NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 7002824" data-attributes="member: 6683613">The thing is that this would only give a Int a boost for warlocks, and most characters aren't. You counted the number of casters of the various types, but that doesn't really give a measure of the ability scores' balance at the table, because any given character is most likely only going to use one or two classes no matter how many there are. If you're playing a wizard, it doesn't matter that wizards are the only Int caster: increasing the number of Int caster classes doesn't change the significance of your Int score. And if you're playing a barbarian/bard/cleric/druid/fighter/monk/paladin/ranger/rogue/sorcerer, it doesn't matter that wizards are the only Int caster: increasing the number of Int caster classes still doesn't change the significance of your Int score.The one potential wrinkle to this principle is multiclassing. Having more Int caster classes might make Int more valuable because it would open up more options in multiclassing down the line. But in practice, you rarely see optimizers advise players rolling a fighter or whatever to put a high score in Charisma on the grounds that they might want to multiclass into bard, paladin, sorcerer, or warlock later. (Note that this is different than having a specific "build" aiming for one of those classes. If you have a build, you evaluate scores based on whatever that build demands, and you're back to the logic of the previous paragraph where you don't care how many classes use a score because you're not taking levels in all those classes.) So I don't think multiclassing flexibility is a significant factor in balancing the ability scores.</blockquote>

Verification