Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8076486" data-attributes="member: 6795602">On some level you've just got to pick the least worst stat to tie character power to.&nbsp; I mean you could design a game around not doing that - but it wouldn't be D&amp;D IMO.&nbsp; There's just not a better stat for warlocks than charisma.&nbsp; Everything else makes even less sense.&nbsp; Besides, the charisma you have may be after your patron's blessing not before <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Sorcerer - Con makes sense conceptually but has mechanical problems in the rest of 5e design.&nbsp; You would end up with a sorcerer with more hp than most fighters and dwarves would make the best sorcerers which is kind of strange.&nbsp; Also moving sorcerers (or warlocks) away from charisma would break years of historical D&amp;D precedent - which is also a very important consideration.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 8076486, member: 6795602"] On some level you've just got to pick the least worst stat to tie character power to. I mean you could design a game around not doing that - but it wouldn't be D&D IMO. There's just not a better stat for warlocks than charisma. Everything else makes even less sense. Besides, the charisma you have may be after your patron's blessing not before ;) Sorcerer - Con makes sense conceptually but has mechanical problems in the rest of 5e design. You would end up with a sorcerer with more hp than most fighters and dwarves would make the best sorcerers which is kind of strange. Also moving sorcerers (or warlocks) away from charisma would break years of historical D&D precedent - which is also a very important consideration. [/QUOTE]

Verification