Sorcerer/Warlocks casting with Charisma is kind of dumb

[Souplex]

So in another thread, I'm ranting aboot sorcerers, and I came back to one of my long-standing low-key gripes: the fact that they cast with Charisma is really stupid to me.

It took me a while to turn around on Paladins casting with Charisma, but eventually the whole Charisma measures "1. Confidence, 2. Eloquence, and 3. Force of personality" equates 1+3 to measuring the strength of your convictions.
For Sorcerers that's dumb though. Sure, one could argue that 3 just makes it casting through raw willpower, but Wisdom is also Willpower, and they can't cast through that.

I always thought it would make the most sense for them to cast through Constitution, as they're channeling the magical energy that flows through their bodies. Granted in 5th, a dedicated Constitution caster would unbalance the game, as they would need constitution like everyone else, but wouldn't need another ability.

It's also really dumb that Warlocks cast with Charisma based on their current flavor. In the early tests of 5th they were actually Intelligence-based, but 3X loving idiots objected, because it wasn't like 3X, so they changed it.

Apparently the reason Sorcerers cast with Charisma in 3X was because they did away with AD&D's focus on commanding hirelings, and wanted to come up with more uses for Charisma that fit with the murderhoboing munchkin lifestyle.
/rant
Discuss.

 

[Sonmi]

I'm fine with it to be honest.

But then again, I'm one of those 3X loving idiots.

 

[meiam]

Don't warlock use spell based on demonic force and stuff, so they use there charisma to convince demon to cast the spell or something like that.

 

[Souplex]

I'm fine with it to be honest.

But then again, I'm one of those 3X loving idiots.

Care to articulate why you like it?

Don't warlock use spell based on demonic force and stuff, so they use there charisma to convince demon to cast the spell or something like that.

The flavor in 5E is that your Patron (Satan, C'thul'hu, a Fairy Queen or a powerful Lich currently, with an Angel, or Sentient Magic Weapon of ill repute planned) gives you magical cliff-notes because you can't be bothered to go through academia like a wizard. It's still you casting with said magical cheat-sheet, so intelligence makes more sense.

My other grievance with Warlocks being Charisma casters in 5E is that there's way too many classes that use Charisma, and nowhere near enough that use Intelligence.
Classes that use...
Wisdom: Cleric, Druid, Monk, ranger.
Charisma: Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer Warlock.
Intelligence: Wizard. (Also the least popular core Fighter and rogue subclasses, but they're as I said, subclasses, and unpopular.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Look, you need them to cast from something, but the Wizard's already using Int, so that's out, and Wis is for god stuff. You're really just left with the one ability after that. Then, 4e and 5e uses it by default because it's now traditional.

Thing of it as having to borrow power from an entity like a Cleric, but with a being that wants to subsume your personality and ride you around like a meat puppet. Charisma is your Ego defending itself.

 

[Bobular]

I personally would prefer them to cast from Wis, that makes more sense to me but I can see the argument that Wis is used for mostly religious stuff (and there are already loads of classes that use Wis).

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

That was the only reason to plsy a sorcerer in 3.5!

Then again, Charisma has always been my power stat in every build I make.

Half-nymph Humwn Brd1/Ftr1/Warblade rest with extra music, Snowflake Wardance, Song of the White Raven, Extra Music.... Combat Expertise, Deadly Defence, Two Weapon Fighting, Exotic Wespon (Bladed Gsuntlets), w/ Falling Charge (free charge with Leaping Dragon))... and my Feycrafted dusl bladed gauntlets.


So there you go.... a charisma based fighter.... Charisma-based melee AC tank that can make all enemies not immune to mind affecting run in terror in a single turn, free charge with jump (which is free so you can charge twice), can buff party with levelled inspire courage, and is a pure AC tank with some seriously nasty attacks.

You can also take 1 level of barbarian later on for Spirit Lion totem so you get pounce so you can charge twice and do up to 10 attacks + certain maneuver attacks per turn + make all non-immune enemies wet themselves from seeing your awesomeness. Can drop Ex. Weap Prof (Bladed Gauntlet) if you want to take other feats. Nymph's Kiss is good if you don't mind basically playing exalted good alignment. +2 bonus to all cha skills + free skill point every level is always useful. Go feycraft daggers or kukris instead early on. Just as viable a strategy, particularly with weapon capsules.

Because frontline melee AC tanks should also be charismatic.

That being said, casters shouldn't be casting through physical attributes. Particularly not constitution if full spell progression. Seriously breaks the game balance that is a thready, insubstantial mess to begin with (at least with 3x). Charisma makes senses to me with Sorcerers. You don't study magic, you are magic. It's an expression of your soul through what is hinted to be dragonblood. So charisma makes more sense than wisdom or intelligence.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

My other grievance with Warlocks being Charisma casters in 5E is that there's way too many classes that use Charisma, and nowhere near enough that use Intelligence.
Classes that use...
Wisdom: Cleric, Druid, Monk, ranger.
Charisma: Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer Warlock.
Intelligence: Wizard. (Also the least popular core Fighter and rogue subclasses, but they're as I said, subclasses, and unpopular.

Perhaps they should bring back the Duskblade. That's one more INT-based caster and it would also fill the arcane gish-in-a-can base class that is somewhat missing form the line-up (although that depends on which way you take the Bard).

Or they could reintroduce the Psion. I rather like the Psionic mechanics as they were in 3.5. A welcome change from from the Vancian systems of other casters with a nice mix of power and versatility (and not as gamebreaking, comparatively). Also, faster to resolve in-session once you're used to it, assuming you can still do elementary school level addition/subtraction.

 

[Souplex]

Look, you need them to cast from something, but the Wizard's already using Int, so that's out, and Wis is for god stuff. You're really just left with the one ability after that. Then, 4e and 5e uses it by default because it's now traditional.

Thing of it as having to borrow power from an entity like a Cleric, but with a being that wants to subsume your personality and ride you around like a meat puppet. Charisma is your Ego defending itself.

Actually 4E was really nuanced about it.
In short: Nobody had a "Casting stat", every ability (The equivalent of spells, but everyone had them) used a specific stat against a specific defense. (Instead of saving throws, you made an attack roll against their appropriate defense, so a character could have an AC of 20, and a reflex of 18) So Warlocks had abilities that used Charisma yes, but they also had abilities that used constitution and intelligence. Sorcerers had abilities in Dex, Con, and Cha. (An ability would read (Stat) vs. (Defense)) It was then up to you what abilities you took, so you could build more around certain stats.
4E's solution to MAD was to make everyone a little bit MAD. It worked pretty well.

 

[DoPo]

Look, you need them to cast from something, but the Wizard's already using Int, so that's out, and Wis is for god stuff. You're really just left with the one ability after that. Then, 4e and 5e uses it by default because it's now traditional.

Thing of it as having to borrow power from an entity like a Cleric, but with a being that wants to subsume your personality and ride you around like a meat puppet. Charisma is your Ego defending itself.

Actually 4E was really nuanced about it.
In short: Nobody had a "Casting stat", every ability (The equivalent of spells, but everyone had them) used a specific stat against a specific defense. (Instead of saving throws, you made an attack roll against their appropriate defense, so a character could have an AC of 20, and a reflex of 18) So Warlocks had abilities that used Charisma yes, but they also had abilities that used constitution and intelligence. Sorcerers had abilities in Dex, Con, and Cha. (An ability would read (Stat) vs. (Defense)) It was then up to you what abilities you took, so you could build more around certain stats.
4E's solution to MAD was to make everyone a little bit MAD. It worked pretty well.

I really liked that, actually. Flavour-wise warlocks had three ways to get powers (more later on, but these are the ones I know) - get a pact with some elder gods, get pact with demons, or a pact with the fey. Then they could choose any abilities, but the more fey abilities would use Charisma and would also work similarly gameplay and fluff-wise - they are more of "control" ones where you get to mind control, stun, daze or otherwise manipulate the minds of the enemies as a main thing or as a side effect of the power. That doesn't stop you from getting a demonic power which uses a different stat and is also more of a big nuke and so on. So if you wish, you could play it straight and build to one main stat by choosing the appropriate abilities and, in turn, you could choose which stat that is. Or you could go for 2 or 3, if you so desire. You could even just pick a couple of odd powers but the rest just stay within your main path.

 

[Fappy]

I don't have an issue with Charisma being the main casting stat for a class granted it makes sense in the context of the class lore. In Pathfinder, the most prominent Charisma full casters are Sorcerer and Oracle, both of which draw power from their innate connection to their bloodline/deity. They don't need to have vast arcane/divine knowledge (Int) or have a nuanced understanding/instinct (Wis) because their power is involuntarily inherited or granted to them, and charisma kind of makes sense for that.

Not everything Charisma applies to makes sense, however. Why do undead creatures use Charisma to calculate bonus hitpoints? I understand a non-living creature can't technically have a constitution, but what does charisma have to do with anything?

 

[Souplex]

I don't have an issue with Charisma being the main casting stat for a class granted it makes sense in the context of the class lore. In Pathfinder, the most prominent Charisma full casters are Sorcerer and Oracle, both of which draw power from their innate connection to their bloodline/deity. They don't need to have vast arcane/divine knowledge (Int) or have a nuanced understanding/instinct (Wis) because their power is involuntarily inherited or granted to them, and charisma kind of makes sense for that.

Not everything Charisma applies to makes sense, however. Why do undead creatures use Charisma to calculate bonus hitpoints? I understand a non-living creature can't technically have a constitution, but what does charisma have to do with anything?

The Charisma for undead thing is just a dumb Pathfinder inherited from 3X. In good editions Constitution measures physical hardiness, so non-living creatures have it too.

It seems like 3X used charisma as a catch-all stat for when they couldn't think of something else.
I fail to see how Charisma represents an innate connection to a bloodline/deity. Seems like any physical stat would serve a sorcerer better.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

The Charisma for undead thing is just a dumb Pathfinder inherited from 3X. In good editions Constitution measures physical hardiness, so non-living creatures have it too.

It seems like 3X used charisma as a catch-all stat for when they couldn't think of something else.
I fail to see how Charisma represents an innate connection to a bloodline/deity. Seems like any physical stat would serve a sorcerer better.

It's not about having that connection, though. Bards can become dragonblood characters and still be bards (and get the awesome, wonderful Dragonfire Inspiration) ... it's about who you are and how you make that connection work. Sorcerors, kind of like bards, freestyle magic. You give them a piece of parchment and unlike wizards they won't break out the protractor and start doodling various circles and arcane geometry (arguably how wizards can learn magic easy enough from other wizards).

It's not about you channeling magic, you and your soul are magic ... and thus your personality becomes a weapon or shield. In D&D there's even a module that suggests mortal souls are a very living, magical thing on a transcendental level in the multiverse itself. Thus your force of personality, force of internal strength, is almost inherently magical itself ... just some characters can make that work better than others.

So much so that basically all devils are (start of) the remnant, hollow, stripped husks of mortal souls (barring the Erinyes) and that's why they desire souls and is their ultimate currency.

 

[DoPo]

It seems like 3X used charisma as a catch-all stat for when they couldn't think of something else.
I fail to see how Charisma represents an innate connection to a bloodline/deity. Seems like any physical stat would serve a sorcerer better.

Well, if we have to be honest, D&D isn't that good at representing details. In some respects it oversimplifies some aspects in their representation to the point where some things just don't really work if you think about it, in some other respects it goes into too much needless detail. That's especially true for all 3.X editions. The charisma stat is an example of oversimplifying - it measures stuff like

- beauty - more the physical aspect but not only. A character with low charisma is assumed to be either "ugly" or at least "fails to impress" in some regards
- innate persuasiveness - high charisma also means people are better at conversing. Combined with the above, it leads to some awkward situations where you can't easily represent a beautiful character who is terrible at talking, but you could do an ugly character who is good at words if you invest in the social skills.
- it's also the "force of personality" thing which is a bit too broad - it measures stuff like conviction and devotion as well as just being awesome and drawing power from inside. In some respects that's pretty much self-confidence, however that also means that you cannot easily represent a character who draws power from within (like a sorcerer) who is also shy and has self-image problems

So, the stat is just covering too much. Not to mention some of the aspects are absolutely unnecessary - more fluff related things don't even need to be dumped there, like beauty.

An example of things going in the opposite direction are a some skills like profession. Does it absolutely matter how good you are at "cooking"? Not really. It gets even more absurd since you can take Craft (cooking) as a separate skill. So you could be a terrible cook who is good at the profession of cooking. Why? Because craft measures how good are you at creating stuff (so, actual cooking), while profession measures how good are you at making money from that (like being Gordon Ramsey). Yet one is a bit of a prerequisite of the other. They don't even need to be separate. As another example, there is an entire skill for using ropes. With it you can do the amazing feats of...tying and untying rope knots. Oh, you can also throw grappling hooks, I guess. Maybe use a lasso.

A lot of what the D&D system represents break down under scrutiny.

 

[TheFinish]

Because you want the players to have options when it comes to their spellcasting classes. That's basically it. And since you can't really make casters base their Caster Level/Spells per day/what have you on physical stats (Str/Dex/Con) without breaking stuff altogether, you use the three mental ones. And since the wizard uses Intelligence and the Druid/Cleric use Wisdom (although I should point out the Cleric also needs charisma), that leaves us with Charisma for the Sorcerer.

 

[Souplex]

Because you want the players to have options when it comes to their spellcasting classes. That's basically it. And since you can't really make casters base their Caster Level/Spells per day/what have you on physical stats (Str/Dex/Con) without breaking stuff altogether, you use the three mental ones. And since the wizard uses Intelligence and the Druid/Cleric use Wisdom (although I should point out the Cleric also needs charisma), that leaves us with Charisma for the Sorcerer.

1. Why would casting with a physical stat break anything? I'm not as familiar with 3.X outside of the broad strokes (Extreme imbalance favoring casters, Munchkin-friendly, Highly convoluted, Excessive Splatbooks etc.) but in 4 and 5 all the stats are important, and dumping mental stats can be just as bad as dumping physical.
2. Once again, coming at this from a 5th perspective, but the Bard has the "Charisma caster who would logically use Charisma" niche covered. We don't need the Sorcerer in the Bard's niche.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

And since you can't really make casters base their Caster Level/Spells per day/what have you on physical stats (Str/Dex/Con) without breaking stuff altogether, you use the three mental ones.

1. Why would casting with a physical stat break anything?

I'm vastly more knowledgeable with Pathfinder and it's basically 3.5 so there might be some inconsistencies. Str applies damage on melee attacks so a high Str for a caster would make them a decent melee fighter. Dex applies to AC making a caster no longer a glass cannon, plus Dex is for initiative and reflex saves. A caster with high Str/Dex makes less logical sense than Cha regardless of how the ability scores interact with the game's systems. And, a caster with a high Con would be way way too tanky with a huge HP pool plus Con is also used for fortitude saves.

 

[DoPo]

And since you can't really make casters base their Caster Level/Spells per day/what have you on physical stats (Str/Dex/Con) without breaking stuff altogether, you use the three mental ones.

1. Why would casting with a physical stat break anything?

I'm vastly more knowledgeable with Pathfinder and it's basically 3.5 so there might be some inconsistencies. Str applies damage on melee attacks so a high Str for a caster would make them a decent melee fighter. Dex applies to AC making a caster no longer a glass cannon, plus Dex is for initiative and reflex saves. A caster with high Str/Dex makes less logical sense than Cha regardless of how the ability scores interact with the game's systems. And, a caster with a high Con would be way way too tanky with a huge HP pool plus Con is also used for fortitude saves.

Speaking of 3.X, then

- Strength making casters better at melee? So what - they can be better melee fighters anyway with spells.
- Dexterity makes them "not glass cannons" is quite overselling it - a high dex character can still get hit and receive a lot of damage. Besides, spellcasters already have spells that let them stack AC - if avoiding damage is that much of an issue, then they already achieve that.
- Constitution makes them more tanky? Uh, yeah - incidentally wizards are encouraged to pick con to put a lot of points to. It's actually comical - the scrawny wizards are paragons of healthy, while big buff fighter classes aren't. It's because wizards lack HP/Fortitude, so to make up for it, they can get high con, while buff classes already have high HP/fortitude, thus they can get away with less con than wizards.

The system is fundamentally broken to begin with, but even those aren't good reasons to make casters not use those stats. For example, if you limit the amount of Dex contributing to AC which is a mechanic already in the game (but doesn't apply to casters...because reasons?) suddenly solves them being "not glass cannons". Want to have them not be good at melee? Well, leaving spells aside, having shit BAB already does that - oh no, that caster guy is coming at me and he is going to whack me...once, while his fighter buddy comes and hits me several times. So, these aren't actually reasons for casters not using those stats for spells - it's a side effect of the system.

The real reason they are not using those stats is because...they've never used them. D&D has a bit of a shit design philosophy where they carry over stuff from earlier editions almost wholesale without much regards for how the current system works. Hey, do you know the spell Meteor Swarm [http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/meteorSwarm.htm]? It's a level 9 spell and it's quite crap overall considering it's top tier. Do you know why it's top tier? Because it was top tier in AD&D...however, due to the difference in the overall systems, it was much better there than in 3.5, yet it works very similarly in both.

 

[TheFinish]

Because you want the players to have options when it comes to their spellcasting classes. That's basically it. And since you can't really make casters base their Caster Level/Spells per day/what have you on physical stats (Str/Dex/Con) without breaking stuff altogether, you use the three mental ones. And since the wizard uses Intelligence and the Druid/Cleric use Wisdom (although I should point out the Cleric also needs charisma), that leaves us with Charisma for the Sorcerer.

1. Why would casting with a physical stat break anything? I'm not as familiar with 3.X outside of the broad strokes (Extreme imbalance favoring casters, Munchkin-friendly, Highly convoluted, Excessive Splatbooks etc.) but in 4 and 5 all the stats are important, and dumping mental stats can be just as bad as dumping physical.
2. Once again, coming at this from a 5th perspective, but the Bard has the "Charisma caster who would logically use Charisma" niche covered. We don't need the Sorcerer in the Bard's niche.

Yes, but the Bard is an exception because he's a 9/9 class in 5th, but used to be 6/9 in other games (as in, they could only get up to 6th level spells). Turning the Bard into a 9/9 caster is dumb as all hell, since it steps on the Sorcerer's toes (the OG 9/9 Cha caster), it clashes with the idea that they're entertainers with some magic (9th level spells is serious bloody business) and they still kept all their "skill" shenanigans, though Bardic Performance got shafted hard.

As for the physical stats for casting, Strength is the outlier (and keep in mind, the following applies mostly to Pathfinder, since saves in 5th are a bit different): the problem is Dex and Con; and the system in general. If you look at the mental stats, the only one that provides any kind of advantage in combat is Wisdom, because it helps with your Will saves. Intelligence and Charisma do nothing for you in combat, barring some specialty builds.

Wizards/Clerics/Druids/Sorcerers are SAD (single attribute dependent, though the Cleric technically needs Charisma for his channel). They need a 19 in their casting stat if they want to use all of their spells, and they want that stat as high as possible anyway because everything depends on it. Dexterity governs your AC, your Reflex Save and your Initiative, as well as a whole slew of useful spells (we can talk about how Dex being a god stat is bad in some other place). Constitution governs your Fort save, and your hit points. Therefore, making the casting stat Dex or Con gives them an advantage: now their single attribute doesn't just helps with spells, it also helps with combat!

All talk about the system being unbalanced aside (because it is, greatly so), that's the main reason. Paizo tried to give us a Constitution based caster (the Scarred Witch Doctor, an Archetype for the Witch) and had to change it back to Int almost immediately because it was hilariously broken (through a combination of race, feats and the class itself).

Anyway sorry for the rant, hopefully my points are clear.

 

[sageoftruth]

Look, you need them to cast from something, but the Wizard's already using Int, so that's out, and Wis is for god stuff. You're really just left with the one ability after that. Then, 4e and 5e uses it by default because it's now traditional.

Thing of it as having to borrow power from an entity like a Cleric, but with a being that wants to subsume your personality and ride you around like a meat puppet. Charisma is your Ego defending itself.

I actually think Charisma would be good for God stuff, depending on the God. Of course, it would have to be a God that can actually be swayed by Charisma, but considering that Cleric spells are about asking a God for help, it sounds appropriate