 doesn’t have extra attack while a Druid 3/ cleric 2 still has 3rd level slots (though admittedly not 3rd level spells) will never not annoy me. Remove the good 1-2 level dips and you have an option that exists only to be terrible and screw players over.

Delaying Extra Attack is indeed bad for many martial builds but you can just... not do that.

[Kane0]

I could see Clockwork Soul and Aberrant Mind being Learned sorcerers. They would both work a lot like psions, learning through mental exercises like koans and logical conundrums rather than studying written formulae but still requiring intelligence.

Warlock I think could be all three, but they'd need to be less frontloaded.

I could see the argument, but i like having at least one class that is exclusive to each type, plus I have already 'brewed the sorc considerably. Innate warlocks i think defeats the purpose of getting outside help for their magic.

Ive also toyed around with the houserule that you cant mix and match casting types via multiclassing, but there's no incentive to in the first place.

[Skrum]

Oh, nah, hard disagree. Like if you're only looking at sub-5th level builds, sure, but once you get up to higher levels things change. Barbarians from levels 9-13 usually only get one class feature that's worth anything, relentless rage, and while its reasonably strong, its nothing compared to what you get from 4 fighter levels, or 5 rogue levels, or 5 druid levels. Paladins don't usually want to take sorcerer levels before level 6, but after either 6 or 7 the benefits of being able to quicken spells and cast shield are just too big to ignore, and you'll catch up to where you would have otherwise been in spell levels pretty quickly anyway.

There's a few classes where they only ever really want to dip, like monk and wizard, but everything else is very happy taking multiple classes.

Multiclassing becoming good at levels over 8 because most classes have terrible feature spread is...idk, not a great argument for multiclassing, especially since a lot of games are in that 3-8 range. Maybe it amounts to the same thing, but it's absolutely "most classes are frontloaded and aren't worth leveling higher."

I see what you're saying, but still, Jervis isn't wrong. Sub-8, multiclassing has to be quite carefully considered.

[Psyren]

Multiclassing becoming good at levels over 8 because most classes have terrible feature spread is...idk, not a great argument for multiclassing, especially since a lot of games are in that 3-8 range. Maybe it amounts to the same thing, but it's absolutely "most classes are frontloaded and aren't worth leveling higher."

I see what you're saying, but still, Jervis isn't wrong. Sub-8, multiclassing has to be quite carefully considered.

And it should be. It's quite beneficial for some builds but has significant tradeoffs.

I expect 5.5e will change how those lower levels work for most classes more than it will change multiclassing itself. Say, everyone getting a feat packaged into their background for instance, which will make delaying that first ASI much less painful.

[Joe the Rat]

Re: Multiclassing -
If, at the end of the day, it's always better to multiclass, then you need to revisit your base classes. Ideally, your single-class character should be better at doing what the class is supposed to do than a multiclass build - something we see violated all over the place, in part because there is also the drive to get the core essence of the class into play as quickly as possible. We look for the synnergies, but there needs to be something given up to get them. Mid-high level floof abilities aren't enough of a drive.

(There's also the issue that Warlock is generally perceived as "Eldritch Blast Platform," making it a 2-level sidearm rather than a class, missing the rest of the rules-of-magic-breaking fun).


People have been shoehorning D&D into other genres since before D&D was even D&D.
To be fair, people have been shoehorning other genres into proto-D&D since Blackmoor. I blame Vance.

[Leon]

If you aren’t keeping up with Twitter and current events then it’s kinda hard to keep up with what is “cannon” for lack of a better word. P

What is "cannon" should be Book releases not what a idiot on twitter is posting even if they work on said books

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thinking about this in context of my own headcanon for how warlocks (and spell-casting in general) work, I have to disagree. Warlocks are pretty firmly CHA casters in this context.

Your casting stat is determined by where your power comes from.

INT casters learn their magic, mastering it themselves by conscious thought. It does not come from an outside source at all. They get better at magic by being smarter, which lets them understand and master all the variables themselves.

WIS casters ask for their magic in the moment. They do not master the magic themselves--no part of it comes from within. Instead, they act as channels for some other source. They get better at magic by perceiving the directions sent from their source more clearly and "getting themselves out of the way" more.

CHA casters have magic instilled in them by something. Whether accident of birth/environment (sorcerers), connection with the Words and Harmonies of creation (bards), or by contact with (unwitting or not) some powerful Other, their power is inside them but not understood by them. It's not their design or creation; it's unruly and untamed. They get better at magic by getting better at controlling this magic by force of will. Better at exerting their dominance over the magic. They don't do it by intellectual exercises (INT) or by hearing the words of their patrons better (warlocks are not channeling their patrons by default), they do it by asserting primacy of Self over Other.

Warlocks, in particular, cheat to get their magic. They don't go through the intellectual exercise to develop (or follow) an organized, systematic magical system--if they did, they'd be wizards. Their magic is sparked by their Pact (which might just be incidental exposure). But it doesn't develop naturally. Instead of naturally opening spell slots by meditation, practice, etc., their slots are shallow wounds in their souls torn open by the Patron and enlarged by continued exposure. Their spells aren't learned by rote, they're gifted to the warlock in their full form. Effectively, warlocks have a cheat sheet to the universe that they downloaded. But like all cheat sheets, having it and using it effectively are two different things. They cast by force of will, not by intellectual understanding.

And unlike WIS casters, they don't feel or perceive the magic flowing into them in the moment. They don't channel their patron's power--the power has been granted and can't be taken back. The patron can refuse to give more (cutting off leveling and denying the capstone unless they find a new patron), but they can't stop the flow right now. And can't take back what they've given. While a druid can be cut off by the spirits and a cleric can be rejected[1].

Note: This is all head-canon. I don't claim it's official lore, but it fits what I understand about the official lore fairly well. I believe.

[1] Paladins are CHA because it's their strength-of-will (and conviction) that powers them. They don't channel anybody except their own conviction. Effectively, they're their own "deities". Able to cast spells and do magic because the universe is tired of arguing with such stubborn, elementally convinced beings. This is also why they fall--if they lose confidence and reject the Oath that ties them, they've cut themselves off. Clerics can be un-chosen, paladins have to make themselves fall. No one else can "fall" a paladin. And that's the essence of the CHA/WIS split. CHA casters can't have their power taken from them, although they can reject it. WIS casters are dependent on the Other all the time.