Skip to content

Sorcerer CHA based casting table

AaronDemonciaAaronDemoncia Member Posts: 31
I'd love for sorcerers to work properly on a system similar to Clerics. As CHA is essentially Force of Will which sorcerers cast with raw energies and 'brute force' i figured using a table as following would be fair and add some flavour to playing whats considered hands down the single best class in the game and give some love to the least loved ability score in a single blow
	Ability 		Bonus 			% Spell 		Max Spells 
Score Spells Failure Known/level
3 - 80 -5
4 - 75 -5
5 - 70 -4
6 - 65 -3
7 - 60 -2
8 - 55 -1
9 - 50 0
10 - 45 0
11 - 40 0
12 - 35 0
13 1st 30 0
14 1st 25 +1
15 2nd 20 +1
16 2nd 15 +1
17 3rd 10 +1
18 4th 5 +1
19 1st,4th 0 +2
20 2nd,4th 0 +2
21 3rd,5th 0 +2
22 4th,5th 0 +2
23 5th,5th 0 +2
24 6th,6th 0 +3
25 6th,7th 0 +3
This could allow for ability drain to be altered in a way that could affect all stats aside from str drain.
to prevent being stymied by the problems ability drain could have, if its coded similarly to Midflayer Int drain, it wouldnt have any different side effects aside from lossing the ability to cast those spells that day etc.

Table formatting. -Jalily

Comments

  • JalilyJalily Member Posts: 4,681
    % spell failure is not implemented for priests either. In BG, Wild Mages are the only class that can fail to cast their spells under normal conditions.
  • AaronDemonciaAaronDemoncia Member Posts: 31
    Might as well add that on there too then xD I will however admit to making the proposed spell failure more drastic to compensate for the otherwise battering ram approach sorcerers have in combat, and the (nearly) unlimited spells they have for any given un-modded encounter.
    Ive always disliked how the books tables say one thing but the games implamentation has been different, Like, Why wasnt wisdom based bonus's to saves implamented at character creation like shorty bonus'? etc.
    Also thanks for the table formatting @Jalily
  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704
    Why add spell failure, and worst, why add so high % of spell failure chance, 18 charisma shoudn't be imputed any spell failure at all. I don't agree with this table, mod it if you want, no problem for me, but i'd rather stick with the old system than this.
  • AaronDemonciaAaronDemoncia Member Posts: 31
    edited May 2013
    why? because sorcerers are shotgunning spells, even more-so than wildmages. the spell failures are prospective and are easily changable by any means.
    The old system is ad-hoc and non-functional. A sorcerer need only have 9 int to be an almighty destructive force faerun couldn't stop unless it went spartan and murdered them all at birth.
    Compounded by even the games character creation screen comes just short of outright lying to you by only barely mentioning that sorcerers use it and then completely failing to explain how.
    ANY modification to the system to reflect how sorcerer is supposed to play is a boon the current game lacks. the proposed table even taken in pieces is intended to assist even the Dragon Desciple at higher levels while still giving the atypical sorcerer an advantage to compensate for the kit mods. @Kamuizin
  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704
    The old system maybe be not working correctly, but i'm sure it's functional. Could be better, a lot better as many things in BG, but if i have to change something i would do this to improve, not to harm.

    There's an harmony between sorceres and wizards, sorceres take longer to reach the new arcane circles and have more casting spells to use, limited on diversity. Wizards for another hand have more diversity, and at late levels wizards could keep an chain contingency, contingency, spell trigger, spell sequence and minor spell sequence, all togheter, what can be even taken as more spells to cast.

    Every class has it's benefits and penalities, the best kind of sorcerer, an battle mage fighter/sorcerer isn't even possible to be done in BG.

    I didn't get what you meant in your phrase:

    "Compounded by even the games character creation screen comes just short of outright lying to you by only barely mentioning that sorcerers use it and then completely failing to explain how. "

    But the following sentence isn't truth, this table you provided isn't official by any D&D rule standard, spell failure for arcane class comes only from armor and shield use. while a cleric with low wisdom can spell failure (what is standard rule), he's not a fragile stick that can't hold a single turn in melee combat.

    Instead of an cumulative chart of bonus spell that would end making a sorcerer more overpower than it already is (by your own statement), use the true bonus set to the class by higher Charisma, penality to saving throws against the sorcerer spells and bonus spells, those are standard D&D rules, below a link to help:

    http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Ability_Scores


    You're gonna need to adapt the table, cos it's labeled for 3.5 E, gonna need to addapt to 1-25 ability score system.

    Obs: by the way the charisma bonus spells are taken as bonus spells per day, so they're not locked at an set value, if a sorcerer suffer charisma drain (be it permanent or temporary), that will reduce the spell bonus that come from charisma.
  • AaronDemonciaAaronDemoncia Member Posts: 31
    sadly modifying something from 3rd edition isnt really in the spirit of 2nd edition where classes were careers instead of flavours. and modifying spells individually would be prohibitivly difficult because of the already stingy engine.
    i find Sorcerer no more broken than dual classing, I find them VERY un-initiated unfriendly because the game doesnt allow you to swap out spells at levelups like 3rd edition built the class around. the additional spells per cha helps to alleviate it and doesnt exactly make the class any more broken as having more 4th level spells available doesnt mean you wont be casting spells other than stoneskin etc anyhow.
    ideally id have bonus spells based on intellegence and have more correllation between the 3 mental attributes and spellcasting classes than there is.
    Your confusion on my character creation statement is founded, i mistakenly didnt read it well enough. Yes it DOES state that sorcerers use intellegence (in capitol lettering even), but the Manual to the game doesn't explain how sorcerers are affected at all. If one were to assume it used the INT table exactly as is you run into a problem with 2 of tables tables lists, 1 Sorceres cap at 6 spells a level anyway, the % to learn isnt a misinformation because they dont learn from scrolls anyway, and 2 the max spell a level is entirly unimplemented.
    the character creation DOES however explain that sorcerer spells are intuitive and not logically based. intiution isnt even a INT based attribute in any edition of dnd or pathfinder. It just makes the table ..... well pointless.
    id be fine with PROPER implementation of the INT table, requiring 18 int for lvl 9 spells etc, but i figured if it was possible, and they were willing to alter the class and its spell progression anyhow, that perhaps a more in line with class implamentation would be more immersive.
    @Kamuizin for his descussion and @Jalily for info on changing the classes int requirement clarification
  • SixheadeddogSixheadeddog Member Posts: 197
    Well, as a life-long D&D player, I've always felt the Sorcerer is one of the dumbest classes ever. I will say I prefer the Sorcerer over the Mage in Baldur's Gate, if only because I think that an "MP" spellcasting system works better in a video game than core D&D's spell memorization system... but the idea of a spellcaster who relies on Charisma as his/her primary stat is one of the most idiotic ideas ever to hit tabletop gaming. The reason the Sorcerer's reliance on Charisma didn't carry over from the 3rd edition translation into Baldur's Gate's 2nd edition mechanics is because to do this would have required a complete reinterpretation of what the Charisma stat means in play. Which is, incidentally, exactly what the 3rd edition Player's Handbook attempts to do in introducing the class.
    But in terms of gameplay, I really don't think the Sorcerer in BG needs any special attention or modification. This is a very 3e sort of mindset, thinking that a class is somehow broken or under-utilized because they don't get any special benefit from a table or chart in the core rules: BG's Sorcerer works just fine as is.
  • AaronDemonciaAaronDemoncia Member Posts: 31
    edited May 2013
    im truly just looking for a scaling attribute to the class. ya'know. like every other class in the game. not a special handout. a negative to positive scale. as it is in BG standards CHA could have easily been changed to Comeliness for all its vanity based uselessness. My preference for CHA to be a force of personality and a designation of introvert vs extrovert scale vs KILLITWITHFIRE and ah mah gawd perty persun vanity.
    But in this case: Since the class WAS taken from 3rd edition it should at least follow its own rules. the rules of spellcasting. it either works as a spontanious casting class and uses CHA and scales. or uses the wizard INT table and *gasp* scales! end result is that scaling happens like EVERY OTHER JOB on the lists. lets ignore powergaming for a second. barely literate does not qualify you to intuitivly stop the flow of time in a mile radius or open scribed gateways across the realms. nor would it for a wizard.
  • SixheadeddogSixheadeddog Member Posts: 197

    im truly just looking for a scaling attribute to the class. ya'know. like every other class in the game. not a special handout. a negative to positive scale. as it is in BG standards CHA could have easily been changed to Comeliness for all its vanity based uselessness. My preference for CHA to be a force of personality and a designation of introvert vs extrovert scale vs KILLITWITHFIRE and ah mah gawd perty persun vanity.
    But in this case: Since the class WAS taken from 3rd edition it should at least follow its own rules. the rules of spellcasting. it either works as a spontanious casting class and uses CHA and scales. or uses the wizard INT table and *gasp* scales! end result is that scaling happens like EVERY OTHER JOB on the lists. lets ignore powergaming for a second. barely literate does not qualify you to intuitivly stop the flow of time in a mile radius or open scribed gateways across the realms. nor would it for a wizard.

    Charisma is the oddball stat that makes much more sense in tabletop than in a computer game anyway. But that having been said: BG is a game that is mostly rooted in 2nd edition rules, and I think it was entirely appropriate that the Sorcerer, when it was imported from 3rd ed, got stripped of its reliance on Cha and just became a different flavor of mage. In the context of BG, and the 2nd edition rules, basing one's spellcasting ability on Charisma makes absolutely no sense at all. Not that it does in the 3rd edition rules either, because I completely refuse to buy the explanations they give for why Charisma is suddenly a spellcasty stat, but w/e.
    Two more points:
    1) Is the argument now that the Sorcerer needs some table to relate to just for its own sake? I disagree that "every other" class has some sort of scaling table mechanic as we find in 3rd edition (where there is, IIRC, only one table anyway). In fact, there are several who don't get a scaling table: Paladins and Rangers don't get extra spells for high Wisdom. Bards don't get anything related to their spellcasting due to high Intelligence. I'd also mention Thieves, Rangers and Bards, if only because I'm not clear on/don't recall whether or not they get bonuses to their skills for a high Dex (I know this is true in tabletop, I just don't recall if BG implemented it as part of the engine's mechanics). So far as I know, every table that applies to the Wizard also applies to the Sorcerer; the only difference is in the number of spells the Sorcerer ends up being able to learn, and the fact that Sorcerers can only pick up new spells at level-up rather than scribing them from scrolls. Which is fine for me, and works fine in the game.

    2) Int 9 is "barely literate"? Not in 2nd edition; for most of the history of the game an Int 9 was considered average intelligence, and the minimum you'd need for wizardly spellcasting. I actually had a run-in with this misperception rather recently, when I ran a tabletop game with a group of people who had been playing 3rd edition for years. They were so used to any stat that wasn't double-digit incurring a penalty.
    In the context of BG, and the rules it uses, Int 9 is *not* "barely literate." Perhaps we'll call it "barely wizardly" instead -- because, again, what it represents is the minimum level of intellect capable of learning and flinging spells.

    Recommendation: One thing I've always kind of thought about the Sorcerer in BG is that, if its magical abilities are truly intuitive rather than logical, it should have a Wisdom requirement either instead of or in addition to the Intelligence requirement. Because, really, Wisdom is the stat that encompasses intuition. Not Charisma. (however, even if Sorcerers did use Wisdom as a requisite, I would never, ever, *never* allow them to use the Priests' table for bonus spells -- because then no one would ever play a normal Mage or Specialist Wizard ever again)
  • AaronDemonciaAaronDemoncia Member Posts: 31
    Paladins get a bonus for str as a fighter, thieves and any class that can use stealth gain a bonus to those skills based on dex, yes its implemented in here including the racial bonus'.
    Bards due gain intellegence bonus's on int because they are actual intellectual spellcasters pre-3.0+ dnd. they scribe scrolls, and are subject to the spellcasting cap on int as well as the spell learned limit just as a wizard. but they progress slower and cap at 6th level spells as well as less max spells a day per level unless HLA's are used.
    i guess i must just be from the other camp that welcomed turning CHA from a dumpstat only plds and brds had to qualify for, to a stat that has USE (Turning undead, divine spellcasting duration based on the willpower needed to sustain a spell longer, intuitive rather than logical Spontanious spellcasters).
    at least the descussion has been fun, I conseed that the barely literate statement needed clarification, but 2nd edition stats having hard caps on both ends have always left some rather extremes. the jump from 8 int to 9 gives you literacy, but ive always seen 10 int as the actual 'average' because you no longer have a lore penalty, Which in a roleplaying sense id attribute to learning stories as a child growing up and basic geography of the surrounding area, stuff anyone would actually pick up just by paying attention. but that statement alone is treding dangerously close to how wis affects lore too, but thats why they share an influence on it i suppose. @sixheadeddog
  • SixheadeddogSixheadeddog Member Posts: 197
    @AaronDemoncia, actually *every* class gets the same Str bonuses, and a Bard's Int bonuses are really only useful if you use your Bard extensively for spellcasting (which is another debate I see a lot with respect to BG).
    The thing is, Charisma does have a use, but it doesn't really translate into computer games. I actually thought that BG handled it really well, tying Charisma to NPC interactions, shop prices and your Reputation score. That's what Charisma is supposed to be. But, I guess I'm just Old Skool that way.
  • AaronDemonciaAaronDemoncia Member Posts: 31
    edited May 2013
    not a completely wrong statement but i always feel obligated to point out that dual and multi thieves only use the extended str table (18/01-18/00) for thaco, they dont get more than 18's +2 damage when it comes to backstabs.
    and yes cha isnt a complete dump stat but in this game its true pnp use could never be implamented like the 3e+ editions cha could, but in bg and bg2 it comes down to your 'gold retention/aquisition' stat and while thats a little powergamey, the programmers put more CHA interaction into the first game than the other two. not the fault of the stat itself. but you can count the number of cha encounters on one hand MAYBE 2. and all but 1 is npc's joining you or not because of low/high cha. reputation effect based on CHA isnt implamented, sadly, i always felt that was a missed opportunity. a simple script check < playerstatCHA>=/<#> reputation +1 or in certain cases cha mitigating and lowering possible reputation loss from fell actions. @sixheadeddog @jalily
  • TJ_HookerTJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438

    not a completely wrong statement but i always feel obligated to point out that dual and multi thieves only use the extended str table (18/01-18/00) for thaco, they dont get more than 18's +2 damage when it comes to backstabs.

    They get the same damage bonus that a warrior class it would, it just that it strength damage in general is not multiplied for a backstab.
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    edited June 2013
    I'm all for adding stat restrictions on maximum level of casting. Since that's actually proper to PnP.

    9 (up to 4th level), 10-11 (5th), 12-13 (6th), 14-15 (7th), 16-17 (8th), 18-19 (9th), 20+ (10th). (Taken from 2nd Ed Core handbook and High Level guide). (Only applies to arcane casters)

    Though if they go that route, sorcerers need to use int. I actually found the sorcerer 2nd ed kit, it's part of the Netheril campagin setting, and they use int as a primary attribute.

    Mages and sorcerers however do not, under any circumstance, receive additional spellcasts for high ability scores. Unlike the cleric who is more passive till very high levels, mage spells are gamebreaking from level 1 and beyond.

    It's completely by design that you never get very many spell casts as arcane casters. Even items that grant additional spells are quite rare (at least they're supposed to be anyway...Damn you Monty Haul!!!).
  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704
    edited June 2013
    Sorcerer using int? Now i know why 2Ed comes to an end!

    About mage/cleric issue, i believe mages are specific overpowered in Baldur's Gate. In Icewind Dale for example, they're not, druids are better there, NWN2 mage/cleric/druid are pretty balanced also, i don't know how overpower a mage in PnP is in comparison to a cleric or druid, but i trully believe Baldur's Gate unbalanced arcane/divine differences.

    Clerics main issue are their lack of divine spells to shield them from magic and melee and high damage/area level spells. In my view, baldur's Gate would benefit of more overpower divine summon 5° and 6° level spells, also some spell turning/deflecting for cleric and druids would be nice also.

    Basically priests and druids need more/better evocations and abjuration spell schools.
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    edited June 2013
    3rd edition clerics are one-man armies (Kind of like 3.5 Bards). They fight only slightly worse then a fighter, can wear strong armors while casting, can buff themselves silly, have high damage spells that ignore most armor types, and get a lot more destructive spells then in 2nd edition.

    (though even the 2nd edition cleric gets a lot more firepower then BG would lead you to believe, since most of their spells are supposed to be reversible at the time of casting (Similar to 3rd's spontaneous casting). Pretty much all healing spells are also supposed to be able to cause equal amounts of damage, but require a touch attack. (Raise dead can become slay living, and resurrection becomes Destruction)), giving clerics a lot more versatility, almost akin to sorcerers, since if it turns out you don't need the extra healing, you can cause X wounds instead.


    And no...clerics are fine. Command is their anti-mage spell for most of the game, one cast, boom, dead mage, and then you get Magic resistance in the mid levels and then after that, Shield of Archons...aka Divine version of spell trap. They also get I-WIN...also known as Harm. Implosion is also pretty nasty. And their elemental summons, just like the druids, are badass (not counting the HLA versions which are %^#&, except for the Devas) and put the mage's elementals and outsider summons to shame.

    Clerics are buff heavy, early on...that's their purpose, buff, crowd control, and if you suck, heal. And then later become almost the same as mages...just invincible and high single target damage, instead of mostly invincible and Hadoken'ing everything that crosses your path.
  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704
    I don't involve HLAs as they're pretty balanced between themself among mages and cleric (improved alcharity + time stop is by far the strongest sequence of the game).

    Shield of Acorns is a pretty weak version of Spell Trap, command is a level 1 spell that target, useless against mages that normally absorb or deflect the spells (a minor globe of invunlerability nulify it), Mres spell is useless, cos it does not stack with items and natural resistance, wrost, it replace them for the duration of the spell, even lowering the natural magic resistance sometimes.

    Clerics in BG are meant only to buff, themself or others and then go to melee. While that can be a way to play a cleric (Anomen fighter/cleric dual class in BG2 works very well with it) that doesn't work with other clerics.
  • AaronDemonciaAaronDemoncia Member Posts: 31
    the Point of Magic resistance is that its a replacement, a surgical style tool used more for its surprising offense. its part of why cleric/mage is so deadly. M.res lower resistance and greater malison is a horrific combination in a sequencer or contingency.
    the major difference between pnp and this is the amount of resting. it allows for insane combinations of spells like that, a sorcerer wouldn't probably have spell trap and time stop or lower resistance, as from a roleplay perspective they would probably take more bombastic spells for the fireworks like improved aclerity or skull trap/fireball. whereas a mage would take them probably after seeing the spells effectiveness. i cant think of any DM that would allow so much resting as to unbalance the game in a spellcasters favour like this.
    Id also love to see harsher resting limitations, ive always seen resting in firkrag's dungeon to be really unlikely for example, but i understand why you can. the tried and true "Piton the door!" from pnp comes to mind, lol.
  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704
    There's nothing wrong in rest often as we do in Baldur's Gate, it's even more realistic than NWN and NWN2 where you just rest for 5 s anywhere and then "poof" everything refilled!

    In BG we should just be ambushed more while we sleep (by specific attackers with banters) as we're being hunted.
  • AaronDemonciaAaronDemoncia Member Posts: 31
    the lack of ambushes is my point.
Sign In or Register to comment.