I know that my thoughts on this might be construed as strange, off-the-wall, just poorly thought out, or maybe even <insert rude or special comment here>.
I have never, personally, understood why Sorcerers are Charisma based instead of Constitution.. I mean they draw their very magical essence from their bloodline. To me, this is of their very life essence. I understand that some people in the Devs probably avoided this due to a fear of double dipping as Con is for health. But if you look, Con only has Health, Saving Throws, and Concentration Checks for casters sustained spells; I might have missed something but cannot find anything else with a large influence. If this is the case, I feel that the Dev(s) that think, thought, this way are looking down on us gamers. Be true to the flavor of the class.
I feel that right NOW, would be the optimal time to test this out with One D&D. Put out a session of Play Testing where Sorcerers use Con instead of Charisma... cause manipulating or coaxing mentally your bloodline power seems weak and this is why I honestly have yet to play a Sorcerer as it seems hollow to me.
Honestly, I kind of agree with you. Charisma got way too many classes stacked on it.
I think the reason was to separate the physical and magical abilities. Every class needs CON so every class could safely dip sorcerer without going MAD. And a full CON SAD sorcerer could have easily become the most resilient build.
I get what you are saying, so make Con the primary stat and Int or Cha as the to hit stat, that way it still uses a secondary stat but the DCs, Multi-class, and other things are based upon Con. You know something like your body harnesses the effects of your bloodline, but you need your mind or influence to control it. I completely understand but Cha for a Sorc is just lazy development, imo. Wish I had a game developer mindset so I could offer more advice. But as they moved additional affects like more spells and abilities away from stats, anything like that would be moot and going in reverse on development.
I know that my thoughts on this might be construed as strange, off-the-wall, just poorly thought out, or maybe even <insert rude or special comment here>.
I have never, personally, understood why Sorcerers are Charisma based instead of Constitution.. I mean they draw their very magical essence from their bloodline. To me, this is of their very life essence. I understand that some people in the Devs probably avoided this due to a fear of double dipping as Con is for health. But if you look, Con only has Health, Saving Throws, and Concentration Checks for casters sustained spells; I might have missed something but cannot find anything else with a large influence. If this is the case, I feel that the Dev(s) that think, thought, this way are looking down on us gamers. Be true to the flavor of the class.
I feel that right NOW, would be the optimal time to test this out with One D&D. Put out a session of Play Testing where Sorcerers use Con instead of Charisma... cause manipulating or coaxing mentally your bloodline power seems weak and this is why I honestly have yet to play a Sorcerer as it seems hollow to me.
Honestly, I kind of agree with you. Charisma got way too many classes stacked on it.
I think the reason was to separate the physical and magical abilities. Every class needs CON so every class could safely dip sorcerer without going MAD. And a full CON SAD sorcerer could have easily become the most resilient build.
I get what you are saying, so make Con the primary stat and Int or Cha as the to hit stat, that way it still uses a secondary stat but the DCs, Multi-class, and other things are based upon Con. You know something like your body harnesses the effects of your bloodline, but you need your mind or influence to control it. I completely understand but Cha for a Sorc is just lazy development, imo. Wish I had a game developer mindset so I could offer more advice. But as they moved additional affects like more spells and abilities away from stats, anything like that would be moot and going in reverse on development.
That's an interesting point.I don't know about CON, for the double dipping reason, but why not WIS or INT?