PDA

View Full Version : [4e] No support for Con-based Warlocks? (rant)



Edge of Dreams
2008-09-16, 05:01 PM
tl;dr - The only viable way to play a warlock with high con and low charisma is Infernal Pact. This makes me angry.

------------------------------

So, this is something that bothers me with the material coming out for 4e these days - there appears to be very very little support for constitution-based warlocks.

1) In the PHB, Fey Pact is the charisma path, Infernal Pact is the constitution path, and Star Pact is the mix-and-match. Unfortunately, if you want to pick all Star Pact powers (to take advantage of adding int to the secondary effects) you have to invest in both Con and Cha, which means your int won't be high enough to make boosting those secondary effects mean anything. To make things even worse, the Star Pact paragon path is entirely charisma-based as well.

2) There are no other classes so far, and I doubt there ever will be, that use con as an attack stat. This means that a con-based warlock has no viable multiclassing options outside of wizard or swordmage with the int synergy.

3) In Dragon magazine they did a special article on Star Pact warlock (http://www.wizards.com/files/366_Warlocks.pdf) but every new power except for two were charisma based, and one of those two was INT based! There goes my hopes of ever playing a Githyanki (+2 con/int) Star Pact warlock.

4) The Forgotten Realms player's guide adds one-and-a-half classes, the Swordmage (awesome-sauce, by the way) and the Dark Pact warlock. Guess what? The Dark Pact warlock has nothing but charisma powers. It also adds twenty-five paragon paths, of which exactly three allow you to use con as an attack stat - one Drow racial PP and two Genasi racial PP's, neither of which is a particularly good race for Warlocks. Oh, and the two new warlock paragon paths? Yeah, the Dark Pact one is Charisma-based, and so is the new warlock PP that doesn't care what pact you are.

Contrast this with Cleric, Paladin, and Ranger; each of them have two different primary attack stats to choose from. But at least for them, the available powers are split nicely 50-50 between the two stats and there are two paragon paths for each stat (more, now that FR is out).

So, does this bother anyone else?

EDIT: Side note - Tieflings, descended from demons, have the best stats for Fey locks? *facepalm*

Kurald Galain
2008-09-16, 05:17 PM
I'm not surprised that so few of anything uses constitution as an attack stat, because frankly using con to attack doesn't make an ounce of sense.

Edge of Dreams
2008-09-16, 05:22 PM
I'm not surprised that so few of anything uses constitution as an attack stat, because frankly using con to attack doesn't make an ounce of sense.

They tried to hand wave it with the whole "you must be tough enough to channel hellfire" thing. And I agree, in general it doesn't make a lot of sense. I am not really much of a fluff person though. What bothers me is that they introduced an interesting game mechanic and have since failed to properly support its use.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-16, 05:24 PM
I am not really much of a fluff person though. What bothers me is that they introduced an interesting game mechanic and have since failed to properly support its use.

I disagree that, after using five different stats for attacks, using the sixth stat in the exact same fashion is a novel or interesting game mechanic.

Blackdrop
2008-09-16, 05:50 PM
I disagree that, after using five different stats for attacks, using the sixth stat in the exact same fashion is a novel or interesting game mechanic.

Thank you mister snarky remark.

1.) It maybe has something to do with the fact that 5 out of the 8 PHB races have Cha as a stat boost.

2.) I disagree about there never being another class having Con as an attack stat (Ki characters come to mind).

3.) The Dragon article, I think, was put out to expand on the ambiguity that is the fluff of the star pact and to encourage that more player to play Tiefling that aren't fey locks. And what are the stat boosts of the Tiefling? Intelligence and Charisma. What do most of the powers (and the paragon path) use for power? Intelligence and Charisma.

4.) The Dark Pact was designed with the Drow in-mind, IIRC. The Drow lack Con as a stat boost, but have Cha, so 2+2=4.

I think that if we're be with WotC, we'll get some more infernalock powers and PPs.

MammonAzrael
2008-09-16, 05:53 PM
While I agree that attacking with CON is hard to fluff, mechanically speaking is there really anything else to use CON for? it's nice the first couple levels for the extra HP, but the higher level you are, the less it matters (And you can always adjust your HSs with Durable). And chances are STR will be just as, if not more, important than CON, which renders it's Fortitude contribution nil. Oh, and who uses Endurance all that often?

It just seems like in 4e, if you aren't attacking with that stat, then it's not really worth worrying about just how high you pump it. I think it's a small holdover from 3.5, where CON mattered a lot more, especially at later levels.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-16, 06:00 PM
Meh, CON fluff:

The Infernal Pact is a wearing path - devils deal in the raw vitality of mortalkind, not some sort of "mystic affinity" like the Fey. To utilize the gifts bestowed upon the Infernomancer, he must channel his vital essence into his spells, turning anger into fire than consumes his foes.

The Star Pact is mysterious, of course. Some powers can be channeled through the force of personality of the Warlock, but others convert one's own vitality into energies that infect and twist their target's aura.

You can fluff anything, if you think hard enough about it. CON is tied to your vitality after all :smallbiggrin:

JaxGaret
2008-09-16, 07:37 PM
It also adds twenty-five paragon paths, of which exactly three allow you to use con as an attack stat

Just wanted to point out that with 25 paragon paths and 6 stats, the average number of PPs per stat is slightly over 4, so three isn't far off from the average.

But yes, it does seem as if they are supporting Chalocks over Conlocks.

On the issue of multiclassing: as another poster suggested, we may see Ki classes with Con as a primary stat, and I can see classes with the Elemental or Shadow or Primal power source being Con-based as well. It remains to be seen.

Eldmor
2008-09-16, 09:06 PM
I could also see some Primal classes being CON-based. What's more Primal then your vitality and being?
And as for CON-locks, Dwarven Infernalock. That is all.

ghost_warlock
2008-09-16, 09:38 PM
And as for CON-locks, Dwarven Infernalock. That is all.

I think that's exactly the OP's point, that is all. :smalltongue:

Helgraf
2008-09-16, 09:46 PM
You can dress it up a bit, of course.

Dragonborn Infernal-lock. The high con benefits his breath weapon as well, and can be used as the attack stat for said breath weapon.

But fundamentally, yeah, not a lot of love for the Con-Warlock. Though you can play it up with the right magic items and feats.

Grynning
2008-09-16, 09:48 PM
Half-elf isn't really inferior to a Dwarven lock in any way, nor is any other race with Con bonus. Most people just say dwarves are better because it opens up the Hexhammer build.

Also, remember that 4th edition is a lot more forgiving when it comes to min-maxing than 3rd was. You don't *have* to have your attack stat maxed. In fact, using the standard point buy and either Githyanki, Half-elf, Tiefling, Changeling, or Gnome (probably a couple others I forgot), you can make a Warlock with a 16 in all 3 attack stats, then just pick whatever powers you want.

Dhavaer
2008-09-16, 10:07 PM
EDIT: Side note - Tieflings, descended from demons, have the best stats for Fey locks? *facepalm*

I agree, that's annoying. The infernal pact should be Charisma based.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-16, 10:12 PM
I agree, that's annoying. The infernal pact should be Charisma based.

Or Tieflings should be CON/INT :smallbiggrin:

Grynning
2008-09-16, 10:14 PM
Either that, or Tieflings and Half-elves should have their racial stat bonuses swapped (which makes more sense to me - I still don't really get the decision to give HElves the Con bonus, and why Tieflings got the best mental stat boosts out of any of the starting races).

Edit: Semi-Ninja'd :smallamused:

Dhavaer
2008-09-16, 10:23 PM
Or Tieflings should be CON/INT :smallbiggrin:

Bah. Tieflings always seemed like they should have a Cha bonus to me. The penalty they got in 3.x always came across as... poorly thought out.

Cybren
2008-09-16, 10:24 PM
That makes sense for two reasons- tieflings had a charisma penalty in the previous edition, and elves had a constitution penalty. Presumably the races are still thematically linked with their previous incarnation.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-16, 10:26 PM
That makes sense for two reasons- tieflings had a charisma penalty in the previous edition, and elves had a constitution penalty. Presumably the races are still thematically linked with their previous incarnation.

That can't be the case! Half-Elves in 3e sucked, and Half-Elves in 4e don't - where's the continuity? :smalltongue:

Edge of Dreams
2008-09-17, 01:21 AM
Also, remember that 4th edition is a lot more forgiving when it comes to min-maxing than 3rd was. You don't *have* to have your attack stat maxed. In fact, using the standard point buy and either Githyanki, Half-elf, Tiefling, Changeling, or Gnome (probably a couple others I forgot), you can make a Warlock with a 16 in all 3 attack stats, then just pick whatever powers you want.

This works fine... at level 1. Eventually, though, you have to pick which stats to increase, and it only makes sense to focus on two.

MammonAzrael
2008-09-17, 02:04 AM
I agree that Primal is a good call for being CON based. Who knows, maybe the DRUID will be CON based this time around (it is focused on shapechaging, so it could easily fit).

Also, I think it wouldn't be too difficult to homebrew some CON-based Pacts and PPs. I'm thinking of one already that makes a deal with the primordials. That could easily be CON based (and actually has a decent chance of being published in the future).

Aquillion
2008-09-17, 04:35 AM
I think it's the same problem that has plagued casters since D&D began. There's a deep-set feeling somewhere inside most developers that there should be squishy wizards (and, apparently, squishy warlocks.) This leads them to massively overestimate the impact of defensive abilities.

Realistically, of course, for a ranged character, improving your defense actually doesn't help that much. (And certainly not by the small amount that the 4e con bonus gives you!) But when given the choice, developers will constantly lean towards "if it uses magic, it should be squishy". This persists even into 4e, where 'magic' is nothing but flavor, with little mechanical difference from martial abilities aimed at the same combat role.

Hence, despite endless playtesting and design cycles that told them that it was just fine, and despite the fact that con bonuses aren't such a big deal anymore, when an intern at Dragon Magazine or whatever gets asked to churn out some warlock things, they look at the options, say "Constitution in a caster?", shake their heads, and try to focus on charisma as much as possible.

Saph
2008-09-17, 04:40 AM
Meh, CON fluff:

You can fluff anything, if you think hard enough about it. CON is tied to your vitality after all :smallbiggrin:

Oracle, the 'you can fluff anything if you think hard enough' attitude is exactly why people think these kinds of things don't make sense. Making up fluff does not equal making something convincing. I've pretty much stopped reading these sort of fluff suggestions because of how arbitrary they are.

- Saph

Starsinger
2008-09-17, 07:28 AM
Most people just say dwarves are better because it opens up the Hexhammer build.

In that regard, the Adventurer's Vault has Pact Hammers which can be any hammer type weapon and obviously function similar to Pact Blades, but are only usable by dwarves. I think the only way that could be clearer is if they called it the Hexhammer.

ghost_warlock
2008-09-17, 07:46 AM
I think it's the same problem that has plagued casters since D&D began. There's a deep-set feeling somewhere inside most developers that there should be squishy wizards (and, apparently, squishy warlocks.) This leads them to massively overestimate the impact of defensive abilities.

Realistically, of course, for a ranged character, improving your defense actually doesn't help that much. (And certainly not by the small amount that the 4e con bonus gives you!) But when given the choice, developers will constantly lean towards "if it uses magic, it should be squishy". This persists even into 4e, where 'magic' is nothing but flavor, with little mechanical difference from martial abilities aimed at the same combat role.

Hence, despite endless playtesting and design cycles that told them that it was just fine, and despite the fact that con bonuses aren't such a big deal anymore, when an intern at Dragon Magazine or whatever gets asked to churn out some warlock things, they look at the options, say "Constitution in a caster?", shake their heads, and try to focus on charisma as much as possible.

It wouldn't annoy me as much except that the starlock article wasn't written by an intern. It's credited to Bruce R. -freaking- Cordell! :smalleek::smallmad:

Edit: as a side note, what I'd really like to see is Con-based psychometabolism powers.

Burley
2008-09-17, 10:15 AM
Slightly off topic, and maybe I'm just an idiot, but:
What is this Dark Pact that I see? Where is it published?

Tengu_temp
2008-09-17, 10:21 AM
Half-elf isn't really inferior to a Dwarven lock in any way, nor is any other race with Con bonus. Most people just say dwarves are better because it opens up the Hexhammer build.


May I ask what's that?


Slightly off topic, and maybe I'm just an idiot, but:
What is this Dark Pact that I see? Where is it published?

It's a new pact for warlocks, now with 50% more emo. It's in Forgotten Realms Player's Handbook.

Blackfang108
2008-09-17, 10:21 AM
Edit: as a side note, what I'd really like to see is Con-based psychometabolism powers.

Ooh!

That could be AWESOME!

Hzurr
2008-09-17, 10:23 AM
Hmm... I never really saw what the problem was with the Star Pact article. I thought it was interesting, had some nice fluff, and provided DMs a good tie to the Cthulu-verse. The one thing that bothered me about it, as it seems like some players could use it as an excuse for being Chaotic-stupid ("My OC is crazy, so it makes sense that he would kill all the other party members and take their gold. Weeeeee!")

Also, this thread strikes me as being a bit whiney. I mean, people don't complain "I want to play a Wizard with high wisdom and low int, but there aren't enough wis-based powers for a wizard!" With Warlocks, the primary stats are int or cha, plus there are some nice con ones as well. This strikes me as being very flexible and open to several options (moreso than many other classes).

Also, let me echo everything Osiris_Shadowblade said, because I think he's dead on the money.

Starsinger
2008-09-17, 11:00 AM
It's a new pact for warlocks, now with 50% more emo. It's in Forgotten Realms Player's Handbook.

Of particular relevance to this, Tengu, I re-wrote Raelen as a Dark pact :smallsmile:

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-17, 11:27 AM
Oracle, the 'you can fluff anything if you think hard enough' attitude is exactly why people think these kinds of things don't make sense. Making up fluff does not equal making something convincing. I've pretty much stopped reading these sort of fluff suggestions because of how arbitrary they are.

- Saph

OK, then what makes the other fluff so believable? Why should you be able to get more God-Power for having a higher WIS? Why should CHA help you cast anything? What would having a higher INT make it harder to avoid a wizard's spells?

The truth is that this is how the game works, and people have accepted the "old explanations" because that is what they were brought up with. We're talking about abstract statistics relating to a system of doing things (casting spells) that has nothing to do with any real-world situation. We are playing a game of pretend and, particularly when you're talking about how magic works, it's very hard to call anything "unbelievable."

Now, why do I think my fluff is plausible in reference to the game world described by D&D:
1) CON is (according to 3e SRD) "your character’s health and stamina." So any magic that relies upon it should reference "health and stamina."

2) The connection between magic and the related stat seems to be a fairly abstract one. A wizard doesn't just "think harder" to make his spells more effective; there is some intrinsic "strength" of mind which adds to accuracy and damage like real strength does for swinging swords. Vitality is a synonym for stamina, and it sounds suitably mystic to be the part of CON that helps magic to work.

3) The fluff should relate to the distinctive features of the ability. This is more of a personal preference. Since all Infernal powers and many Star powers are CON based, there should be something about those power sources that makes CON important.

There. That's my thought process, and I am personally proud of it. If you don't like it, that's fine, but there is no reason that any of the spellcasting fluff in any edition of D&D would be objectively more believable than any other - what would you measure it against?

Tengu_temp
2008-09-17, 11:35 AM
OK, then what makes the other fluff so believable? Why should you be able to get more God-Power for having a higher WIS? Why should CHA help you cast anything? What would having a higher INT make it harder to avoid a wizard's spells?


Int-based casting: you use your brainpower and/or memorized techniques to make the spell work more effectively. Fencing with your mind.
Wis-based casting: magic based on enlightenment and understanding how the world works on a metaphysical level.
Cha-based casting: you bend the world to work the way you want with the sheer power of awesome!

MammonAzrael
2008-09-17, 11:40 AM
With Warlocks, the primary stats are int or cha, plus there are some nice con ones as well.

I don't believe this is accurate. The general class design for 4e has 2 stats that can be main (aka attack) stats, and one stat that will occasionally modify a your powers. For Warlocks, INT is the minor, modifying stat. Therefore, CON and CHA are the two main stats. And the focus right now is heavily in favor of CHA, when it should be balanced between the two (I expect it will be eventually, however).

JaxGaret
2008-09-17, 11:45 AM
Int-based casting: you use your brainpower and/or memorized techniques to make the spell work more effectively. Fencing with your mind.
Wis-based casting: magic based on enlightenment and understanding how the world works on a metaphysical level.
Cha-based casting: you bend the world to work the way you want with the sheer power of awesome!

The point wasn't that Int-based, Wis-based or Cha-based casting isn't believable, it was that Con-based casting is just as believable.

I have to agree with Oracle Hunter here, there's no reason for Con fluff to have any less merit than Int, Wis, or Cha fluff.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-17, 11:46 AM
Int-based casting: you use your brainpower and/or memorized techniques to make the spell work more effectively. Fencing with your mind.
Wis-based casting: magic based on enlightenment and understanding how the world works on a metaphysical level.
Cha-based casting: you bend the world to work the way you want with the sheer power of awesome!

Right! So what's wrong with my CON fluff? I really can't see what makes these more believable than what I came up with; though I would like to hear why, if anyone has specific reasons.

EDIT:
:smallconfused: Ninja'd explaining my own post. Wow! :smalltongue:

Tengu_temp
2008-09-17, 11:50 AM
I never said con-based magic is impossible (you can even have dex-based magic, if it requires complex gestures and aiming the spells manually) - it's actually fairly easy to fluff, as spells that draw their powers from your inner vitality. I just felt like saying that cha-based magic is based on your awesomeness.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-17, 11:51 AM
I never said con-based magic is impossible (you can even have dex-based magic, if it requires complex gestures and aiming the spells manually) - it's actually fairly easy to fluff, as spells that draw their powers from your inner vitality. I just felt like saying that cha-based magic is based on your awesomeness.

And right you are to do so! :smallbiggrin:

ImperiousLeader
2008-09-17, 12:15 PM
I agree that CON-warlocks have it tough. That said, STR-Paladins have a few dead levels without decent STR-based attacks as well. Their advantage is clever multiclassing can mitigate that, Warlocks cannot currently do that. Still, if you want CON, go Infernal. Star pact warlocks ... their problem is that both of their Paragon paths favour CHA ... I've considered rewriting Doomsayer's attacks to use either CHA or CON.

ghost_warlock
2008-09-17, 12:47 PM
you bend the world to work the way you want with the sheer power of awesome!

That sounds like psionics fluff to me...which has swapped primary stats multiple times throughout D&D's history. In 2e it relied upon a number of different stats, based on the power in question. In 3.0, each of the six attributes had a relevant, dependant discipline. In 3.5 it was Int/Wis/Cha.

Con works as well as anything else for fluff.

For examples of Con-based powers, refluff the following accordingly:

Eyebite - My concentrating for a second, you manipulate the surface of your skin to reflect light painfully into an opponent's eyes. If he lacks the will to suffer through the agony, it is unbearable for him to look at you for a time. (Change the damage type to radiant.)

Vampiric Embrace - You lash out with a glistening tendril of amorphous flesh, which stabs into your target. He is sapped of vitality until he manages to fight through the pain and tear off the tendril. The same basic idea (lashing tendrils/tentacles) could also be used to fluff any push/pull/slide power as well.

Dreadful Word - With a savage and terrifying howl, you blast your enemy with high-pitched, painful sound, rupturing his eardrums. (Change to thunder damage.)

Flames of Phlegethos - Imitating a dragon, you manipluate your stomach to produce fire in lieu of acid for a few seconds and then painfully vomit the flames into an enemy's face.

Eldritch Rain - Manipulating your body's temperature and salivary glands, you spit super-heated saliva at your foes.

Cybren
2008-09-17, 12:58 PM
Int-based casting: you use your brainpower and/or memorized techniques to make the spell work more effectively. Fencing with your mind.
Wis-based casting: magic based on enlightenment and understanding how the world works on a metaphysical level.
Cha-based casting: you bend the world to work the way you want with the sheer power of awesome!

The original use of the term "Charisma" implied some divine empowerment. Actual favor with the gods. It is, etymologically, the most supernatural of the stats.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-17, 04:31 PM
Right! So what's wrong with my CON fluff? I really can't see what makes these more believable than what I came up with; though I would like to hear why,

If you are unable to see why some fluff is inherently more believable than other fluff, that's not a problem for you - it just means that other people potentially won't find your fluff convincing. It's a matter of taste - some people mind verisimilitude, and other people don't. Notably, the 4E design team doesn't - that's why they designed a game rules-first, rather than setting-first.

At a random suggestion, if you can't find it in any (non-D&D-related) fantasy novel, it's probably not believable.

Saph
2008-09-17, 06:25 PM
The truth is that this is how the game works, and people have accepted the "old explanations" because that is what they were brought up with. We're talking about abstract statistics relating to a system of doing things (casting spells) that has nothing to do with any real-world situation. We are playing a game of pretend and, particularly when you're talking about how magic works, it's very hard to call anything "unbelievable."

Who's calling it "unbelievable"? Not me. I said it wasn't convincing. And the reason I don't think it's convincing is because all the 4e fluff justifications I've read lately are completely arbitrary. You could reverse the reasoning and have every one of them explain the exact opposite of what they claim to, and they'd make just as much sense. That's why I'm not impressed with the "meh, I can make up fluff" attitude.

- Saph

Thrawn183
2008-09-17, 06:50 PM
Con - When you call upon the power's of darkness and they try to rend your very soul, you take it like a champ rather than some spindly smart*** wimp who tries to outsmart the very beings of the abyss.

Grynning
2008-09-17, 10:22 PM
(on Hexhammers) May I ask what's that?


The Hexhammer is a nick-name given to a Con-based Dwarf Warlock who takes the Dwarven weapon training feat to get a maul (or, with the release of Adventurer's Vault, a mordenkrad), and then multi-classes to fighter to pick up some weapon powers that add Con to damage. Basically a Lock tank build. The first I heard of it was on this board, actually, in a thread on 4th ed builds (can't seem to find it).

erikun
2008-09-17, 10:59 PM
First, I can easily see some CON based classes. Most psionics come to mind, with the Psion likely INT primary and CON secondary, and the Psionic Warrior likely the opposite. Also, I can easily see the Monk being a CON/WIS class. Of course, this makes Dwarves the best monks, but I've always thought that all along.

Also, while Starlocks don't have CON powers for half their levels, the didn't have CHA powers for the other half either. By that argument, an INT/CHA build is stuck dipping into Fey Pact powers or multiclassing out. Heck, the article you linked (very nice, by the way) seems to be focusing on making the CHA Starlock playable. It's too bad that it didn't do the same for the CON abilities, although the Starless Void power is a nice addition to the CON listing.

Now, the way I see it, going Warlock/Wizard is probably your best bet. Just switch out one Warlock encounter ability for a Wizard's, and choose a few Infernal powers on the off levels that you need them. Heck, if you take one of the Warlock paragon paths rather than a Wizard one, you should be able to swap the paragon path's encounter power for a lower-level Wizard power.

If you feel inclined, remember that the Wizard multiclass feat counts you as a Wizard, including Epic destinies. Also remember that the Warlock's powers are called Arcane Spells (p.131, under "Warlock Powers"), so that all the Archmage's abilities work with your Warlock powers, too.

Dhavaer
2008-09-17, 11:24 PM
If you feel inclined, remember that the Wizard multiclass feat counts you as a Wizard, including Epic destinies.

Not Epic Destinies. Only feats and Paragon Paths.

erikun
2008-09-17, 11:44 PM
What? Aww, that's no fun.

ghost_warlock
2008-09-18, 12:23 AM
Not Epic Destinies. Only feats and Paragon Paths.

Except that there's a published example from Wotc, maybe in a DRAGON, that has a warlock with the wizard multiclass feat taking the archmage epic destiny. I'll have to try my search-fu... It seems that RAI meant for the multiclass feats to work for access to epic destinies, too.

Edit: Found it, in Dragon 365 (http://www.wizards.com/files/365_Dragon.pdf), the master teleporter build in character concepts.

JaxGaret
2008-09-18, 12:25 AM
It seems that RAI meant for the multiclass feats to work for access to epic destinies, too.

Or someone just fouled up.

Occam's Razor? :smallsmile:

quillbreaker
2008-09-18, 12:33 AM
tl;dr - The only viable way to play a warlock with high con and low charisma is Infernal Pact. This makes me angry.


I am not fond of the subclassing of various classes. I find the classes themselves to be reasonably well balanced between each other, but when it comes to the subclasses it is a concept poorly implemented. One of the subclasses tends to far outshine the other.

ghost_warlock
2008-09-18, 12:34 AM
Or someone just fouled up.

Occam's Razor? :smallsmile:

The problem with that is that it could equally apply to the omission of the phrase "...and epic destinies" in the section in the PHB explaining how multiclass feats work.

The Occam's Razor goggles do nothing. :smallwink:

Naleh
2008-09-18, 12:53 AM
At a random suggestion, if you can't find it in any (non-D&D-related) fantasy novel, it's probably not believable.

And indeed, in most fantasy novels I've read, magic exhausts the user. It uses vitality/life force/dangerous energy to power the spells. Sounds like Con-based casting to me.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-18, 02:38 AM
You could reverse the reasoning and have every one of them explain the exact opposite of what they claim to, and they'd make just as much sense.
That is probably the best definition of unconvincing fluff.


And indeed, in most fantasy novels I've read, magic exhausts the user. It uses vitality/life force/dangerous energy to power the spells. Sounds like Con-based casting to me.
That means the amount of spells one can cast per time period could depend on constitution, not the power thereof (which, obviously, most commonly depends on willpower/wis, training/int or talent/cha).
(edit) come to think of it, I am unfamiliar with any non-D&D fantasy novels where casting power has anything to do with charisma, even if you define charisma differently from appearance. Also, the book-learned smart wizard is a discredited trope these days. And also, the split between arcane and divine magic is very rare outside D&D.

ghost_warlock
2008-09-18, 05:56 AM
Because it was brought up and I didn't see anyone else having linked it...here's (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1039636) the thread detailing the dwarven hexhammer build over at WotC boards. :smallsmile:

Theodoric
2008-09-18, 08:54 AM
And also, the split between arcane and divine magic is very rare outside D&D.

Well, I wouldn't call it that rare. Granted, in most cases there is a certain amount of overlap (Warhammer and Christianity, for example), but public opinion about the origin of magic seems to have changed into 'natural' or 'druidic' than anything else.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-18, 09:01 AM
Well, I wouldn't call it that rare.

I meant "in contemporary fantasy novels".

Other legacy items include the idea that arcane casters can do anything except heal, and that they can't (or are disallowed from) using armor. Those are, IIRC, 1st-edition "game balance" ideas.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-18, 09:17 AM
Who's calling it "unbelievable"? Not me. I said it wasn't convincing. And the reason I don't think it's convincing is because all the 4e fluff justifications I've read lately are completely arbitrary. You could reverse the reasoning and have every one of them explain the exact opposite of what they claim to, and they'd make just as much sense. That's why I'm not impressed with the "meh, I can make up fluff" attitude.

- Saph

So... how is this one "reversible?" And how are none of the pre-4e fluffs "reversible." I'd like to know, if for no other reason than to enhance my ability to write convincing fluff.

Just an example and counter-example would be nice, really. Maybe comparing my CON fluff with 3e WIS casting?

Saph
2008-09-18, 09:47 AM
So... how is this one "reversible?" I'd like to know, if for no other reason than to enhance my ability to write convincing fluff.

Okay. Here's the thing: for an explanation to be convincing, you have to do more than explain how it might work that way. You have to explain why it makes more sense for it to work that way than any other way.

Your original version:

"The Infernal Pact is a wearing path - devils deal in the raw vitality of mortalkind, not some sort of "mystic affinity" like the Fey. To utilize the gifts bestowed upon the Infernomancer, he must channel his vital essence into his spells, turning anger into fire than consumes his foes."

But wait, what if WotC had printed 'Int' instead of 'Con'?

"The Infernal Pact is a wearing path - devils deal in the raw soul-stuff of mortalkind, not some sort of "mystic affinity" like the Fey. To utilize the gifts bestowed upon the Infernomancer, he must use his mental power to strengthen his spells, turning force of will into fire than consumes his foes."

Or how about Str:

"The Infernal Pact is a wearing path - devils deal in the raw strength of mortalkind, not some sort of "mystic affinity" like the Fey. To utilize the gifts bestowed upon the Infernomancer, he must channel his physical power into his spells, turning anger into fire than consumes his foes."

And so on. It's Dex, because you have to aim the blast. It's Cha, because you have to force the devils to do your will. It's Wis, because that's the stat Clerics use to channel their particular outsiders.

Anything that explains everything also explains nothing. Once your fluff can equally well explain any numerical rule, then your fluff's ceased to matter. It's just window dressing that changes whenever the windows do.

- Saph

Kurald Galain
2008-09-18, 10:26 AM
Anything that explains everything also explains nothing. Once your fluff can equally well explain any numerical rule, then your fluff's ceased to matter. It's just window dressing that changes whenever the windows do.

Well said.

Swok
2008-09-18, 11:04 AM
I'd like to point out I've never seen fluff that can't be arbitrarily changed like that and still make sense.

Could you post an example of fluff that can't be changed?

DM Raven
2008-09-18, 03:06 PM
EDIT: Side note - Tieflings, descended from demons, have the best stats for Fey locks? *facepalm*

Tieflings have a blood pact with devils I thought...do they have a demonic heritage as well that I'm missing?

Aquillion
2008-09-18, 03:47 PM
Int-based casting: you use your brainpower and/or memorized techniques to make the spell work more effectively. Fencing with your mind.
Wis-based casting: magic based on enlightenment and understanding how the world works on a metaphysical level.
Cha-based casting: you bend the world to work the way you want with the sheer power of awesome!
Gives me a chance to repost this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-68276.html):


And, of course, a STR-based caster class' fluff would be just silly.
Hmm...

I present for you the Student of the Atlas School, a Str-based spellcasting class!

The Students of Atlas scorn the weak ivory-tower mages who ignore their physical bodies to leech power via magical rites; they are equally contemptuous of sorcerers who rely on inheritance and personality to gain sorcerous might. To a Student of Atlas, the power of both is a sham; the only true power in this world is the power of a lean, muscular body. The Students of Atlas devote themselves to developing their beautiful muscles; they are so strong that, with a mere flex and a few boastful words, they can produce magical effects, as reality itself reshapes around their toned, muscular form. However, they are narcissistic, and must devote a certain percentage of their magic to improving their own body. Their study of bodybuilding is also focused almost entirely on the sheer, raw effect that a muscular body has, embodied in a physical presence not unlike the power a sorcerer normally gains from the strength of their personality; they do not normally study arms or physical combat, although it is not uncommon for them to branch out in that direction once they feel their studies in the Atlas school itself are complete.

A student of the atlas school is an arcane caster who casts Str-based spells. They learn and cast spells as a sorcerer, with the additional restriction that a certain percentage of their spells must be devoted to personal or touch-range buff spells (from a list.) There are some spells, such as Bull's Strength, that they are absolutely required to take; these still take up spells-known slots. Additionally, they are barred from learning or using evocation or necromancy spells (and derive no benefit from this). Finally, they refuse to cast any spell that will weaken their prestine bodies, viewing it as a bad trade in any circumstances; specifically, they will not cast any spell with an XP cost, and can learn such spells only when they have (and only for use with) a non-xp-costing option, such as Gate for travel.

Aside from these restrictions, they can fill their remaining slots with whatever they wish.

They do get some other advantages to make up for the restrictions. They have a whopping d10 for HP, and both good fort and will saves; they have a slightly expanded skill list over a sorcerer, including skills such as intimidate, climb, jump, and swim (however, they still only get 2 + int mod skill points per level, and with no real use for int, they are unlikely to be good at much.) They eventually get abilities that let them apply their Str modifier as an (additional) bonus to many charisma-based checks and bonuses, such as intimidate or diplomacy; and to substitute it for their con for the purposes of calculating their fort save. Although they are suitable to develop into a gish caster with the proper training, the class itself provides no special advantages in this direction beyond Str-based spellcasting itself.

To recover their spells, they must rest for eight hours, followed by 10-15 minutes of rigorous exercise and flexing.

Tengu_temp
2008-09-18, 03:51 PM
I always thought that strength-based casting is basically what characters in Dragonball have, but this works even better. Guess we know what class Alex Louis Armstrong would have if converted to DND, now.

Saph
2008-09-18, 03:53 PM
Ninjad. I was just about to say that I couldn't read that post without thinking of Armstrong from Full Metal Alchemist. :P

- Saph

Starbuck_II
2008-09-18, 03:56 PM
Tieflings have a blood pact with devils I thought...do they have a demonic heritage as well that I'm missing?

Nope, you are correct. Tieflings do not have demonic heritage in 4th but they did in earlier versions.

erikun
2008-09-18, 07:54 PM
Except that there's a published example from Wotc, maybe in a DRAGON, that has a warlock with the wizard multiclass feat taking the archmage epic destiny. I'll have to try my search-fu... It seems that RAI meant for the multiclass feats to work for access to epic destinies, too.

Edit: Found it, in Dragon 365 (http://www.wizards.com/files/365_Dragon.pdf), the master teleporter build in character concepts.
Ooo, thanks. 4e multiclassing is restrictive enough, so I like anything that can help me "branch out" into more options.

Then again, even if the Warlock/Archmage is restricted, I suppose a Warlock/Eternal Seeker gishing out into Swordmage or Wizard skills is a nice second.




(edit) come to think of it, I am unfamiliar with any non-D&D fantasy novels where casting power has anything to do with charisma, even if you define charisma differently from appearance.
Ever heard of the enchanting mistress whose words or appearance can captivate men, subverting their will to her desired? How about the maiden or monster whose song and command listeners, or just enrhapture them? Or what about the dark wizard whose presence will darken the room, blot out the sun, and dominate the hero's senses to the point where he becomes a whimpering child?

These aren't the powers of intellectuality. They aren't the endurance of the "caster", or even their well-worn experience of the world showing. It's their presence: their sheer force of personality that's extending from them and dominating anyone around them. That is the use of Charisma.

Aquillion
2008-09-18, 08:33 PM
Ever heard of the enchanting mistress whose words or appearance can captivate men, subverting their will to her desired? How about the maiden or monster whose song and command listeners, or just enrhapture them? Or what about the dark wizard whose presence will darken the room, blot out the sun, and dominate the hero's senses to the point where he becomes a whimpering child?

These aren't the powers of intellectuality. They aren't the endurance of the "caster", or even their well-worn experience of the world showing. It's their presence: their sheer force of personality that's extending from them and dominating anyone around them. That is the use of Charisma.Still, though, it's hard to say whether those powers come from charisma, or whether they produce charisma. Certainly for the dark wizard, you'd assume that his evil presence is from the terrible things he's done to gain his powers.

On the other hand, you could use this for a sorcerer, too -- for some people, their capacity for 'natural' magic manifests itself as a forceful personality. Naturally, not everyone with a high charisma score is naturally good at bard or sorcerer casting -- this is represented by whether or not you have levels in the appropriate class. (Just like how not everyone who has a high intelligence is necessarily going to be predisposed for magic from a character standpoint, even if mechanically they might be able to do it.)

erikun
2008-09-18, 08:43 PM
Still, though, it's hard to say whether those powers come from charisma, or whether they produce charisma. Certainly for the dark wizard, you'd assume that his evil presence is from the terrible things he's done to gain his powers.
I'm not sure what you mean by "produce charisma." After all, you'd never say that a wizard casting spells is "producing intelligence."

Oh, I'm not saying that the dark wizard's power came all from his own personal charisma. It could be that whatever dark powers he's worked with have magically/mystically increased his force of personality when he gained his powers. (Heck, this is implied by most game mechanics, which give a charisma bonus to some templates.)

Then again, it could be that it has nothing to do with the individual's charisma. It could be that the dark wizard's aura operates completely seperate from the individual, much like a cast spell that tries to subvert anyone nearby. This would certainly be the description of an intelligence wizard with such an aura. My point was that you can have magic (and magical abilities) based off an individual's charisma, and found outside D&D fiction.

Collin152
2008-09-18, 08:46 PM
On the subject of Charisma casters, I refrence Sophie of Howl's Moving Castle and Castle in the Sky, whose magic worked by her talking to things, persuading them to do what she wanted them to.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-19, 03:16 AM
Ever heard of the enchanting mistress whose words or appearance can captivate men, subverting their will to her desired?
Why yes. But in mythology, these tend to be non-charismatic yet intelligent people, that use their magic to boost their charisma. So rather than having magic based on charisma, they have charisma based on magic - something entirely different. Essentially what you're claiming is that a wizard who casts a flight spell is basing his magic on the fact that he flies.

There are probably a few real exceptions. But the point is that (1) "charisma" in D&D means something different than it means in the rest of the world; and (2) regardless of which definition you use, its link to magic is tenuous at best outside the D&D-verse.

Aquillion
2008-09-19, 05:31 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by "produce charisma." After all, you'd never say that a wizard casting spells is "producing intelligence."

Oh, I'm not saying that the dark wizard's power came all from his own personal charisma. It could be that whatever dark powers he's worked with have magically/mystically increased his force of personality when he gained his powers. (Heck, this is implied by most game mechanics, which give a charisma bonus to some templates.)

Then again, it could be that it has nothing to do with the individual's charisma. It could be that the dark wizard's aura operates completely seperate from the individual, much like a cast spell that tries to subvert anyone nearby. This would certainly be the description of an intelligence wizard with such an aura. My point was that you can have magic (and magical abilities) based off an individual's charisma, and found outside D&D fiction.What I mean is that all the things you were describing for the dark wizards that would imply charisma (his powerful presence, and so on) seem like they could be more properly attributed to a direct effect of his magical abilities / nature. I disagree with your assertion that such a dark wizard exhibits powers originating from their force of personality; rather, I would say that the force of their personality is projected by their magic. Therefore, their magic gives them the same impact that you would usually get from a high charisma (from a practical standpoint, it 'produces' charisma) their magic doesn't necessarily result from charisma.

Certainly, there are many, many examples of spellcasters in fiction whose magic is explicitly referenced as deriving from their vast wisdom, their immense intellect, and the grasp of magical principals that this grants them. Compared to these, your examples for 'charisma-based' casters are pretty dubious; I would say that there are definitely more dexterity-based casters in fiction than there are ones you could definitively describe as charisma-based.

Come to think of it, the importance of proper, careful gestures in spellcasting is common outside of D&D -- in D&D, it somehow matters enough that wearing slightly heavy armor can make all your spells fail, but not enough for the difference between dex 1 and dex 32 to have any difference at all. That is sort of... odd, really.

Constitution is also vital for effective spellcasting in many settings, since magic is often described as tiring. Memory, intellect, wisdom -- in fact, just about every stat other than strength and charisma crops up in what you might call the core spellcasting model. Charisma is only used occasionally, and (atlas-casters aside), muscle-strength almost never; dexterity, wisdom (=internal willpower), intellect, and constitution, meanwhile, are all quite commonly described as part of magical success.

Additionally, the mental strength of crones and witches in most stories strikes me as more wisdom-based than charisma-based. They tend to be good at knowing their own mind, at remaining alert and in control of their facilities, and (perhaps most tellingly), the attribute in question here -- raw magical willpower -- tends to be vital for resisting mental compulsions. This describes wisdom casters exactly, not charisma casters.