Charisma is a weird attribute because the term is ambiguous. The general way that 5E tends to interpret Charisma is "force of will," which ironically is also how 3E interpreted Wisdom (e.g. Will saves).



A different discussion:

It's probably fundamentally bad design for all of a character's spellcasting to key off of one attribute. Physical combat is [better] designed because there is inherently interplay between Str-Dex-Con.Magic, ironically, is modeled by D&D rules in a much more simplistic way than physical combat, and thus a key spellcasting attribute becomes more or less must-have for any primary spellcaster..

Some off-the-cuff alternatives:

* All spells define the key attribute for the spell's casting (& defense)
* Spell schools define a key attribute (e.g. Enchantment school = CHA)
* Give all spellcasters a primary & secondary spellcasting attribute. Secondary attribute may affect spell properties such as bonus damage, range, AOE, duration, etc.
* All spellcasters can cast spells using any primary attribute (Int-Wis-Cha) but the spellcasting 'stance' you use also affects your ability to counterspell or save opponents' spells

Quote from: ShieldWife on January 23, 2022, 11:54:44 PM
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.

It makes sense to me - high Charisma people IRL definitely do shape other people's sense of reality, even when they are widely disliked.

Perhaps a bit of a tangent, but I feel like the mental attributes have never quite worked properly. 

Physical attributes represent the character interacting with a fictional environment.  However, everything mental is done by the player.  Even more so if you are playing old school.  Giving the character mental attributes creates disconnect between the player and the character, and invites a lot of questions about who is supposed to be solving these puzzles, etc. 

I wish we had a non-mental attribute representing the character's spiritual/supernatural power.  That way we could have avoided the last 40 years debating what intelligence, wisdom, and charisma actually represent; and whether or not a wisdom 18 cleric should be charging heedlessly down dark corridors when helmed by an impatient player.   

Quote from: ShieldWife on January 23, 2022, 11:54:44 PM
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.

That's really the problem - stats that seemingly do too much or overlap. Charisma's dubious relationship with attractiveness has always been a problem. Also, as people with modern understanding of learning and psychology, that certain things treated as 'attributes' are learned behaviors.

Quote from: Lynn on January 24, 2022, 12:57:12 PM

Quote from: ShieldWife on January 23, 2022, 11:54:44 PM
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.

That's really the problem - stats that seemingly do too much or overlap. Charisma's dubious relationship with attractiveness has always been a problem. Also, as people with modern understanding of learning and psychology, that certain things treated as 'attributes' are learned behaviors.

Somewhat.  I think it's also the changing nature of the game.  The core six stats fit the early editions well enough, if you don't squint at them too close (and shouldn't).  Three core stats for three classes, Str, Int, Wis, then three stats that are useful to everyone, Dex, Con, Cha.  The introduction of the thief starts to break this, but since the thief is so weak, it isn't really notable yet.

Every change that drifts the meaning of those stats and the classes that need them pulls the game further away from the original six stats being a good fit.  The switch to Wis for perception in WotC versions is particularly bad in that respect, though hardly the only example. 

Arguably, the switch to Wis as awareness should have also had a switch of Cha to the clerical casting stat.  Made it pure force of personality.  It's not a great fit that all the clerics are somewhat capable at social interactions, but it's a much better fit than that they are all above average danger detectors. Or to split the difference, have Arcane powered by Int, Nature magic powered by Wis, and Divine magic powered by Cha.  Druid's being perceptive and not all that social is a good fit and preserves a link to the earlier game. 

There are several different ways to go from there (depending on goals).  For example, I'd send the Bard closer to their roots and say that they are still Int as an alternate Wizard that happens to also need a fair Cha for typical activities, not to cast spells.  However, it wouldn't be a killer to say that the Bard is Cha just to keep it simple, which opens up different ideas about arcane/divine/nature:

Wizard - arcane lore  (Int)
Cleric/Paladin - divine personality (Cha)
Druid/Ranger - nature perception (Wis)
Bard - arcane personality (Cha)
Warlock -  (un)natural perception   (Wis)
Sorcerer - arcane perception (Wis) (as a character that seems more archetypical magi)
Loremaster (instead of sorcerer, as a better fit to the game for the sorcerer mechanics) - divine lore (Int)

And so forth. 

Edit:  Fixed typos.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 24, 2022, 03:37:12 PM

Arguably, the switch to Wis as awareness should have also had a switch of Cha to the clerical casting stat.  Made it pure force of personality.  It's not a great fit that all the clerics are somewhat capable at social interactions, but it's a much better fit than that they are all above average danger detectors. Or to split the difference, have Arcane powered by Int, Nature magic powered by Wis, and Divine magic powered by Cha.  Druid's being perceptive and not all that social is a good fit and preserves a link to the earlier game.

This is precisely what I ended up doing in my system. Arcane magic (Wizards, Mechanists) is Intellect-based, Primal magic (Mystics) is Wits-based and Astral magic (Theurges) is Presence-based. Bards tend to fall under either the Social Wizard subtype (Intellect primary, but uses Presence for boosters) or the Clever Mystic (Wits primary and uses Presence for Boosters). Sorcerers are straight up Mystics (their magic is intuitive) while Warlocks are just Theurges who formed pacts with astral powers outside of approved channels (or with forbidden astral gods).

Empathy for Essence, Intuition for Channelling, Presence for Mentalism, the average of the three for Arcane, naturally.

Quote from: Dark Train on January 24, 2022, 12:42:50 PM
Perhaps a bit of a tangent, but I feel like the mental attributes have never quite worked properly. 

Physical attributes represent the character interacting with a fictional environment.  However, everything mental is done by the player.  Even more so if you are playing old school.  Giving the character mental attributes creates disconnect between the player and the character, and invites a lot of questions about who is supposed to be solving these puzzles, etc. 

I wish we had a non-mental attribute representing the character's spiritual/supernatural power.  That way we could have avoided the last 40 years debating what intelligence, wisdom, and charisma actually represent; and whether or not a wisdom 18 cleric should be charging heedlessly down dark corridors when helmed by an impatient player.

I don't think this solves the problem because fundamentally no one wants to be poor at <class-feature>. If you want players to mechanically care about Int-Wis-Cha, the game system needs to give you mechanical benefits for that.

A (marginally) better model: 3E Cleric has Charisma-based Turn Undead, and Wisdom-based spellcasting. In this case, there's competing motivations that allow for you to make [more] interesting decisions on attributes for other class features. Obviously, Turn Undead isn't by itself good enough to sacrifice higher saves (+other benefits) on spells. But the point is, this needs to actually be a choice, and it's really not most of the time.

Quote from: Omega on January 23, 2022, 08:32:42 PM

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.

there were specific subclasses in PF that would allow a Sorcerer to swap the CHA requirement for CON.  The bloodhunter in 5E uses CON for it's saves as you are literally using your own blood to power your abilities.

Charisma stands on its own in early edition D&D. Henchmen, loyalty score adjustments, price adjustments, and capture versus kill situations. Countless dead characters in my games have either downplayed or failed to leverage it.

While I have been able to explain it away in more modern games, this thread has given me a chance to reflect, and I am moving from "not a fan" towards actively disliking charisma as a casting attribute.

I prefer the Fantasy Craft method - where casters have to make a skill-check to cast their spells.

Intelligence - Modifies the Skill check to cast spells (as well as dictating how many skill points you accrue/level)

Wisdom - Presumes that spells requires understanding more than just the rote formula of harnessing magic. Dictates the number of spells known and understood by level. It also dictates your Spell saves.

Charisma - Force of will that impresses itself upon the spells cast. Modifies Saving throw penalties to any saves.

This means that all stats are important. Regardless of caster.

Edit: The added benefit of spellcasting requiring a check, also closes the mechanical gap of casts/non-casters where there is an implicit chance for failure.

I like how Action! did it. https://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/srd/srd_action/index.html
Instead of tying magic to existing attributes, it let you make a new set of attributes to represent magical ability.

QuoteFor example, let's say you're adding a Psi Group. You could create the new attributes Prowess (PRW), Control (CON) and Mental Defense (MEN).

Quote from: tenbones on January 25, 2022, 10:56:11 AM
I prefer the Fantasy Craft method - where casters have to make a skill-check to cast their spells.

I agree and I find it weird that the presumption is you must roll to see whether you can do any number of mundane things -- break down a door, climb an obstacle, navigate the wilderness -- but casting a spell has no check, it just happens..

Having actual mechanics for spellcasting would go a long way toward addressing the issue, since once there are actual mechanics you can justify attributes playing roles in that.

Quote from: Zelen on January 26, 2022, 11:19:39 AM

Quote from: tenbones on January 25, 2022, 10:56:11 AM
I prefer the Fantasy Craft method - where casters have to make a skill-check to cast their spells.

I agree and I find it weird that the presumption is you must roll to see whether you can do any number of mundane things -- break down a door, climb an obstacle, navigate the wilderness -- but casting a spell has no check, it just happens..

Having actual mechanics for spellcasting would go a long way toward addressing the issue, since once there are actual mechanics you can justify attributes playing roles in that.

None of those other activities relies on you having enough "slots" to engage in them, though. You can try to do them any number of times a day. It isn't like casters are having a free ride with all this roll-less spellcasting.

Not that I'm 100% against casting checks, but casting checks don't exist for a reason: you only have a limited number of spells a day (and at lower levels in particular its EXTREMELY limited). If casting checks are necessary then slots shouldn't be. It's either one or the other.

One concern I have about roll-based casting without slots is Healing magic. If you can cast unlimited times a day as long as you pass your casting check that would inevitably lead to characters trying consecutive healing till everyone is 100% healed at the end of every combat. I suppose you could address that by adding a cumulative penalty (call it "Strain" or whatever) per spell cast that day. But I wonder to what extend that would stop ceaseless Healing attempts per battle.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 26, 2022, 12:12:03 PM
None of those other activities relies on you having enough "slots" to engage in them, though. You can try to do them any number of times a day. It isn't like casters are having a free ride with all this roll-less spellcasting.

Not that I'm 100% against casting checks, but casting checks don't exist for a reason: you only have a limited number of spells a day (and at lower levels in particular its EXTREMELY limited). If casting checks are necessary then slots shouldn't be. It's either one or the other.

One concern I have about roll-based casting without slots is Healing magic. If you can cast unlimited times a day as long as you pass your casting check that would inevitably lead to characters trying consecutive healing till everyone is 100% healed at the end of every combat. I suppose you could address that by adding a cumulative penalty (call it "Strain" or whatever) per spell cast that day. But I wonder to what extend that would stop ceaseless Healing attempts per battle.

My hybrid answer to that is that caster don't have a check to cast the spell.  Instead, they have a check to not use up the slot.  This interjects some uncertainty to the process, where slots are still limited, but the caster never knows for sure how the slots will hold up.  Of course, you have to adjust the number of slots with the rest of the game to make the average number of spells still be reasonable.  I don't mind that if the slots start out more like the early D&D progressions (i.e. very limited) because, among other things, it discourages slot inflation. 

Tweak the check to fit your goals.  Want lots of cantrips and few high level spells?  Have the difficulty of the check scale with the level of the spell, maybe even severely.  Want to tie this "slot efficiency" mechanic to a particular ability score separate from other aspects of the caster?  No problem.  Want to introduce more complicated recovery of slots?  Not such a big deal now, because there aren't as many slots, and each one represents multiple spells.  Want to cut down the fiddly preparation but still like specific spells tied to slots?  No problem, because there are a lot less slots and each one represents possibly multiple castings.  Want to move towards a mana-point system without going whole hog?  This kind of does that, depending on your other choices.