Why isn't sorcerer a Constitution caster? [Archive]

Forum Explorer

2020-03-20, 04:42 PM

JumboWheat01

2020-03-20, 04:43 PM

By the fluff, Charisma is as much "force of will" as it is anything else, and that's what Sorcerers do when they cast spells, they force their will through magic. That's why they use Charisma.

Yes, their magic is natural and a part of them, but it doesn't eat away at them, and only breaks free if they don't keep it under control (again, through force of will.)

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-20, 05:10 PM

Because there is a cost to having diversity. Allowing a caster to utilize Constitution would remove any cost to mixing with a Martial class.

On top of that, Martial classes often provide benefits that remove the weaknesses of a caster, such as armor proficiencies, defensive capabilities, or options for melee combat. Combine this with other synergistic options from the Sorcerer, like the Shield spell, and it has too much potential. You'll make other content irrelevant, like the Eldritch Knight Fighter.

It could have been done, and still can be, but it needs to be designed around in a way that makes alternatives nearly as viable. That is, every choice should be a circumstantial choice, and making a Constitution Caster that is only circumstantially chosen vs. any other choice of caster/martial multiclassing would be a pretty difficult thing to do.

That is, you have to make it in a way where only 5% of players would want to pick it for their character. There are 12 classes, about 4 subclasses for each, and creating content will have a reverse effect if done incorrectly.

For example, Warlocks used to have a lot of various combat-oriented builds before Xanathar's, but now all of the players who went towards that build have defaulted to Hexblade. Adding content can ironically remove more from somewhere else.

Nero24200

2020-03-20, 05:25 PM

For example, Warlocks used to have a lot of various combat-oriented builds before Xanathar's, but now all of the players who went towards that build have defaulted to Hexblade. Adding content can ironically remove more from somewhere else.

Well said, and I feel this is the most important point, not just from a class perspective. If the Sorcerer was Con focused then players would have very little incentive to boost any other stat with the Sorcerer - and that's a problem.

Tying the mental stats to spell-casting does a good job of at least making them seem a little different from each other. Bards need Charisma for their spells but certain builds also favour them focusing other stats as well, though with a physical stat like Con it becomes a lot harder to balance since it's a stat good for every class.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-20, 05:46 PM

One thing I've toyed with is the idea of using alternate primary attributes. That is, allowing Clerics to use Charisma, or Bards to use Intelligence, by tying in restrictions to those builds that you must obey. Do something contrary to those rules, and you resort to using the standard attribute again.

You could do something similar with the Constitution Sorcerer-I did with Wisdom-but it'd have to be pretty restrictive. Personally, I'd allow it as a sort of "pseudo-feat".

Something like:
You can take levels into Sorcerer, using your Constitution modifier in place of your Charisma modifier for your Sorcerer features.
Requirement: Between 1/4 and 1/2 of your total class levels must be in Sorcerer.

So you could be a magical Monk that's part Sorcerer, but you'd have to devote 1/4 of all of your class levels towards Sorcerer, which means delaying things like Extra Attack or Stunning Strike. On the other hand, the Sorcerer would be able to fit in with nearly every build. The Sorcerer has a number of low-level benefits that could help almost anyone, but you're unable to invest, or ignore it, enough to actually abuse it. It creates versatility, not power, and at a cost.

It's be akin to a minor mutation.

You're not a "Storm Sorcerer", but "Storm-Touched". The Draconic power given to you is a gift, in exchange for your loyalty to the Dragon Lords. You escaped The Shadow Realm, but a piece of it seemed unable to escape you. And so on.

[edit] I meant for this to be a half-assed example of what could be done, but I'm surprised how much actually really like this.

Sam113097

2020-03-20, 05:58 PM

On the other hand, the Sorcerer would be able to fit in with nearly every build.

I think that about sums up the issue with a con-based sorcerer. It would be the easiest multiclassing option by far. While I think it could be used on a case-by-case basis (just as some DMs allow warlocks to use Intelligence), it would make a level in sorcerer a must-have for tons of multiclasses. Similar to how hexblade warlock is a popular option for multiclassing Cha-based characters, but even more widespread, because everybody has Constitution. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it would reduce class diversity and build variety, in my personal opinion.

SpawnOfMorbo

2020-03-20, 07:47 PM

So this is something I've been thinking on for awhile, because Charisma doesn't make a ton of sense to me for a caster that is generally born with its magic. They already get Con save proficiency, so they're already seen as con dependant and good for concentration. I don't really see an issue with using con as they're casting stat. It fits more thematically, and while it does have the side effect of boosting they're health and giving them two core stats instead of one, I don't see a big issue.
Edit: I'm assuming that you want good Dex in any caster so you don't die and am including it as a "core stat".

Constitution? Figured Wisdom would make the most sense, if going away from charisma.

A Sorcerer doesn't so much as learn spells, but learns that they can cast spells. Sorcerers then need to practice and hone that skill.

The force of personality comes into play here, charisma, if you think of it being how they practice their magic. They mentally have to force their magic to produce an effect.

Making an argument for Wisdom, as it is about intuition, I can see.

"Wisdom: Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition."

But they do explain wisdom as attunement to the world around you... But I see intuition working for Sorcerers.

"Charisma: Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality"

The only part of charisma that hits the Sorcerer casting would be confidence... Perhaps to cast spells a Sorcerer you need to be confidence in your own casting?

"Constitution: Constitution measures health, stamina, and vital force."

Not sure what vital force really is, buy stamina could be part of their casting but I'm not a huge fan of Con as a casting stat for the sorcerer.

Dienekes

2020-03-20, 10:44 PM

Constitution? Figured Wisdom would make the most sense, if going away from charisma.

A Sorcerer doesn't so much as learn spells, but learns that they can cast spells. Sorcerers then need to practice and hone that skill.

The force of personality comes into play here, charisma, if you think of it being how they practice their magic. They mentally have to force their magic to produce an effect.

Making an argument for Wisdom, as it is about intuition, I can see.

"Wisdom: Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition."

But they do explain wisdom as attunement to the world around you... But I see intuition working for Sorcerers.

"Charisma: Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality"

The only part of charisma that hits the Sorcerer casting would be confidence... Perhaps to cast spells a Sorcerer you need to be confidence in your own casting?

"Constitution: Constitution measures health, stamina, and vital force."

Not sure what vital force really is, buy stamina could be part of their casting but I'm not a huge fan of Con as a casting stat for the sorcerer.

I think you're thinking of the way you're influencing magic different than the developers thought.

Wisdom is perceptiveness and intuition of the world. And while magic is part of the world, perceptiveness about how the magic works is not how Sorcerers are supposed to be creating spells. They don't know how it works particularly well. That's part of why the subclasses to the class mostly are presented in terms of innate magic. You aren't in tuned with the Weave. You don't sit and listen to the hidden whispers of the world and become one with magic. One of your ancestors slept with a dragon or you accidentally got exposed to pure wild magic as a baby. Or something. Either way you just naturally got lucky with the power to work magic. And how do you do it? You aren't trained, you aren't in tuned. You tell that stone with the bat poop on it that it is going to blow up. And by the gods that stone is not going to argue with you!

OldTrees1

2020-03-20, 10:47 PM

SpawnOfMorbo

2020-03-21, 02:00 AM

I think you're thinking of the way you're influencing magic different than the developers thought.

Wisdom is perceptiveness and intuition of the world. And while magic is part of the world, perceptiveness about how the magic works is not how Sorcerers are supposed to be creating spells. They don't know how it works particularly well. That's part of why the subclasses to the class mostly are presented in terms of innate magic. You aren't in tuned with the Weave. You don't sit and listen to the hidden whispers of the world and become one with magic. One of your ancestors slept with a dragon or you accidentally got exposed to pure wild magic as a baby. Or something. Either way you just naturally got lucky with the power to work magic. And how do you do it? You aren't trained, you aren't in tuned. You tell that stone with the bat poop on it that it is going to blow up. And by the gods that stone is not going to argue with you!

Those quotes were from the SRD, not my opinion about the ability scores.

"Wisdom: Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition."

"Charisma: Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality"

Intuition is the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.

A Sorcerer learns their spells via intuition, the spells are a part of them and they don't need to learn how to know spells, they do need to learn how to control the spells they learned via intuition.

Innate magic is intuition magic. Innate knowledge is a synonym of intuition.

Wisdom for a Sorcerer makes complete sense.

Side note, the weave is a setting specific thing. It's from Forgotten Realms, so if you're playing in say, Eberron
Mystra doesn't even exist.

Bohandas

2020-03-21, 02:32 AM

SpawnOfMorbo

2020-03-21, 03:25 AM

Because Sorcerers are like Barbarians. They rely on the might of their natural talents.

As far as being a magical power source:
Charisma is the Mental Strength
Wisdom is the Mental Constitution
Intelligence is the Mental Dexterity

Wizards use their quick and flexible minds to craft mighty magic.
Clerics use their unwavering faith to channel the divine magic.
Sorcerers use the force of being to bend reality to their will.

Ehh... Not really.

WotC does not adhere to this, Sorcerers are Cha casters because 3e had them be Cha casters as a way to split them away from the wizard (Sorcerers were a specific type of wizard that used spell points in 2e).

Wizards use their intelligence to force reality to bend to their will despite not being born a part of magic. Wizards have more raw power in different areas than Sorcerers and get a wider choice of spells that completely bend reality to their whims in a way that Sorcerers can't. Anything a sorcerer can cast, a wizard can too. Plenty of metamagic abilities are similar to wizard subclass features.

Warlush

2020-03-21, 04:15 AM

Millstone85

2020-03-21, 04:52 AM

Side note, the weave is a setting specific thing. It's from Forgotten Realms, so if you're playing in say, Eberron
Mystra doesn't even exist.The Weave is core in 5e.
The worlds within the D&D multiverse are magical places. [...] Mortals can't directly shape this raw magic. Instead, they make use of a fabric of magic, a kind of interface between the will of a spellcaster and the stuff of raw magic. The spellcasters of the Forgotten Realms call it the Weave and recognize its essence as the goddess Mystra, but casters have varied ways of naming and visualizing this interface. By any name, without the Weave, raw magic is locked away and inaccessible

Dienekes

2020-03-21, 07:37 AM

Those quotes were from the SRD, not my opinion about the ability scores.

"Wisdom: Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition."

"Charisma: Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality"

Intuition is the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.

A Sorcerer learns their spells via intuition, the spells are a part of them and they don't need to learn how to know spells, they do need to learn how to control the spells they learned via intuition.

Innate magic is intuition magic. Innate knowledge is a synonym of intuition.

Wisdom for a Sorcerer makes complete sense.

Side note, the weave is a setting specific thing. It's from Forgotten Realms, so if you're playing in say, Eberron
Mystra doesn't even exist.

I know those definitions of abilities were from the book. My disagreement is how the sorcerer casts spells. Innate in this case is not synonymous with intuition. Partially because there’s a whole subclass based around the character very much not knowing how to control the the spells they learn.

But even if you are not a wild magic sorcerer, the fluff of the class does a lot to bring up how strange and random sorcery is.

“One cant study sorcery as one studies a language... No one chooses sorcery, the power chooses the sorcerer.”

“People with magic power seething in their veins soon discover that the power doesn’t like to stay quiet. A sorcerers magic wants to be wielded, and it has a tendency to spill out in unpredictable ways if it isn’t called on.”

The difference here is that you seem to think that being attuned to the world around you is what the sorcerer is doing. It’s not. Think of magic as if it’s a person. Sorcerers magic is directly personified as having needs and desires in the sorcerer fluff. Whether you want to call it the Weave or not. The sorcerer is directing that magic through their force of personality. Because otherwise like a room full of toddlers the magic will mess things up.

Could the mechanics of the class do a better job of representing this? Oh yes. And there is nothing wrong that I can see for just taking the base class making it a Wisdom class. I wouldn’t allow Wild Magic for it. But doing so is changing the fluff of the class away from someone who’s power is literally bursting out of them.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-21, 07:40 AM

Nobody is a Con caster because it's the best ability to have high.

genasi (albeit, they don't have attack roll or spell save magic0

Tanarii

2020-03-21, 10:00 AM

All sorcs being physically tough would be far better than all sorcs being negotiating masters. I really wish "Cha as a wizard-lite casting stat" had never become a thing. Wis would have been better if not Con.

Warlocks are different, a choice between Int or Cha would have fit them perfectly. Seeker into lost secrets (Int) or silver tongued cultist (Cha) make perfect sense.

It's time for D&D to drop this "Cha is forcefulness that can power magic" crap.

Catullus64

2020-03-21, 11:19 AM

It's time for D&D to drop this "Cha is forcefulness that can power magic" crap.

I think the boat might have sailed on that one, Tanarii. They tried making INT warlocks this edition and people shouted it down. I too have always found it silly, but it may just be one of those nonsensical things that is now ingrained in the D&D collective consciousness, like ability scores and ability bonuses being different numbers. We'll live.

While I agree with the sentiment widely expressed that Sorcerers as a CON caster would be too powerful because of multi-classing value, I don't think that a CON caster would, in theory, be unworkable. You would simply need to design the class in question so that it would incentivize staying in that class for many levels, rather than multi-classing.

I think the 5e Monk is an example of how you can design a class that is so specific in its functionality that multi-classing is less appealing; it's not as though tons of Druids are taking one-level Monk dips for Unarmored Defense

Quietus

2020-03-21, 11:39 AM

To balance against the absolute SAD-ness that a Constitution caster would provide, I might look at making this either a subclass or a specific variant. Bring back the bloodmage, someone who literally casts with their physical health.

Bloodmage variant : Any sorcerer may choose to power their spells not by force of will, but by casting directly from their physical selves. Such a sorcerer uses Constitution as their spellcasting stat, but when they cast a spell, they must expend hit points equal to 1/2 the spell's level, rounded up. This hit point expenditure cannot be reduced or redirected in any way.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-21, 12:07 PM

SpawnOfMorbo

2020-03-21, 07:03 PM

IMO, this is how all magic should be.

And martials should get cool things that are fueled by Hit Dice.

Boci

2020-03-21, 07:09 PM

P. G. Macer

2020-03-21, 07:15 PM

genasi (albeit, they don't have attack roll or spell save magic0

Fire Genasi get Produce Flame (A potentially attack-roll spell) and Burning Hands (a saving throw spell) with Constitution.

I’d actually argue that part of the reason the genasi are considered a weak race from a strictly optimization perspective is the Wizards of the Coast was afraid of granting them Drow or Tiefling-level spell casting with CON.

Anonymouswizard

2020-03-21, 08:41 PM

But if charisma isn't a casting stat, there's really little reason to have it in the game.

This is a major problem with D&D, 3e neutered Charisma to the point where it meant practically nothing (in fact we recently had a thread about dealing with the Charisma problem, 'axe it' was the most popular response (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?608423-Variations-on-ability-scores-for-D-amp-D-3rd-PF)), 5e did the same thing with Intelligence. Removing hirelings as an expected part of the game and then skill points basically left the game with two mental stats without a class-neutral use.

Conversely Dex has the opposite problem, so much stuff is dependant on Dexterity (ranged attack rolls, a decent number of melee attack rolls, armour class, initiative, a lot of saves) that it's essentially become the second stat that all builds want, not that it wasn't incredibly desireable back in earlier editions (it was the standard tertiary stat of casters back in 3.X). Casting from Dex would be almost as much of a deal as casting from Con.

Honestly, if I was asigning the casting classes in 5e primary Ability scores I'd go for the following:

Bard: Intelligence, play up their role as loremasters over performers (Cha becomes their secondary stat fueling most of their non-spellcasting class featrures).
Cleric: Charisma, play up the cultist angle, make the line between 'deity' and 'eldritch abomination' less clear.
Druid: a terrible class, we've got about three concepts vying for space. Bin it, replace it with a pair of dedicated shapeshifter and nature mage classes (Shapeshifter and Shaman). Shamans can cast from Wisdom.
Paladin: Charisma is a good choice to play up the knight in shining armour.
Ranger: Wisdom, they use the same kind of magic as our Shaman class (mirroring their old relationship to the Druid), but for a different purpose.
Sorcerer: Strength, an unusual choice for an unusual class. While the other classes are manipulating, charming, or persuading reality into doing what they want Sorcerers grab it and force it into the shape they want.
Warlock: Intelligence, while the bards study lore warlocks seek out old and forgotten secrets. Maybe make them a half-caster with rogue skills.
Wizard: Intelligence, although I might just bin them entirely. I love the scholarly magic user, but is the class really needed?

Amechra

2020-03-21, 09:20 PM

genasi (albeit, they don't have attack roll or spell save magic0

Fire Genasi get Produce Flame and Burning Hands. They don't scale very well, though.

SpawnOfMorbo

2020-03-21, 10:56 PM

But if charisma isn't a casting stat, there's really little reason to have it in the game.

What?

Top tier skill list is Charisma based and one of the best feats, Actor, gives advantage to two skills (Deception and Performance).

Charisma is such an active stat that it can stand by itself without it being a caster stat.

Intelligence skills could just work without a stat, you either know something or you don't, instead of having a stat applied to it.

Wisdom makes sense to keep around as it's the direct opposite of charisma and the counter to it (there should be more than one defense against charisma but whatever).

D&D needs to expand the exploration and social side of the game more, sure, but as is... Charisma is the best mental ability score from an active side. Wisdom is the best from a defensive side. Intelligence is the red headed middle step child of a rented mule (this coming from someone who plays Half-Orc Barbarians with 13 Int and Prodigy (Expertise: Arcana)).

Anonymouswizard

2020-03-22, 09:02 AM

What?

Top tier skill list is Charisma based and one of the best feats, Actor, gives advantage to two skills (Deception and Performance).

Charisma is such an active stat that it can stand by itself without it being a caster stat.

Intelligence skills could just work without a stat, you either know something or you don't, instead of having a stat applied to it.

Wisdom makes sense to keep around as it's the direct opposite of charisma and the counter to it (there should be more than one defense against charisma but whatever).

D&D needs to expand the exploration and social side of the game more, sure, but as is... Charisma is the best mental ability score from an active side. Wisdom is the best from a defensive side. Intelligence is the red headed middle step child of a rented mule (this coming from someone who plays Half-Orc Barbarians with 13 Int and Prodigy (Expertise: Arcana)).

Charisma and Wisdom both represent willpower to some extent, so keeping both of them is weird.

Honestly the simplest stat to get rid of is Wisdom, an incredibly useful stat. Moving it's willpower functions over to Charisma makes the stat desireable to those without any desire for social competency, while moving it's perception functions to Intelligence gives it an all-round use for characters.

As a side note I also consider Strength to have been incredibly devalued with the improvement to 'finesse weapons' (remember when they still applied your Strength to damage instead of Dexterity?), especially if you use the incredibly generous default encumbrance rules. I never found that my expected gear would weigh more than the 'standard' Strength for my class let me carry, get a donkey to haul loot and you're laughing.

As a side note, who are the encumbrance rules for? Most tables I've played with ignored encumbrance rules entirely, and the one that used them liked tight limits that made you have to decide if you wanted all that gear or you wanted mobility. The last time I played 5e I was the only one who even tried to track equipment rate, or arrows.

And then when the GM declared we weren't using encumbrance I just tried to get one of every mundane tool in my backpack.

Tanarii

2020-03-22, 09:16 AM

I think the boat might have sailed on that one, Tanarii.Hahahaha thanks. That helped me step back from the rant. :smallamused:

This is a major problem with D&D, 3e neutered Charisma to the point where it meant practically nothing (in fact we recently had a thread about dealing with the Charisma problem, 'axe it' was the most popular response (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?608423-Variations-on-ability-scores-for-D-amp-D-3rd-PF)), 5e did the same thing with Intelligence.While I'm a supporter of the idea that Charisma was more meaningful as a measure of Loyalty than Personal Interactions, that is bollocks.

How useful Charisma and Intelligence are depend on how often your DM determines checks are needed, which also depends on what kind of adventures they run.

In particular, Charisma has a detailed chart of example DCs in the DMG that can be used for each and every interaction with an NPC where you want something from them. That's potentially a lot of Charisma checks.

(personally, given the way most players can't keep their mouth shut and just let the 'Face' talk, my players used to find out how important Cha could be as an off stat, for use in the resulting group check.)

Whiskeyjack8044

2020-03-22, 01:29 PM

I've been making this argument for years. People are never going to agree that a Con Sorcerer would be fine. It's a sacred cow that will never go away.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?602606-A-comprehensive-argument-for-Sorcerers-being-Con-casters

Wizard_Lizard

2020-03-22, 07:30 PM

I mean if you think about it.... high charisma races are more likely to get kids with a dragon.... or an angel......

Boci

2020-03-22, 07:38 PM

I mean if you think about it.... high charisma races are more likely to get kids with a dragon.... or an angel......

There's more sorceror bloodlines. Keep going.

Anonymouswizard

2020-03-23, 07:22 AM

I mean if you think about it.... high charisma races are more likely to get kids with a dragon.... or an angel......

Although with high Consitution you're more likely to survive the experience :smalltongue:

We can argue on what stat makes the most sense for Sorcerers to case from, but in games design realism often (but not always) comes after balance, and Sorcerers already have CON set up as their secondary stat. Honestly, I could argue Sorcerers as either a CHA/CON or WIS/CON class, so Constitution might be better as their primary stat.

Making them CON primary and CHA/WIS secondary would require a relatively big rewrite though. Core-rulebook-wise I remember them being pretty much SAD on CHA, CON was only important because of it's general importance. We can take their Spellcasting and make it CON-based pretty easily, but we then need to give them a good reason to care about a secondary stat.

My suggestions are twofold, 1) replace (CHA mod) Sorcery Points on a Short Rest, and 2) rewrite the subclasses to have their abilities more strongly tied to CHA. Their raw power is now based on CON, but their tricks are based on CHA. It makes them an incredibly DAD class, up there with melee fighters (who care about their attack stat first and CON second).

Although it could be worse, Adventures in Middle-earth has a class that uses it's Primary Ability Score for nothing (besides skill checks), with only one of the two subclasses giving any abilities based on that Ability Score (on the other hand it has two of my favourite classes, a magicless Ranger and magicless Bard).

Arkhios

2020-03-23, 08:04 AM

There's more sorceror bloodlines. Keep going.

5th edition D&D Sorcerer isn't Pathfinder Sorcerer. There's only one SORCEROUS ORIGIN that is a literal bloodline, and that's Draconic BLOODLINE. :smallwink:

The others are:
Divine SOUL
Shadow MAGIC
Storm SORCERY
Wild MAGIC

And that's just the officially published ones.

From Unearthed Arcana (excluding the duplicates for those that have been revised and officially published, see above):
Aberrant MIND
Clockwork SOUL
Giant SOUL
Phoenix SORCERY
Sea SORCERY
Stone SORCERY

PS. Don't take this as an offense, it's just that words mean things, and quite literally Rules and Flavor as Written, only Draconic Bloodline is considered to be an actual bloodline. I'm intentionally overly pedantic here to prove a point: Sorcerers in 5th edition derive their powers from an Origin of some sort, and an Origin can be much more than an inherited bloodline.

EDIT: On the topic, all I have to say is that I find the idea intriguing and wouldn't personally oppose the idea. Even if you had Con 20 at first level, your maximum hit points at that level would be only 11. That's 1 less than a Barbarian with Con 10 would have. "Oh-My-Gosh."

KorvinStarmast

2020-03-23, 04:10 PM

This is a major problem with D&D, I would rephrase that as
This is a major problem with WoTC :smallcool:
*ducks*

For Arkhios

only Draconic Bloodline is considered to be an actual bloodline.
I am with you on this.

Bohandas

2020-03-23, 05:06 PM

By the fluff, Charisma is as much "force of will" as it is anything else, and that's what Sorcerers do when they cast spells, they force their will through magic. That's why they use Charisma.

That explanation always came off to me as transparently forced solely to justify the sorcerer using charisma

EDIT:
Similarly, most of the wisdom score has nothing to do with wisdom and its name seems similarly forced to give the cleric a stat

Tanarii

2020-03-23, 05:25 PM

That explanation always came off to me as transparently forced solely to justify the sorcerer using charisma

EDIT:
Similarly, most of the wisdom score has nothing to do with wisdom and its name seems similarly forced to give the cleric a stat
Actually, Wisdom is Wisdom because it's the Cleric casting stat, and all the "Wisdom = in tune with people and world around you" and skills came second. That's almost exactly the opposite of Charisma, which started as the number of retainers and their loyalty and encounter initial state hostile/friendly stat, then became a persuasiveness/deception/social interaction stat, then needed some kind of non-conflicting justification to become a sorcerer casting stat ... and why they can cast at all using "Charisma" (common usage word) in the first place.

Anonymouswizard

2020-03-23, 08:53 PM

I would rephrase that as
This is a major problem with WoTC :smallcool:
*ducks*

Oh, I'd agree that it isn't the case in TSR D&D, but I think it become less valuable in 3e is less to do with WotC and more to do with changing times.

But despite everybody's attempts to defend INT and Charisma with 'you can run a game where the skills come up a lot', I have actually played in games where mental stata are vitally important, and they tend to promote avoiding combat (which, to be honest, is my prefered approach to a game anyway). As well as a lot of INT skills to make investing in INT just more efficient than trying to raise individual skills, I've played in GURPS games where the GM ruled that IQ cost 40 points per +1, which is four times as much as Strength orHealth, simply because about two thirds of the game's skills run off of IQ, Will, or Perception, and every point of IQ includes a point of Will and Per.

But that's not the default for D&D. The default assumption is that no matter how high you pump your Engineering, Fast-Talk, Diplomacy, Sex-Appeal, Theoretical Physics, or anything else you'll eventually be forced into combat because the majority of it's character abilities are dedicated towards combat. This leads to very different prioritisation compared to something like Unknown Armies (which opens the combat section with six ways to avoid fighting and allows one out of every hundred attacks to kill), where combat became a delaying tactic at best oncr we'd figured out the system (our bruiser got knocked out in one hit twice, 70 hit points go quickly with crits). Every time somebody runs a D&D game without combat I wonder why we're playing it, when we could be playing something that focuses on noncombat gameplay instead of ignoring the strength of the system we're using.

LordCdrMilitant

2020-03-23, 09:07 PM

(personally, given the way most players can't keep their mouth shut and just let the 'Face' talk, my players used to find out how important Cha could be as an off stat, for use in the resulting group check.)

You uh, encourage keeping your mouth shut and "letting the face talk"?

As a GM, I do my best to put everybody in the spotlight equally. Monopolizing the game as the "face" is not an option, period.

I think CHA is an important stat. I usually chose it as my second highest if it's not my main, or even my highest if my main isn't actually that important.

Every time somebody runs a D&D game without combat I wonder why we're playing it, when we could be playing something that focuses on noncombat gameplay instead of ignoring the strength of the system we're using.

I don't consider D&D to have "fun combat" as a "strength of the system". I feel that D&D combat is usually the opposite of how I want combat to be in my games, and do my best to avoid it in D&D because it's never a particularly fun experience for me. The fact that HP is high and goes up every level making the whole exercise a slow, grinding, attritive affair where it feels like nothing of meaning is accomplished in any round is my first problem, followed by the fact that it can be almost entirely distilled down to "move into B2B, race to the bottom".

Like yeah, D&D puts most of it's effort into combat, but I always kind of thought of that as "most systems put most of their effort into combat, because I can't have my players engage in a firefight in my living room" and "the base system for combat is weak, so it needs a lot of stuff to make it work."

Boci

2020-03-23, 09:23 PM

Every time somebody runs a D&D game without combat I wonder why we're playing it, when we could be playing something that focuses on noncombat gameplay instead of ignoring the strength of the system we're using.

I played a largely non-combat D&D game as a half-elf warlock. Me and the DM both liked the system, and liked the character, but choose a game setup that made combat unlikely.

Tanarii

2020-03-24, 12:00 AM

You uh, encourage keeping your mouth shut and "letting the face talk"?Anyone who participates in a conversation participate in the check. As it should be. It's their choice.

Of course, butting in when you don't have social skills might throw things out of whack. But that's also as it should be.

Amechra

2020-03-24, 10:34 AM

Unknown Armies (which opens the combat section with six ways to avoid fighting and allows one out of every hundred attacks to kill), where combat became a delaying tactic at best oncr we'd figured out the system (our bruiser got knocked out in one hit twice, 70 hit points go quickly with crits).

This is leaving out the best bit about UA's combat - the game actually models psychological hardening, so a character with enough Hardened marks in Violence is scary in a fight (because they don't care that someone is waving a gun in their face, or that they just stabbed someone. Everyone else has to roll to keep it together). Sorry, Unknown Armies is one of my favorite games (that I really need to get a group together for...)

---

Honestly, Sorcerers being Constitution-secondary is something that would really require 5e to be more MAD in general. I think I'd like the class more if it got Arcane Recovery (instead of the Wizard), lost the ability to trade sorcery points for spell slots, and got Sorcery Points equal to its Constitution modifier at 2nd level. Give them the ability to recharge them during a short rest, and I think the class would feel better in general.

Anonymouswizard

2020-03-24, 08:22 PM

I don't consider D&D to have "fun combat" as a "strength of the system". I feel that D&D combat is usually the opposite of how I want combat to be in my games, and do my best to avoid it in D&D because it's never a particularly fun experience for me. The fact that HP is high and goes up every level making the whole exercise a slow, grinding, attritive affair where it feels like nothing of meaning is accomplished in any round is my first problem, followed by the fact that it can be almost entirely distilled down to "move into B2B, race to the bottom".

Like yeah, D&D puts most of it's effort into combat, but I always kind of thought of that as "most systems put most of their effort into combat, because I can't have my players engage in a firefight in my living room" and "the base system for combat is weak, so it needs a lot of stuff to make it work."

I mean, I didn't say 'fun combat is a strength'. I should have used 'focus', but I still technically never said the combat was fun :smalltongue:

But honestly, for medieval fantasy adventure these days I'd rather play The Dark Eye, four orcs is still a threat for experienced characters and spellcasters need to deal with pretty small mana pools. Plus it's point buy, which is just better than class based in my opinion.

I played a largely non-combat D&D game as a half-elf warlock. Me and the DM both liked the system, and liked the character, but choose a game setup that made combat unlikely.

So your retort is 'the system worked fine in the game where we barely used it'. Why use the system then :smallconfused:

This is leaving out the best bit about UA's combat - the game actually models psychological hardening, so a character with enough Hardened marks in Violence is scary in a fight (because they don't care that someone is waving a gun in their face, or that they just stabbed someone. Everyone else has to roll to keep it together). Sorry, Unknown Armies is one of my favorite games (that I really need to get a group together for...)

Unknown Armies is just great for tracking insanity and sociopathy in general though, I remember one character who couldn't see violence without making a check while the rest of the party only rolled if they saw somebody eviserated. I absolutely adore it, especially third edition where they finally cracked how to make going sociopathic influence your character's decisions by changing your core skills (skill needs some work on encouraging you to roleplay failed notches, but hardeneds are semi-automatic now).

JNAProductions

2020-03-24, 10:38 PM

Does The Dark Eye have an English translation? Cause it's a German game, right?

Boci

2020-03-25, 07:02 AM

So your retort is 'the system worked fine in the game where we barely used it'. Why use the system then :smallconfused:

Because we liked the character, a half-elf archfey warlock, which was a product of the system. If we changed system, the character too would have presumably changed too. The plot drew several point from both the lore and mechanics of D&D, and we did use the rules for skills and magic. It was a D&D game, just not a conventional one.

I don't realy understand what your argument can be other than "badwrongfun", which is an argument no one ever makes, at least not intentionally. What exactly do you imagine we should have done different for a game we both enjoyed?

Anonymouswizard

2020-03-25, 07:38 AM

Does The Dark Eye have an English translation? Cause it's a German game, right?

Yep, and currently available in pdf as Pay What You Want (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/m/product/185074). It's rather stereotypically German in that it has all the complexity of GURPS, but if you're willing to deal with a 4+ page character sheet and and deal with a lot of basic addition and subtraction it's great.

LordCdrMilitant

2020-03-26, 02:24 AM

I mean, I didn't say 'fun combat is a strength'. I should have used 'focus', but I still technically never said the combat was fun :smalltongue:

But honestly, for medieval fantasy adventure these days I'd rather play The Dark Eye, four orcs is still a threat for experienced characters and spellcasters need to deal with pretty small mana pools. Plus it's point buy, which is just better than class based in my opinion.

I don't really have a problem with D&D. I just don't think the combat is particular fun, fluid, decisive feeling, exciting, or thoughtful. This is a problem for other threads though.

So your retort is 'the system worked fine in the game where we barely used it'. Why use the system then :smallconfused:

Because it's easy to use and well known by basically everybody, so it doesn't require teaching of players.

Also, the skill system it has isn't particularly terrible.

Boci

2020-03-26, 04:38 AM

Because it's easy to use and well known by basically everybody, so it doesn't require teaching of players.

Also, the skill system it has isn't particularly terrible.

Plus the lore. D&D is not just a system, it also has own lore at this point. The 9 Hells, the Abyss, the Underdark and the drow, mindflayers, the feywild...

Morty

2020-03-26, 05:02 AM

We can argue whether using Constitution instead of Charisma "makes sense" until our fingers fall off. Not only is it magic, which can stretch considerably before it stops making sense, but it's a magic via "natural talent", which is an extremely vague and subjective measure. Wisdom certainly wouldn't make any less sense for sorcerers than it does for clerics and druids - since it doesn't make much sense for them and generally doesn't stand for anything in particular.

Come to think of it, you could plausibly make a case for every sorcerer using their attribute of choice for casting, since their magic is so individual. Of course, that would make sorcerers even more of a designated multiclass and be generally pretty bad mechanics-wise in the system as it is. But I also don't think assigning every class a designated, inflexible key attribute is a very good thing.

Joe the Rat

2020-03-26, 09:19 AM

Some sorcerers can't name the origin of their power, while others trace it to strange events in their own lives. The touch of a demon, the blessing of a dryad at a baby's birth, or a taste of the water form a mysterious spring...

So the base fluff also says it isn't necessarily because grandma was a massive freak. it might be because you stuck your appendages in something magical.

Draconic bloodline notes "a pact" as an origin to draconic bloodlines (no bumping scalies involved), and wild magic is almost entirely the D&D version of Marvel Gamma Radiation or DC Lab Accident. Your magic is inherent to you, but it is not necessarily something you are born with.

But that is all beside the point. Magic is will-working. your physical health isn't the driving factor, though you are more physically resilient from your magical nature, by virtue of Con Save proficiency. You need to be physically made out of magic for Con to be a driver (see Genasi).

If I were to make a Con caster, I would be inclined to make one as a partial caster, on a basic martial frame. A blood-gish, or a fighter or barbarian archetype with some sort of limited structure casting system, or Yet Another Spellcasting Monk - Tattooed Monk might be on flavor.

Anonymouswizard

2020-03-26, 12:45 PM

I don't really have a problem with D&D. I just don't think the combat is particular fun, fluid, decisive feeling, exciting, or thoughtful. This is a problem for other threads though.

I do have a problem with D&D, it's quickly scaling power level (yes, even in 5e, it's a lot flatter compared to 3.X but it's still too steep for me).

And that's fine. D&D doesn't have to be for me. I'd much rather play other games, and if I'm lucky I will.

Because it's easy to use and well known by basically everybody, so it doesn't require teaching of players.

Also, the skill system it has isn't particularly terrible.

Skill system? What skill system? :smalltongue:

To be serious, I find 5e's skill system fine for it's assumed game type, but in a game heavily focused on skills I want more depth system. Where it might matter if I have Engineering (aeronautical) and not Engineering (mechanical). Also ideally skill difficulty categories do that more complex subjects cost more to know about, but I can live without them.

Yes, I do like GURPS.

Boci

2020-03-26, 12:48 PM

I do have a problem with D&D, it's quickly scaling power level (yes, even in 5e, it's a lot flatter compared to 3.X but it's still too steep for me).

And that's fine. D&D doesn't have to be for me. I'd much rather play other games, and if I'm lucky I will.

See this level of self awareness is at odds with you earlier talking how you sake your head at the idea of low combat D&D games, as if the only reason could have been the poor players not knowing what's best for them.

LordCdrMilitant

2020-03-26, 04:00 PM

I do have a problem with D&D, it's quickly scaling power level (yes, even in 5e, it's a lot flatter compared to 3.X but it's still too steep for me).

And that's fine. D&D doesn't have to be for me. I'd much rather play other games, and if I'm lucky I will.

D&D doesn't have to have quickly advancing power level. That's a GM thing, based on how fast they want you to level up. I, and most GM's I know, use "now you level up" over XP, so if you want slower progression you just don't award levels as often, or award less XP.

My biggest issue, as I already said, is the fact that HP is high and goes up with every level, turning every combat with at-CR enemies into a slow, grinding affair where you can pass through many turns of "I hit the same guy I hit last turn" with no meaningful perceptible change of the gamestate. Combining this with noncantrip spells being reduced in number/day and being generally nerfed [because of capped DC's for nondamaging spells and not natively scaling with level for damaging ones], combat is really slow, repetitive, simplistic, and really drags on.

This is especially bad with the ever-popular "Boss Monster", which is basically a wall of meat designed to take a party of 6 the same amount of time to knock down as a full encounter of at-CR enemies [especially before you bring in legendary saves designed to make anything that could change the gamestate just not work], taking all the native problems with D&D combat and turning them up to 11.

Skill system? What skill system? :smalltongue:

To be serious, I find 5e's skill system fine for it's assumed game type, but in a game heavily focused on skills I want more depth system. Where it might matter if I have Engineering (aeronautical) and not Engineering (mechanical). Also ideally skill difficulty categories do that more complex subjects cost more to know about, but I can live without them.

Yes, I do like GURPS.

I like the reduced skill list, actually. Otherwise, it just leads to people not learning the skill. This was a consistent problem in Deathwatch, where for a long time nobody could set demolition charges to make doors where there weren't doors before because demolitions was not only it's own unique skill but was also locked behind buying a bunch of other skills. [Not that this stopped them. Instead they adapted by giving the breaching charges to the lowest-skilled person and aiming for 4 degrees of failure.] Rolling Demolitions into Tech Use means that the party can reasonably expect to have an adequate degree of skill coverage, and can start proficient in it.

I don't think having a skill list that takes up an entire character sheet is really necessary, and just leads to some skills being redundant [Deceive, Charm, Intimidate, for example appearing in basically all systems, could all be combined as Persuade with no loss of fidelity], some being useless [Logic for example, I have never called for in DH], and some just being impossible to get ranks in [Forbidden Lore, or the aforementioned Demolitions].

The basic system of untrained-proficient-expertise is functional. OTOH, I wish that the proficiency element contributed more than the attribute modifier, because IME training and education matter more than "natural ability", but it does work fairly adequately.

One skill system I actually really like is Call of Cthulhu's system where if you use a skill [pass or fail], you get to roll to improve that skill. If you roll an unmodified die higher than your skill, you get to improve it by like 1d10. That way: you learn from what you do, which is logical, and you never have the problem of people being incompetent at critical things for the entire duration of the campaign.

Plus the lore. D&D is not just a system, it also has own lore at this point. The 9 Hells, the Abyss, the Underdark and the drow, mindflayers, the feywild...

In general, most GM's i've played with take some stuff from the D&D stock stuff [the gods, the idea of the planes, etc] and writes their own nations and world maps and stories and stuff. I've only played in 2 modules [and run one], and I don't really ever intend to again.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-26, 05:17 PM

My biggest issue, as I already said, is the fact that HP is high and goes up with every level, turning every combat with at-CR enemies into a slow, grinding affair where you can pass through many turns of "I hit the same guy I hit last turn" with no meaningful perceptible change of the gamestate. Combining this with noncantrip spells being reduced in number/day and being generally nerfed [because of capped DC's for nondamaging spells and not natively scaling with level for damaging ones], combat is really slow, repetitive, simplistic, and really drags on.

This is especially bad with the ever-popular "Boss Monster", which is basically a wall of meat designed to take a party of 6 the same amount of time to knock down as a full encounter of at-CR enemies [especially before you bring in legendary saves designed to make anything that could change the gamestate just not work], taking all the native problems with D&D combat and turning them up to 11.

I like the reduced skill list, actually. Otherwise, it just leads to people not learning the skill. This was a consistent problem in Deathwatch, where for a long time nobody could set demolition charges to make doors where there weren't doors before because demolitions was not only it's own unique skill but was also locked behind buying a bunch of other skills. [Not that this stopped them. Instead they adapted by giving the breaching charges to the lowest-skilled person and aiming for 4 degrees of failure.] Rolling Demolitions into Tech Use means that the party can reasonably expect to have an adequate degree of skill coverage, and can start proficient in it.

I don't think having a skill list that takes up an entire character sheet is really necessary, and just leads to some skills being redundant [Deceive, Charm, Intimidate, for example appearing in basically all systems, could all be combined as Persuade with no loss of fidelity], some being useless [Logic for example, I have never called for in DH], and some just being impossible to get ranks in [Forbidden Lore, or the aforementioned Demolitions].

I agree with you on a lot of these points.

One thing that me and... I think it was MaxWilson, were working on was trying to fix the two problems of players not having enough HP at level 1, and having too much HP past level 3.

We tried looking at it from all angles. Too much nerfing on the Con means it's no longer a valued stat. Too much nerfing on the Hit Dice, and now your Barbarian doesn't really look like a valid choice.

I'd have to look at it again, but I think the solution we came up with was something like just using one die smaller for Hit Dice per level.

On skills, I definitely agree with you. When you envision an Assassin, you imagine him doing all the things that an Assassin would do. It'd be kinda dumb if he got tripped up on some kind of trap just because he didn't have the Tools proficiency in Traps. One solution someone suggested that I haven't tested out yet was using a proficiency in Attributes instead of Skills. That is, the DM treats a Trap situation as a Dexterity Check, and the Rogue is probably proficient in Dexterity (we had hashed it out to be about 1 ability proficiency per 2 skills gained from features and whatnot). If a feature would give you Expertise on 1-2 skills, you instead get Expertise on 1 attribute.

Then have Tools grant Advantage if the tool happens to be relevant towards that cause. If proficiency in Thieves' Tools helps you disarm an artificer's bomb, you make your Intelligence Check to diffuse it with Advantage.

That way, it encompasses broad experience, as well as unique training. On paper, it seems to work well.

Amechra

2020-03-26, 05:32 PM

See this level of self awareness is at odds with you earlier talking how you sake your head at the idea of low combat D&D games, as if the only reason could have been the poor players not knowing what's best for them.

I mean, I shake my head at people who do low-to-no combat D&D games too, in the same way that I'd shake my head at someone using a screwdriver to drive in some nails. I mean, I'd understand if you were new to the whole handiwork thing and only had a screwdriver, but if you're going to nail a lot of stuff to the wall, buy a hammer.

I don't care how fantastic that screwdriver is, that's not what it's designed for.

Anonymouswizard

2020-03-26, 06:42 PM

See this level of self awareness is at odds with you earlier talking how you sake your head at the idea of low combat D&D games, as if the only reason could have been the poor players not knowing what's best for them.

I can have an opinion on what something is bad at while disiking them. Teen pop groups, for example.

Plus the screwdriver thing. I get annoyed at 'urban fantasy D%D' because CofD is just better at Urban fantasy.

D&D doesn't have to have quickly advancing power level. That's a GM thing, based on how fast they want you to level up. I, and most GM's I know, use "now you level up" over XP, so if you want slower progression you just don't award levels as often, or award less XP.

I mean, your choices are between going a long time before improving and improving at the rate of a highly caffeinated Goku. I much, much prefer advancing by indvidual skill points and abilities.

My biggest issue, as I already said, is the fact that HP is high and goes up with every level, turning every combat with at-CR enemies into a slow, grinding affair where you can pass through many turns of "I hit the same guy I hit last turn" with no meaningful perceptible change of the gamestate. Combining this with noncantrip spells being reduced in number/day and being generally nerfed [because of capped DC's for nondamaging spells and not natively scaling with level for damaging ones], combat is really slow, repetitive, simplistic, and really drags on.

This is especially bad with the ever-popular "Boss Monster", which is basically a wall of meat designed to take a party of 6 the same amount of time to knock down as a full encounter of at-CR enemies [especially before you bring in legendary saves designed to make anything that could change the gamestate just not work], taking all the native problems with D&D combat and turning them up to 11.

A lot ofpeople try to bring video game ideas into TTRPGs. I find combat much better if it edges into rocket tag and/or includes actual options for Martials.

Boss monsters are terrible. As you say, nine times out of ten they're designed to drag on, and annoyingly very rarel do enough damage to encourage tactics other than a straight up fight.

I like the reduced skill list, actually. Otherwise, it just leads to people not learning the skill. This was a consistent problem in Deathwatch, where for a long time nobody could set demolition charges to make doors where there weren't doors before because demolitions was not only it's own unique skill but was also locked behind buying a bunch of other skills. [Not that this stopped them. Instead they adapted by giving the breaching charges to the lowest-skilled person and aiming for 4 degrees of failure.] Rolling Demolitions into Tech Use means that the party can reasonably expect to have an adequate degree of skill coverage, and can start proficient in it.

I don't think having a skill list that takes up an entire character sheet is really necessary, and just leads to some skills being redundant [Deceive, Charm, Intimidate, for example appearing in basically all systems, could all be combined as Persuade with no loss of fidelity], some being useless [Logic for example, I have never called for in DH], and some just being impossible to get ranks in [Forbidden Lore, or the aforementioned Demolitions].

The basic system of untrained-proficient-expertise is functional. OTOH, I wish that the proficiency element contributed more than the attribute modifier, because IME training and education matter more than "natural ability", but it does work fairly adequately.

So, many, identical, skill picks. Also, your example is more a problem with how Deathwatch is designed (gating some basic skills behind high Ranks), never had a problem buying a specialised skill in GURPS.

Also it's amazing how well the specificity and overlap works in GURPS, because so many skills default from other skills. You might not have Demolitions, but it defaults to (blah) at -X or (blah) at -Y, and you might have one of those.

One skill system I actually really like is Call of Cthulhu's system where if you use a skill [pass or fail], you get to roll to improve that skill. If you roll an unmodified die higher than your skill, you get to improve it by like 1d10. That way: you learn from what you do, which is logical, and you never have the problem of people being incompetent at critical things for the entire duration of the campaign.[QUOTE]

And when I ran it I noticed everybody quickly built up their Perception and Running skills. Go on long enough and characters get a bit samey.

[QUOTE]In general, most GM's i've played with take some stuff from the D&D stock stuff [the gods, the idea of the planes, etc] and writes their own nations and world maps and stories and stuff. I've only played in 2 modules [and run one], and I don't really ever intend to again.

Yep, yet to see a GM actually create a pantheon.