Forcing a thing to happen is charisma. Wisdom is about your resistance.
Please find any definition to prove that statement. I would be happy to concede this argument, but no one has found any evidence. Just their opinions. So far the books state the opposite of your opinion. So please present evidence.
Willpower is the ability to control oneself. This includes resisting impulses as well as external influences. In DnD, for some reason Willpower is connected to WIS (according to DMG). This is consistent with WIS saves being used to resist most mind control effects.
Imo, CON would be the better fit for willpower, as I fail to see how perceptiveness and willpower are even remotely related.This would btw. be in line with concentration saves being CON... That said, CON is a powerfull enough stat as is, so I take the inconsistency as a price for balance ;)
Forcing your own will upon others is something different. In DnD, this is best represented by "Force of personality", i.e, CHA. By extension, this is also used to force your will upon reality, e.g., sorcerers casting stat.
Forcing a thing to happen is charisma. Wisdom is about your resistance.
Please find any definition to prove that statement. I would be happy to concede this argument, but no one has found any evidence. Just their opinions. So far the books state the opposite of your opinion. So please present evidence.
the phb spellcasting entry of sorcerer(pg101 says it uses cha because;
"Charisma is the spellcasting ability for your sorcerer since the power of your magic relies on your ability to project your will into the world"
phb pg 101
so forcing things to happen through raw desire/intent is cha
Also, spellcasting entry for paladin
"Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your paladin spells, since their power derives from the strength of your convictions"
phb 84-85
strength of conviction is best represented by CHA. So in terms of just imposing your will, Cha is the most fitting.
so in terms of "willpower:control exerted to do something or restrainimpulses" Cha fits the first part
but, wisdom lines up better with this definition "willpower; the ability to controlyour own thoughts and the way in which you behave:"
so, essentially the ability to exert your will on reality/others/ and directly resist peoples attempt to do so to you, through sheer force of will, is cha. the power of your will/desire
the self control, consciousness of self that allows you to control yourself, restrain impulses, is wisdom.
Short version imposing your will is cha
will to control yourself is willpower
the second is more common in the real world, but when people think of fantastical imposing your will thats more cha related.
Forcing a thing to happen is charisma. Wisdom is about your resistance.
Please find any definition to prove that statement. I would be happy to concede this argument, but no one has found any evidence. Just their opinions. So far the books state the opposite of your opinion. So please present evidence.
Willpower is the ability to control oneself. This includes resisting impulses as well as external influences. In DnD, for some reason Willpower is connected to WIS (according to DMG). This is consistent with WIS saves being used to resist most mind control effects.
Imo, CON would be the better fit for willpower, as I fail to see how perceptiveness and willpower are even remotely related.This would btw. be in line with concentration saves being CON... That said, CON is a powerfull enough stat as is, so I take the inconsistency as a price for balance ;)
Forcing your own will upon others is something different. In DnD, this is best represented by "Force of personality", i.e, CHA. By extension, this is also used to force your will upon reality, e.g., sorcerers casting stat.
yes this is consistent with common dictionary definitions and the PHB. but wisdom does make sense being tied to self control, as part of wisdom is understanding/percieving things, and also judgement. Its attribute that is closest to self control. A high cha character could easily have no self control, but tons of control of others/world. That makes less sense for the idea of a high wisdom character, who is likely to be more self aware.
I wasn't sold on the wisdom link to willpower before, but I think it makes sense now, from certain angles.
Forcing a thing to happen is charisma. Wisdom is about your resistance.
Please find any definition to prove that statement. I would be happy to concede this argument, but no one has found any evidence. Just their opinions. So far the books state the opposite of your opinion. So please present evidence.
the phb spellcasting entry of sorcerer(pg101 says it uses cha because;
"Charisma is the spellcasting ability for your sorcerer since the power of your magic relies on your ability to project your will into the world"
phb pg 101
so forcing things to happen through raw desire/intent is cha
Also, spellcasting entry for paladin
"Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your paladin spells, since their power derives from the strength of your convictions"
phb 84-85
strength of conviction is best represented by CHA. So in terms of just imposing your will, Cha is the most fitting.
so in terms of "willpower:control exerted to do something or restrainimpulses" Cha fits the first part
but, wisdom lines up better with this definition "willpower; the ability to controlyour own thoughts and the way in which you behave:"
so, essentially the ability to exert your will on reality/others/ and directly resist peoples attempt to do so to you, through sheer force of will, is cha. the power of your will/desire
the self control, consciousness of self that allows you to control yourself, restrain impulses, is wisdom.
Short version imposing your will is cha
will to control yourself is willpower
the second is more common in the real world, but when people think of fantastical imposing your will thats more cha related.
I’ll concede on the sorcerer statement alone. The Paladin one actually makes no sense because as worded it would fall under the willpower definition, not the projection of will stated in Sorcerer description. After reading all the Spellcasting entries of all casters I will say this evidence is weak at best, but it’s better than the no evidence arguments everyone else was coming up with. So I appreciate you actually doing some research to support your stance. While I concede I will state that this just proves that Spellcasting stats are undefined. Especially if you look at what is written to describe the Wizard’s Spellcasting. Everyone who reads a spell in any book should be a Wizard by that definition. Also they didn’t even try for the Warlock.
Final note it doesn’t matter if you were sold on Wisdom representing willpower. It is RAW. Just like I now have to accept projecting your will is Charisma because it is RAW. Oddly while Devotion is Wisdom, Strength of Conviction is Charisma and I have to accept it because it is RAW. Nobody is saying RAW is perfect, because it is not, but without it we are just stating our opinions and we could do that forever. So again thank you researching and finding something.
I’ll concede on the sorcerer statement alone. The Paladin one actually makes no sense because as worded it would fall under the willpower definition, not the projection of will stated in Sorcerer description. After reading all the Spellcasting entries of all casters I will say this evidence is weak at best, but it’s better than the no evidence arguments everyone else was coming up with. So I appreciate you actually doing some research to support your stance. While I concede I will state that this just proves that Spellcasting stats are undefined. Especially if you look at what is written to describe the Wizard’s Spellcasting. Everyone who reads a spell in any book should be a Wizard by that definition. Also they didn’t even try for the Warlock.
Final note it doesn’t matter if you were sold on Wisdom representing willpower. It is RAW. Just like I now have to accept projecting your will is Charisma because it is RAW. Oddly while Devotion is Wisdom, Strength of Conviction is Charisma and I have to accept it because it is RAW. Nobody is saying RAW is perfect, because it is not, but without it we are just stating our opinions and we could do that forever. So again thank you researching and finding something.
it was interesting they totally left it out for warlock, I think they didnt have a strong reason for picking one or the other. That might be why they considered making it any mental stat in the first run through.
there isnt a strong trope tied to warlocks, and since the origin of their power varies, their could be multiple takes.
As far as wizard anyone could do it, just like anyone could become a PhD engineer, but fact is very few do. Same could be said of monk, rogue, fighter, artificer, warlock, even bard
the chosen one/born different type classes are sorcerer, barbarian, paladin
cleric and ranger druid and ranger could go either way, because some are chosen/favored by the gods, and others are just servants/in tune with powerful forces.
most classes are just extremely talented and dedicated people.
My take on everyone being a Wizard is because Bard, Cleric, and Warlock all state they study spells as well in their lore. So if the only reason the Wizard cast with Int is because he learned spells via academic study then Bard, Cleric and Warlock should be able to cast some at least some of their spells the same way. It’s just a nit pick honestly. I just feel like it was a weak description of what a wizard does to use magic.
My take on everyone being a Wizard is because Bard, Cleric, and Warlock all state they study spells as well in their lore. So if the only reason the Wizard cast with Int is because he learned spells via academic study then Bard, Cleric and Warlock should be able to cast some at least some of their spells the same way. It’s just a nit pick honestly. I just feel like it was a weak description of what a wizard does to use magic.
It doesn't matter how spells are gained, the spellcasting ability score is supposed to be about how they're cast. Bards cast using music/performance, Clerics intuitively channel their deity's power, Wizards cast by manipulating magical formulae.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Do you think that the casting stats are well defined in the PHB or DMG? What is the actual difference from between casting with Int or Wis or Cha?
No, it is not well explained. As I interpret it:
Int: You use your understanding of the fundamentals of magic to do magic.
Wis: You use your knowledge of the world and the forces that govern it to do magic.
Char: You use your willpower or inner strength to do magic.
Do you believe the Classes all have their appropriate casting stat(s) based on your understanding of the casting stats?
No.
Which Casting Stat(s) would you assign each Class?
Bard: It shouldn't be a spellcaster. He should have abilities to help his companions, and harm opponents, but not the ability to cast spells per se.
Cleric: Wis
Druid: Wis
Paladin: It shouldn't be a spellcaster.
Ranger: Wis
Sorc: Char
Warlock: Int
Wizard: Int
Would another class having a stat that differs from your assignment make you dislike the class? Which one(s)? Why?
Not that I dislike it, since it is one of my favorite classes. But it does bother me that the warlock uses char and not int. The rest of the discrepancies, which are the paladin and the bard, I don't mind being spellcasting. I just think they shouldn't be.
What other general spell casting questions would you like polled?
The need to simplify the magic system. For example, removing things like components. Another thing I would like to know is what people think about spellability not depending on the class, but on the spell. School to simplify. Examples, Illusion: Char. Divination: Wis. Abjuration: Int.
My take on everyone being a Wizard is because Bard, Cleric, and Warlock all state they study spells as well in their lore. So if the only reason the Wizard cast with Int is because he learned spells via academic study then Bard, Cleric and Warlock should be able to cast some at least some of their spells the same way. It’s just a nit pick honestly. I just feel like it was a weak description of what a wizard does to use magic.
It doesn't matter how spells are gained, the spellcasting ability score is supposed to be about how they're cast. Bards cast using music/performance, Clerics intuitively channel their deity's power, Wizards cast by manipulating magical formulae.
I cannot agree with this more wholeheartedly, and I think this is the crux of the matter.
My take on everyone being a Wizard is because Bard, Cleric, and Warlock all state they study spells as well in their lore. So if the only reason the Wizard cast with Int is because he learned spells via academic study then Bard, Cleric and Warlock should be able to cast some at least some of their spells the same way. It’s just a nit pick honestly. I just feel like it was a weak description of what a wizard does to use magic.
It doesn't matter how spells are gained, the spellcasting ability score is supposed to be about how they're cast. Bards cast using music/performance, Clerics intuitively channel their deity's power, Wizards cast by manipulating magical formulae.
You are wrong according to he books. You will even state the book made mistakes when it doesn’t align with your opinion, so I expect you will do the same here.
Spellcasting Ability
Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since you learn your spells through dedicated study and memorization. You use your Intelligence whenever a spell refers to your spellcasting ability. In addition, you use your Intelligence modifier when setting the saving throw DC for a wizard spell you cast and when making an attack roll with one.
As you can see the book doesn’t state anything about how the Wizard cast their spells. It only talks about how they learn them. I’m really tired of having debates with people using unsupported head canon theories. We are discussing a fantasy game and if we just use our individual head canon to support our views then everyone is correct and there is no reason to discuss this at all. We have to use the books to support our stances and if you can’t, then accept you are wrong and move on to the next topic.
As you can see the book doesn’t state anything about how the Wizard cast their spells. It only talks about how they learn them.
Spell attack modifier/spell save DC are only ever relevant when casting spells.
These debates stem back to topics of why each class gets whatever mental stat for their Spellcasting ability score. The honest truth is since it is fantasy any class could have any stat and it wouldn’t matter. The debate is to justify the stat choices based on what the books say. Should Warlock be a Int caster? Well according to their lore and the description of why a Wizard is an Int caster then absolutely. Should Bard be an Int caster? Well according to their lore and the description of why a Wizard is an Int caster then absolutely, but Bard actually has a portion that explains why they are Charisma caster. That puts Bard as a sometimes Int caster situation, maybe. Again none of this really matters in game terms, because each class cast with the stat the book says because that’s what the book says. We are debating deeper meaning and searching for through line justifications in the books. We probably won’t find them because each book isn’t written by one person and that alone can probably be credited for each class having different reasonings applied to its spell casting stats. According to the PHB only Bard and Sorcerer have their casting stat because of how they cast their spells. Cleric, Druid, Ranger, and Paladin have their casting stat because of the source of their power. Wizards have their casting stat because of how they learn their spells. Warlock isn’t given any explanation at all for it’s casting stat.
Let's start with your cherry-picked example from only the Wizard's spellcasting feature:
Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since you learn your spells through dedicated study and memorization. You use your Intelligence whenever a spell refers to your spellcasting ability. In addition, you use your Intelligence modifier when setting the saving throw DC for a wizard spell you cast and when making an attack roll with one.
Note that your own quote makes clear that study alone isn't enough, because it's only via memorisation that the Wizard can actually cast the spells they've copied into their spellbooks. Let's compare that to the part on preparing spells:
Preparing a new list of wizard spells requires time spent studying your spellbook and memorizing the incantations and gestures you must make to cast the spell
Again, to prepare spells you must memorise them, it's only through memorisation of the magical formulae/incantations/spells/whatever that you can actually perform spells using Intelligence as your spellcasting ability.
You know, exactly as I said, because I didn't say study isn't part of how they gain spells, I said it's not critical to how they cast them (remember, we're talking about spellcasting ability scores), that's where the memorisation comes in, hence Intelligence as the spellcasting ability score.
A Bard may well study arcane secrets, magical lore etc., but their process for casting the spells is entirely different, which is why even an intelligent, studious Bard still needs Charisma to cast their spells. Let's compare with that… actually, better yet, why don't we compare with every single spellcasting class instead of cherry picking? Here's the "X is your spellcasting ability" line from every single spell casting class and sub-class*:
Player's Handbook Classes
Bard: Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your bard spells. Your magic comes from the heart and soul you pour into the performance of your music or oration Cleric: Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for your cleric spells. The power of your spells comes from your devotion to your deity. Druid: Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for your druid spells, since your magic draws upon your devotion and attunement to nature. Fighter (Eldritch Knight): Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since you learn your spells through study and memorization. Paladin: Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your paladin spells, since their power derives from the strength of your convictions. Ranger: Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for your ranger spells, since your magic draws on your attunement to nature. Rogue (Arcane Trickster): Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since you learn your spells through dedicated study and memorization. Sorcerer: Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your sorcerer spells, since the power of your magic relies on your ability to project your will into the world. Warlock: Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your warlock spells, so you use your Charisma whenever a spell refers to your spellcasting ability. ??? Wizard: Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since you learn your spells through dedicated study and memorization.
Others
Artificer: Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for your artificer spells; your understanding of the theory behind magic allows you to wield these spells with superior skill Blood Hunter (Order of the Profaned Soul): Your chosen Hemocraft ability (Intelligence or Wisdom) is your spellcasting ability for your warlock spells, so you use your Hemocraft ability whenever a spell refers to your spellcasting ability.
*The author of this post accepts no responsibility for distress or injury caused either directly or indirectly by the accidental omission of your favourite spellcasting class or sub-class.
The only three casters to mention study are Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight, both of which use identical text to the Wizard, with all three very specifically mentioning not "study" but "study and memorization".
The only two that are unclear in that text on why the score is what it is are Warlock (as it just says what your score is and no more) and the Artificer ("understanding of the theory" maybe? Also says "wield" but neither really clarifies), though given the latter's invention focus I don't think many would doubt that the Artificer should be Intelligence.
And for fun, let's include the equivalent preparation text for every caster while we're at it:
Player's Handbook Classes
Bard: n/a (can't prepare spells, can only change on level up) Cleric: You can change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of cleric spells requires time spent in prayer and meditation Druid: You can also change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of druid spells requires time spent in prayer and meditation Fighter (Eldritch Knight): n/a (can't prepare spells, can only change on level up) Paladin: You can change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of paladin spells requires time spent in prayer and meditation Ranger: n/a (can't prepare spells, can only change on level up) Sorcerer: n/a (can't prepare spells, can only change on level up) Warlock: n/a (can't prepare spells, can only change on level up) Wizard: Preparing a new list of wizard spells requires time spent studying your spellbook and memorizing the incantations and gestures you must make to cast the spell
Others
Artificer: You can change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of artificer spells requires time spent tinkering with your spellcasting focuses Blood Hunter: n/a (can't prepare spells, can only change on level up)
No cherry picking or insults required.
The Wizard class features makes clear that study alone isn't the whole story, you can study all you like, but the memorisation part is how the spells actually go from learned to prepared, i.e- you can cast it, you know, the only part that matters when talking about spellcasting ability scores, at least until Wizards of the Coast surprise us with a separate spell-learning ability score. 😂
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
As you can see the book doesn’t state anything about how the Wizard cast their spells. It only talks about how they learn them.
Spell attack modifier/spell save DC are only ever relevant when casting spells.
These debates stem back to topics of why each class gets whatever mental stat for their Spellcasting ability score. The honest truth is since it is fantasy any class could have any stat and it wouldn’t matter. The debate is to justify the stat choices based on what the books say. Should Warlock be a Int caster? Well according to their lore and the description of why a Wizard is an Int caster then absolutely. Should Bard be an Int caster? Well according to their lore and the description of why a Wizard is an Int caster then absolutely, but Bard actually has a portion that explains why they are Charisma caster. That puts Bard as a sometimes Int caster situation, maybe. Again none of this really matters in game terms, because each class cast with the stat the book says because that’s what the book says. We are debating deeper meaning and searching for through line justifications in the books. We probably won’t find them because each book isn’t written by one person and that alone can probably be credited for each class having different reasonings applied to its spell casting stats. According to the PHB only Bard and Sorcerer have their casting stat because of how they cast their spells. Cleric, Druid, Ranger, and Paladin have their casting stat because of the source of their power. Wizards have their casting stat because of how they learn their spells. Warlock isn’t given any explanation at all for it’s casting stat.
its not as simple as direct quotes from the book, You can also gain derived knowledge from something base on logic and reasoning. Also, somethings are left out of the book, and its expected that players fill it in, based on general ideas and understanding.There is also lore.
first off, knowledge, is not intelligence. i can know something because some one told me, that isnt a reflection of my intelligence.
Second, the baseline knowledge of words, and the appropriate items arent what determines how effective the wizards spell is. page 112, of the phb, "though the casting of the typical spell requires merely the utterance of a few strange words, fleeting gestures, and sometimes a pinch or clump of exotic materials, these surface components barely hint at the expertise attained after years of apprenticeship and countless hours of study"
According to the lore and the books, a bard cannot be an int caster, if they learn their spells through primarily intellegience, those are not a bards version of those spells, the bards are casting based on a musical understanding/ability to harness the words of creation. If they learn/cast the spell based on a wizards formulas, and ways of obtaining that knowledge, They are casting based on their intelligence, and therefor are casting those spells like a wizard would. Spell casting is not about the end result, its also about the process. If someone creates a musical algorithm, that creates a song through a mathematic interpolation of the wind. That doesnt mean they are a musician. likewise, if i cast a spell based on following the internal rhythym of universe, i am not a wizard.
Warlocks, could be intelligent, or non intelligent, that is not how they got their knowledge. that isnt what determines how powerful or effective they are. If the warlock is casting/learning their spells, based on the rigorous and deep undestanding of wizardly concepts, forumlae and principles, they are a wizard, even if they got that knowledge by stealing a book. If someone burns the knowledge and expertise and experience into my brain, i am not casting/learning based on my intelligence, i am casting/learning based on the person who burns the knowledge expertise and experience into my brain.
The classes arent simply about results. a level 1 barbarian is getting +2 damage via rage, a level 1 fighter is getting +2 damage based on technique (duelist). These are not the same thing just because they have the same result. How i got that extra damage is an important part of why i am considered a barbarian, and they are considered a fighter.
a highly intelligient man who makes deals with a devil to recieve an ancient spell book, and reads it to gain knowledge could still be a wizard, he is a wizard who made a pact, but still a wizard,
a man who went to school for years(like a wizard) to study how to capture the essence of the words of creation through song, music, or dance, is still a bard.
a warlock who plays one thousand songs so that an ancient being can give them an eldritch invocation which "imbues them with magical ability" (phb 107) is still a warlock.
warlock has the best claim for using multiple stats, because how they exactly utilize or learn their power is not as concrete. It might be more narrative dependent. That said, warlocks using their spellcasting ability not just for spells, but also for spell like abilities given by the patron. There is no real reason those would be based on inteligience, or wisdom, being that you didnt obtain them that way.
Sorcerer: Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your sorcerer spells, since the power of your magic relies on your ability to project your will into the world. Warlock: Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your warlock spells, so you use your Charisma whenever a spell refers to your spellcasting ability. ??? Wizard: Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since you learn your spells through dedicated study and memorization.
Others
Artificer: Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for your artificer spells; your understanding of the theory behind magic allows you to wield these spells with superior skill Blood Hunter (Order of the Profaned Soul): Your chosen Hemocraft ability (Intelligence or Wisdom) is your spellcasting ability for your warlock spells, so you use your Hemocraft ability whenever a spell refers to your spellcasting ability.
*The author of this post accepts no responsibility for distress or injury caused either directly or indirectly by the accidental omission of your favourite spellcasting class or sub-class.
The only three casters to mention study are Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight, both of which use identical text to the Wizard, with all three very specifically mentioning not "study" but "study and memorization". The only two that are unclear are Warlock (just says what your score is) and the Artificer ("understanding of the theory" maybe?).
And for fun, let's include the equivalent preparation text for every caster while we're at it:
Player's Handbook Classes
Bard: n/a (can't prepare spells, can only change on level up) Cleric: You can change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of cleric spells requires time spent in prayer and meditation Druid: You can also change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of druid spells requires time spent in prayer and meditation Fighter (Eldritch Knight): n/a (can't prepare spells, can only change on level up) Paladin: You can change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of paladin spells requires time spent in prayer and meditation Ranger: n/a (can't prepare spells, can only change on level up) Sorcerer: n/a (can't prepare spells, can only change on level up) Warlock: n/a (can't prepare spells, can only change on level up) Wizard: Preparing a new list of wizard spells requires time spent studying your spellbook and memorizing the incantations and gestures you must make to cast the spell
Others
Artificer: You can change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of artificer spells requires time spent tinkering with your spellcasting focuses Blood Hunter: n/a (can't prepare spells, can only change on level up)
No cherry picking or childish insults required.
The Wizard class features makes clear that study alone isn't the whole story, you can study all you like, but the memorisation part is how the spells actually go from learned to prepared, i.e- you can cast it, you know, the only part that matters when talking about spellcasting ability scores, at least until Wizards of the Coast surprise us with a separate spell-learning ability score. 😂
memorization is only one facet of intelligence, and not really the most important one, but i digress.
mostly agree, though i would say that understanding the theory behind magic is the most clearly an intelligience based activity. understanding theory is linked to critical thinking, mental acuity, accuracy of recall, logic, all the parts of the definition of intelligence.
Really, only the warlock is questionable, and even then, if you had to pick just one, cha makes the most sense because its similar to sorcerer's aquisition in many ways.
mostly agree, though i would say that understanding the theory behind magic is the most clearly an intelligience based activity. understanding theory is linked to critical thinking, mental acuity, accuracy of recall, logic, all the parts of the definition of intelligence.
Sorry, I should have clarified; when I said the Artificer text was unclear I meant in terms of where the emphasis should be placed for the part about how they actually cast the spells as it mentions "understanding theory" and also says "wield the spells" neither is clearly "this is what they do to cast".
That whole class is very much geared towards experimentation/invention etc. though so Intelligence is the clear winner for score, I've no doubt on that, I've edited my post to make the intent clearer.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
mostly agree, though i would say that understanding the theory behind magic is the most clearly an intelligience based activity. understanding theory is linked to critical thinking, mental acuity, accuracy of recall, logic, all the parts of the definition of intelligence.
Sorry, I should have clarified; when I said the Artificer text was unclear I meant in terms of where the emphasis should be placed for the part about how they actually cast the spells as it mentions "understanding theory" and also says "wield the spells" neither is clearly "this is what they do to cast".
That whole class is very much geared towards experimentation/invention etc. though so Intelligence is the clear winner for score, I've no doubt on that, I've edited my post to make the intent clearer.
Well thats probably because they arent flavor wise necessarily casting at all. so they definitely fudge artificer a lot due to variation in flavor.
Let's start with your cherry-picked example from only the Wizard's spellcasting feature:
Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since you learn your spells through dedicated study and memorization. You use your Intelligence whenever a spell refers to your spellcasting ability. In addition, you use your Intelligence modifier when setting the saving throw DC for a wizard spell you cast and when making an attack roll with one.
Note that your own quote makes clear that study alone isn't enough, because it's only via memorisation that the Wizard can actually cast the spells they've copied into their spellbooks. Let's compare that to the part on preparing spells:
Preparing a new list of wizard spells requires time spent studying your spellbook and memorizing the incantations and gestures you must make to cast the spell
Again, to prepare spells you must memorise them, it's only through memorisation of the magical formulae/incantations/spells/whatever that you can actually perform spells using Intelligence as your spellcasting ability.
You know, exactly as I said, because I didn't say study isn't part of how they gain spells, I said it's not critical to how they cast them (remember, we're talking about spellcasting ability scores), that's where the memorisation comes in, hence Intelligence as the spellcasting ability score.
A Bard may well study arcane secrets, magical lore etc., but their process for casting the spells is entirely different, which is why even an intelligent, studious Bard still needs Charisma to cast their spells. Let's compare with that… actually, better yet, why don't we compare with every single spellcasting class instead of cherry picking? Here's the "X is your spellcasting ability" line from every single spell casting class and sub-class*:
Player's Handbook Classes
Bard: Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your bard spells. Your magic comes from the heart and soul you pour into the performance of your music or oration Cleric: Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for your cleric spells. The power of your spells comes from your devotion to your deity. Druid: Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for your druid spells, since your magic draws upon your devotion and attunement to nature. Fighter (Eldritch Knight): Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since you learn your spells through study and memorization. Paladin: Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your paladin spells, since their power derives from the strength of your convictions. Ranger: Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for your ranger spells, since your magic draws on your attunement to nature. Rogue (Arcane Trickster): Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since you learn your spells through dedicated study and memorization. Sorcerer: Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your sorcerer spells, since the power of your magic relies on your ability to project your will into the world. Warlock: Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your warlock spells, so you use your Charisma whenever a spell refers to your spellcasting ability. ??? Wizard: Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since you learn your spells through dedicated study and memorization.
Others
Artificer: Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for your artificer spells; your understanding of the theory behind magic allows you to wield these spells with superior skill Blood Hunter (Order of the Profaned Soul): Your chosen Hemocraft ability (Intelligence or Wisdom) is your spellcasting ability for your warlock spells, so you use your Hemocraft ability whenever a spell refers to your spellcasting ability.
*The author of this post accepts no responsibility for distress or injury caused either directly or indirectly by the accidental omission of your favourite spellcasting class or sub-class.
The only three casters to mention study are Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight, both of which use identical text to the Wizard, with all three very specifically mentioning not "study" but "study and memorization".
The only two that are unclear in that text on why the score is what it is are Warlock (as it just says what your score is and no more) and the Artificer ("understanding of the theory" maybe? Also says "wield" but neither really clarifies), though given the latter's invention focus I don't think many would doubt that the Artificer should be Intelligence.
And for fun, let's include the equivalent preparation text for every caster while we're at it:
Player's Handbook Classes
Bard: n/a (can't prepare spells, can only change on level up) Cleric: You can change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of cleric spells requires time spent in prayer and meditation Druid: You can also change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of druid spells requires time spent in prayer and meditation Fighter (Eldritch Knight): n/a (can't prepare spells, can only change on level up) Paladin: You can change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of paladin spells requires time spent in prayer and meditation Ranger: n/a (can't prepare spells, can only change on level up) Sorcerer: n/a (can't prepare spells, can only change on level up) Warlock: n/a (can't prepare spells, can only change on level up) Wizard: Preparing a new list of wizard spells requires time spent studying your spellbook and memorizing the incantations and gestures you must make to cast the spell
Others
Artificer: You can change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of artificer spells requires time spent tinkering with your spellcasting focuses Blood Hunter: n/a (can't prepare spells, can only change on level up)
No cherry picking or insults required.
The Wizard class features makes clear that study alone isn't the whole story, you can study all you like, but the memorisation part is how the spells actually go from learned to prepared, i.e- you can cast it, you know, the only part that matters when talking about spellcasting ability scores, at least until Wizards of the Coast surprise us with a separate spell-learning ability score. 😂
All these words and still a failure to admit you were wrong.
It doesn't matter how spells are gained, the spellcasting ability score is supposed to be about how they're cast. Bards cast using music/performance, Clerics intuitively channel their deity's power, Wizards cast by manipulating magical formulae.
Everything you said about memorization doesn’t change that they haven’t described how a Wizard cast spells. Also you definitely did some cherry picking but it’s okay. No one has time to reprint the whole book.
Gwar you can’t actually use logic when discussing fantasy unless you have something solid to measure it against. The only measure we have is the books. Attempting to just use logic to discuss fantasy without something acting as a measure is illogical. It becomes a game of “I think,” and their is no conclusion to that except people getting tired of playing. It’s honestly never ending since someone else can chime in at any point with another “I think.”
Gwar you can’t actually use logic when discussing fantasy unless you have something solid to measure it against. The only measure we have is the books. Attempting to just use logic to discuss fantasy without something acting as a measure is illogical. It becomes a game of “I think,” and their is no conclusion to that except people getting tired of playing. It’s honestly never ending since someone else can chime in at any point with another “I think.”
logic and reasoning do apply to most fantasy settings. But even that aside.
Its fine to have discussions based on "i think" especially in something like DnD, because dnd isnt about just one person's understanding or one person's take on the rules. Every table is going to involve a meeting of the minds bewteen various people. And even though we may do a lot of circular talking in this forum, i think people are trying to understand how other people see things, and maybe learn, or figure out something they can take back into their RPG games. Reality is dnd isnt just whats in the book, its how people choose to play it as well.
As per this topic. Looking at the various ways in which they have applied the mental stats, and how people interpret them, or what parts stayed with them and what they forgot.for the most part, i can See what the designers were thinking ,kind of. The thread is a thought experiment anyway, the rules are what they are. The only class they seem to be even thinking about altering the spellcasting stat for is warlock.
To be perfectly honest, i think the feedback on the stat switching warlock was negative because they felt it would be too powerful with other classes. i dont think it was because wisdom or int clashed too heavily with warlock concepts, or their own ideas for mental casting stats.
Also, i would say for the most part, The rules are for creating a baseline experience. Most of the classes are linked to stat because that stat is linked to the fantasy or charachter concept they are going for. For most of them, the stat chosen fits for casting. I think the problem is, for people who want to get more creative, the overall stat system can be limiting. But thats not something they can fix much with this system, without kind of destroying its appeal for people who like that they can get charachters close to some fantasy they wanted to play without being very experienced.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Willpower is the ability to control oneself. This includes resisting impulses as well as external influences. In DnD, for some reason Willpower is connected to WIS (according to DMG). This is consistent with WIS saves being used to resist most mind control effects.
Imo, CON would be the better fit for willpower, as I fail to see how perceptiveness and willpower are even remotely related.This would btw. be in line with concentration saves being CON... That said, CON is a powerfull enough stat as is, so I take the inconsistency as a price for balance ;)
Forcing your own will upon others is something different. In DnD, this is best represented by "Force of personality", i.e, CHA. By extension, this is also used to force your will upon reality, e.g., sorcerers casting stat.
the phb spellcasting entry of sorcerer(pg101 says it uses cha because;
so forcing things to happen through raw desire/intent is cha
Also, spellcasting entry for paladin
strength of conviction is best represented by CHA. So in terms of just imposing your will, Cha is the most fitting.
so in terms of "willpower:control exerted to do something or restrain impulses" Cha fits the first part
but, wisdom lines up better with this definition "willpower; the ability to control your own thoughts and the way in which you behave:"
so, essentially the ability to exert your will on reality/others/ and directly resist peoples attempt to do so to you, through sheer force of will, is cha. the power of your will/desire
the self control, consciousness of self that allows you to control yourself, restrain impulses, is wisdom.
Short version imposing your will is cha
will to control yourself is willpower
the second is more common in the real world, but when people think of fantastical imposing your will thats more cha related.
yes this is consistent with common dictionary definitions and the PHB. but wisdom does make sense being tied to self control, as part of wisdom is understanding/percieving things, and also judgement. Its attribute that is closest to self control. A high cha character could easily have no self control, but tons of control of others/world. That makes less sense for the idea of a high wisdom character, who is likely to be more self aware.
I wasn't sold on the wisdom link to willpower before, but I think it makes sense now, from certain angles.
I’ll concede on the sorcerer statement alone. The Paladin one actually makes no sense because as worded it would fall under the willpower definition, not the projection of will stated in Sorcerer description.
After reading all the Spellcasting entries of all casters I will say this evidence is weak at best, but it’s better than the no evidence arguments everyone else was coming up with. So I appreciate you actually doing some research to support your stance. While I concede I will state that this just proves that Spellcasting stats are undefined. Especially if you look at what is written to describe the Wizard’s Spellcasting. Everyone who reads a spell in any book should be a Wizard by that definition. Also they didn’t even try for the Warlock.
Final note it doesn’t matter if you were sold on Wisdom representing willpower. It is RAW. Just like I now have to accept projecting your will is Charisma because it is RAW. Oddly while Devotion is Wisdom, Strength of Conviction is Charisma and I have to accept it because it is RAW. Nobody is saying RAW is perfect, because it is not, but without it we are just stating our opinions and we could do that forever. So again thank you researching and finding something.
it was interesting they totally left it out for warlock, I think they didnt have a strong reason for picking one or the other. That might be why they considered making it any mental stat in the first run through.
there isnt a strong trope tied to warlocks, and since the origin of their power varies, their could be multiple takes.
As far as wizard anyone could do it, just like anyone could become a PhD engineer, but fact is very few do. Same could be said of monk, rogue, fighter, artificer, warlock, even bard
the chosen one/born different type classes are sorcerer, barbarian, paladin
cleric and ranger druid and ranger could go either way, because some are chosen/favored by the gods, and others are just servants/in tune with powerful forces.
most classes are just extremely talented and dedicated people.
My take on everyone being a Wizard is because Bard, Cleric, and Warlock all state they study spells as well in their lore. So if the only reason the Wizard cast with Int is because he learned spells via academic study then Bard, Cleric and Warlock should be able to cast some at least some of their spells the same way. It’s just a nit pick honestly. I just feel like it was a weak description of what a wizard does to use magic.
It doesn't matter how spells are gained, the spellcasting ability score is supposed to be about how they're cast. Bards cast using music/performance, Clerics intuitively channel their deity's power, Wizards cast by manipulating magical formulae.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Do you think that the casting stats are well defined in the PHB or DMG? What is the actual difference from between casting with Int or Wis or Cha?
No, it is not well explained. As I interpret it:
Int: You use your understanding of the fundamentals of magic to do magic.
Wis: You use your knowledge of the world and the forces that govern it to do magic.
Char: You use your willpower or inner strength to do magic.
Do you believe the Classes all have their appropriate casting stat(s) based on your understanding of the casting stats?
No.
Which Casting Stat(s) would you assign each Class?
Bard: It shouldn't be a spellcaster. He should have abilities to help his companions, and harm opponents, but not the ability to cast spells per se.
Cleric: Wis
Druid: Wis
Paladin: It shouldn't be a spellcaster.
Ranger: Wis
Sorc: Char
Warlock: Int
Wizard: Int
Would another class having a stat that differs from your assignment make you dislike the class? Which one(s)? Why?
Not that I dislike it, since it is one of my favorite classes. But it does bother me that the warlock uses char and not int. The rest of the discrepancies, which are the paladin and the bard, I don't mind being spellcasting. I just think they shouldn't be.
What other general spell casting questions would you like polled?
The need to simplify the magic system. For example, removing things like components. Another thing I would like to know is what people think about spellability not depending on the class, but on the spell. School to simplify. Examples, Illusion: Char. Divination: Wis. Abjuration: Int.
I cannot agree with this more wholeheartedly, and I think this is the crux of the matter.
You are wrong according to he books. You will even state the book made mistakes when it doesn’t align with your opinion, so I expect you will do the same here.
Spellcasting Ability
Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since you learn your spells through dedicated study and memorization. You use your Intelligence whenever a spell refers to your spellcasting ability. In addition, you use your Intelligence modifier when setting the saving throw DC for a wizard spell you cast and when making an attack roll with one.
As you can see the book doesn’t state anything about how the Wizard cast their spells. It only talks about how they learn them. I’m really tired of having debates with people using unsupported head canon theories. We are discussing a fantasy game and if we just use our individual head canon to support our views then everyone is correct and there is no reason to discuss this at all. We have to use the books to support our stances and if you can’t, then accept you are wrong and move on to the next topic.
Spell attack modifier/spell save DC are only ever relevant when casting spells.
These debates stem back to topics of why each class gets whatever mental stat for their Spellcasting ability score. The honest truth is since it is fantasy any class could have any stat and it wouldn’t matter. The debate is to justify the stat choices based on what the books say. Should Warlock be a Int caster? Well according to their lore and the description of why a Wizard is an Int caster then absolutely. Should Bard be an Int caster? Well according to their lore and the description of why a Wizard is an Int caster then absolutely, but Bard actually has a portion that explains why they are Charisma caster. That puts Bard as a sometimes Int caster situation, maybe.
Again none of this really matters in game terms, because each class cast with the stat the book says because that’s what the book says. We are debating deeper meaning and searching for through line justifications in the books. We probably won’t find them because each book isn’t written by one person and that alone can probably be credited for each class having different reasonings applied to its spell casting stats. According to the PHB only Bard and Sorcerer have their casting stat because of how they cast their spells. Cleric, Druid, Ranger, and Paladin have their casting stat because of the source of their power. Wizards have their casting stat because of how they learn their spells. Warlock isn’t given any explanation at all for it’s casting stat.
And yet…
Let's start with your cherry-picked example from only the Wizard's spellcasting feature:
Note that your own quote makes clear that study alone isn't enough, because it's only via memorisation that the Wizard can actually cast the spells they've copied into their spellbooks. Let's compare that to the part on preparing spells:
Again, to prepare spells you must memorise them, it's only through memorisation of the magical formulae/incantations/spells/whatever that you can actually perform spells using Intelligence as your spellcasting ability.
You know, exactly as I said, because I didn't say study isn't part of how they gain spells, I said it's not critical to how they cast them (remember, we're talking about spellcasting ability scores), that's where the memorisation comes in, hence Intelligence as the spellcasting ability score.
A Bard may well study arcane secrets, magical lore etc., but their process for casting the spells is entirely different, which is why even an intelligent, studious Bard still needs Charisma to cast their spells. Let's compare with that… actually, better yet, why don't we compare with every single spellcasting class instead of cherry picking? Here's the "X is your spellcasting ability" line from every single spell casting class and sub-class*:
*The author of this post accepts no responsibility for distress or injury caused either directly or indirectly by the accidental omission of your favourite spellcasting class or sub-class.
The only three casters to mention study are Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight, both of which use identical text to the Wizard, with all three very specifically mentioning not "study" but "study and memorization".
The only two that are unclear in that text on why the score is what it is are Warlock (as it just says what your score is and no more) and the Artificer ("understanding of the theory" maybe? Also says "wield" but neither really clarifies), though given the latter's invention focus I don't think many would doubt that the Artificer should be Intelligence.
And for fun, let's include the equivalent preparation text for every caster while we're at it:
No cherry picking or insults required.
The Wizard class features makes clear that study alone isn't the whole story, you can study all you like, but the memorisation part is how the spells actually go from learned to prepared, i.e- you can cast it, you know, the only part that matters when talking about spellcasting ability scores, at least until Wizards of the Coast surprise us with a separate spell-learning ability score. 😂
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
its not as simple as direct quotes from the book, You can also gain derived knowledge from something base on logic and reasoning. Also, somethings are left out of the book, and its expected that players fill it in, based on general ideas and understanding.There is also lore.
first off, knowledge, is not intelligence. i can know something because some one told me, that isnt a reflection of my intelligence.
Second, the baseline knowledge of words, and the appropriate items arent what determines how effective the wizards spell is. page 112, of the phb, "though the casting of the typical spell requires merely the utterance of a few strange words, fleeting gestures, and sometimes a pinch or clump of exotic materials, these surface components barely hint at the expertise attained after years of apprenticeship and countless hours of study"
According to the lore and the books, a bard cannot be an int caster, if they learn their spells through primarily intellegience, those are not a bards version of those spells, the bards are casting based on a musical understanding/ability to harness the words of creation. If they learn/cast the spell based on a wizards formulas, and ways of obtaining that knowledge, They are casting based on their intelligence, and therefor are casting those spells like a wizard would. Spell casting is not about the end result, its also about the process. If someone creates a musical algorithm, that creates a song through a mathematic interpolation of the wind. That doesnt mean they are a musician. likewise, if i cast a spell based on following the internal rhythym of universe, i am not a wizard.
Warlocks, could be intelligent, or non intelligent, that is not how they got their knowledge. that isnt what determines how powerful or effective they are. If the warlock is casting/learning their spells, based on the rigorous and deep undestanding of wizardly concepts, forumlae and principles, they are a wizard, even if they got that knowledge by stealing a book. If someone burns the knowledge and expertise and experience into my brain, i am not casting/learning based on my intelligence, i am casting/learning based on the person who burns the knowledge expertise and experience into my brain.
The classes arent simply about results. a level 1 barbarian is getting +2 damage via rage, a level 1 fighter is getting +2 damage based on technique (duelist). These are not the same thing just because they have the same result. How i got that extra damage is an important part of why i am considered a barbarian, and they are considered a fighter.
a highly intelligient man who makes deals with a devil to recieve an ancient spell book, and reads it to gain knowledge could still be a wizard, he is a wizard who made a pact, but still a wizard,
a man who went to school for years(like a wizard) to study how to capture the essence of the words of creation through song, music, or dance, is still a bard.
a warlock who plays one thousand songs so that an ancient being can give them an eldritch invocation which "imbues them with magical ability" (phb 107) is still a warlock.
warlock has the best claim for using multiple stats, because how they exactly utilize or learn their power is not as concrete. It might be more narrative dependent. That said, warlocks using their spellcasting ability not just for spells, but also for spell like abilities given by the patron. There is no real reason those would be based on inteligience, or wisdom, being that you didnt obtain them that way.
memorization is only one facet of intelligence, and not really the most important one, but i digress.
mostly agree, though i would say that understanding the theory behind magic is the most clearly an intelligience based activity. understanding theory is linked to critical thinking, mental acuity, accuracy of recall, logic, all the parts of the definition of intelligence.
Really, only the warlock is questionable, and even then, if you had to pick just one, cha makes the most sense because its similar to sorcerer's aquisition in many ways.
Sorry, I should have clarified; when I said the Artificer text was unclear I meant in terms of where the emphasis should be placed for the part about how they actually cast the spells as it mentions "understanding theory" and also says "wield the spells" neither is clearly "this is what they do to cast".
That whole class is very much geared towards experimentation/invention etc. though so Intelligence is the clear winner for score, I've no doubt on that, I've edited my post to make the intent clearer.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Well thats probably because they arent flavor wise necessarily casting at all. so they definitely fudge artificer a lot due to variation in flavor.
All these words and still a failure to admit you were wrong.
Everything you said about memorization doesn’t change that they haven’t described how a Wizard cast spells. Also you definitely did some cherry picking but it’s okay. No one has time to reprint the whole book.
Gwar you can’t actually use logic when discussing fantasy unless you have something solid to measure it against. The only measure we have is the books. Attempting to just use logic to discuss fantasy without something acting as a measure is illogical. It becomes a game of “I think,” and their is no conclusion to that except people getting tired of playing. It’s honestly never ending since someone else can chime in at any point with another “I think.”
logic and reasoning do apply to most fantasy settings. But even that aside.
Its fine to have discussions based on "i think" especially in something like DnD, because dnd isnt about just one person's understanding or one person's take on the rules. Every table is going to involve a meeting of the minds bewteen various people. And even though we may do a lot of circular talking in this forum, i think people are trying to understand how other people see things, and maybe learn, or figure out something they can take back into their RPG games. Reality is dnd isnt just whats in the book, its how people choose to play it as well.
As per this topic. Looking at the various ways in which they have applied the mental stats, and how people interpret them, or what parts stayed with them and what they forgot.for the most part, i can See what the designers were thinking ,kind of. The thread is a thought experiment anyway, the rules are what they are. The only class they seem to be even thinking about altering the spellcasting stat for is warlock.
To be perfectly honest, i think the feedback on the stat switching warlock was negative because they felt it would be too powerful with other classes. i dont think it was because wisdom or int clashed too heavily with warlock concepts, or their own ideas for mental casting stats.
Also, i would say for the most part, The rules are for creating a baseline experience. Most of the classes are linked to stat because that stat is linked to the fantasy or charachter concept they are going for. For most of them, the stat chosen fits for casting. I think the problem is, for people who want to get more creative, the overall stat system can be limiting. But thats not something they can fix much with this system, without kind of destroying its appeal for people who like that they can get charachters close to some fantasy they wanted to play without being very experienced.