Sorcerer/Warlocks casting with Charisma is kind of dumb

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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.

A caster with Str as his main stat could do more melee damage than a fighter, not that it would be too broken as casters stay back anyways but Str makes less logical sense to cast from than Cha.

Dex would be horribly broken for casting. AC is pretty damn important for %chance of being hit or not. Why not just give everyone an AC of 40, that's not broken because you can still get hit, try telling a DM that. I had sorcerer with 32 Cha around level 15, just think if that was Dex, that's a +11 AC bonus right there. Then, you could stack spell AC on top of that like you said.

Wizards are encouraged to use Con as their SECONDARY stat, maybe get it up to 14 and get a couple extra HP per level. If Con was a casting stat, bare minimum a caster is going to have at least 20 for their casting stat at level 1, that's 5 HP bonus per level minimum with that going up as they level.

 

[DoPo]

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.

A caster with Str as his main stat could do more melee damage than a fighter, not that it would be too broken as casters stay back anyways but Str makes less logical sense to cast from than Cha.

Dex would be horribly broken for casting. AC is pretty damn important for %chance of being hit or not. Why not just give everyone an AC of 40, that's not broken because you can still get hit, try telling a DM that. I had sorcerer with 32 Cha around level 15, just think if that was Dex, that's a +11 AC bonus right there. Then, you could stack spell AC on top of that like you said.

Wizards are encouraged to use Con as their SECONDARY stat, maybe get it up to 14 and get a couple extra HP per level. If Con was a casting stat, bare minimum a caster is going to have at least 20 for their casting stat at level 1, that's 5 HP bonus per level minimum with that going up as they level.

You keep explaining how the system's brokenness doesn't work with the casters, though. You don't seem to be thinking about how it can work. Again, as I said - the dex AC bonus is trivial to be a non-factor if you just cap it. Again it's even a system that already exists in the game. The only practical reason why the system doesn't use physical attributes for casting is because the game is fundamentally broken and it's easier to do it that way, instead of making it better.

 

[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.

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

That would make sense, but it would also be change, and the D&D fan base is exceptionally skittish.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You keep explaining how the system's brokenness doesn't work with the casters, though. You don't seem to be thinking about how it can work. Again, as I said - the dex AC bonus is trivial to be a non-factor if you just cap it. Again it's even a system that already exists in the game. The only practical reason why the system doesn't use physical attributes for casting is because the game is fundamentally broken and it's easier to do it that way, instead of making it better.

I don't see why you'd want to cast with Dex, how would that change the game for such and such caster class? At least the skills associated with Cha are more fun and make more sense for a caster anyways. I'm not trying to defend the game's systems, sure everything doesn't work perfect, but how is a caster class that has to change the rules any better?

 

[DoPo]

You keep explaining how the system's brokenness doesn't work with the casters, though. You don't seem to be thinking about how it can work. Again, as I said - the dex AC bonus is trivial to be a non-factor if you just cap it. Again it's even a system that already exists in the game. The only practical reason why the system doesn't use physical attributes for casting is because the game is fundamentally broken and it's easier to do it that way, instead of making it better.

I don't see why you'd want to cast with Dex, how would that change the game for such and such caster class? At least the skills associated with Cha are more fun and make more sense for a caster anyways. I'm not trying to defend the game's systems, sure everything doesn't work perfect, but how is a caster class that has to change the rules any better?

Wait, "has to change the rules"? The casters already play by different rules than the non-spellcasting characters. But to answer the question - it's not a matter of "changing the rules" at all - so far I have been pointing out how the rules plain don't work. Thinking that casters cannot in any way shape or form use any other stat than Int/Wis/Cha is a reason why they don't. Getting rid of that would mean that at least in some small way the game system can move on and actually get to work.

I don't even get why you are so adamant about non-physical stats being so important, either - 4e did the right thing and made those viable primary statistics for some casters. Heck, I am pretty sure that sorcerers themselves had a sub-archetype that used strength and it was related to the ones with draconic blood. It manages to provide both fluff and crunch.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Wait, "has to change the rules"? The casters already play by different rules than the non-spellcasting characters. But to answer the question - it's not a matter of "changing the rules" at all - so far I have been pointing out how the rules plain don't work. Thinking that casters cannot in any way shape or form use any other stat than Int/Wis/Cha is a reason why they don't. Getting rid of that would mean that at least in some small way the game system can move on and actually get to work.

I don't even get why you are so adamant about non-physical stats being so important, either - 4e did the right thing and made those viable primary statistics for some casters. Heck, I am pretty sure that sorcerers themselves had a sub-archetype that used strength and it was related to the ones with draconic blood. It manages to provide both fluff and crunch.

The TC was asking why casting with a physical stat would be broken and I explained why, Str is by far the most workable but just as nonsensical as Cha. Again, I'm not defending the system or that there's not a potentially better way of doing it, just stating the facts as to why it's not done that way. I only played a couple sessions of 4e and it was horrible overall. Our DM even stopped a whole session himself because of how pointless combat was. Sure, 4e might've taken steps forward in some areas, but it also took massive steps backwards. I recall low level play being more fun than 3.5 but that was it. Is there some character you can't make in 3.5/Pathfinder because of casters not using certain stats?

 

[DoPo]

Sure, 4e might've taken steps forward in some areas, but it also took massive steps backwards.

I'd say it did have its problems but overall was a good direction for D&D. It cut out most of the useless stuff and finally tried to do something from the ground up. The biggest failure of the system is trying to stray away from that path starting with Essentials which eventually spelt its doom.

Is there some character you can't make in 3.5/Pathfinder because of casters not using certain stats?

This is a nonsensical question. As explained, 3.X is busted from the get-go, and to top it off there are millions of custom and prestige classes that are a symptom of that problem as they try to compensate for it. Yes, technically you can play "any" character in 3.X as long as you classify that as "not really any, but stuff that's viable". Can you play a Barbarian/Bard/Druid multiclass? Technically yes, it wouldn't be really viable, unless you go and game the system by taking single level dips and stuff. So, you cannot freely play some sort of tribal shaman type. You could instead turn to some base or prestige class called "shaman" that tries to do that but its existence is not because the system is so good and flexible, but the opposite, since you need to cook up new classes for stuff.

As I said a couple of times, the fluff reason for using one attribute or another for casting is pretty cool. Warlocks using demonic powers use constitution, which implies that the powers they manifest hurt or otherwise take their toll on the body, so you need to be able to withstand them. Yet a warlock wielding fey powers can be a scrawny twig who uses his natural charm to fuddle the minds of targets. It's the same class using the same type of abilities but the results and implications are different.

With this in place, it is also much easier to make "custom" classes that portray what you want. A Barbarian/Bard/Druid will be some character that is somewhat "feral" or "tribal" and has access to some nature magic and preserves the lore of the tribe. With this in mind, you can take any existing class and re-fluff it to fit that description. I don't really know of most outside the PHB1 but I think you may be able to go straight to the bard class and re-fluff the abilities to fit that. Or maybe there is a better fit. At any rate, you don't usually need an entire new class that may or may not even work, as 3.X is rife with those, and there are the classes that are absolutely better than the rest.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Snip

I don't know 4e or 5e much at all so I really can't say what they did right or wrong (besides 4e's horrible combat) and compare/contrast to 3.X. Pathfinder has a shaman class, which I realize is sorta your point in not being able to customize from say the core classes to that character. DnD has always been decently strict as to flexibility because of the class system, it's sorta an inherent trait of a class system whether we're talking DnD or a shooter with classes. You do have decent flexibility with multiclassing along with a cavalcade of races. Just yesterday I made a Kitsune level 5 Bard(4)/Gunslinger(1) for a new Pathfinder run starting in a few weeks, the mainly Bard can do some serious damage with a musket taking the Vital Strike feat allowing me to do 2D12 + Cha bonus (Gunslinger deed) when I'm not buffing and healing. There's much more flexible systems out there like MnM where you just get an allotment of points and you can spend them on any powers, skills, feats, stats, etc.