D&D 5E Advice for a newish 5E gamemaster

[Halivar]

well, I only have three D6 and well

I would posit that this should be your next investment, then:

http://www.amazon.com/Chessex-001LBCHX-Pound-O-Dice/dp/B008C0KXYS/

 

[tuxedoraptor]

ehh, its not that big of a deal. I do plan on getting more dice but I only want dice that are in a set and are pretty to look at. My guinea pig is rolling my gunmetal grey with gold numbering D20 die around on my desk right now.

 

[tuxedoraptor]

Quick question. Why is the warlock charisma based? There is no in game explaination and I would like one as it seems to be more intelligence based, also what pathfinder deities work well and what ones don't?

 

[Kabouter Games]

Quick question. Why is the warlock charisma based? There is no in game explaination and I would like one as it seems to be more intelligence based, also what pathfinder deities work well and what ones don't?

I'm not a D&D designer so I don't know for sure. But conjecture is fun.

1. Every class has to have a prime requisite statistic. Wizards have INT, Fighters have STR, Rogues have DEX. Why not CHA for Warlocks?
2. The thing that gives a Warlock her power is a relationship. CHA is the best stat to govern that relationship.

That's how I rationalize it, anyway. YMMV.

 

[tuxedoraptor]

Er, kinda. However, it doesn't matter how great a person you are if you are making a deal with a deity level person, you need to be able to work an agreement out with them without screwing yourself over, hence intelligence makes more sense. PLUS charisma has too many casters already.

 

[Kabouter Games]

Did you want a blue-sky answer or an argument?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Quick question. Why is the warlock charisma based? There is no in game explaination and I would like one as it seems to be more intelligence based, also what pathfinder deities work well and what ones don't?

There is a lot of interpretation involved in a warlock. Some like to interpret their magical powers as being directly dependent on an ongoing relationship with their patron, in the same way some like to view a cleric's spellcasting ability. If the deity or warlock patron wants to, they can simply remove the ability to use the magic, or in an even more extreme view, the deity/patron is the only one who really holds the power, and the magical act on the part of the cleric/warlock is just a request for the deity/patron to do something, which they may or may not decide to.

That view isn't really well supported by either the rules or the lore of the game.

The opposite approach is that once a warlock (or cleric) gains their magical powers, through some sort of arrangement with a patron or deity, or some other means, they have those powers completely independently. If the patron or deity wants to take them away, they have to make active effort in some manner--just like they would have to use active effort to take the spellcasting abilities away from some random sorcerer or wizard or bard they wanted to punish for some reason. The most extreme version of this has them gaining their powers when they first gain the class, and then they can level up all the way to 20th with no further interaction from a patron or deity.

This view seems to me to have better support in more recent editions (I'm not a 4e fan, but it was explicitly true in 4e, and it's one of the things I like.)

There is then an entire spectrum of views in-between those extremes. (And 5e seems to be in the middle, leaning slightly towards the second view.)


If you choose to go with this second view, then Charisma has nothing to do with interacting with your patron. Instead, it has something to do with how you access your magic. The way I've described it is that a warlock doesn't learn how to cast their spells in scientific detail like a wizard--nor do they align themselves with a divine principle like clerics. Instead, they reach into the Weave grasp the spell they want, and take it by their magic-infused force of personality (Cha), making it a part of themselves.

 

[tuxedoraptor]

Uh, thats literally the description for the sorcerer mate, like, straight out of the players handbook. Rereading the warlock page says lots about research and study though, so its an INT caster that has a book wide typo in my opinion.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

There are commonalities, because they are both Charisma-based casters, just like there are major commonalities between some of the Wisdom-based casters (cleric, druid, and paladin specifically).

But sorcerers don't really grab a spell from the Weave. The ability to channel magic from the Weave into a certain spell is inborn or otherwise imbued into them. It comes forth from or through them, whereas (in the paradigm I'm proposing) warlocks have been given a "spell-taking power" which they have to learn how to use to be able to acquire they spells they want.

BTW, I don't really have any problem with making warlocks Int-based. If a DM said he was going that route, it wouldn't phase me. I'm just thinking of justifications for the current setup. (I actually wrote up some in-character understandings of how magic varied for wizards, warlocks and bards (we have one of each in my game) presenting each character with their class's understanding on how the others used magic. Of course they all believe their own form of magic is the best.)

 

[tuxedoraptor]

Well, I was supposed to meet my group at the local gaming shop, but my grandmother didn't get home until two and I was supposed to be there at one, the only way I would of gotten there would be to have my grandfather drive me and he smokes, I HATE cigarette smoke so much.