Sorcerer CHA based casting table
AaronDemoncia
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
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
Ability Bonus % Spell Max SpellsThis could allow for ability drain to be altered in a way that could affect all stats aside from str drain.
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
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
1
Comments
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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
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!!!).
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.
(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.
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.
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.
In BG we should just be ambushed more while we sleep (by specific attackers with banters) as we're being hunted.