Keep in mind that Multi-classing is an optional rule, you don't have to let your players do it. In my games I tell my players they can't multi-class until level 6 and they must have a narrative justification. It's really hard to justify a Sorcerer dip, you can't train to be a Sorcerer.
I'm not trying to make Sorcerers "better" I'm trying to make more variations of playstyles. The Draconics will be really good choices for people that want to mix it up on the front line, but they are going to have to spend points in Dexterity to make it viable. If a Sorcerer gains access to Heavy Armor somehow they are going to have to spend points into Strength to wear it. I can't imagine this is to be worse than the Paladin/Warlock.
I would forward the idea that Sorcerer is the easiest class to justify multi-classing into. Literature is rife with characters suddenly coming into their powers unexpectedly.
Warlock. No inherent specialness required, just make a deal with a shady eldritch power in a dark alley. Surely nothing bad can happen with that.
Keep in mind that Multi-classing is an optional rule, you don't have to let your players do it. In my games I tell my players they can't multi-class until level 6 and they must have a narrative justification. It's really hard to justify a Sorcerer dip, you can't train to be a Sorcerer.
I'm not trying to make Sorcerers "better" I'm trying to make more variations of playstyles. The Draconics will be really good choices for people that want to mix it up on the front line, but they are going to have to spend points in Dexterity to make it viable. If a Sorcerer gains access to Heavy Armor somehow they are going to have to spend points into Strength to wear it. I can't imagine this is to be worse than the Paladin/Warlock.
I would forward the idea that Sorcerer is the easiest class to justify multi-classing into. Literature is rife with characters suddenly coming into their powers unexpectedly.
Warlock. No inherent specialness required, just make a deal with a shady eldritch power in a dark alley. Surely nothing bad can happen with that.
Now you've got me picturing a Celestial Warlock as an off-the-books deniable asset.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I think Warlocks are Cha based because they had to convince their patron to make the deal that literally defines the class. Maybe Int could be the secondary stat, but Cha must remain the primary stat for Warlock.
The main issue with warlocks is that they exist in media as a cautionary tale. There is no warlock in movies, songs, or books that doesn't pay a heavy price for their gifts. Keeping this in mind, those who traditionally pursue warlock pacts do so out of desperation or great determination - best reflected in D&D as Charisma's tie to willpower/force of personality.
This is lost a bit in D&D because there is no downside to warlock powers. Without a real sense of risk, it becomes less clear why a high Charisma would be needed. But it's there as an attempt to tie D&D warlocks to the classic characters and stories that warlocks come from.
Also, it’s just how the demarcation of flavors of power shakes out- Clerics and Druids are tied to the more typical image of forming a spiritual connection for their power, thus WIS; Wizards are the ones whose theme is gaining power by being knowledgeable and studious- yes, I know it’s in vogue to argue your Warlock is special and studied and pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and the patron(s) just happened to be discussion partners a time or two, but that’s not the main archetype/theme of the class, as demonstrated by their defining choice being who/what their patron is- thus INT; this leaves CHA as the catchall mental stat for casters who are meant to exist outside the paradigms of the original two big archetypes of D&D. Yes, it’s something of a sacred cow at this point- welcome to product identity.
I think the conversation is less about whether WoTC will do anything about it and more whether you should allow it in your own games.
I came into this conversation with the opinion that you should, but I've been convinced otherwise by this thread. I still *want* sorcerers to be con casters, because on the surface that makes more sense to me, but unfortunately the way the game balance shakes out doesn't allow that to work in a way that's fair for everyone.
Interesting idea. //SNIP!// this would do would be to break the unholy cancer tumor of Charisma Multiclassing, where half the gorram classes in the game all compound in ways that make everyone else kinda hate Charisma casters.
Count me as one of the people that hate the plethora of CHA based casters. Bards are fine, but adding Warlocks and Bards into the mix as well makes CHA equal to DEX as a power stat and that is undesirable in a game design.
I think a lot of the problem is the multiclassing though I do think warlocks should be int, as when you read the class it screams int. That being said the multi classing stuff is more important because things like pact of the blade is so easy to dip to. But for example if pact of the blade created a weapon you used with a magic action in a spell attack it would not multi great with extra attack chr classes, now you'd have to take warlock to 5 to get a 2nd attack. If eldritch blast was not a cantrip but instead was a modifier you applied to cantrips at levels 5,11,17 changing base cantrips into multi attack cantrips people would not dip for eldritch blast. Change the dip abilities in ways that do not make them attractive to dip for. If warlock was int based it would have the same issue with artificers and bladesingers unless you change how the dip abilities worked.
Interesting idea. //SNIP!// this would do would be to break the unholy cancer tumor of Charisma Multiclassing, where half the gorram classes in the game all compound in ways that make everyone else kinda hate Charisma casters.
Count me as one of the people that hate the plethora of CHA based casters. Bards are fine, but adding Warlocks and Bards into the mix as well makes CHA equal to DEX as a power stat and that is undesirable in a game design.
I think a lot of the problem is the multiclassing though I do think warlocks should be int, as when you read the class it screams int. That being said the multi classing stuff is more important because things like pact of the blade is so easy to dip to. But for example if pact of the blade created a weapon you used with a magic action in a spell attack it would not multi great with extra attack chr classes, now you'd have to take warlock to 5 to get a 2nd attack. If eldritch blast was not a cantrip but instead was a modifier you applied to cantrips at levels 5,11,17 changing base cantrips into multi attack cantrips people would not dip for eldritch blast. Change the dip abilities in ways that do not make them attractive to dip for. If warlock was int based it would have the same issue with artificers and bladesingers unless you change how the dip abilities worked.
Oh yes, being handed power screams INT just because you might have spent some time looking up someone’s contact info.
Interesting idea. //SNIP!// this would do would be to break the unholy cancer tumor of Charisma Multiclassing, where half the gorram classes in the game all compound in ways that make everyone else kinda hate Charisma casters.
Count me as one of the people that hate the plethora of CHA based casters. Bards are fine, but adding Warlocks and Bards into the mix as well makes CHA equal to DEX as a power stat and that is undesirable in a game design.
I think a lot of the problem is the multiclassing though I do think warlocks should be int, as when you read the class it screams int. That being said the multi classing stuff is more important because things like pact of the blade is so easy to dip to. But for example if pact of the blade created a weapon you used with a magic action in a spell attack it would not multi great with extra attack chr classes, now you'd have to take warlock to 5 to get a 2nd attack. If eldritch blast was not a cantrip but instead was a modifier you applied to cantrips at levels 5,11,17 changing base cantrips into multi attack cantrips people would not dip for eldritch blast. Change the dip abilities in ways that do not make them attractive to dip for. If warlock was int based it would have the same issue with artificers and bladesingers unless you change how the dip abilities worked.
Oh yes, being handed power screams INT just because you might have spent some time looking up someone’s contact info.
I don't think its worth arguing it again, so whatever think whatever you want.
My thought make it str instead cha. Reason you are saying your body is the magic it shows physical manifestations of that.
You know...that actually might fix all of the arguments against it being con. It's just as much a roleplay stat as charisma honestly. It doesn't interface with your hit points or your concentration saves.
At level 1: Constitution is your spell casting ability for your sorcerer spells, since the power of your magic is inherent to you.
At level 2: Font of Magic. You gain a number of sorcery points equal to your Sorcerer level + half your charisma modifier rounded up.
At level 3: Meta Magic. You can select a number of Meta magic options equal to your Charisma modifier (minimum of 1).
At 10th level: Your Sorcery Points equal your level + your Charisma modifier.
At 17th level: A 1st level Spell Slot now costs only 1 Sorcery Point.
Multi-Classing: You must have atleast a 13 in both Charisma and Constitution. .................................................. .........................
The Mechanical Argument:
The Sorcerer is functionally a less complicated Wizard. I believe it is intended to be the easiest spell caster and inviting to new players. The above alterations do not change that. In WotC efforts to make Sorcerers more accessible, they have given the Sorcerer less options. This is ok, but I'd we are going to give a class less options we should allow them to do more with those options.
WHY CAST WITH CONSTITUTION? Firstly, to make the class distinctive from other casters. Sorcerers should be THE concentration spell caster, they are the best as maintaining their spells in the heat of battle. Unlike Wizards, Sorcerers and their Hitpoint bonus from Con, can be front and center in combat casting close range AOEs. This would be the arcane answer to the Cleric. The trade off is that without a proficiency in armor, most Sorcerers are going to be hit more often. They would play very differently than other casters, and those extra hitpoints will be more forgiving to a new player, who are the target demographic for this class.
WHY THE EXTRA SORCERY POINTS AND WHY TIE IT TO CHARISMA? Mostly to insensitiveize players to not just put everything into Constitution. The added benefit is that low level Sorcerers get to interact with what makes their class special more often. The highest a Sorcerer's Charisma modifier can be at level two, is 4. This would give them a total of 6 Sorcery Points, or 3 extra 1st level spell slots. This seems like alot, but next level they will be spending SP on meta magic and an equilibrium will be reached. Since alot of Sorcerer spells are concentration (and I believe more concentration spells should be added to their spell list), these extra spell slots can incentivize a Sorcerer to drop one concentration spell for another.
WHY THE CHANGE TO META MAGIC OPTIONS? Again, to incentivize players to put points in something other than Constitution. This also gives a player more opportunities to experiment with different meta magic and reduces the chance that they regret their choices.
WHY THE MULTI-CLASS RESTRICTIONS? Requiring both Constitution and Charisma prevents everyone from being able to dip into Sorcerer with out making sacrifices. .................................................. .........................
The Thematic Argument:
I understand that Charisma is also the "Willpower" stat, but I disagree that a Sorcerer's power comes from their will. Magic is like an organ to the Sorcerer, it is part of them. They are their own battery. A Sorcerer's will can be used to shape and modify their magic, that is why Charisma is tied to SP and MM. The reason Constitution is their spell casting ability is because it reflects their ability to contain and control their magic. A creature with low Constitution would be consumed by the raw magical power infused within them.
NOW THE MOST THEMATIC RACES NO LONGER SYNERGIZE WITH THE CLASS!
The nature of Sorcery, as opposed to Wizardry, is that it is random. Why are Halflings, Half-Elves, and Dragonborn more likely to be Sorcerers? There is no reason they should be, and Stout Halflings and Half-Elves still are even if there was. An argument could be made for Tiefling and Aasimar, but they still benefit from better than average MM and SP.
AND NOW LESS THEMATIC RACES SYNERGIZE BETTER WITH THE CLASS!!
This makes perfect sense. A race that does not have many magic users would quickly be outpaced by those who do. While Orcs may not have the capacity to train wizards, they can rely on their Sorcerers to fill that niche. The study of magic would take time away form the study of more practical arts in the eyes of Dwarves, but those with innate magic would still be valued by the Dwarven community. It would make since that these races would have more Sorcerers than other types of magic users. Dragonborn and Genasi already cast innate magic using Constitution, so this isn't a revolutionary idea. .................................................. .........................
The Sorcerer as written is a fine class with great flavor, but other spell casting classes out pace in almost every way. It also doesn't play much differently than a Wizard. In the end its just a mechanically worse version of the Wizard. These subtle changes make the Sorcerer a very different experience and enable unique character builds and playstyles.
So what do you think? Is this good, is this terrible? I've had this debate many times, and I think I've refined it and balanced it so that most should find it acceptable.
Just now saw this, and I have agreed for years. In particular, I do find the retention of charisma very interesting - it feels reminiscent of how cleric turn undead worked in 0e-3.5e, in a good way. Especially since, by making the casting stat the same as a primary defensive stat, it would otherwise make this class too SAD.
One weird side effect I’m seeing is that a single-level Barbarian dip would be the best thing you could possibly do defensively, since your unarmored defense would now be your primary stat+your only pure defensive stat; your AC would be better than mage armor - increasingly so as you level up - and save a spell slot.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Phantom Menace to Society
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Warlock. No inherent specialness required, just make a deal with a shady eldritch power in a dark alley. Surely nothing bad can happen with that.
Now you've got me picturing a Celestial Warlock as an off-the-books deniable asset.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I think Warlocks are Cha based because they had to convince their patron to make the deal that literally defines the class. Maybe Int could be the secondary stat, but Cha must remain the primary stat for Warlock.
The main issue with warlocks is that they exist in media as a cautionary tale. There is no warlock in movies, songs, or books that doesn't pay a heavy price for their gifts. Keeping this in mind, those who traditionally pursue warlock pacts do so out of desperation or great determination - best reflected in D&D as Charisma's tie to willpower/force of personality.
This is lost a bit in D&D because there is no downside to warlock powers. Without a real sense of risk, it becomes less clear why a high Charisma would be needed. But it's there as an attempt to tie D&D warlocks to the classic characters and stories that warlocks come from.
(sorry not exactly on topic)
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Also, it’s just how the demarcation of flavors of power shakes out- Clerics and Druids are tied to the more typical image of forming a spiritual connection for their power, thus WIS; Wizards are the ones whose theme is gaining power by being knowledgeable and studious- yes, I know it’s in vogue to argue your Warlock is special and studied and pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and the patron(s) just happened to be discussion partners a time or two, but that’s not the main archetype/theme of the class, as demonstrated by their defining choice being who/what their patron is- thus INT; this leaves CHA as the catchall mental stat for casters who are meant to exist outside the paradigms of the original two big archetypes of D&D. Yes, it’s something of a sacred cow at this point- welcome to product identity.
I think the conversation is less about whether WoTC will do anything about it and more whether you should allow it in your own games.
I came into this conversation with the opinion that you should, but I've been convinced otherwise by this thread. I still *want* sorcerers to be con casters, because on the surface that makes more sense to me, but unfortunately the way the game balance shakes out doesn't allow that to work in a way that's fair for everyone.
My thought make it str instead cha. Reason you are saying your body is the magic it shows physical manifestations of that.
Strength tends to be the caster dump stat. This would make them distinct without any mental stat focus.
Dragonborn lore has changed a lot however dragonborn and kobalds were inclined to sorcerer because of the draconic heritage
The strength caster. AKA punching reality so hard that magic happens.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Add in blatant parodies of a certain "boy wizard goes to wizarding school" franchise and you've got yourself an anime!
Given how good con is I think you'd have to curb its other abilities a little to balance it out but yeah I think it fits better.
I think a lot of the problem is the multiclassing though I do think warlocks should be int, as when you read the class it screams int. That being said the multi classing stuff is more important because things like pact of the blade is so easy to dip to. But for example if pact of the blade created a weapon you used with a magic action in a spell attack it would not multi great with extra attack chr classes, now you'd have to take warlock to 5 to get a 2nd attack. If eldritch blast was not a cantrip but instead was a modifier you applied to cantrips at levels 5,11,17 changing base cantrips into multi attack cantrips people would not dip for eldritch blast. Change the dip abilities in ways that do not make them attractive to dip for. If warlock was int based it would have the same issue with artificers and bladesingers unless you change how the dip abilities worked.
honestly it makes just as much sense as the changes to charisma over the editions to justify it as a casting stat.
Oh yes, being handed power screams INT just because you might have spent some time looking up someone’s contact info.
I don't think its worth arguing it again, so whatever think whatever you want.
.
You know...that actually might fix all of the arguments against it being con. It's just as much a roleplay stat as charisma honestly. It doesn't interface with your hit points or your concentration saves.
I just realized that there's functionally a character who's a strength-based sorcerer in fiction. Flex Mentallo from Doom Patrol.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Just now saw this, and I have agreed for years. In particular, I do find the retention of charisma very interesting - it feels reminiscent of how cleric turn undead worked in 0e-3.5e, in a good way. Especially since, by making the casting stat the same as a primary defensive stat, it would otherwise make this class too SAD.
One weird side effect I’m seeing is that a single-level Barbarian dip would be the best thing you could possibly do defensively, since your unarmored defense would now be your primary stat+your only pure defensive stat; your AC would be better than mage armor - increasingly so as you level up - and save a spell slot.
Phantom Menace to Society