Both 5th edition D&D along with Pathfinder (the two last RPGs I've played) have a weird quirk regarding the key attribute for spell casting: anything new and it uses Charisma. Charisma for warlocks, summoners, oracles, sorcerers, etc. at here are some exceptions, but Charisma seems to be the most common casting attribute.

That strikes me as strange because in most cases, I don't really see Charisma as the thematic casting attribute. Wisdom has long been the Willpower related attribute, why does the sorcerer who casts with force of will not use Wisdom as his attribute? Why does a warlock who draws power from some Cthulhu-esque creature from beyond space and time need to be highly Charismatic to use such magic?

I know some people like the idea of Intelligence based warlocks, which makes sense if they are scholars who seek out forbidden knowledge to make their pacts with demons. Someone who draws power from faeries though, it kinda makes sense to have high Charisma to both please the faeries and because charm is a traditional faerie power.

So, what does anybody think of changing the casting attributes for various spell casting classes? Furthermore, which it seems open ended, what about letting the player select the mental attribute which will be linked to spell casting. A player could play a Charisma based cleric, whose social skills allow him to be the deity's representative on earth and whose presence seems to exude peace and goodness. Perhaps an Intelligence based bard, who studies spell books and seeks after forgotten lore to master magic. An Wisdom based warlock whose force of will and safeness lets him commune with the mysterious out creatures and draw upon their power without going mad.

There may be ways to abuse that, but maybe not any worse than things that can happen already.

Has anybody changed how casting attributes work or even allowed players to choose the casting attribute?

Intelligence makes the most sense, if magic can be learned.

If you have magic innately, that wouldn't be Intelligence.  It wouldn't be Wisdom, either.

Quote from: ShieldWife on January 23, 2022, 01:49:12 AM
Both 5th edition D&D along with Pathfinder (the two last RPGs I've played) have a weird quirk regarding the key attribute for spell casting: anything new and it uses Charisma. Charisma for warlocks, summoners, oracles, sorcerers, etc. at here are some exceptions, but Charisma seems to be the most common casting attribute.

That strikes me as strange because in most cases, I don't really see Charisma as the thematic casting attribute. Wisdom has long been the Willpower related attribute, why does the sorcerer who casts with force of will not use Wisdom as his attribute? Why does a warlock who draws power from some Cthulhu-esque creature from beyond space and time need to be highly Charismatic to use such magic?

I know some people like the idea of Intelligence based warlocks, which makes sense if they are scholars who seek out forbidden knowledge to make their pacts with demons. Someone who draws power from faeries though, it kinda makes sense to have high Charisma to both please the faeries and because charm is a traditional faerie power.

So, what does anybody think of changing the casting attributes for various spell casting classes? Furthermore, which it seems open ended, what about letting the player select the mental attribute which will be linked to spell casting. A player could play a Charisma based cleric, whose social skills allow him to be the deity's representative on earth and whose presence seems to exude peace and goodness. Perhaps an Intelligence based bard, who studies spell books and seeks after forgotten lore to master magic. An Wisdom based warlock whose force of will and safeness lets him commune with the mysterious out creatures and draw upon their power without going mad.

There may be ways to abuse that, but maybe not any worse than things that can happen already.

Has anybody changed how casting attributes work or even allowed players to choose the casting attribute?

Very good points. True 20 allows a player to pick what attribute they use for casting when they create their character.

I see Charisma as external force of personality, where Wisdom is internal force of personality. So for me it makes good sense as a casting attribute, imposing your will on reality.

Modern D&D makes Wisdom the perception/receptiveness stat, so it makes sense for 'wise men' and Ranger types to use it.

Intelligence is severely underpowered in 5e D&D, but reflects learning ability and logical thinking. It makes sense for erudite scholar-wizards.

TBH, I always felt that Wisdom was the ONLY attribute that made sense as the key ability for ALL magic, regardless of style, while Intelligence should be relegated to being the key attribute for learning new spells or handling arcane/occult/religious lore (as in checks to see if you know something and stuff like that). Though, this depends a lot on which ability scores/attributes should even be represented in the game. For example: Is there really that much conceptual difference between Wisdom and Intelligence? Do we really need separate scores for that, or could the differences be better represented with just skills and the like?

I'm not even sure D&D's six are the most effective layout, cuz there has always been at least one or two scores that felt useless and superfluous in every edition of D&D. In old D&D it was Charisma. Now it appears to be Intelligence. Strength is kinda useless or at least limited to, unless you're making a melee character not focused on finesse weapons, otherwise Dexterity trumps Strength by leaps and bounds.

Over time I've warmed up to the idea of reducing attributes in RPGs to just four: two for Physical and Mental Power (Might and Presence maybe), and another two for Physical and Mental Speed (Agility and Awareness). In such a layout STR and CON would be folded into a single attribute, while INT and the perception/mental agility aspects of WIS would be folded into the mental speed attribute, while CHA and the willpower aspects of WIS would be folded into a single mental power attribute. In such a layout, the mental power attribute might handle magic power, while mental agility might handle ability rolls.

Granted, none of this is the case in D&D. However Charisma seems to have been warped into a sort of mental power attribute with every passing edition, and there seems to be a kind of willpower/confidence overlap associated with CHA now.

Intelligence = what and how

Wisdom = when and if

It takes intelligence to craft a weapon, to determine what it can do and how to get it to work. It takes wisdom to understand when or if to use it. I have always looked at magic in the game through the same filter. Not perfect, sure, but easy to explain.

Charisma is tougher for me. I explain it away as force of personality, with magic on a cosmic level. Higher force of personality = ability to control/resist, etc. But meh, not a fan.

Plus those classes in 5e end up borking the game. Warlocks and Bards are already stupid strong with their abilities, and now they also get to completely shut down the social game as well. Poor design.

Charisma casting is way over done in fifth, but then magic is, well, pretty badly done in fifth all around.  I can see Bards having charisma casting if there's an order of bards that teaches a specialized form of magic but if bards just pick up a bit of arcane knowledge here and there and have the required education level to read a spell book then Intelligence makes more sense.  My biggest complaint about fifth edition is that magic is something you're entitled to instead of something you earn.  It goes back to the whole problem of treating everything as game objects in a game instead of treating them as elements that make up a world.  And magic is fifth edition's greatest offender.

Also, consider balance. In 3e+, there are fewer hirelings, reaction rolls, etc., so Charisma becomes kind of a dump stat: you need a "face" in the group and that's it. Giving Charisma magic powers balances this somewhat.

In 5e, Int is a bit like that too. Wis, on the other hand, is useful for everyone, being a "defensive" stat.



https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/03/more-flowers-for-d-5e-et-al.html

Thematically, I see Charisma as luck, favor from the gods, etc., which makes sense thematically, mechanically (paladins and warlocks use Cha), and etymologically ("The English term charisma is from the Greek χάρισμα (khárisma), which means "favor freely given" or "gift of grace".[2] The term and its plural χαρίσματα (charismata) derive from χάρις (charis), which means "grace" or indeed "charm" with which it shares the root.").

Eric Diaz brings up a strong point, the legacy of 3e-isms. The triumverate of saves in 3e (DEX, CON, WIS) has had lasting ramifications. I like that 5e decided to turn all the stats into saves, but even still the legacy lives on strong with many effects targeting those three and outliers targeting the other three.

Flex Mentallo from DC comics uses STR or CON for muscle magic?  Wonder if there is an answer from the d20 glut?

Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 23, 2022, 10:09:18 AM
Also, consider balance. In 3e+, there are fewer hirelings, reaction rolls, etc., so Charisma becomes kind of a dump stat: you need a "face" in the group and that's it. Giving Charisma magic powers balances this somewhat.

In 5e, Int is a bit like that too. Wis, on the other hand, is useful for everyone, being a "defensive" stat.



https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/03/more-flowers-for-d-5e-et-al.html

Thematically, I see Charisma as luck, favor from the gods, etc., which makes sense thematically, mechanically (paladins and warlocks use Cha), and etymologically ("The English term charisma is from the Greek χάρισμα (khárisma), which means "favor freely given" or "gift of grace".[2] The term and its plural χαρίσματα (charismata) derive from χάρις (charis), which means "grace" or indeed "charm" with which it shares the root.").

This seems interesting from a thought experiment POV, and I've gone through a similar analysis before trying to find relationships between different abilities. But aside from the possible issues mentioned in the blog (like increased complexity) one issue I found was that in practice it actually punishes characters, because now ALL abilities at least partially cover a potentially crucial function. Which means that you can no longer just ignore abilities you don't need (which aren't a thing anymore, cuz now you need ALL of them), so that you have to spread your attention across ALL of them.

So if you're building your character using point buy, for example, now you need to invest in at least two abilities related to your primary focus, while before you only needed one. And you will run into the same issue with secondary abilities as well, forcing you to spread yourself thin.

And if you're going with random generation, you now have two abilities you need to devote your highest rolls towards, not just one. You also need them both to be equally high to get the best bonuses, otherwise lower scores will always bring you down, not supplement you somehow, cuz bonuses are reliant on both scores now. And if you're going roll 3d6 in order? Congrats! Now you need to be twice as lucky as before, and can also be twice as unlucky as well. And any awesome roll can now be turned mediocre by rolling crap in the other score you need. In fact, ALL abilities can potentially turn mediocre now, cuz now you need to pump not just one, but two per related function.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 23, 2022, 12:04:11 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 23, 2022, 10:09:18 AM
Also, consider balance. In 3e+, there are fewer hirelings, reaction rolls, etc., so Charisma becomes kind of a dump stat: you need a "face" in the group and that's it. Giving Charisma magic powers balances this somewhat.

In 5e, Int is a bit like that too. Wis, on the other hand, is useful for everyone, being a "defensive" stat.



https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/03/more-flowers-for-d-5e-et-al.html

Thematically, I see Charisma as luck, favor from the gods, etc., which makes sense thematically, mechanically (paladins and warlocks use Cha), and etymologically ("The English term charisma is from the Greek χάρισμα (khárisma), which means "favor freely given" or "gift of grace".[2] The term and its plural χαρίσματα (charismata) derive from χάρις (charis), which means "grace" or indeed "charm" with which it shares the root.").

This seems interesting from a thought experiment POV, and I've gone through a similar analysis before trying to find relationships between different abilities. But aside from the possible issues mentioned in the blog (like increased complexity) one issue I found was that in practice it actually punishes characters, because now ALL abilities at least partially cover a potentially crucial function. Which means that you can no longer just ignore abilities you don't need (which aren't a thing anymore, cuz now you need ALL of them), so that you have to spread your attention across ALL of them.

So if you're building your character using point buy, for example, now you need to invest in at least two abilities related to your primary focus, while before you only needed one. And you will run into the same issue with secondary abilities as well, forcing you to spread yourself thin.

And if you're going with random generation, you now have two abilities you need to devote your highest rolls towards, not just one. You also need them both to be equally high to get the best bonuses, otherwise lower scores will always bring you down, not supplement you somehow, cuz bonuses are reliant on both scores now. And if you're going roll 3d6 in order? Congrats! Now you need to be twice as lucky as before, and can also be twice as unlucky as well. And any awesome roll can now be turned mediocre by rolling crap in the other score you need. In fact, ALL abilities can potentially turn mediocre now, cuz now you need to pump not just one, but two per related function.

Well, it depends on how you choose to use this in practice, I guess. 4e let you dump one of each pair, and 13a IIRC lets you dump one physical and one mental. But using averages, for example, will allow you to have a good "will save" using Charisma OR Wisdom OR both.

As others have noted.

INT works for classes that need to study and learn their stuff.

Problem is that alot of classes have been shifted to be innate in one form or another and so INT does not fit.

Clerics, Druids and Rangers fit WIS as its more worldly as it were and in 5e tends to cover alot of perception based things. Hence alot of animals in 5e have fairly high WIS scores.

The Sorcerer is an odd one as it is the most innate of the set. And personally I think wisdom might have actually fit better.

CHA perfectly fits the Warlock on 5e as they must be fairly charismatic to have been able to catch the notice, or have bargained a deal, with a god-like force. And they have to keep currying favour with these beings to hold onto that power. Moreso than Clerics really. Though 5e Warlocks are essentially hedge clerics so WIS could work too.

Honestly you could change the needed stat on alot of classes and thematically still fit. And I believe one or maybe too class paths do this too.

I don't see any way of prying Intelligence away from manipulating magic as a property of the universe. That long association defines at least to me, what magic actually is, and how it is differentiated from gaining access to the power of the divine via Wisdom. Wisdom is a kind of understanding through surrendering, unlike the calculation of Intelligence or manipulation of Charisma.

Charisma for Warlocks, at least in my view, fits with the notion of 'transactional' power. A Warlock might submit, but doesn't surrender, and what they get is the product of negotiation.

I do buy into the notion of Charisma as a sort of source of personal power for Sorcerers, but I don't think its a great fit. Sorcerers are the entity or product of mystic blend. They don't negotiate. They just are. As weird as it might sound, a replacement for Charisma might be Constitution.

Quote from: Lynn on January 23, 2022, 07:18:17 PMI do buy into the notion of Charisma as a sort of source of personal power for Sorcerers, but I don't think its a great fit. Sorcerers are the entity or product of mystic blend. They don't negotiate. They just are. As weird as it might sound, a replacement for Charisma might be Constitution.

I thought about that too. CON as the source since their magic is supposed to be in the blood rather than something that you study. But CHA can work if you think of the Sorcerers magic as controlled and shaped by their own self image as it were. So one with less of a presence is going to have a slightly less effect than one who has some confidence in themselves and their power.

Its D&D and how you interpret and make use of the abilities can be flexible. A player could say their sorcerers powers are psionics and rename all the spells and quirks and it fits right in. Or say they are a priest whos power comes from some god, but just works differently and that works too. Same can be applied to the Warlock, etc.

One thing, as someone else mentioned, they really nerfed Intelligence. Which rubbed me the wrong way. It used to be that Intelligence gave all characters skill points per level, so it was useful for anybody to have more intelligence. Now, it's basically useless unless you need it for a specific class and only the wizard needs a high intelligence value. It's close to the best dump stat. I suppose in early editions of D&D it was pretty useless if you weren't a wizard - but at least the wizard was the master of arcane magic and so intelligence had that association. Now Charisma is the most common casting attribute and it is also valuable for more skills than Intelligence too.

I'm also not crazy about how they do saving throws in 5th edition, but that is a bit of a tangent.

I can understand thinking of the warlock as making deals with entities and so gaining power that way, and I don't necessarily object to that idea, but personally I see a warlock as more of an intelligence based caster - someone who looks up dark rituals and uses their intelligence and knowledge to make their dark pacts. That is why I was thinking that letting the player decide would be good.

I think that Charisma Baer clerics actually make sense. Because the cleric represents the deity and should be able to carry the message of the religion to the people. I also see a representative of a deity as having a holy aura or presence about them, literally being in the presence of a saint, and so that could go along with Charisma as a casting attribute. Then the cleric and paladin, thematically connected classes, both use Charisma.

I could certainly see a good case for Constitution as the casting attribute for sorcerers. I'm not sure how balanced that would be, but I don't think it would be that bad. If it were a mental attribute, I would personally say Wisdom makes more sense.

I can't yet feel comfortable with all of the things that newer editions are saying that Charisma has. Like force of personality, as though personality involved some kind of literal force, or an ability to impose one's will on the universe. It seems like a stretch to me. For casting classes that use Charisma, I would like to have some reason why being likable enhances that magic or why having magic of that kind makes you more likable.