Why do sorcerers use charisma instead of intelligence?

[Witty Username]

Now sorcerer's use innate magic, are talented, and there is an idea of creativity with the sorcerer. But, they must gain benefit from training, study, and practice otherwise experience wouldn't work. And neither side of these things imply good at social skills, like charisma represents.

If we are going to assume that sorcerer's and wizards use the same kind of magic, shouldn't the same knowledge base be applicable, even if one is talented and the other is driven and disciplined? And, more importantly why are talented and disciplined mutually exclusive in the flavor of arcane magic?

This arguement is less applicable to bards, as the inspire magic as opposed to study it, so social skills kinda make sense to fuel their power.

To be clear, this is less an argument that charisma shouldn't be a casting stat for sorcerers, more that if a player requests to use intelligence instead it makes about as much sense and there is little harm in letting them.

[OldTrees1]

If we are going to assume that sorcerer's and wizards use the same kind of magic

This assumption is misleading and false in significant ways.

Sorcerers throughout the editions have more in common with Dragons than with Wizards. Sorcerers ARE magic while Wizards manipulate the magic around them. When a Sorcerer wants fire, they declare there shall be fire, and thus there now is fire. When a Wizard wants fire, they pull on their knowledge of the magical world (the weave in Toril but concept extends beyond Toril) to figure out what levers to pull to create the desired effect.

This is not the difference between talent and training. This is the difference between being a magical force vs using knowledge to exploit the magic around you.

To that end Magical Beings tend to power their magic with their force while Wizards power it with their knowledge.

To wrap it around to ability scores, Charisma, for better or worse, if the mental active force (often called "force of personality").

However D&D decided to also have social skills, magical powers, and mental ability all lay on the 3 ability scores, Int, Wis, Cha. They gave knowledge to Int. They gave defense (perception, will/wis saves, divine magic) to Wis. They gave active force to Cha (magical, and social).

[strangebloke]

Charisma isn't "Social Skills" although it can translate to that. Charisma is "force of personality" which includes the ability to sweep someone off their feet. A dumb character with high charisma might be something like your standard shonen protagonist. A Naruto or a Goku. They aren't necessarily clever with their words but they're able to inspire others by virtue of their raw conviction. Conversely a high-int low wis character might be very eloquent and capable of argumentation, but might get talked-over in an actual fight because they're an easily-bullied nerd at the end of the day. (someone like Riley Poole)

Sorcerers use charisma because their power comes from within and their ability to express that power is informed by how strong their sense of self-identity is. It really does make sense.

What doesn't make sense is warlocks, who make a one-time deal in exchange for knowledge, spend years discovering how to make use of that knowledge, and then, uhhhhh cast with charisma for some reason? This leads to the common misconception that warlocks 'persuade' their patrons to give them power, like some kind of sycophantic middle manager, but that's not remotely represented by the fluff.

[Jerrykhor]

I always wonder that too. In the real world, the people who are best in their field, the GOATs, are born talented (sorcerer) AND dedicate their lives to training and practice (wizard). So its weird that these 2 classes dont multiclass well.

[OldTrees1]

I always wonder that too. In the real world, the people who are best in their field, the GOATs, are born talented (sorcerer) AND dedicate their lives to training and practice (wizard). So its weird that these 2 classes dont multiclass well.

That described a Wizard / Wizard multiclass. Specifically it described the relationship between Int and proficiency in Arcana when doing Int(Arcana) checks. A Wizard / Sorcerer multiclass would be a cross discipline study. It still should multiclass better but you would expect to be a jack of both trades rather than a best in a single field. Think of a Dragon that studied wizardry rather than progress their natural magical abilities. Familiarity in multiple disciplines can lead to cross discipline innovations, but it is not the same as depth in a single field.

[strangebloke]

I always wonder that too. In the real world, the people who are best in their field, the GOATs, are born talented (sorcerer) AND dedicate their lives to training and practice (wizard). So its weird that these 2 classes dont multiclass well.

To compare this to sports, a sorcerer is like a gorilla playing football. In the areas the gorilla is poor at (passing, receiving) they're completely hopeless and incapable of playing the game and no amount of training will make them better. In areas the gorilla excels at (defensive line) They'll be so superlatively successful that normal training would be completely useless to them.

To put it another way, Sorcery isn't "talent" so much as it is being a fire hydrant for a certain type of magic. Their training is completely different in nature from that of a wizard. They're the barbarian to the Wizard's fighter.

[OldTrees1]

To compare this to sports, a sorcerer is like a gorilla playing football. In the areas the gorilla is poor at (passing, receiving) they're completely hopeless and incapable of playing the game and no amount of training will make them better. In areas the gorilla excels at (defensive line) They'll be so superlatively successful that normal training would be completely useless to them.

To put it another way, Sorcery isn't "talent" so much as it is being a fire hydrant for a certain type of magic. Their training is completely different in nature from that of a wizard. They're the barbarian to the Wizard's fighter.

Oh good examples!

This isn't to say that nothing can translated across disciplines, but it makes the connections harder to see and rarer because the disciplines are generally less / not applicable to each other.

[Witty Username]

Sorcerers throughout the editions have more in common with Dragons than with Wizards. Sorcerers ARE magic while Wizards manipulate the magic around them. When a Sorcerer wants fire, they declare there shall be fire, and thus there now is fire. When a Wizard wants fire, they pull on their knowledge of the magical world (the weave in Toril but concept extends beyond Toril) to figure out what levers to pull to create the desired effect.

Both wizards and sorcerers use the weave, though, sorcerers just have an innate talent for manipulating it.

Furthermore, having magic as part of oneself wouldn't make knowledge of magic irrelevant. Mind flayers are a good example, they are innately magical (they can even produce sorcerers) but their knowledge base and mental acuity define how powerful they
are.

[strangebloke]

Both wizards and sorcerers use the weave, though, sorcerers just have an innate talent for manipulating it.

Furthermore, having magic as part of oneself wouldn't make knowledge of magic irrelevant. Mind flayers are a good example, they are innately magical (they can even produce sorcerers) but their knowledge base and mental acuity define how powerful they
are.

They're completely different disciplines. Its the difference between surfing and being the wave.

[OldTrees1]

Both wizards and sorcerers use the weave, though, sorcerers just have an innate talent for manipulating it.

Furthermore, having magic as part of oneself wouldn't make knowledge of magic irrelevant. Mind flayers are a good example, they are innately magical (they can even produce sorcerers) but their knowledge base and mental acuity define how powerful they
are.

In most editions Mind Flayers used Charisma for their innate Psionics and Intelligence for any Psion or Wizard levels they chose to learn. They are separate disciplines. This is similar to the Gorilla example.

Now I am not saying cross discipline innovations can't exist. I am just describing the tendency D&D has for using Charisma to represent innate magic as exerting an overwhelming force vs knowledge based magic as understanding how to manipulate reality to hack into the system.



Think about it this way, are there no talented Wizards? Int 20 Wizard 5 vs a Int 16 Wizard 10 with Arcana Proficiency for example. That is talking talent vs training (and combinations of both). But neither IS magic. They still cast the old Wizard way instead of the Sorcerer way.

[Unoriginal]

Now sorcerer's use innate magic are talented, and there is an idea of creativity with the sorcerer. But, they must gain benefit from training, study, and practice otherwise experience wouldn't work.

This does not work to argue it makes the Sorcerer's magic intelligence-based. Your capacity to jump benefits from training, study and practice too.



If we are going to assume that sorcerer's and wizards use the same kind of magic, shouldn't the same knowledge base be applicable, even if one is talented and the other is driven and disciplined? And, more importantly why are talented and disciplined mutually exclusive in the flavor of arcane magic?

There is no reason to make this assumption. Wizardry is inherently not the same as sorcery, even if wizardry can duplicate the spells of sorcery and more.

Yes, Sorcerers need to learn stuff still. It may be as little as figuring out what they need to do to deliberately produce a specific effect, and as far as outright innovations in what is possible by their magic. That doesn't mean that sorcery is an academic discipline, same way as a boxer needing to learn how boxing works and how being smart helps you figure out what to do to win doesn't make boxing a kind of math where you just need to figure which formula and which factors to apply to always get the predictable result. Sorcery uses Charisma because the Sorcerer is using their sheer capacity to state "I exist" and have the multiverse react to pluck the Weave (or however people call the manipulable part of magic in the setting).

Wizardry on the other hand is actually a formula-and-factors-to-predictable-result method. They're also plucking the Weave, but it's because their intense mental training give them access to the cheat codes and hidden paths to do it



To be clear, this is less an argument that charisma shouldn't be a casting stat for sorcerers, more that if a player requests to use intelligence instead it makes about as much sense and there is little harm in letting them.

All the parts of the setting and lore are arbitrary, that has little to do with a player's request to use X instead of Y.

I happen to like most of the D&D lore, so I follow it most of the time. A DM who doesn't feel that way will probably be more ok with the request.

[OldTrees1]

To be clear, this is less an argument that charisma shouldn't be a casting stat for sorcerers, more that if a player requests to use intelligence instead it makes about as much sense and there is little harm in letting them.

To be clear, if a player wants to use the Divine Soul subclass to create a Priest that casts like a cleric without the warrior motif, I see no reason to not let them use Wis.

If that same player wants the (Divine Soul) Priest to cast in the inspirational way of a Bard, I see no reason to not let them use Cha like a Bard on the Sorcerer that was refluffed as a Priest.

However it is useful to communicate why Sorcerer was Charisma in the first place. It was not "social skills" because Charisma is more than "social skills".

Sorcerers, Bards, Wizards/Archivists, and Warlocks do magic differently.

[Unoriginal]

Both wizards and sorcerers use the weave, though, sorcerers just have an innate talent for manipulating it.

They have an innate capacity to do it. That is not the same as talent.

You can be a talentless sorcerer same way you can be a talentless wizard. But a talentless sorcerer is still capable of manipulating the Weave innately, while a talentless wizard will still have learned to do it through extensive studies and solely that.



Furthermore, having magic as part of oneself wouldn't make knowledge of magic irrelevant. Mind flayers are a good example, they are innately magical (they can even produce sorcerers) but their knowledge base and mental acuity define how powerful they
are.

A Mind Flayer has by default psionic capacities. Some being also sorcerers doesn't change anything about it, nor does some of them also studying wizardry.


Also worth noting that *all* the stats represent both innate and learned/trained capacities. You can play a STR 16 Fighter who was born strong and never trained a day in their life, or one who got that strong only through intense training, or anywhere in-between.




No one is saying that a Sorcerer with 20 in INT won't be much more able to use their powers effectively than a 7 INT one, because being smart helps applying power. But it won't inherently make their spell mastery better or their effect stronger, if the CHA is 20 in both cases.

[Greywander]

As someone else said, CHA isn't so much "social skills" as it is force of personality and confidence. These happen to make you better in social situations, but they're not just limited to that. With sorcerery being an innate magic, Charisma sort of represents how effectively you can produce that magic. A saying I've heard before goes something like, "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're right." If you lack confidence in yourself and your ability to produce magic, then the magic you produce will be weak. But if you believe in yourself and your magic, then the magic will just happen when you need it.

As for non-CHA sorcerers, I think there's definitely room for those, and in general I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to allow players to swap to using different stats (this will change how effective certain multiclass combos are, but I don't know that that's a bad thing). I could see an INT sorcerer being themed as more of a psion, using psychic powers rather than casting spells. A WIS sorcerer might be more like a mystic, being more monk-like in how they meditate and study magic.

INT bards and INT warlocks also make a lot of sense to me. Bards definitely study magic, like a wizard does (though why they don't use a spellbook I'm not sure), and bards are also often keepers of lore (i.e. most INT skills). Some warlocks also seek forbidden knowledge, and study forgotten tomes looking for that knowledge. Basically, warlocks are the kids who hack into the school network to change their grades, which is different from the wizards who actually study and earn their grades, but it's still something that requires intelligence to do.

Usually, the way I see it, each ability score when used as a casting stat depends on how you're acquiring your power:

INT characters gain power through study, learning how to produce magic via intricate and complex rituals (i.e. spell components). That, or they're psychics using the power of the mind.
WIS characters are connected to some kind of higher power or innate magic. The higher their Wisdom, the better they are aligned with that higher power (or with themselves, or wherever the magic is coming from), and thus the stronger the magic channeled through them becomes.
CHA characters produce magic innately by sheer willpower. In contrast with psionics, this innate magic is often more emotional and less mental, which is why it is so heavily influenced by the users beliefs and convictions.

These should be broadly applicable to any class, and even to non-casters like monks that use a mental stat for some of their features. As another example, I can easily see paladins being either WIS or CHA casters, as either one would fit well with the fluff of a paladin. Usually I'd think a paladin dedicated to a specific god or creed would be WIS-based (representing how well aligned with their god they are), while a paladin that follows their own beliefs and convictions independent of established faiths is CHA-based (representing how confident they are in themselves as a force of good).

[Witty Username]

This does not work to argue it makes the Sorcerer's magic intelligence-based. Your capacity to jump benefits from training, study and practice too.



There is no reason to make this assumption. Wizardry is inherently not the same as sorcery, even if wizardry can duplicate the spells of sorcery and more.

Yes, Sorcerers need to learn stuff still. It may be as little as figuring out what they need to do to deliberately produce a specific effect, and as far as outright innovations in what is possible by their magic. That doesn't mean that sorcery is an academic discipline, same way as a boxer needing to learn how boxing works and how being smart helps you figure out what to do to win doesn't make boxing a kind of math where you just need to figure which formula and which factors to apply to always get the predictable result. Sorcery uses Charisma because the Sorcerer is using their sheer capacity to state "I exist" and have the multiverse react to pluck the Weave (or however people call the manipulable part of magic in the setting).

Wizardry on the other hand is actually a formula-and-factors-to-predictable-result method. They're also plucking the Weave, but it's because their intense mental training give them access to the cheat codes and hidden paths to do it



All the parts of the setting and lore are arbitrary, that has little to do with a player's request to use X instead of Y.

I happen to like most of the D&D lore, so I follow it most of the time. A DM who doesn't feel that way will probably be more ok with the request.

I like D&D lore too, I have a sarcastically large number of D&D novels. But the interesting thing about that is lore changes.
For example, I personally like dragonlance a lot, which includes Raslin Majiere, which in one of the books that the moons of Krynn become a plot point he describes an event in his childhood where he puked blue fire because of a combination of the alignment of the moons and his connection to magic, a connection which he eventually leveraged into becoming one of the settings most powerful wizards.


To compare this to sports, a sorcerer is like a gorilla playing football. In the areas the gorilla is poor at (passing, receiving) they're completely hopeless and incapable of playing the game and no amount of training will make them better. In areas the gorilla excels at (defensive line) They'll be so superlatively successful that normal training would be completely useless to them.

To put it another way, Sorcery isn't "talent" so much as it is being a fire hydrant for a certain type of magic. Their training is completely different in nature from that of a wizard. They're the barbarian to the Wizard's fighter.

That is kinda the opposite of how metamagic works though, being able to manipulate magic in a myriad of ways as opposed to having one set thing to do with repetition.

Not to mention the Barbarian and the Fighter benefit from the same stats, Str/Dex/Con and in the same ways. If the sorcerer was like the barbarian to the wizards fighter they would both use Int/Dex/Con.

In most editions Mind Flayers used Charisma for their innate Psionics and Intelligence for any Psion or Wizard levels they chose to learn. They are separate disciplines. This is similar to the Gorilla example.

Now I am not saying cross discipline innovations can't exist. I am just describing the tendency D&D has for using Charisma to represent innate magic as exerting an overwhelming force vs knowledge based magic as understanding how to manipulate reality to hack into the system.



Think about it this way, are there no talented Wizards? Int 20 Wizard 5 vs a Int 16 Wizard 10 with Arcana Proficiency for example. That is talking talent vs training (and combinations of both). But neither IS magic. They still cast the old Wizard way instead of the Sorcerer way.

I would say kinda,
mind flayers in 3.5 used charisma, but before that they were in the psionics camp which if I recall corrected cared about all mental scores simultaneously and in 5th edition they are int based. As well as in the expanded psionics handbook version in 3.5 I know they replaced Sorcerer with telepath and shifted the spell like abilities around which I am pretty sure made them int based but I don't have the book in front of me so I am not sure on that.



A Mind Flayer has by default psionic capacities. Some being also sorcerers doesn't change anything about it, nor does some of them also studying wizardry.

I believe their was a miscommunication, I was not referring to a Mind flayer Sorcerer, I was referring to the lore connection between Mind flayer and Aberant mind sorcerer, as Mind flayer biology can be the source of a Sorcerer's magic but the stat used for mind flayer related mental abilities switches from int to cha.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Now sorcerer's use innate magic, are talented, and there is an idea of creativity with the sorcerer. But, they must gain benefit from training, study, and practice otherwise experience wouldn't work. And neither side of these things imply good at social skills, like charisma represents.
Wouldn't EVERY class benefit from training and study? By that logic all classes should have their abilities modified by intelligence.

[Witty Username]

Wouldn't EVERY class benefit from training and study? By that logic all classes should have their abilities modified by intelligence.

Fair point, I guess a better way of thinking about it is why would a sorcerer that studies magic in a technical sense (books, knowledge, academy training, etc.) be weaker than one that didn't.
That is of course assuming ability score increases represent an actual change in the character though deliberate effort, and aren't numbers to make the system go or some more fantastical concept happening. In short, a sorcerer that studied to improve logic and reason in comparison to a sorcerer that studied how to be more assertive and confident which leads to the smart sorcerer being paradoxically dumb for trying to be smart. Then again I suppose a sorcerer getting an int increase on level up because their brain inflated like a weirdboy taking choice out of the effect. Now I am wondering how ASI's are accomplished in a narrative sense.

[Keltest]

Fair point, I guess a better way of thinking about it is why would a sorcerer that studies magic in a technical sense (books, knowledge, academy training, etc.) be weaker than one that didn't.
That is of course assuming ability score increases represent an actual change in the character though deliberate effort, and aren't numbers to make the system go or some more fantastical concept happening. In short, a sorcerer that studied to improve logic and reason in comparison to a sorcerer that studied how to be more assertive and confident which leads to the smart sorcerer being paradoxically dumb for trying to be smart. Then again I suppose a sorcerer getting an int increase on level up because their brain inflated like a weirdboy taking choice out of the effect. Now I am wondering how ASI's are accomplished in a narrative sense.

A sorcerer with higher Int is going to be better at arcana and other int skills than one with lower int, but that doesnt mean that wizard style studying of magic is going to give them any sort of meaningful ability to affect their own innate powers. If youre born being able to fart out a fireball, then understanding the exact metaphysical process behind that isnt going to help you do it any better, because its something you were born with and is based on your innate characteristics, not something that anybody could pick up with enough practice. The knowing doesnt change what is happening.

To continue the train of analogies, sending a druid to fighter college isnt going to make them any more proficient with their wild shape's natural weapons.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Fair point, I guess a better way of thinking about it is why would a sorcerer that studies magic in a technical sense (books, knowledge, academy training, etc.) be weaker than one that didn't.
That is of course assuming ability score increases represent an actual change in the character though deliberate effort, and aren't numbers to make the system go or some more fantastical concept happening. In short, a sorcerer that studied to improve logic and reason in comparison to a sorcerer that studied how to be more assertive and confident which leads to the smart sorcerer being paradoxically dumb for trying to be smart. Then again I suppose a sorcerer getting an int increase on level up because their brain inflated like a weirdboy taking choice out of the effect. Now I am wondering how ASI's are accomplished in a narrative sense.

There's such a thing as overthinking it. Learning an incompatible system of doing magic trains you in the wrong path (or at least doesn't help at all). Sorcerers have to focus on anime training montages and manly rites of mental strength instead of books. Their powers don't obey logic or reason, they can't be taught. They can be learned, but it's a matter of learning how to control the energy within and force it out in the shape you want.

My headcanon is that sorcerers (in the universe) are actually born with every spell they can ever cast[1]. But they can't actually produce them until they've gained enough mastery over self to channel the raging torrent in their blood into something productive. That's why they get metamagic--since they're not trying to mimic the spell motions, etc, they can alter the stream on the fly (at a cost of energy). And turn that same energy into more spells...or vice versa. It's also why they get so few spells--they're all "hard coded".

[1] and that retraining is purely a game-level thing so it's more playable.

[quinron]

To wrap it around to ability scores, Charisma, for better or worse, if the mental active force (often called "force of personality").


Charisma isn't "Social Skills" although it can translate to that. Charisma is "force of personality" which includes the ability to sweep someone off their feet.


As someone else said, CHA isn't so much "social skills" as it is force of personality and confidence.

I've seen this argument many times, obviously, and I'm amenable to it - to a degree. I'd be a lot more amenable to it, though, if the designers had put even one skill under Charisma that wasn't 100% oriented toward social interaction.

Personally, my perspective on the thread question is Doylist: sorcerers cast from CHA because in 3e, they wanted to have at least one full caster that used each mental ability score, so they assumed a CHA-based caster and asked themselves, "how would this work, and how do we make it different from the others?"

[Naanomi]

I've seen this argument many times, obviously, and I'm amenable to it - to a degree. I'd be a lot more amenable to it, though, if the designers had put even one skill under Charisma that wasn't 100% oriented toward social interaction.
Stats are not completely defined by their skills... otherwise CON has no meaning? The social domain is where one can actually practice skills that improve what Charisma has to offer, it doesn't mean that is what Charisma is. You just can't practice 'confidence' and 'presence' the same way you can practice 'lying'. Almost none of the Charisma saves, for example, have anything to do with socializing your way out of harmful effects

[Greywander]

I've seen this argument many times, obviously, and I'm amenable to it - to a degree. I'd be a lot more amenable to it, though, if the designers had put even one skill under Charisma that wasn't 100% oriented toward social interaction.
Part of this is how streamlined the skill system is. Which existing non-social skill would you like to see placed under CHA? There just aren't a lot of skills to pick from, and that's by design.

The other thing is that you can decouple skills and ability scores if you want to. Making someone roll Strength (Intimidation) or Intelligence (Persuasion) would make perfect sense. Likewise, I could see something like a Charisma (Stealth) check for when you want to move around in plain sight without being noticed, like blending into a crowd.

[Unoriginal]

This video may be of interest for this topic:


https://youtu.be/USqR_-pcXAw


Part of this is how streamlined the skill system is. Which existing non-social skill would you like to see placed under CHA? There just aren't a lot of skills to pick from, and that's by design.

The other thing is that you can decouple skills and ability scores if you want to. Making someone roll Strength (Intimidation) or Intelligence (Persuasion) would make perfect sense. Likewise, I could see something like a Charisma (Stealth) check for when you want to move around in plain sight without being noticed, like blending into a crowd.

As a DM, I would ask for an Int check and let the Persuasion proficiency apply if you were doing something like how much do you remember about an historical speech or the arguments used to convince a country to go to war 20 years ago, or if you were trying to teach a Persuasion-related topic.

[OldTrees1]

I've seen this argument many times, obviously, and I'm amenable to it - to a degree. I'd be a lot more amenable to it, though, if the designers had put even one skill under Charisma that wasn't 100% oriented toward social interaction.

Personally, my perspective on the thread question is Doylist: sorcerers cast from CHA because in 3e, they wanted to have at least one full caster that used each mental ability score, so they assumed a CHA-based caster and asked themselves, "how would this work, and how do we make it different from the others?"

Yup. At one point they wanted Cha casters. So they tried to think of how it would be different. They took the Charisma stat, which they understood though the social lens, and tried to figure out how it could cast. Their conclusion created the "force of personality" abstraction of charisma, which wasn't much of an abstraction since that is similar to how it worked in the social skills. However that has not translated into new skills.

There are 3 mechanics I can think of to reinforce this idea.
1) Opposed charisma checks to resolve opposing control effects. This works better in a system that is less SAD because it would want to reward casters for having Int, Wis, and Cha.
2) Charisma saves as an active defense against mind control in contrast to Wisdom saves as a passive defense against mind control. 5E has some of this but gives the choice to the caster instead of the target.
3) Charisma skill to mold reality. Think of the 3E Wisdom checks in Limbo to create stable patches. Make that Charisma and have the DC vary based on how mutable the plane is (high DC with long duration for Mechanus, low DC with short duration for Limbo).

One might consider Cha(Stealth) but I consider that a social skill similar to Cha(Deception).

Do you have ideas for non social implementations of force of personality? Especially skills? I kinda cheated by having 1 idea in 3 places.

[DwarfFighter]

2) Charisma saves as an active defense against mind control in contrast to Wisdom saves as a passive defense against mind control. 5E has some of this but gives the choice to the caster instead of the target.

There is perhaps a general lack of active defense mechanisms in 5e - the attacker gets to pick the means of attack, and usually the selected procedure dictates the defense with no input from the target. Why is defense static? Is there no room in the system to actively dodge, parry or deflect? Maybe spells should allow the defender to choose Wis or Int when faced with an illusion?

Those questions are rhetoric - I don't think the 5e system will benefit from the defender being able to select his best counter* to an enemy attack. A diverse adventuring party will have some members vulnerable to an effect and others more resilient. I think that is a good thing for the game since it one of those things that make the players appreciate their roles more.

-DF

*) Well, grapple and push lets you choose acrobatis or atheltics... So there is kind of a precedent.

[Mastikator]

It's like Fyron Pucebuckle said, Sorcerer magic comes not from their knowledge and study but from their feelings. A sorcerer that tries to learn magic with study is just a sorcerer that multiclasses into a wizard.

[Morty]

You could conceivably link sorcerer magic to just about any attribute, except maybe dexterity. Not only is it magic, but it's a very nebulously-defined "innate" magic, so you could also make a very solid case for not linking it any attribute at all. But it has to be linked to something, because that's how the game's mechanics work and a class that can pick any attribute they please wouldn't fit the rest of the system.

[quinron]

Part of this is how streamlined the skill system is. Which existing non-social skill would you like to see placed under CHA? There just aren't a lot of skills to pick from, and that's by design.

The other thing is that you can decouple skills and ability scores if you want to. Making someone roll Strength (Intimidation) or Intelligence (Persuasion) would make perfect sense. Likewise, I could see something like a Charisma (Stealth) check for when you want to move around in plain sight without being noticed, like blending into a crowd.

I don't know that I'd like to see a skill moved to CHA; I'd just like to see them shared between CHA and other abilities. And honestly, it's less a matter of adding non-social skills into CHA than allowing social skills to function with other abilities.

That's why I do in fact decouple skills and abilities at my table - I ask for ability checks, and if a character has an applicable skill they'd like to use for that check, I let them use it.

As I said, I'm amenable to the argument. The text of this edition just gives it a weird dichotomy where it's a social ability and a magical ability, but the two don't ever really meet. I'm okay with sorcerers being social butterflies; I'd just like to know why they are.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't know that I'd like to see a skill moved to CHA; I'd just like to see them shared between CHA and other abilities. And honestly, it's less a matter of adding non-social skills into CHA than allowing social skills to function with other abilities.

That's why I do in fact decouple skills and abilities at my table - I ask for ability checks, and if a character has an applicable skill they'd like to use for that check, I let them use it.

As I said, I'm amenable to the argument. The text of this edition just gives it a weird dichotomy where it's a social ability and a magical ability, but the two don't ever really meet. I'm okay with sorcerers being social butterflies; I'd just like to know why they are.

I have two sorlocks in my current group. Both have high CHA. One is miserable at social things, because he's an amnesiac who's struggling to figure out who he is or how to react to things. The other is great, although a bit bipolar.

Characters are way more than their ability scores.

[Witty Username]

Stats are not completely defined by their skills... otherwise CON has no meaning? The social domain is where one can actually practice skills that improve what Charisma has to offer, it doesn't mean that is what Charisma is. You just can't practice 'confidence' and 'presence' the same way you can practice 'lying'. Almost none of the Charisma saves, for example, have anything to do with socializing your way out of harmful effects

Saves have a hard time defining what charisma is because of how few of them there are, bane and plane shift are the only effects I can come up with off the top of my head.
That and in the case of CON, many things call for checks without a skill requirement, usually to avoid exhaustion which pairs well with it being a common save to resist effects with health, resistance and capacity to endure.

What things would you call for a CHA check that didn't involve using a magical effect and didn't involve a social skill?

You could conceivably link sorcerer magic to just about any attribute, except maybe dexterity. Not only is it magic, but it's a very nebulously-defined "innate" magic, so you could also make a very solid case for not linking it any attribute at all. But it has to be linked to something, because that's how the game's mechanics work and a class that can pick any attribute they please wouldn't fit the rest of the system.
In my mind that makes it reasonable to default to "Arcane magic" which gives us a framework of the existing classes, is the sorcerer more like the wizard, bard or warlock and the relative similarity to the wizard makes an argument for intelligence. A little bias toward old school thinking, though, where int was the stat for arcane magic and wis divine magic.

[Samayu]

Charisma is force of will, so you bend the magic to your will. While the wizards study the way to influence the weave, for sorcerers it just comes to them.

Wizards get better by studying - "if I move my fingers this way, the force improves." But sorcerers get better by by intuition. By feel. "If I move my fingers this way, the force improves."

This is why the wild mage makes the most sense to me. The magic just comes to/through them, and they must struggle to mitigate the unintended consequences.

[Damon_Tor]

There's backwards thinking on this thread. You aren't a powerful sorcerer because you have high charisma, you have high charisma because you're a powerful sorcerer.

[quinron]

I have two sorlocks in my current group. Both have high CHA. One is miserable at social things, because he's an amnesiac who's struggling to figure out who he is or how to react to things. The other is great, although a bit bipolar.

Characters are way more than their ability scores.

Well yes, obviously. But what I'm getting at is that if a sorcerer's key ability score is high and they choose to do something social, they will be better at it than, say, a fighter whose key ability score is high. And I'd like to see an effort from the designers in explaining why they've made that the case mechanically.

[Naanomi]

I can envision an immensely powerful sorcerer who is an uneducated idiot in a way that wouldn't work for a wizard. This doesn't mean charisma is the 'right' stat for such a concept, per se, but does seem (to me) that tying their power to intelligence is a miss conceptually

[Keltest]

Well yes, obviously. But what I'm getting at is that if a sorcerer's key ability score is high and they choose to do something social, they will be better at it than, say, a fighter whose key ability score is high. And I'd like to see an effort from the designers in explaining why they've made that the case mechanically.

Youve never seen somebody with a strong personality who has no idea what theyre talking about? Conviction is persuasive even when its misplaced.

[OldTrees1]

Well yes, obviously. But what I'm getting at is that if a sorcerer's key ability score is high and they choose to do something social, they will be better at it than, say, a fighter whose key ability score is high. And I'd like to see an effort from the designers in explaining why they've made that the case mechanically.

Someone walks up to you and says "Follow me" and you ignore them as they walk off.
Someone else walks up to you and says "Follow me" and you follow as they walk off.

A sorcerer declares there shall be fire, and there was a mild explosion.
Another sorcerer declares there shall be fire, and there was an inferno.

You want to see the designers make more of an effort explaining why these are linked to the same stat. Similar to why Wizards naturally (before self nerfing characterization) know more about Religion than a Cleric.

That is somewhat what the "Force of personality" explanation does. It ties the "forceful personality" effects on social situations and "the universe obeys when you declare something" to the same stat.

[Silly Name]

I like D&D lore too, I have a sarcastically large number of D&D novels. But the interesting thing about that is lore changes.
For example, I personally like dragonlance a lot, which includes Raslin Majiere, which in one of the books that the moons of Krynn become a plot point he describes an event in his childhood where he puked blue fire because of a combination of the alignment of the moons and his connection to magic, a connection which he eventually leveraged into becoming one of the settings most powerful wizards.


This is mostly the "fault" of sorcerers being introduced into 3rd edition - before that, it was just mages. The DL novels were written in that time were sorcerer didn't exist as a separate class.

This also produced a rather amusing effect for the 3.5 Dragonlance setting books, where wizards could be admitted to study in the Towers of High Sorcery, but sorcerers couldn't because their magic is not derived from the moons but from the ambient magic of Krynn.

[Naanomi]

This is mostly the "fault" of sorcerers being introduced into 3rd edition - before that, it was just mages. The DL novels were written in that time were sorcerer didn't exist as a separate class.
Yeah, I'm a lore aficionado (and arguably a lore purist in some respects), but I just ignore mechanically driven lore changes like that... Artificers used to be a wizard school, now they are their own class... Witch/warlock was a wizard kit as well. Wild magic was tied to wizardry as well. None of that bothers me at all.

[ZRN]

Now sorcerer's use innate magic, are talented, and there is an idea of creativity with the sorcerer. But, they must gain benefit from training, study, and practice otherwise experience wouldn't work.

Bards, paladins, warlocks, etc. gain benefits from experience too, and they're charisma-based.

Why would you assume you can't practice to be more charismatic or to apply your charisma more effectively? There are like a billion self-help books and classes to teach people exactly that.

Anyway, charisma is "force of personality." It's necessary to guide the internal magical forces of sorcery, and it also helps in social situations because people are naturally drawn (for better or worse) to forceful personalities.

On the other hand, wisdom is basically "being tuned in to everything around you," which is important for communing with a deity but also for noticing a branch snapping in the woods (Perception) or that the vizier is trying to lie to you (Insight).

[quinron]

Honestly, every time one of these ability score-centric threads pops up, all it really reveals to me is how weird the mental scores are and how backfilled their descriptions seem to be after all these editions. Was anyone talking about charisma meaning "sheer force of will" before 3e came along and made it the magic source for sorcerers? Why does Wisdom govern woodcraft, intuition, and your affinity for divine beings? And if those are the case for Wisdom, then why are Religion and Nature - i.e., "knowledge of the divine" and (at least in a certain capacity) "knowledge of the woods" - grouped exclusively under Intelligence?

I don't know that I have anything productive to say on that front. It's just very apparent to me that these categories weren't originally necessarily designed to carry as much weight as they do now, 5 editions in.

[OldTrees1]

I don't know that I have anything productive to say on that front. It's just very apparent to me that these categories weren't originally necessarily designed to carry as much weight as they do now, 5 editions in.

Yup. So much of the game was backfilled. Skills for example.

[Witty Username]

Bards, paladins, warlocks, etc. gain benefits from experience too, and they're charisma-based.

Why would you assume you can't practice to be more charismatic or to apply your charisma more effectively? There are like a billion self-help books and classes to teach people exactly that.

Anyway, charisma is "force of personality." It's necessary to guide the internal magical forces of sorcery, and it also helps in social situations because people are naturally drawn (for better or worse) to forceful personalities.

On the other hand, wisdom is basically "being tuned in to everything around you," which is important for communing with a deity but also for noticing a branch snapping in the woods (Perception) or that the vizier is trying to lie to you (Insight).

Wolocks have a patron they need to appease, meaning social forces making their powers already make some sense. Ditto with bards and their performance art into magic. No 'Force of personally' required.

Paladin is a fair argument for 'Force of personality' but they gain power by conviction and embodying a set of principles to the point where they become magic.
But that gets into another thing, most effects related to willpower, conviction, and confidence are wisdom based. So there is a solid argument for wisdom for Paladins like in previous editions.

Sorcerer's only call is 'inate magic'. But that gets into all sorts of nonsense, like them using different abilities then there ancestors use, the have more in common with wizards in terms of spell list.

[Amdy_vill]

charisma has been set up as the natural skill mental stat if that makes sense. intelligence and wisdom fall into the idea of being trained and that doesn't really fit the natural skill theme of sorcerers so they got it. Well in lore sorcerers and wizards do use the same type of magic. bards and artificers do as well. and then there are the many classes from previous editions that use the same type of magic in lore and use wisdom. you could ask the same about paladins and clerics. it's about themeing. I would prefer con myself for a sorcerer.

[KorvinStarmast]

This assumption is misleading and false in significant ways.

Sorcerers throughout the editions Were magic users. :smallyuk: The sorcerer as we now know it is an invention of WoTC/3E.

For the OP: we had a thread about this some months ago, but I am not doing the GiTP forum search right. Maybe it was over a year ago, and I just don't realize how much time has passed.

I'll try to find the link to the article from WoTC's 3e devs on The Sorcerer where they discussed the class that they were introducing.

Why do Sorcerers Use Charisma?

There is an answer to it here (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/8187/22566)

EDIT: if you google this

RPG Hour: Third Edition D&D Sorcerers
Featuring Skip Williams, designer

Fri. July 20, 2000

You'll find an interview with Skip Williams on the Sorcerer's development.

Lazarus9: Is there a difference in prime requisites between wizard and sorcerer?

TheSage{aka Skip Williams}: Yes. Wizards use Intelligence, just as they always have. Sorcerers use Charisma. In the new rules, charisma is mostly a mental ability, reflecting Strength or will, inner power, and the like.
That's why.

[Sam113097]

In my opinion, sorcerers should be Constitution-based to represent their innate magical nature. That would open up a whole bunch of complications and is unlikely to happen, so I am fine with Charisma; looking at spells with Cha saves in 5e, it looks like the designers have tied Cha to a lot of emotional-control-type spells like Zone of Truth, Calm Emotions. The Designers defined them by saying: "The DM commonly asks you to use Charisma when you make a saving throw to resist certain magical compulsions, especially those that would overcome your sense of yourself." So strong "sense of yourself" makes sense to me as the casting stat for an innate magic user whose power comes from the self.

[OldTrees1]

In my opinion, sorcerers should be Constitution-based to represent their innate magical nature.
Do you see their innate magical nature as more of a "body" thing than a "mind" thing? Some kind of magic conduit that is only limited by the body being torn apart rather than a being able to dictate reality with their mind as long as they can gather the conviction that it will work?

I could see a Constitution based innate magical caster. It is harder to balance but thematically there is space for it.


I'll try to find the link to the article from WoTC's 3e devs on The Sorcerer where they discussed the class that they were introducing.

Thank you

[Morty]

One of interesting things in 4E was allowing classes to focus on different attributes. Sometimes your "main" attribute was locked in, just like in 5E, but some classes could pick between two. Warlocks could be charisma-based or constitution-based. I can't remember how sorcerers worked. I think they were always charisma-based but their secondary attribute was variable. I feel like it breathed some freedom into D&D's restrictive attribute system and allowed for some variety.

[Naanomi]

One of interesting things in 4E was allowing classes to focus on different attributes.
It was interesting but I feel like in many cases it cut down on the differences between characters. For many characters, it seemed like they had three stats: physical, magical, and constitution... A few even less than that. It made the aesthetics of characters distinct but in practice seemed to homogenize things with just different labels.

[KorvinStarmast]

Thank you Sadly, the old interview I found (Excerpted above) didn't have the 'why' I thought that I'd remembered, so now I need to scratch my head and wonder if it was a Dragon Mag article that I read years ago.

[Morty]

It was interesting but I feel like in many cases it cut down on the differences between characters. For many characters, it seemed like they had three stats: physical, magical, and constitution... A few even less than that. It made the aesthetics of characters distinct but in practice seemed to homogenize things with just different labels.

True, but it's not like D&D attributes have ever offered a whole lot of flexibility. This way at least there were distinct options within classes, some of which wouldn't come up in other editions, and more consistency.

[NorthernPhoenix]

"Charisma" is a stat that means many things to many people, but the idea of the Sorcerer as a concept is that their power comes from within and is driven by the power of the Sorcerers inner soul or being, and is innate and unlearnt. In some cases, "Charisma" the stat can be said to cover this inner strength. Intelligence, like all the mental stats, is oft discussed, but is generally acknowledged to cover (among other things) learning and knowledge, two things the Sorcerer is supposed to be able to do without.

[Telwar]

One of interesting things in 4E was allowing classes to focus on different attributes. Sometimes your "main" attribute was locked in, just like in 5E, but some classes could pick between two. Warlocks could be charisma-based or constitution-based. I can't remember how sorcerers worked. I think they were always charisma-based but their secondary attribute was variable. I feel like it breathed some freedom into D&D's restrictive attribute system and allowed for some variety.

Looking at my books, sorcerers mostly used Strength and Dexterity as their secondary stat. Elementalist sorcerers, from Heroes of the Elemental Chaos (aka the "simple," non-AEDU version), used Con as their main secondary, though they still wanted decent Str and Dex for the 19-20 crit feat for epic levels.

It was mildly annoying when playing mine, the only stay I could safely dump was Wisdom (which was funny on it's own), since his background was as a graduate of one of the magic universities in Al Qadim, so he couldn't be a complete idiot and dump Int, too.

[Witty Username]

Why do Sorcerers Use Charisma?

There is an answer to it here (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/8187/22566)

Hm, that second definition of charisma explains a lot.
Also explains why charisma has been tied to Paladins from the get go, given the divinity connotation.

Still kinda annoying on how it interacts with talent vs knowledge though.

[Mikal]

Because “inherent” magic in dnd comes from personality and charisma is the personality stat.

Also the strength of ones convictions regardless of their wisdom or intelligence fuels Paladins

Divine magic comes from the wisdom to interpret it thus, wisdom

And wizards just break the rules because they’re smart enough to do so

[Angelalex242]

Cause Sorcs are too sexy for their spells, too sexy for their spells so sexy they cast!