D&D 5E Sorcerers Should Be Constitution-Based Casters, Not Charisma

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The title is pretty self-explanatory, but I'll explain what I mean and why I think it works better than the current Sorcerer class.

Before I start explaining, let me explain that I am not saying that this should be immediately implemented into 5e as is. Constitution has its own balance issues, which I've gone into detail on in this thread. This change would likely require a 5.5e/6e in order to implement without major balance issues.

Sorcerous magic is inherent/innate. The PHB says, "Magic is a part of every sorcerer, suffusing body, mind, and spirit with a latent power that waits to be tapped". The Draconic Sorcerer subclass is even called the "Draconic Bloodline". Sorcerers get magic from being born with it or having their body/mind/soul warped by a magical power source (like the Shadowfell or Limbo). They are suffused with arcane magic, it being a part of them. Additionally, there is a basis for this. The magic item the Bloodwell Vial requires a sorcerer to put their blood in the magic item before they can attune to it. The Aberrant Dragonmark feat lets you use Constitution to cast sorcerer spells. Genasi can cast their innate elemental spells using Constitution. It just makes sense and should be the base.

So, what do you all think? Should Sorcerers use Constitution instead of Charisma?

 

[Blue Orange]

I like the idea of bringing things like this up for debate.

I suspect the problem is that offensive spellcasters have usually been physically weak 'glass cannons' to make up for their powerful offensive attacks. Using Constitution as a spellcasting stat means the player will beef it up (and indeed has to), so even with smaller hit dice the class will be much more durable than a primary offensive spellcaster would be expected to be. That's unbalancing with the rest of the party.

Thematically, it makes sense. I imagine when they were developing the class in 3e Wizards had Intelligence, Clerics and Druids had Wisdom, and nobody was taking Charisma. But it's perfectly possible to imagine innately magical characters who are 'suffused with the essence of fire' or something similar and aren't necessarily likable or charismatic. Indeed, nonclerical magic-users are usually portrayed as evil in most older folktales and texts, so getting along with others isn't necessarily something that goes with the territory.

 

[Scribe]

I certainly think Cha is stacked up for casters now, but I dont like moving Sorcerer out of that bracket, because of how I look at Charisma. While I can see the body/flesh angle, I see it more as a matter of that power is something other, its tied to ones 'presence' or personal intensity.

The archetype of the caster just doesnt work for me as stacking Constitution, but I for sure see issue with all the Charisma casters now.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I certainly think Cha is stacked up for casters now, but I dont like moving Sorcerer out of that bracket, because of how I look at Charisma. While I can see the body/flesh angle, I see it more as a matter of that power is something other, its tied to ones 'presence' or personal intensity.

The archetype of the caster just doesnt work for me as stacking Constitution, but I for sure see issue with all the Charisma casters now.

Charisma is overloaded, with the Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer, and Warlock classes all using them. I know a lot of people want Warlocks to be Intelligence based casters in order to get rid of some of this overlap, but IMO, it works better to shift Sorcerers to Con than Warlocks to Int.

 

[Scribe]

Charisma is overloaded, with the Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer, and Warlock classes all using them. I know a lot of people want Warlocks to be Intelligence based casters in order to get rid of some of this overlap, but IMO, it works better to shift Sorcerers to Con than Warlocks to Int.

Yeah, I dont like Warlock at Charisma at all.

Wizard: Has to be Int.
Sorcerer: I cannot see them as anything but Charisma.
Bard: Makes too much sense as Charisma.


Paladin: I'd actually put them back on Wisdom. I know Charisma works too, but I dont mind Paladins being pulled in a bunch of different directions.

Warlock: I was thinking on this the other day. Pact's are not Charisma. You are making a deal. You are binding, or bound, and you get something out of it. Actually now that I think of it, this could be the Constitution based Arcane, as the magic is bound to your flesh? They also do not have the historical baggage around casting with armour, they have for more 'go ahead and swing instead of cast' logic.

I dont know, sitting and thinking on it, thats who I would move out to Constitution, for a tanky melee/blaster hybrid. Actually I like it a lot now that I think on it.

I've seen whole parties of Charisma Classes, it just seems flooded, Warlock at Constitution...I will need to make a note and think on that some more.

 

[Aldarc]

Yeah, I dont like Warlock at Charisma at all.

I wouldn't mind Warlock as Charisma if negotiating pacts and deals with extraplanar entities in return for favors was actually part of playing the class. For example, in Monte Cook Press's game Invisible Sun, one of the "mage" options* is the Goetica. The Goetica does magic by summoning, binding, and negotiating with demons, angels, fey, etc. for information, to perform magic, do tasks, etc. There are real risks for failed negotiations or favors not returned. It actively plays like how I imagined a warlock with its flavor text about patrons and the like would. Though Charisma is not a stat in Invisible Sun, Charisma would make sense for such a warlock that spends so much time trying to bind and negotiate.

* Every character is a mage in this game.

Wizard: Has to be Int.
Sorcerer: I cannot see them as anything but Charisma.
Bard: Makes too much sense as Charisma.

Paladin: I'd actually put them back on Wisdom. I know Charisma works too, but I dont mind Paladins being pulled in a bunch of different directions.

Warlock: I was thinking on this the other day. Pact's are not Charisma. You are making a deal. You are binding, or bound, and you get something out of it. Actually now that I think of it, this could be the Constitution based Arcane, as the magic is bound to your flesh? They also do not have the historical baggage around casting with armour, they have for more 'go ahead and swing instead of cast' logic.

I dont know, sitting and thinking on it, thats who I would move out to Constitution, for a tanky melee/blaster hybrid. Actually I like it a lot now that I think on it.

I've seen whole parties of Charisma Classes, it just seems flooded, Warlock at Constitution...I will need to make a note and think on that some more.

Personally, I'm not particularly happy with the various attribute assignments for casters, but I doubt there would be much change due to the traction of tradition. For example, I would almost love to see Clerics use Charisma instead of Wisdom. Sorcerers could arguably work better on Wisdom, if we consider the attribute in the capacity of mystical intuition. I would prefer psionics on Wisdom as well for a similar reason. I would love to reshuffle the attributes and the classes, but I doubt it would make too many grognards happy: i.e., "that's not MY D&D!"

 

[Eltab]

In 4e, Warlocks could take CON as a primary stat and cast from it sometimes (CHR was the alternative).
They never fully developed the potential split - made a tangled mess - but a CON'lock who likes to melee and a CHR'lock who zaps from range both would work as character concepts and mechanical implementation.

I created a dual-stat Star'lock (one of the poorest-designed subclasses in the game) and came out with a ranged zapper who could step up for one turn and 'take one for the team' while the Warlord / Cleric / Bard was getting the Fighter / Paladin / Barbarian back on their feet.

 

[Undrave]

I agree. Unleashing innate magic should put a strain on your body and be exhausting.

If the Sorcerer was CON, it would make it far easier to multi class into other thing. Since Sorcerer magic is innate, it would make sense that not all who have it would spend all their time developing that magic. You could just dip into Sorcerer to represent that aspect of your character without really having to invest in a stat your class has 0 use for. All class have a use for CON so it's not bad at all.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I agree. Unleashing innate magic should put a strain on your body and be exhausting.

If the Sorcerer was CON, it would make it far easier to multi class into other thing. Since Sorcerer magic is innate, it would make sense that not all who have it would spend all their time developing that magic. You could just dip into Sorcerer to represent that aspect of your character without really having to invest in a stat your class has 0 use for. All class have a use for CON so it's not bad at all.

In future editions of the game, they could even implement features that let you use your Hit Dice and Hit Points with your magic, possibly sacrificing them to deal more damage or regain sorcery points. How cool would it be to literally drain yourself physically in order to cast more powerful spells?

 

[Scribe]

In future editions of the game, they could even implement features that let you use your Hit Dice and Hit Points with your magic, possibly sacrificing them to deal more damage or regain sorcery points. How cool would it be to literally drain yourself physically in order to cast more powerful spells?

You gotta stop posting. That's such an evocative idea for my Warlock variant. Heck that's a WoW warlock feature, Life Tap.