D&D General Warlocks: Charisma vs Intelligence

[EzekielRaiden]

Additional abilities you mentioned are Arcane Recovery, Scholar, and Memorize spell. The abilities that weren't mentioned were the subclass abilities granted at levels 3, 6, 10, and 14; and the feats at levels 4, 8, 12, and 16. Those are part of the class progression too. After level 16 there's Spell Mastery, an Epic Boon, and Signature spells.

Compare this to any other class and this claim pretty clearly falls apart.

Also, I'm sorry, but the universal feat progression and the fact that it has subclass features (many of which are ALSO barely more than ribbons!) is completely irrelevant. Yes, they are keyed to class level, but don't even try to claim that they're "class features." They aren't and never were. The best you can argue is that Fighters and Rogues get extra ones as a class feature. That does not apply to Wizards.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Some Warlocks research the location of buried tombs, uncover ancient secrets within them, carefully decipher the meaning of those secrets, risk going mad understanding the knowledge they have unlocked, and only then begin the process of making a pact. And that pact? It doesn't have to be persuasive or even social. It can be a well constructed devil contract, a carefully researched binding to an ancient ghost/vampire/lich, the secret how to release a grateful genie, accepting twisted knowledge and really grokking its meaning, etc.

Some patrons certainly do lend themselves more to one stat over another - I think it's hard to justify an Archfey or Hexblade taking an interest in an Int Warlock, while a Fiend, GOO, or Undead might respect Int Warlocks quite a bit (or not care in the case of GOO, and you get as much power as you can comprehend). Even the description of the Warlock itself seems to lean on the idea of knowledge over bargains (though both are valid):

"Warlocks quest for knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse. They often begin their search for magical power by delving into tomes of forbidden lore, dabbling in invocations meant to attract the power of extraplanar beings, or seeking places of power where the influence of these things can be felt. [...] Warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power." And later "You have unearthed Eldritch Invocations, pieces of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability or other lessons."

The word bargain doesn't even appear until you get to the Archfey or Fiend pacts. And in the end it's just fluff. You can come up with perfectly valid reasons for why either words.

Okay. I don't think the fact that you have to find the location means that you use the magic Intelligence-wise.

More importantly, this completely ignores two factors. One, shouldn't this then mean Clerics use Int too because they have to study and understand theology? Two, this rejects nearly 20 years of consistent tradition of Warlocks being Charismatic. Isn't that something 5e is all about? Preserving the thematic traditions of D&D?

 

[Seramus]

Okay. I don't think the fact that you have to find the location means that you use the magic Intelligence-wise.

But finding the lore is brought up so many times in the Warlock description, it seems to be a very important part of the class narrative. Just look at this! "In no time, each Warlock is drawn into a binding pact with a powerful patron. Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as angels, archfey, demons, devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, Warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power." And further "Once a pact is made, a Warlock's thirst for knowledge and power can't be slaked with mere study. Most Warlocks spend their days pursuing greater power and deeper knowledge, which typically means some kind of adventure."

Drawing on the ancient knowledge? Piecing together arcane secrets? Thirst for knowledge can't be slaked? Pursuing greater power and deeper knowledge?

This is a slam dunk, man.

More importantly, this completely ignores two factors. One, shouldn't this then mean Clerics use Int too because they have to study and understand theology? Two, this rejects nearly 20 years of consistent tradition of Warlocks being Charismatic. Isn't that something 5e is all about? Preserving the thematic traditions of D&D?

Interestingly, Complete Arcane came out with the Cha Warlock in 2004, and just four years later we saw the release of 4th Edition with the Con/Int/Cha Warlock. It wasn't for 6 more years that we saw the release of 5th Edition (2004 > 2008 > 2014). So prior to 5th we've got 50% more time spent as Con/Int/Cha than just Cha. Certainly 5th Edition was an incredibly strong attempt to move away from the backlash against 4E, but we know Jeremy Crawford said the Warlock was actually going to be an Int caster in 5E until playtest feedback pushed back on it!

Personally, I'm fine with both Int and Cha. I can think of several classes that could be given 2 choices of primary stat; it's something we've had in the past, and contemporaries to 5E D&D like Pathfinder 2E have been using the "2+ Choices" approach for a while now. I wouldn't have a problem with Int being on the list of primary stats for Cleric, but at least they have the Thaumaturge ability to add their Wis to Int checks now. Heck, 4E had Clerics as Str/Wis/Cha!

 

[Ashrym]

From some of the points made I'll re-inforce the idea that

Pact of the Tome gives you a "spellbook"
Pact of the Chain and you learn "find familiar"

Both are obviously heavy Wizard-bent in concept, so IMO simply reinforce the INT vote.

Of course, in 2024 these became Invocations it seems...

How does someone else (a Patron) gifting these to the warlock representative of the Wizard's intellect and study where the wizard did it themself?

Compare this to any other class and this claim pretty clearly falls apart.

How so? I just compared this to almost half the other classes available and it didn't fall apart. The half the classes most similar to the wizard.

Also, I'm sorry, but the universal feat progression and the fact that it has subclass features (many of which are ALSO barely more than ribbons!) is completely irrelevant. Yes, they are keyed to class level, but don't even try to claim that they're "class features." They aren't and never were. The best you can argue is that Fighters and Rogues get extra ones as a class feature. That does not apply to Wizards.

Being something that applies to other class progression doesn't make these features not part of the wizard class progression. It's not like those levels stop existing to grant the wizard a feat just because those levels are also there for a barbarian. A wizard is, however, very likely to use those levels much differently than a barbarian in feat selection.

They aren't universal either. That's why multiclassing doesn't allow them to be gained on the character level, delays them, and can potentially lose access to some of those levels. But if we omit them then we omit them for everyone else too so it becomes moot and doesn't change my point that wizards aren't significantly different from other spellcasters in having those empty levels.

I think you're confusing empty levels with "not wizardly feature levels", which is something different but that still misses subclass features and the fact that the feats taken are going to feats that suit a wizard instead of feats that suit the fighter or rogue you mentioned.

Just look at this! "In no time, each Warlock is drawn into a binding pact with a powerful patron. Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as angels, archfey, demons, devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, Warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power." And further "Once a pact is made, a Warlock's thirst for knowledge and power can't be slaked with mere study. Most Warlocks spend their days pursuing greater power and deeper knowledge, which typically means some kind of adventure."

Intelligence is described as "reasoning and memory" in the PHB. Training, learning, and education also exists outside of reasoning and memory regardless of memory making it easier.

Beyond that, drawing on the ancient knowledge of other beings doesn't demonstrate any personal level intelligence.

 

[ezo]

How does someone else (a Patron) gifting these to the warlock representative of the Wizard's intellect and study where the wizard did it themself?

It doesn't necessarily, of course, just saying those features have a Wizardly-bend to them.

However, I still think INT works well for Warlocks for other reasons, so that is why I like them as INT half-casters.

 

[Seramus]

Intelligence is described as "reasoning and memory" in the PHB. Training, learning, and education also exists outside of reasoning and memory regardless of memory making it easier.

Beyond that, drawing on the ancient knowledge of other beings doesn't demonstrate any personal level intelligence.

We're literally talking about fluff here, like two people arguing about whether or not a hot dog counts as a sandwich or not. We're looking at the same thing and saying "Yeah, that makes perfect sense for intelligence" and "No, that doesn't seem like intelligence at all" at the exact same time.

 

[humble minion]

I'd like a choice between Charisma and Int (and I offer this option, in the game i run).

Surely the classic warlock archetype is the socially awkward loner who makes a devil's deal for power and recognition? Forcing all warlocks into the high-Charisma model model just cuts out too many options for PC concepts. And the Int dependency works because a pact is a deal, a bit like a business deal or legal document. High Int means that you are able to recognise the loopholes and dodgy fine print in the contract better. I don't see that natural affinity with Con or Wis, personally.

 

[el-remmen]

That's a compelling perspective. Fighter kind of has Str/Dex, though, not just Str.

True. But generally it is Dex or Strength - depending on the build.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Personally, what I would like to see is an actual "rune magic" user. We already know it's possible for pure expression to be a form of magic, that's how Bard magic works. Wizard-type magic is presented as mathematics, what with the "diagrams" and "geometries" and such. And despite loving math, I've always had a special place in my heart for magic based on words--grammar, syntax, etymology, etc.

Because that class? Yeah, that absolutely has to be an Int-based caster. Being a grammar tyrant is all about your intimate knowledge of the fine details of linguistic expression. It's not about being persuasive with words, it's about knowing all the rules...literally and figuratively arcane...which condition their "correct" usage.

It also helps, quite naturally, avoid the often stupidly-overpowered nature of spellcasting, by having thematic spell lists. Each rune might work similar to a 3e/PF1e-style cleric domain, where it grants access to a couple of spells at every spell level. Early on, you know only few runes, and thus have to be really clever in how you use your spells, and rely almost as much on your rune-mastery class features as you do on actual spell slots. As you grow in power, you get both higher-level spell slots and more runes to play with. You can start playing with rune grammar, where sequences of runes can matter (e.g., if you've used a rune of Water on the previous turn, it might empower runes of Ice). You can diversify, or specialize. Perhaps you can only pick a few runes to get the highest tier of spells from, further ensuring that you're genuinely focused and specialized.

(As usual...all of this is spitballing. None of this has been even turned into a proper design goal, let alone a testable class. I'd appreciate a charitable understanding, with the expectation that if testing showed something to be wonky, it would be reworked or, if necessary, replaced with something else.)

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Keep Warlocks Charisma-based. Move Sorcerers to Wisdom-based and Clerics to Intelligence-based.

I like the idea of sorcerers being wisdom-based. They feel the subtle flows of magic (almost "Luke, use the force"). I don't know about clerics being int-based, but I think you could make a good case for rangers being the types that study their prey (and thus use int). Alchemy, traps, weapons, skills, maybe a pet, some magic: the ranger tries to have the right tool for the job.