Post/Author/DateTime	Post
blackjackg 02-27-06, 03:49 PM	Hey all. First time poster on these forums. I'm a lifelong D&D player, many-time DM. Started with Ad&D 1e, moved up to 2e. Now for the first time I'm reading up on 3e. Interesting system. Not enough to sway me from a house-ruled 2e, but interesting nonetheless. So I figured my first post would be about the biggest burr under my saddle for 3rd ed, the sorcerer class. What's with these guys? In comparing the new version of the wizard class to the new sorcerers, I'm quite shocked by how powerful the sorcerer is. More spells/level, no lunky (and in this edition, ridiculously expensive) spellbook to carry around, and you automatically learn spells every level. And to top it all off, the sorceror actually gets spontaneous casting! The wizard, on the other hand, only gets bonus feats and a higher maximum spells known (nothing guaranteeing the wizard will have more than a sorcerer, though. Just more potential.) Is there something I'm missing, or are the classes really that unbalanced? <End Rant> Anyhow, the other thing that surprises me about sorcerers is that their spells are charisma-based. I've read over the PHB, some of the DMG and the Tome and Blood book, and I haven't yet found anything resembling a satisfactory explanation as to what sorcery has to do with charisma. Furthermore, from the flavour description of the class, it seems likely that many, if not most, sorcerers would be twisted social outcasts with unspeakably low charisma. From the way it's described, channeling magical energy through the body, it seems to me that the sorcerer's operant ability ought to be wisdom, or better yet, constitution. (With Con, it makes sense that a sorcerer can only channel a certain number of spells of a certain potency before her body gives out. Hence the bonus spells and max spell level.) Anyway, nice to be here. I look forward to debating a great many trivial points of rules with you all.
Morwen 02-27-06, 07:17 PM	Interestingly, most posts regarding the Wizard and Sorcerer classes rant about how underpowered the Sorcerer is compared to the Wizard :) The main reason why many people choose the Wizard class over the Sorcerer class is the added versatility of the Wizard class. Since you're not limited to only the relatively few spells you choose as your known spells, you have a lot more options available to you after just a little while. After all, in most games you tend to get scrolls as part of treasure, when you dispose of an opposing Wizard you're likely to find a spellbook, and friendly Wizards might be interested in sharing their spells for some of yours. All of these are ways for a Wizard to greatly increase the number of spells in his spellbook, in addition to the two spells he learns automatically each level. The Wizard also gets spells of a higher level one level sooner than Sorcerers do (3rd level spells at 5th level as opposed to 6th, and so on). It's also a point that, since Wizards use Intelligence as their primary stat, they'll usually also have a lot more skill points available than Sorcerers do. The bonus feats are also very useful. Considering that one of the best reasons to play a Sorcerer is their better way to make use of Metamagic feats, this is the one area I most wish the Sorcerer was equal to the Wizard in. But yes, the spontaneous casting is nice :)
Crimson_Concerto 02-27-06, 07:59 PM	Most poeple actually make the argument that the sorcerer is underpowered, but the reality of it is that while in theory, the Wizard is a better caster, in practice, they come out about the same. Play them as is, and you will see. The reason CHA is used for sorcerers is that... hmm... that's a difficult one to explain... It's mostly for the same reason Bards do. It's not their intense study or devotion to a cause that grants them power, but their sheer force of will (not to be confused with a will save, based off of WIS) that allows them to manipulate and work magic. It's the magnitude of their presenence that gives them this power. CHA is not necessarely beauty or sociability, as you seem to think, though that is part of it. It is this ability to impose your will and manipulate with it. This is the source of a sorcerer's power. CON-based casting is... interesting... probably spontanious, the way you describe it, but it would require another, mental casting stat to back it up, probably defining the max-spell level and bonus spells with CON and spell DCs with WIS or CHA. Though, that still seems off to me. There seems little justification to base any sort of casting on a physical stat... Anyways, the sorcerer does not draw any sort of force from his body to make this power work. He draws it from his mind and willpower, and that is why his casting is based on CHA.
Hariman 02-28-06, 03:02 AM	Hey all. First time poster on these forums. I'm a lifelong D&D player, many-time DM. Started with Ad&D 1e, moved up to 2e. Now for the first time I'm reading up on 3e. Interesting system. Not enough to sway me from a house-ruled 2e, but interesting nonetheless. So I figured my first post would be about the biggest burr under my saddle for 3rd ed, the sorcerer class. What's with these guys? In comparing the new version of the wizard class to the new sorcerers, I'm quite shocked by how powerful the sorcerer is. More spells/level, no lunky (and in this edition, ridiculously expensive) spellbook to carry around, and you automatically learn spells every level. And to top it all off, the sorceror actually gets spontaneous casting! The wizard, on the other hand, only gets bonus feats and a higher maximum spells known (nothing guaranteeing the wizard will have more than a sorcerer, though. Just more potential.) Is there something I'm missing, or are the classes really that unbalanced? <End Rant> Anyhow, the other thing that surprises me about sorcerers is that their spells are charisma-based. I've read over the PHB, some of the DMG and the Tome and Blood book, and I haven't yet found anything resembling a satisfactory explanation as to what sorcery has to do with charisma. Furthermore, from the flavour description of the class, it seems likely that many, if not most, sorcerers would be twisted social outcasts with unspeakably low charisma. From the way it's described, channeling magical energy through the body, it seems to me that the sorcerer's operant ability ought to be wisdom, or better yet, constitution. (With Con, it makes sense that a sorcerer can only channel a certain number of spells of a certain potency before her body gives out. Hence the bonus spells and max spell level.) Anyway, nice to be here. I look forward to debating a great many trivial points of rules with you all. Intelligence and Wisdom don't make much more sense than Charisma for a sorcerer. They get spells because they are smart? Sorry Wizards claim that right. They get spells because of their common sense an pithy knowledge? That makes less sense. Charisma doesn't just encompass social interaction. It also encompasses force of personality and "presence". I play a hexblade that has a 14 Cha, it is described as more of a "Presence" that he has not a kind of charm. "Force of Personality" is also used to describe intimidation without physical threats and presence is part of how people carry themselves/are viewed by others. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has met poeple who draw attention from a room of people just by walking in. (And not for being pretty or anything else noticeable.) Of course, it could all just be explained away by the sentence: "Well, we couldn't let the bard be the only spellcaster that uses charisma."
AesirRaven 02-28-06, 04:56 AM	It's not their intense study or devotion to a cause that grants them power, but their sheer force of will (not to be confused with a will save, based off of WIS) that allows them to manipulate and work magic. (Warning, long-suffering sorceror lover's pained opinion incoming.) I'm afraid this isn't quite so. This is the party line we've been given, but it doesn't work as intended. The sorceror should be a Wisdom caster, not a Charisma caster. "Force of will" is not represented by Charisma. It is Wisdom. That is why Wisdom factors into Will saves and not Charisma. The word "force" in the phrase "force of personality" does not imply a tangible force, and "personality" is not "will" anyway. As well, the sorceror class text states flat out that sorceror magic is intuitive. "Intuition" is a key word under Wisdom, not under Charisma. That same class text also states that sorcerors are often shunned. High CHA means people will like you, respect you or cower before you in terrified sycophancy. It does not mean you will be shunned. The class text clearly implies low Charisma scores, not high ones, despite what the spellcasting crunch states. Sorcerors are CHA-based because they wanted another CHA caster, and a slapdash rationale was formed later. A half-decent argument was made to me that it's because of their draconic blood (read up on dragons), but the thing is, the "draconic blood" isn't established as the source of a sorceror's magic. Says so right in the text. I have believed for some time that they should have made clerics into CHA casters, since their magic involves interaction with and intercession from another entity rather than from within. There seems little justification to base any sort of casting on a physical stat... There's also no true justification why Strength is used to modify to-hit roles instead of Dexterity. If you can't hit the broad side of a barn, it doesn't matter how strong you are, you won't hit. The (haphazard) fudge explanation is that the ability score represents not only your raw potential, but your skill in applying that potential. CON-based casting would involve practice and training in how to use one's resilience to make things happen. Or something. Anyways, the sorcerer does not draw any sort of force from his body to make this power work. He draws it from his mind and willpower, and that is why his casting is based on CHA. As I stated above, this is most definitely (and should be unarguably) Wisdom, not Charisma. Getting back to the OP: What's with these guys? In comparing the new version of the wizard class to the new sorcerers, I'm quite shocked by how powerful the sorcerer is. It all depends on your belief regarding just how powerful spontaneous casting is. The designers clearly believe that the Memorize/Prepare, Fire and Forget system is sacred, and therefore anything that circumvents it is unbelievably powerful. If you agree with the designers, then it will naturally follow that sorcerors appear to be powerful to you. That is your right, of course. I disagree with the concept rather vociferously, but this thread isn't about changing your mind. Rest assured that sorcerors in the RAW are not game-breakers. Your opinion might even change over the course of play. If it doesn't, and you do find them to be too powerful (somehow, but I don't see it happening), you can always nix them from your game.
Vaelan 02-28-06, 07:31 AM	The sorceror should be a Wisdom caster, not a Charisma caster. I disagree. Wisdom affects how well one handles that which comes from the outside world to the person, such as magical compulsions, attempts to lie or intimidate, stimuli (spot and listen), and divine power. Charisma is the ability to influence that which is outside of oneself. I can think of no more suitable spellcasting ability score for one who magically influences the outside world through their own power.
Pandaemoni 02-28-06, 08:11 AM	In a low magic game where players come across spell scrolls very infrequently, I can see that "automatically" learning spells would be a huge advantage In reality though, I have never seen a game where a mid level wizard didn't have at least three-times the number of spells of a mid-level sorcerer. Remember that wizards can scribe scrolls for a trivial gold and XP cost...that gives a solid basis both for the proliferation of scrolls in the world and for the wizard'sadvntage over the sorcerer. While the sorcerer has more spell slots, who wouldn't pay the cost in gold to, effectively, ass a spall slot or two? That is what scrolls are effectively, they allow the woizard to cast more spells per day than his "spells known" suggests. They also allow him to (literally) prepare spells in advance in scroll form that he ordinarily would never "prepare" in his head. Who knew that we'd have a use for a Tongues spell? Luckily, the wizard has a scroll of it, because any player worth his salt has a scroll of every utility spell in his spell book. While the XP cost of preparing scrolls does hurt in minor way, the cost is so small that I personally don't think I have never had a wizard who's "fallen behind" the rest of the party based on the XP costs of scrolls alone (though certain wonderous items have cost me). I've has less XP than the rest of the party, but the cost is small and the odds of "just barely" making it to a level are not that great. The real trade-off for a wizard is the spell book. Luckily it costs nothing to scribe spells into a Boccob's Blessed Book, so from about 5th or 6th level onwards, that cost evaporates. The DM might have an NPC "steal" a wizard's spell book from them, but frankly that would cripple the wizard. No DM wants to cripple a player in the name oif making sure his character is balanced "on average" as against another class. In a world (i) without Blessed Books, (ii) where wizards make heavy use of the Scribe Scoll feat and (iii) ignoring all the advantges sorcerers get from Races of the Dragon (as I do not own that book yet), I think the wizard and sorcerer are about evenly matched. I also do agree with sorcerers being charisma based casters. Charisma is a mental attribute in 3.5...and my image of the sorcerer is not necessarily of a terrifically wise adventurer. The brash and reckless sorcerer who weilds powers he cannot control is to ingrained into my image of magic and tends to defeat the notion that they are inherently wise. Charisma on the other hand, relates to the strength and force of one's personality...one's ability to force the world around you to bend to your desires. It comes down to what part of the flavor text of wisdom and charisma yopu want to emphasize. Each stat relates a number of qualities (Wisdom is a distilation of willpower, common sense, perception and intuition, for example...and in the real-world a person can conceivably have little willpower and yet have very keen perception) and the way the game breaks them down is not always 100% satisfactory.
AesirRaven 02-28-06, 08:18 AM	Charisma is the ability to influence that which is outside of oneself. If this were the case, all magic (and psionics) would be CHA-based. That's simply not the case. Keywords for Wisdom (from the SRD): willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. (Definition of "willpower" from dictionary.com: "The strength of will to carry out one's decisions, wishes, or plans." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=willpower Clearly, strength / force of will is Wisdom, not Charisma.) Keywords for Charisma (from the SRD): force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. (Nowhere in these keywords do you find "will", "willpower" or "inner strength".) The keywords for Charisma all involve interaction with beings, not use of esoteric forces. Charisma is the interaction Ability, not the magical power / willpower Ability. A bard's ability comes from magical power being focused through interaction with beings; that is why a bard is logically a CHA-based caster. A sorceror does not interact with beings to cast her spells.
Pandaemoni 02-28-06, 08:42 AM	If this were the case, all magic (and psionics) would be CHA-based. That's simply not the case. Umm . . . magic and psionics aren't exactly "wisdom-based" either, so your argument in favor of wisdom may prove too much. Intelligence is the ability to learn, analyze and remember information, so your strict argument could very easily be used to suggest that intelligence is also incorrectly applied to psionics and many aspects of arcane magic. In the end it comes down to what you think "force of personality" is. If you think that trait is limited to winning friends and influencing people, then making it the locus of magical power is inappropriate. If you think it is the measure of the "footprint" your soul leaves on the universe, then it is more appropriate. Willpower, in the end is an internal quality...but arcane magic (unlike psionics) is not something which comes from within you, it is an external force that one must harnass and shape to your own ends. Since wisdom relates largely to matters internal to the character, I can see the sense in using a mental score that is more reflective of one's ability to influence external forces.
AesirRaven 02-28-06, 11:05 AM	Umm . . . magic and psionics aren't exactly "wisdom-based" either, so your argument in favor of wisdom may prove too much. Intelligence is the ability to learn, analyze and remember information, so your strict argument could very easily be used to suggest that intelligence is also incorrectly applied to psionics and many aspects of arcane magic. The sad thing is, if you stare at D&D magic too long, you start to see problems like that -- Intelligence just might be the wrong Ability, although its use can be much more easily explained than Charisma. I'm not out to entirely rewrite D&D, though, just petitioning in my own pathetic way for a fix in the fundamental contradition written into the sorceror class. In the end it comes down to what you think "force of personality" is. *snip* Were the RAW written so that Charisma unarguably included the ability to shape esoteric forces, then I would only be begging for a fix of the sorceror's flavor. High Charisma means you're going to be liked/feared, not shunned. Sorcerors would, in this instance, have the opposite problem -- people would follow them around, fall at their feat, and form cults to appease them. However, the RAW are not written this way. The notion is obviously arguable, as I'm arguing it. Examining the Ability Score descriptions yields absolutely no proof that Charisma is related to anything except interaction with other beings. In this sense it is appropriate for divine casters, who are representatives and agents of powers, and who utilize magic by obtaining it from and use it in the service of said powers. It is not appropriate for RAW arcane casters outside the bard. Were an arcane casting class to obtain its spells and abilities from and/or use them by/for interaction, CHA would be appropriate. That does not happen in any way for the wizard or the sorceror. I think the OP is probably wondering where the heck all this came from and why I'm mucking up the thread with it, so I'll stop here. :rolleyes: I would be glad to continue this discussion with anyone and everyone through email. My address is in my profile.
Dipteran_Legacy 02-28-06, 01:37 PM	the only thing I have to add that no-one else has, to the O.P. is that you said something about wizards "not being garaunteed" more spells. I dont remeber how wizards worked in 2e, as I've never been a big fan of wizards anyways, but in 3e, wizards automatically gain two spells every time they level up. so, unless you have a really sadistic DM, who deliberately throws your wizard into situations where his spellbook has the potential to be ruined (such as bogs, lava flows, pools of acid, etc) and has greedy theives looking to sell big fat spellbooks on the black-magic market, even if your DM is very(read: Irrationally) miserly with spells, they still end up about equal with sorc's due to the bonus spells, and the fact that their casting stat actually benefits them in the "average" D&D game. of course, if your DM is a fairly normal DM, who wont endanger your spells every chance he gets, and gives you a handful of scrolls every time you explore a dungeon(not to mention the ones that you can buy), then that is where wizards actually become blatantly more powerful than sorc's. as more and more splatbooks come out with more and more wizard/sorc spells, the wizard is being more and more empowered, as he has potential to learn all those spells, while the sorc gains relatively little, as a multi-purpose sorc can only get the absolute best spells for any single situation, and even a more focused sorc should still worry about optimizing his spell selection. ps- I disagree with Aesir raven, but with such arrogant statements as : As I stated above, this is most definitely (and should be unarguably) Wisdom, not Charisma. I see no point in arguing over the matter :D hopefully you come around to realizing that, if anything, sorc's got the short end of the stick,(note, I didn't say their definately way underpowered, just that if the scale does tip one way or the other, it tips a bit towards the wiz's, if only due to the int-based spellcasting) which I'm sure you will, unless you're the type of DM that enjoys threatening a wizards spellbook every chance they get(which isnt necessarily wrong, though it does waste time that could be spent progressing the plot of the campaign)
blackjackg 03-01-06, 01:16 AM	Wow, I admit this was a bigger response than I had expected. Thanks to everyone. I think Aesir-Raven hit the nail on the head when he surmised that most of my shock was over spontaneous casting. To a lifelong spell-preparer, the idea of not having to plan your encounters in advance was baffling. While it still seems to me that sorcerers are overpowered, in the face of all this argument, I think I'll have to withhold my opinion until I've actually played a fair bit. For the record, I don't think that Charisma has anything to do with imposing your will over the laws of physics. After all, a pretty smile may melt a person's heart, but it won't melt stone like magic will. I could accept charisma for Bardic magic, as that hinges on the caster's ability to influence other people, but not for the equivalent of a mage spell. As noted several times above, wisdom makes significantly more sense, though entirely for flavour reasons. However, I still say that constitution makes even more sense, for the following reasons: 1. Sorcerers store energy in/channel energy through their own bodies. That requires amazing fortitude. 2. The game already has four wisdom-based casters. We don't need another. 3. It gives them a few bonus points on every hit die which helps them stay alive longer and gives them a slight edge over wizards. In the end, "because we need to make Charisma more important" is not a good reason to contradict your own writing. Oh, and I don't mind anyone hijacking my threads, as long as we stay close to the original topic. Intelligent debate is what we come to these boards for, isn't it?
Dipteran_Legacy 03-01-06, 11:32 AM	I definately see how con could work, and it could give sorc's the tiny bit of an edge that they need. if you want to house-rule con into their casting stat, by all means do so.
elven warriorXX 03-01-06, 01:05 PM	I like this idea very much. Cha can control Max spell level and Bonus spells (there innerpower) and Con can control DCs and the like (the more powerful the body the more powerful the magic. I will be usning this :)
Hariman 03-01-06, 01:52 PM	I like this idea very much. Cha can control Max spell level and Bonus spells (there innerpower) and Con can control DCs and the like (the more powerful the body the more powerful the magic. I will be usning this :) By using this, you force the sorcerer into a Multiple Ability Dependency similar to the Spirit Shaman. A complete switch of all spellcasting to CON might be a gamebreaker. It would mean Sorcerers have better HP and Fortitude saves throughout a campaign. I don't think this increase would end up being huge though, most characters have a 14 in con, 12 at minimum. (Especially spellcasters.) A switch to using Intelligence for sorcerers would also be an option. Intelligence becoming how well they have learned to channel magic through their body/mind. This alternative would give the sorcerer some extra Skill Points too. (One of my 2 DMs lets sorcerer players use Int if they want.) Either of these will make a sorcerer more powerful. The Constitution spellcasting would add to HP/fort saves. Considering the tendency to boost a casting stat as high as possible, that could get pretty bad. (Good, from player perspective.) The Intelligence option would add skill points and bonus languages. Which, let's face it, the sorcerer is a little short on in the first place. But again, I don't think either is a gamebreaker.
Dipteran_Legacy 03-01-06, 08:40 PM	well.....let's think about how bad it could get....obviously, the further you step away from the core books, the more hideously broken the con casting would be(warshaper immediately comes to mind.....a beasthide shifter with the first level of warshaper, at that....) but if you have a fairly core game, you're looking at a natural stat of 22-ish by the end-game, with items maybe 28-ish. that's going to be anywhere from +6hp/level to +9 hp/lvl on average. so, by the end-game, the sorceror's hp is going to be looking similar to the fighters, and probably slightly better than even the clerics. although this seems bad at a glance, I always envisioned sorcerors as slightly more competent in battle than a wizard, and with the whole no-armor casting, those HP can get sliced off mighty quick at those levels. of course, if you start using the spellsword PrC, the armored casting feats from complete arcane, and (especially) the battle sorceror variant, this starts looking a bit on the ugly side... of course, it would also make dwarves excel at sorcery, which I, personally, find odd(I think wizard is very fitting for dwarves, with their single-minded determination about mastering a craft, but on the other hand, dwarves have always been flavored as a magic-resistant, practically anti-magical race.... on top of that, gnomes are already an optimal caster race. giving them a class in which they used their bonus stat for casting would be ugly) basically, if you're playing a farily core-centric game, without dwarves and gnomes, it's probably a good idea. If you are playing with any of the races or classes mentioned(not to mention that I'm sure there's way worse out there) then it starts looking like a bad idea.... :(
blackjackg 03-01-06, 08:57 PM	of course, it would also make dwarves excel at sorcery, which I, personally, find odd(I think wizard is very fitting for dwarves, with their single-minded determination about mastering a craft, but on the other hand, dwarves have always been flavored as a magic-resistant, practically anti-magical race.... on top of that, gnomes are already an optimal caster race. giving them a class in which they used their bonus stat for casting would be ugly) When I designed this, I also planned a house-ruled dwarf that essentially wore Padded Armor all the time. That is, +1 natural armor (for tough, rugged hide) and a 5% chance of Arcane Spell Failure. I figure that fits pretty well with the canon of dwarves being tough critters who are naturally inept at magic. The way I see it, an inescapable 5% chance of failure will be enough to dissuade most people from choosing dwarves as Wizards or Sorcerors. Forgot about gnomes, though. I'm so used to their getting +1 Int, -1 Wis. That could be troublesome...
Valoy_Muniz 03-02-06, 11:40 AM	I do like con as a ability stat for casters and I have even tryed to make one like that. The problem comes in tho that once they get stuff like polymorph there con changes to the new form. The 3 mental stats do not change.
Vaelan 03-02-06, 03:23 PM	If this were the case, all magic (and psionics) would be CHA-based. That's simply not the case. Taking statements out of context often leads to such misunderstandings. I would suggest reading my post again and applying the comprehension skills expected of your average sixth-grader. In case you missed it, I was referring to the manner in which the Sorcerer casts spells. If you don't buy the method of spellcasting argument, which you have done nothing to discredit besides taking statements out of context and drawing correlations that do not, in fact, exist, there are several other reasons. The commonly-cited source of a Sorcerer's power is draconic heritage. Dragons use Charisma as their spellcasting ability score. Further, the PHB states that the Sorcerer's talent is "inborn—part of his soul." Other abilities that are a natural part of a creature are always based on Charisma if they are spell-like. You seem to place a lot of importance in the term "willpower". The fact is, it is not mentioned in the Sorcerer's spell description and is thus irrelevant whereas I have given several possible answers that are substantiated in both reason and the rules. There are many perfectly valid reasons to base the Sorcerer's spellcasting on Charisma, and you haven't given any reasons that are supported by either the rules or logic.
AesirRaven 03-02-06, 03:50 PM	Taking statements out of context often leads to such misunderstandings. I would suggest reading my post again and applying the comprehension skills expected of your average sixth-grader. In case you missed it, I was referring to the manner in which the Sorcerer casts spells. First off, there's no call for a personal attack of any kind simply because you might not like what I had to say about what you had to say. If you feel the need to insult me, email me personally rather than making the first shot in a flame war. If you don't buy the method of spellcasting argument, which you have done nothing to discredit besides taking statements out of context and drawing correlations that do not, in fact, exist, there are several other reasons. I wasn't aware this was a court case, and you most certainly are not on trial. Why so defensive? The commonly-cited source of a Sorcerer's power is draconic heritage. Dragons use Charisma as their spellcasting ability score. Further, the PHB states that the Sorcerer's talent is "inborn—part of his soul." Other abilities that are a natural part of a creature are always based on Charisma if they are spell-like. Draconic heritage for sorcerors is a rumor, not a fact. You seem to place a lot of importance in the term "willpower". Considering that's the point on which many people hang their belief in Charisma-based spellcasting, of course I place a lot of importance on it. It's called refutation. The fact is, it is not mentioned in the Sorcerer's spell description and is thus irrelevant whereas I have given several possible answers that are substantiated in both reason and the rules. Except when one looks at the RAW and sees that Charisma is not what the Sorceror writeup tries to make it. If you cannot/refuse to accept what I've put out as proof of that, then that's fine, but coming after me on an insulting personal level and claiming I've done nothing doesn't win you any brownie points. There are many perfectly valid reasons to base the Sorcerer's spellcasting on Charisma, and you haven't given any reasons that are supported by either the rules or logic. Name one that I haven't already refuted.
Pandaemoni 03-02-06, 05:19 PM	Draconic heritage for sorcerors is a rumor, not a fact.Races of the Dragon adds a lot of weight to that rumor, in the form of feats for sorecerers only...though only if they are naturally dragon-blooded (or take the Draconic Heritage feat). Much like the draconic heritage of kobolds, it may have been a throwaway rumor when it was written, but WOTC went hog-wild with it.
Crimson_Concerto 03-02-06, 05:30 PM	Umm, I think some poeple are confused over that whole willpower misinterpretation. Let me see if I can explain this better: Wisdom is how one interprets their surrounding (Listen, Spot, Survival), including signals from other living organisms (Sense Motive), and reacts to this intuition (Profession, Heal). Wisdom also dictates how one resists things from their surroundings as part of the intuition aspect (a Will save or unwavering devotion to a cause, such as the Cleric and his God). This intuitive and perceptive element is also what grants a Monk his AC bonus. In short, Wisdom has to do with how a character reacts to, interprets, and accepts outside forces. It's a defensive score, like Constitution, and it's more... what's the word?... "extrovertive"? Charisma is how one imposes their will unto their surroundings, whether that be in the form of being adept at influincing the attitudes and emotions of others through one's actions(Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform) or the form of using one's inner force of will (as opposed to the will of, say, a diety in the Cleric's case) to conjure one's magical abilities (Spell-like abilities, Sorcerer and Bard spells). Incidentally, Clerics and Druids also generally have to have a good Charisma to use abilities that are related to their specialties (turn/rebuke undead, wild empathy) but not necessarly granted to them by a higher force and more likely a product of their own willpower in response to their Wisdom aspects. In short, Charisma is a character's ability to use their will to influence their surroundings. It;s an offensive score, like Strength, and it's more... "introvertive" I guess. So you see, although both Wisdom and Charisma have a lot to do with willpower, they are actually opposites, as they determine how a character uses that willpower introvertively or extrovertively. That's how I've always looked at it, at least. :)