Next Edition Warlock Primary Ability

Am I the only one really unhappy about the change to Intelligence primary for the Warlock?

Warlocks were always supposed to be the wily darker cousins to wizards and sorcerers.  In both 3e and 4e, Warlocks were primarily Charisma based and often played the party face.  Making Warlocks Int based takes that away from them and relegates Charisma to secondary in a system where it's harder to get stat bonuses.  Warlocks don't even have Charisma as one of their 3 stat choices at character creation!  The first pact boon affects Charisma rolls, and even the suggested background of Charlatan focuses on Bluff and not Intelligence skills. 

Having the two existing classes with +3 magic attack bonuses both be Int based is bland and dull.  If you want a strong attack caster, you're basically forced into Int.  Maybe this'll change with more classes, but it doesn't feel right to me.

Basically, I really feel that Intelligence as a Primary ability really does not fit the Warlock at all.  Maybe I'm alone in this, but I was so put off by this that I had to speak up somewhere.

Edit
tl;dr: D&D Next Warlock feels like a "dark" Wizard instead of a Warlock
I like it better than the split Cha/Con disaster from 4e (They could of at least made the either/or pacts USE either Cha OR Con for attack rolls and such. My Star Pact Warforged Warlock would be so much happier...)

That said, I definitely think Cha is a much better primary stat for Warlock than Int. Especially considering how some of the invocations affect/are determined by your Cha.
"Utinam barbari spatium proprium tuum invadant!"
Personally I prefer CON, INT or CHA depending on the patron. Some patrons value smart warlocks who must dig to tomes and books to learn their locations and secrets to obtain their power. Other patrons require charismatic warlocks who can even convince them to lend power. And there are others who take anyone and dump power into their bodies and hope they survive.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Personally I prefer CON, INT or CHA depending on the patron. Some patrons value smart warlocks who must dig to tomes and books to learn their locations and secrets to obtain their power. Other patrons require charismatic warlocks who can even convince them to lend power. And there are others who take anyone and dump power into their bodies and hope they survive.



I really like this idea. Having your patron determine your most valuable score makes sense, and would make warlocks more viable for a variety of races. It only makes sense that more scholarly elves are better at contracting with fey patrons, while a dwarf would more often make say, an elemental pact because his body can withstand the overwhelming magic.
My concern here is what happened to the 4e Warlock. By having 3 "casting" stats (even worse than 4e's  "V-class design") which would carry over into Invocations, etc. the pool of available abilities for the average Warlock would be virtually diminished by 2/3rds (assuming roughly equal distribution).

For example, if your primary stat is Int and you want to choose an Invocation that utilizes Con, you will be at a not-insignificant disadvantage. The easy fix for this would be to have all Invocation descriptions use "your primary casting stat" rather than specify Int, Con, or Cha. There would also probably need to be some sort of footnote or sidebar concerning how handle the Spells (Rituals) Warlocks have access to with a flexible casting stat.

Done right, it could work out pretty well. I just don't want to see a repeat of 4e's "V-class design" (or something worse).
"Utinam barbari spatium proprium tuum invadant!"
I'd much rather just have CHA be their abillity.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
I agree, that the spellcasting should not be Int.  A Warlock is basically taking a shortcut to power compared  to a Wizard.  It should really be dependent on the entity with whom you made your pact with.
I wouldn't mind seeing the spells or rituals be based off Int... But have Warlock powers be based on Cha.

This would give some diversity in the class but wouldn't cause to much MAD ... I hope...

Int/Dex/Con Warlock or a Cha/Dex/Con Warlock could be interesting paths for the same class. The Cha uses more powers like shadow veil and the Int based warlock would use more spells/rituals.
+1 to Warlock's magic being based off of Cha. They make pacts and deals. That sounds like Cha based magic to me. 
Personally I prefer CON, INT or CHA depending on the patron. Some patrons value smart warlocks who must dig to tomes and books to learn their locations and secrets to obtain their power. Other patrons require charismatic warlocks who can even convince them to lend power. And there are others who take anyone and dump power into their bodies and hope they survive.



Yes please. Brilliant.
+1 to Warlock's magic being based off of Cha. They make pacts and deals. That sounds like Cha based magic to me. 



Precisely. Regardless of patron, the magic used by the warlock to gain that patron seems to involve force of personality, quick wits (in the social sense), etc. The sort of traits you'd expect in a high charisma character.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
This edition seems much more fluid around which attribute a spell and feature can use.

For instance Sorcerer: 




"Magical Attacks: When you make a magical attack using a sorcerer spell, you use your Charisma modifier for the attack roll, and add a bonus to that roll based on the Magic Attack column in the Sorcerer table." This seems like this could be in the features of the build, so Sorcerer could be constitution for Dragon Soul, Charisma for Fey Soul, Inteligence for Devil Soul etc.






without having to alter any of the spell write up.
I find it a bit weird that the fluff for the patron of the current warlock choice steals beauty, yet her followers need no charisma. With the way your physical apearance gradualy deteriorates, you would think that high charisma would be needed to continually persuade her to keep granting you favors once your outward appearance had been significantly diminished.

I have failed to find a way in which int would be a relevant stat, as invoking favors in no way applies using a learned skill.

+2 to cha based warlocks, and +1 to important stat depending on the patron. (I think it's a neat idea) 
Personally, I *LOVE* the fact that warlocks are Int based. Sure, they're taking a shortcut to power by making deals, but I see them leaning on the law of the deals, much like lawyers. To be able to work through and identify all the fine print, I would think they need to be supremely intelligent. In order to understand and work the hidden laws of the universe that they were never meant to, I think they need to be supremely intelligent (like an astro/geo/nuclear-physicist). I think the fluff explains it pretty well and provocatively.


I never was keen on Charisma being their primary ability score, and I hated Constitution even more. I totally

AD&D is powergaming – powergaming for the DM. And back then, DM stood for "Dire Munchkin."

 

I suppose people are entitled to their uninformed opinions; I just don’t see the point when that opinion won’t be respected. Proper research can be the difference in appearing a fool vs. a respectable dissident. 

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/3.jpg)

Personally, I *LOVE* the fact that warlocks are Int based. Sure, they're taking a shortcut to power by making deals, but I see them leaning on the law of the deals, much like lawyers. To be able to work through and identify all the fine print, I would think they need to be supremely intelligent. In order to understand and work the hidden laws of the universe that they were never meant to, I think they need to be supremely intelligent (like an astro/geo/nuclear-physicist). I think the fluff explains it pretty well and provocatively.


I never was keen on Charisma being their primary ability score, and I hated Constitution even more. I totally



I always thought of wizards as astrophysicist types, and warlocks as theoretical physicists, so I guess that works. :P
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Personally I prefer CON, INT or CHA depending on the patron. Some patrons value smart warlocks who must dig to tomes and books to learn their locations and secrets to obtain their power. Other patrons require charismatic warlocks who can even convince them to lend power. And there are others who take anyone and dump power into their bodies and hope they survive.


+1

Alternative: you need some one primary stat for any Warlock (I like CHR if it makes me different from a Wizard and a Sorcerer), and then your Patron - or your Pact - determines your secondary stat.  So your choice of pact will matter to how your character develops / plays.

Also, the pacts should play differently:
dragon - get an encounter breath weapon and +armor and melee claw/bite, plus short flight
Star - drive enemies crazy (indicated as status effects?) from across the room
infernal - fling hellfire in a burst 3 on your enemies
elemental - mess with terrain generation in the middle of the fight
dark - cut off the target's line of sight - he's in the dark!
vestige - this Warlock has TWO (or more) masters, poor sod.

Best complements I have yet received

Making it up as I go along:

{BRJN} If I was writing the Tome of Lore, I would let Auppenser sleep. But I also would have him dream. In his dreaming he re-activates the innate powers of (some) mortal minds. Or his dreaming changes the nature of reality - currently very malleable thanks to Spellplague &c. Or whatever really cool flavor text and pseudo-science explanation people react positively to.

{Lord_Karsus} You know, I like that better than the explanations for the Spellplague.

 

{BRJN} If Bhaal approves of The Joker, does he approve of Jack Nicholson's portrayal or Heath Ledger's protrayal more?

{Stigger} That question is utterly classic, and completely on target.

 

Prepped ahead of time:

I started the 4e thread "1001 Failed Interrogation Results" (now lost in that great electronic goodnight, alas)

{ADHadh} These are all good and make sense! I just can't come up with something that's not covered here and is not completely ridiculous.

 

(News bulletin: Updated thread to be posted after I review the 5e DMG)

 

My 5e characters

Active:

none yet - gotta find a group !

Character Ready-to-go:

Erevyn Meliamne, Wood elf Monk1, inspired by "Radar O'Reilley" from M*A*S*H

Concepts I'm kicking around:

Barbarian w/Tough feat, to be nearly indestructible

"Truenamer" cleric - all spells are Verbal

"Buggy" Wizard - insect flavor on everything.  His DMPC / BBEG version is going to become a beetle version of a Worm That Walks.  (See the 4e Lamia.)  Because lichdom is so cliche.

Sign In to post comments