Sorcerers have existed since Netheril (the 2nd ed Netheril campaign supplement even has them as a mage kit, with rules for converting them for use in a post-folly world).
Midnight was able to cast all her spells because Mystra put some of her essence in Midnight granting her quasi-chosen status.
And even after Midnight became the new Mystra, all chosen still have Silver fire, and those that possessed the innate talent for Spell-fire still do.
In "Elminster goes to Hell" Mystra removes some of his memories, spell fire, and his immortality. It's been a long time since I read that novel but I remember those thing being mentioned. Midnight is the first character in a novel that I can remember having the ability to cast spells without memorization. Anyone else remember it the same way?
Midnight is not and has never been a sorcerer even after becoming a God she is still just a mage, the only reason she could cast spells without limit was due to Mystra cramming some of her essence into Midnight for safe-keeping which effectively granted her god-level spell-casting ability, limited only by her human fragility.
And yes, sorcerers have officially existed long before they've ever appeared in a novel...Hell, the Simbul is the only one I'm aware of to specifically be known to be a sorcerer that's ever appeared any of the novels I've read.
It's like saying Psionics never existed in the Realms till the first Homeland book showed an entire Drow house of Psionicists. Despite there been several nations of them that sprang up during the post-folly years, when the forces of magic were still too chaotic to be properly controlled and they sought other sources of power.
Sorcerers are extremely rare in FR, due to Mystra specifically making rules against them.
The Magelords in Netheril actually created the first sorcerers through experimentation on their bloodlines via knowledge obtained from the study of the nether scrolls and produced powerful mages who could basically ignore most of the rules of magic that governed their fellow men. Most of them died during the Folly because of how closely linked they were to weave, but a few of the weaker ones had yet to develop enough of a connection to the weave and survived to spread their bloodlines. They were without exception all tyrants that lorded their superiority over all others and threatened the other practitioners of magic, so Mystra personally altered the weave to make it much harder for those born with the innate ability to touch the weave, and those who did would have a harder time learning it's secrets, even if they were able to use their powers a bit more freely then those who wielded constructed magics (aka, mage spells).
Hence why the mortality rate for young sorcerers is around 80-90%, most of them simply blow up from the inability to control the magic of the weave that comes surging in when they first manifest their talents. And the ones who survive ultimately take longer to develop their talents.
The Magelords in Netheril actually created the first sorcerers through experimentation on their bloodlines via knowledge obtained from the study of the nether scrolls and produced powerful mages who could basically ignore most of the rules of magic that governed their fellow men. Most of them died during the Folly because of how closely linked they were to weave, but a few of the weaker ones had yet to develop enough of a connection to the weave and survived to spread their bloodlines. They were without exception all tyrants that lorded their superiority over all others and threatened the other practitioners of magic, so Mystra personally altered the weave to make it much harder for those born with the innate ability to touch the weave, and those who did would have a harder time learning it's secrets, even if they were able to use their powers a bit more freely then those who wielded constructed magics (aka, mage spells).
The above is what says sorcerers are rare (it's in the back where it talks about converting the Sorcerer kit for use in Post-folly games and the justifications for it's rules), and even the 3.0 FR campaign setting mentions that sorcerers are much rarer then mage due to often not surviving their first use of their abilities. At least among "civilized" races who are much less inclined towards sorcery, barring some outsider or dragonic heritage that bumps them a bit more towards it. Races with heavy draconian or outsider descent do tend to develop enough sorcerers that even with the losses they suffer there are enough for significant populations (like 3rd edition Kobolds).
And even in the books, this rarity is upheld....as mentioned...the Simbul is the only specifically stated sorcerer I have ever seen, and while I haven't read ALL the novels, I have read a good chunk of older ones, basically all of them up till the one after Servant of the Shard, where I just lost interest, and then 4th edition happened and utterly killed any real desire to look back into the series again, knowing where it would eventually lead.
Too big of a list, but basically the Avatar crisis books as well as the follow-up the Crucible, all of Elminster's books, all of the Salvatore books till the one I mentioned, Clerical Quintet, War of the spider queen, Spellfire trilogy, etc, etc.
Arcane spells are cast through recantation of a particular process, hence they require a substantial amount of memorization. Sorcers get exception as their spells are based on will and intuition (hinthint, Charisma=whaaaaa?).
Divine spells on the other hand are cast by requesting aid from a deity requiring an influential personality and the understanding to...
Oh forget this whole argument. Y U NO SWAP SORCERER AND PRIEST DEMANDZ?!?!
Because priest classes had already used Wisdom in the previous editions of AD&D, and some things, you just don't change.
This is because of how a wizard stores spells. He uses his book every time when he rests to store spells on his person, either in a ring, an item of focus etc. When they are needed the wizard then needs to either complete the spell or use words to release the spell. Magic is incredibly difficult to learn and use in the realms. The only spell that can be cast by a wizard without prior preparation time is Read Magic. According to DnD lore, most wizards spend most of their apprentice hood just learning this spell...
That's the reasoning for the "fire-n-forget" spell system in 3rd edition. In 2nd edition (and 1st), it was referred to as memorizing spells each day, not storing.
Wisdom is supposed to represent "enlightment" as well. So someone, through his faith, is enlightened to the divine mysteries and has access to divine spells. The more wisdom, the more access.
So, Wizards are intelligent enough to understand how it works, Sorcerers are charismatic enough and have bearing of mysteries inside them, Priests have "seen the light" or whatever. Druids, probably understood the cycle of creation through nature enlightment or whatever.
Actually 2nd edition sorcerers also used int. (3 known spells per spell level base, with +1 per level for 15, 16, 17, 18+ int, to a total of 7 known per level (except 10th, which they were only allowed a single known spell)), required the same minimum int as mages for highest castable level (9:up to 4th, 10-11:5th, 12-13:6th, 14-15: 7th, 16-17:8th, 18-19: 9th, 20+ 10th).
They also only learned 1 spell automatically (when gaining access to a new spell level) the rest had to come from scrolls.
The 2nd edition sorcerer is a mage kit. Human and Half-elf only (2nd edition, all sorcerers are descended to some degree from the surviving Netheral sorcerers who were all human and becoming a sorcerer requires at fair amount of human blood to have a chance of possessing some of that lineage), and it cannot dual-class (Sorcerers disdain all other professions due to how easily the art comes to them. And those who had the talent to be a sorcerer would've discovered and followed it's path long before they could've become any other profession. Aka, a sorcerer will never switch classes, and someone who hasn't already become one, never will).
But is also kind of like a specialist mage in a way. Instead of save bonus/penalties, they don't memorize spells. In place of opposed schools they get a low, hard limit on known spells that can't be easily changed. Similar to a specialist they get free spells, but only one per spell level, instead of 1 per class level of a particular school. They get bonus 2 spells per day instead of 1 (10th level spells never gain any bonus spells per day from any source, they simply have a flat daily amount based on level), but are always 1 level behind mages in spell-progression.
They also couldn't remove spells easily. They got 1 chance per level up to forgot a single spell of their choice to make room for new spells, and any unused chances were lost.
Unlike the 3rd sorcerer, they had their maximum known capacity the instant they got access to a new spell level, but had to track down and learn spells just like a mage did, except for one spell they figured out on their own when reaching the new spell level. (Player picked or randomly chosen, at the DM's choice).
So..in someways it's stronger then the current one, in others it's weaker. If you had the spells you wanted on hand, you could instantly fill out each spell level as it became available, with only your daily casting limit holding you back...on the other hand...you're at the mercy of finding the spells you want and then making the learning checks to not waste the scrolls.
There's w simple comparison one can make to explain why Innate Casters use CHA instead of INT or WIS:
So when you're talking about "will" used to resist magical effects and the willpower of the innate caster being the source of his magical prowess, you're actually mixing up two different concepts because they sound alike. Charisma, just like the other attributes, represents a lot of things - it's not just looks, leadership abilities, or social skills, it's also the innate force of personality and the force of your mind/spirit/being itself. Since natural casters draw power from themselves, their main stat is CHA.
Well, if your using the standard definition...then Charisma is purely personal magnetism (i.e. innate force of personality) and the ability to inspire and lead other people. If there is a dictionary that says otherwise, feel free to point it out but I have had yet to find anything supporting the proposed definition. I think you have a good point though that WIS not being the best statistic for innate spellcasting, but if you think about it neither is CHA.
Truth be told, D&D really doesn't have an adequate "stat" to properly define mental constitution/will right now anyways. Sure you have a "will save" but imo its a poor way to statistically represent mental "strength". I think the rule makers are trying to ad-lib a middle ground in-between WIS and CHA when really they need a new stat altogether like,
Essence Chi - Because Monks
Or something to that effect. I totally get where you are coming from in saying that innate spellcasters draw power from themselves but they're drawing from an inner-spirit, not their "likability". Besides, I think now is a good time for some game-breaking classes that use such a stat for a primary and take 1-2 rule sets to balance out anyways xD.
Dictionary definitions don't really factor into this. The discussion is about a game mechanic called Charisma, not the definition of an English language word.
@Battlehamster - I don't have any books at hand and even if I did I wouldn't want to spend my evening looking for such a definition. However, regardless of any definitions, CHA is how it is consistently used to portray "innate mental force" throughout the ruleset (or at least 3,5 which I am the most familiar with).
I know, but I'm saying the names are misleading. If we are talking purely in terms of game mechanics what's to stop me from using Dexterity to reference physical strength and Constitution to refer to one's learning ability? Furthermore, the discussion is about why priests need wisdom. If we even agree on what Wisdom is, it makes it difficult to have a discussion for or against the value of priests needing Wisdom.
@Battlehamster - I don't have any books at hand and even if I did I wouldn't want to spend my evening looking for such a definition. However, regardless of any definitions, CHA is how it is consistently used to portray "innate mental force" throughout the ruleset (or at least 3,5 which I am the most familiar with).
Ah, well that could explain quite a bit. I'm way more familiar with 2E than 3.5+. As far as I know 2E was pretty tight on attempting to get the definition of the word to line up with the stat as much as possible. Still, to talk about why priests need wisdom I feel like we need a solid definition on that, otherwise its just an arbitrary discussion on what we think a word with a solid pre-definition should mean rather than a discussion of what makes some arbitrary trait relevant to a priest.
Also, I apologize if my arguments make me come off as a pompous d-bag. I graduated with a degree in philosophy (sadly) and I'm used to being required to include ridiculous levels of redundancy in my arguments.
I know, but I'm saying the names are misleading. If we are talking purely in terms of game mechanics what's to stop me from using Dexterity to reference physical strength and Constitution to refer to one's learning ability? Furthermore, the discussion is about why priests need wisdom. If we even agree on what Wisdom is, it makes it difficult to have a discussion for or against the value of priests needing Wisdom.
@Battlehamster - I don't have any books at hand and even if I did I wouldn't want to spend my evening looking for such a definition. However, regardless of any definitions, CHA is how it is consistently used to portray "innate mental force" throughout the ruleset (or at least 3,5 which I am the most familiar with).
Ah, well that could explain quite a bit. I'm way more familiar with 2E than 3.5+. As far as I know 2E was pretty tight on attempting to get the definition of the word to line up with the stat as much as possible. Still, to talk about why priests need wisdom I feel like we need a solid definition on that, otherwise its just an arbitrary discussion on what we think a word with a solid pre-definition should mean rather than a discussion of what makes some arbitrary trait relevant to a priest.
Also, I apologize if my arguments make me come off as a pompous d-bag. I graduated with a degree in philosophy (sadly) and I'm used to being required to include ridiculous levels of redundancy in my arguments.
lol, philosophically speaking, nothing's to stop you. If you wish to create your own game where dexterity is a mechanic that represents physical strength, please do. What's in a word anyway?
Haha, true dat. I'm merely trying to engage in the conversation. For me at least, it means I have a solid definition, especially when there are other similar words involved. At the end of the day I think all of us pretty much MEAN the same thing we only say it with different words and are therefore satisfied by slightly differing vernaculars.
So...
Priests need this thing that makes them good at influencing their deity causing the deity to channel power through the priest - Whatever that is. I say its cheese, explaining why the gods live on the moon.
Wisdom gives a bonus to saves vs spells that sap the targets will or otherwise impair their ability to control themselves in some way, and at higher levels (20+ stat amounts) gives outright immunity to those spells (and abilities that replicate their effects), the exact list growing as their wisdom increases (with 25 wisdom being nearly immune to the entire Enchantment School/Mental Sphere).
Intelligence is mostly related to proficiency in learning and wielding arcane magic, for non-divine spells including bards and sorcerers, but also at very high stat amounts (20+) gives the innate ability to simply ignore illusions up to a certain level, by being able to pick up and process otherwise nearly unnoticeable tells that something isn't right and are then smart enough to negate it entirely. (Hence why there are so many seemingly redundant invisibility and image spells spread across the spell levels). (also grants bonus NCP points and bonus languages at creation for high int).
Charisma just effects your ability to haggle, modifies your reaction adjustment when dealing with new people due to being more personable, and gives you a bonus to the level your personal companions can be and the amount of followers you can have. It's entirely social oriented in 2nd edition.
Okay, to answer some of the questions raised on this thread, and clarify some assertions made...
1) Spell energy comes from elsewhere, for both clerics and mages. The incantations they make allow the energy to be released and shape the form of the energy. However, channelling that energy is what wipes the spell from the mind- it literally takes the words and gestures you memorized with it on the way out. Some of the low level spells can be used from personal energy, but tend not to, as this is too draining. a first level spell that relied on the personal energy of the mage would leave them shaking, and a third-level spell would kill the mage that cast it from personal energy. This is why they are more channelling than anything.
2) Wisdom is defined in 1e AD&D DMG (the first sourcebook printed) as "willpower, judgement, wile, enlightenment and intuitiveness" all subsumed into one statistic. It is assumed that the cleric uses these to better know and serve what his or her deity wants, and is therefore better able to connect with that deity's mindset and servants. (Servants deliver lesser spells, the deity him or herself the higher level spells, such as Level 5 and above). Experience also allows the cleric to better know the wants of their deity, also allowing them to access more and higher level spells. Cleric spells channel the personal power of their deity and his or her servants. Where mage spells are powered by the universe itself, cleric spells come from Godly powers.
3) Sorcerers (and I am just speculating here, as I haven't seen anything about how charisma is supposed to affect their powers, despite me knowing Charisma is their prime stat), I assume is based on tricking/persuading the forces of the universe to grant them more power per day, that being a function of Charisma. But their true powers derive from some form of supernatural in their past- Dragons or some other planar creature/power. My guess is that the heritage allows the character to reach for the energy to cast the spells without necessarily using an incantation (perhaps the sorcerer feels the incantation is necessary), but that he's using the force of his persuasion powers to somehow compel or persuade the universe to grant his/her requests for power to power his/her spells. But this is exhausting, so his/her ability to do so is limited to a certain number of requests a day. Higher Charisma allows the sorcerer to make a successful request more times per day. After that, they are SOL.
Incidentally, @Scriver, Charisma is force of ability to lead and persuade, to get people to follow you (Or at least it was in AD&D 1e and 2e) and not mere physical attractiveness (as many people assumed when they heard the word). It's personal magnetism, physical attractiveness and the ability to persuade people to your way of thinking/inspire them. Hitler was given as an example of someone with an 18 Charisma in the 1e DMG, though he used his ability for evil/bad ends.
Incidentally, Wisdom can be used to counteract the effects of Charisma, if the outcome would be a bad idea for the person. Magic that affects your will/mind (The Enchantment/Charm School) is hampered by a high Wisdom, with Wisdom over 18 actually making you immune to some enchantment spells (More of them as your wisdom goes higher, until at 25, you are functionally immune to many of these spells).
Comments
Sorcerers have existed since Netheril (the 2nd ed Netheril campaign supplement even has them as a mage kit, with rules for converting them for use in a post-folly world).
Midnight was able to cast all her spells because Mystra put some of her essence in Midnight granting her quasi-chosen status.
And even after Midnight became the new Mystra, all chosen still have Silver fire, and those that possessed the innate talent for Spell-fire still do.
Also Enchanters need high charisma, not wisdom.
2ndry required stats for specialists-
Charisma - Enchanter
Wisdom - Abjuration, Necromancer, Diviner
Dexterity- Illusion, Transmutation
Constitution - Conjuration, Evocation
Midnight is the first character in a novel that I can remember having the ability to cast spells without memorization.
Anyone else remember it the same way?
And yes, sorcerers have officially existed long before they've ever appeared in a novel...Hell, the Simbul is the only one I'm aware of to specifically be known to be a sorcerer that's ever appeared any of the novels I've read.
It's like saying Psionics never existed in the Realms till the first Homeland book showed an entire Drow house of Psionicists. Despite there been several nations of them that sprang up during the post-folly years, when the forces of magic were still too chaotic to be properly controlled and they sought other sources of power.
Sorcerers are extremely rare in FR, due to Mystra specifically making rules against them.
The Magelords in Netheril actually created the first sorcerers through experimentation on their bloodlines via knowledge obtained from the study of the nether scrolls and produced powerful mages who could basically ignore most of the rules of magic that governed their fellow men. Most of them died during the Folly because of how closely linked they were to weave, but a few of the weaker ones had yet to develop enough of a connection to the weave and survived to spread their bloodlines. They were without exception all tyrants that lorded their superiority over all others and threatened the other practitioners of magic, so Mystra personally altered the weave to make it much harder for those born with the innate ability to touch the weave, and those who did would have a harder time learning it's secrets, even if they were able to use their powers a bit more freely then those who wielded constructed magics (aka, mage spells).
Hence why the mortality rate for young sorcerers is around 80-90%, most of them simply blow up from the inability to control the magic of the weave that comes surging in when they first manifest their talents. And the ones who survive ultimately take longer to develop their talents.
The above is what says sorcerers are rare (it's in the back where it talks about converting the Sorcerer kit for use in Post-folly games and the justifications for it's rules), and even the 3.0 FR campaign setting mentions that sorcerers are much rarer then mage due to often not surviving their first use of their abilities. At least among "civilized" races who are much less inclined towards sorcery, barring some outsider or dragonic heritage that bumps them a bit more towards it. Races with heavy draconian or outsider descent do tend to develop enough sorcerers that even with the losses they suffer there are enough for significant populations (like 3rd edition Kobolds).
And even in the books, this rarity is upheld....as mentioned...the Simbul is the only specifically stated sorcerer I have ever seen, and while I haven't read ALL the novels, I have read a good chunk of older ones, basically all of them up till the one after Servant of the Shard, where I just lost interest, and then 4th edition happened and utterly killed any real desire to look back into the series again, knowing where it would eventually lead.
Too big of a list, but basically the Avatar crisis books as well as the follow-up the Crucible, all of Elminster's books, all of the Salvatore books till the one I mentioned, Clerical Quintet, War of the spider queen, Spellfire trilogy, etc, etc.
So, Wizards are intelligent enough to understand how it works, Sorcerers are charismatic enough and have bearing of mysteries inside them, Priests have "seen the light" or whatever. Druids, probably understood the cycle of creation through nature enlightment or whatever.
Oh well.
They also only learned 1 spell automatically (when gaining access to a new spell level) the rest had to come from scrolls.
The 2nd edition sorcerer is a mage kit. Human and Half-elf only (2nd edition, all sorcerers are descended to some degree from the surviving Netheral sorcerers who were all human and becoming a sorcerer requires at fair amount of human blood to have a chance of possessing some of that lineage), and it cannot dual-class (Sorcerers disdain all other professions due to how easily the art comes to them. And those who had the talent to be a sorcerer would've discovered and followed it's path long before they could've become any other profession. Aka, a sorcerer will never switch classes, and someone who hasn't already become one, never will).
But is also kind of like a specialist mage in a way. Instead of save bonus/penalties, they don't memorize spells. In place of opposed schools they get a low, hard limit on known spells that can't be easily changed. Similar to a specialist they get free spells, but only one per spell level, instead of 1 per class level of a particular school. They get bonus 2 spells per day instead of 1 (10th level spells never gain any bonus spells per day from any source, they simply have a flat daily amount based on level), but are always 1 level behind mages in spell-progression.
They also couldn't remove spells easily. They got 1 chance per level up to forgot a single spell of their choice to make room for new spells, and any unused chances were lost.
Unlike the 3rd sorcerer, they had their maximum known capacity the instant they got access to a new spell level, but had to track down and learn spells just like a mage did, except for one spell they figured out on their own when reaching the new spell level. (Player picked or randomly chosen, at the DM's choice).
So..in someways it's stronger then the current one, in others it's weaker. If you had the spells you wanted on hand, you could instantly fill out each spell level as it became available, with only your daily casting limit holding you back...on the other hand...you're at the mercy of finding the spells you want and then making the learning checks to not waste the scrolls.
Truth be told, D&D really doesn't have an adequate "stat" to properly define mental constitution/will right now anyways. Sure you have a "will save" but imo its a poor way to statistically represent mental "strength". I think the rule makers are trying to ad-lib a middle ground in-between WIS and CHA when really they need a new stat altogether like,
Essence
Chi - Because Monks
Or something to that effect. I totally get where you are coming from in saying that innate spellcasters draw power from themselves but they're drawing from an inner-spirit, not their "likability". Besides, I think now is a good time for some game-breaking classes that use such a stat for a primary and take 1-2 rule sets to balance out anyways xD.
I don't have any books at hand and even if I did I wouldn't want to spend my evening looking for such a definition. However, regardless of any definitions, CHA is how it is consistently used to portray "innate mental force" throughout the ruleset (or at least 3,5 which I am the most familiar with).
Also, I apologize if my arguments make me come off as a pompous d-bag. I graduated with a degree in philosophy (sadly) and I'm used to being required to include ridiculous levels of redundancy in my arguments.
So...
Priests need this thing that makes them good at influencing their deity causing the deity to channel power through the priest - Whatever that is. I say its cheese, explaining why the gods live on the moon.
Intelligence is mostly related to proficiency in learning and wielding arcane magic, for non-divine spells including bards and sorcerers, but also at very high stat amounts (20+) gives the innate ability to simply ignore illusions up to a certain level, by being able to pick up and process otherwise nearly unnoticeable tells that something isn't right and are then smart enough to negate it entirely. (Hence why there are so many seemingly redundant invisibility and image spells spread across the spell levels). (also grants bonus NCP points and bonus languages at creation for high int).
Charisma just effects your ability to haggle, modifies your reaction adjustment when dealing with new people due to being more personable, and gives you a bonus to the level your personal companions can be and the amount of followers you can have. It's entirely social oriented in 2nd edition.
1) Spell energy comes from elsewhere, for both clerics and mages. The incantations they make allow the energy to be released and shape the form of the energy. However, channelling that energy is what wipes the spell from the mind- it literally takes the words and gestures you memorized with it on the way out. Some of the low level spells can be used from personal energy, but tend not to, as this is too draining. a first level spell that relied on the personal energy of the mage would leave them shaking, and a third-level spell would kill the mage that cast it from personal energy. This is why they are more channelling than anything.
2) Wisdom is defined in 1e AD&D DMG (the first sourcebook printed) as "willpower, judgement, wile, enlightenment and intuitiveness" all subsumed into one statistic. It is assumed that the cleric uses these to better know and serve what his or her deity wants, and is therefore better able to connect with that deity's mindset and servants. (Servants deliver lesser spells, the deity him or herself the higher level spells, such as Level 5 and above). Experience also allows the cleric to better know the wants of their deity, also allowing them to access more and higher level spells. Cleric spells channel the personal power of their deity and his or her servants. Where mage spells are powered by the universe itself, cleric spells come from Godly powers.
3) Sorcerers (and I am just speculating here, as I haven't seen anything about how charisma is supposed to affect their powers, despite me knowing Charisma is their prime stat), I assume is based on tricking/persuading the forces of the universe to grant them more power per day, that being a function of Charisma. But their true powers derive from some form of supernatural in their past- Dragons or some other planar creature/power. My guess is that the heritage allows the character to reach for the energy to cast the spells without necessarily using an incantation (perhaps the sorcerer feels the incantation is necessary), but that he's using the force of his persuasion powers to somehow compel or persuade the universe to grant his/her requests for power to power his/her spells. But this is exhausting, so his/her ability to do so is limited to a certain number of requests a day. Higher Charisma allows the sorcerer to make a successful request more times per day. After that, they are SOL.
Incidentally, @Scriver, Charisma is force of ability to lead and persuade, to get people to follow you (Or at least it was in AD&D 1e and 2e) and not mere physical attractiveness (as many people assumed when they heard the word). It's personal magnetism, physical attractiveness and the ability to persuade people to your way of thinking/inspire them. Hitler was given as an example of someone with an 18 Charisma in the 1e DMG, though he used his ability for evil/bad ends.
Incidentally, Wisdom can be used to counteract the effects of Charisma, if the outcome would be a bad idea for the person. Magic that affects your will/mind (The Enchantment/Charm School) is hampered by a high Wisdom, with Wisdom over 18 actually making you immune to some enchantment spells (More of them as your wisdom goes higher, until at 25, you are functionally immune to many of these spells).
I have never argued that Charisma is just looks in any post of this thread. You must be mistaking names.