Warlocks should be able to CHOOSE their casting stat.

[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.