What if everyone was a sorcerer (gestalt concept)?

[Mort]

If, as per the OP, wizards are shunned for an unnatural approach to magic, then I think that spells should manifest (at birth? at puberty?) in each NPC according to unknown (but widely debated) mechanisms (the will of gods, bloodlines, random mutations). (For PCs, players get to choose, but assume the PC was destined that way). If all this were true, then it would justify why wizards are shunned for calling upon abomination magic that doesn't occur naturally from within.

Another logical conclusion to - naturaly manifested magic - would be breeding programs (both "legitimate" and not so legitimate) both for power level, and for producing specific types of abilities. It would also mean that nobles (particularly kings) would be extremely careful about who their children breed with - and nobility may be based on magical ability in addition to the usual wealth and money standard. And lead to some interesting scandals - such as the crown prince having the wrong type of magic and/or not having powerful enough/any at all etc.

 

[Nimloth]

sor gestalting

Interesting idea, I like it. 1 question, was this for a 3.5 or PF game? Because of the way cantrips are handled in Pathfinder, this is a pretty big question.

Stats for 3d6
3: 0.5% (actually 0.46, or 1 in 216, but rounded off for this table)
4: 1.4%
5: 2.8%
6: 4.6%
7: 6.9%
8: 9.7%
9: 11.6%
10: 12.5%
11: 12.5%
12: 11.6%
13: 9.7%
14: 6.9%
15: 4.6%
16: 2.8%
17: 1.4%
18: 0.5% (as 3’s note above)

Assuming a standard bell curve of stats on the general population, 37.5% of the population cannot even use their spells with standard casting (9 or less chr) and another 12.5% can only cast cantrips.

I could see this easily becoming a symbol of status in a society, with people who can cast higher level spells having a higher rank. If you can't even manage a cantrip, you are the lowest of the low.

I don't see this changing technology levels all that much. Not everyone would have Mage Armor, so armor would still be needed, though I imagine armor that would allow spellcasting would be invented. Not everyone would have an attack spell, so weapons would still be needed.

After some thought, once you get through the bell curves of 6 abilities, the randomness of what spells you can cast and other misc modifiers (gender roles, luck, starting social status,etc...) this should have less of an impact than you might think. It will have an impact, just not as much as you might think.

If you wanted a bigger impact,
- gestalt with warlock instead
(refluffed to be less demonic/evil in origin - dropping the C or E requirement).
or
- eliminate any stat requirements to cast sor spells

 

[NoWayJose]

Another logical conclusion to - naturaly manifested magic - would be breeding programs (both "legitimate" and not so legitimate) both for power level, and for producing specific types of abilities. It would also mean that nobles (particularly kings) would be extremely careful about who their children breed with - and nobility may be based on magical ability in addition to the usual wealth and money standard. And lead to some interesting scandals - such as the crown prince having the wrong type of magic and/or not having powerful enough/any at all etc.

Absolutely. The older son jealous that the younger son with the plant empathy will inherit the farm, the merchant's guild that protects their intelligence-enhancing bloodline, the orcs that ruthlessly exterminate those born with Un-Orcish powers, etc. This creates a perfect niche for adventurers, I bet many PCs are likely to be outcasts (the magic-less, the bastard child, the unaccepted) from the normal social order, which is why they risk their lives for adventure and riches.

Some of the best sci-fi/fantasy is a Fun House Mirror of our own world.

 

[the Jester]

In terms of fiction first vs rules first, I know full well that Cha = sorcerer was created in 3E primarily to fill in a slot for an ability that needed filling, and not primarily because sorcerers need to be more charismatic than anyone else. And one could argue one way or another, I guess. But if a DM is creating a world where everyone's a sorcerer, I think this Charisma inconsistency becomes a bit more obvious than otherwise.

Oh, absolutely, but I think 3e did a great job of redefining Charisma to match (and of powering up what had previously been a turd of a stat).

I get where you're coming from, but the game definitions of Wis and Cha contrast "willpower" vs. "force of personality" (quoted from the 3.5 PH, pg. 9). In the game Wisdom is largely defensive; it applies to Spot, Sense Motive and Listen- all protect you from deception- and to Will saves. Charisma is for skills that actively project your will, such as Bluff, Diplomacy, Perform and Use Magic Device, and applies to things like turning undead.

The blanket claim isn't that high Cha = good sorcerer; it's that high Cha = more ability to force your will on the universe. A lower Cha sorcerer might be far more effective by using his abilities more intelligently or wisely, but when it comes to the straight-up raw power issue, higher Cha wins.

I actually really like it in this setting- people without the confidence and strength of personality necessary can't make their spells perform well, while it also reinforces the need for leaders to have high Charisma scores.

 

[Diamond Cross]

There would definately be no Star Trek or Firefly.

Dang it.

 

[jmucchiello]

This is very important. Because unless you are going to relax the minimum charisma needed for cantrips, not everyone can do magic. I like the warlock idea.

You might also allow folks to swap out Bard for Sorcerer in the gestalt. That could be interesting too.

Interesting idea, I like it. 1 question, was this for a 3.5 or PF game? Because of the way cantrips are handled in Pathfinder, this is a pretty big question.

Stats for 3d6
3: 0.5% (actually 0.46, or 1 in 216, but rounded off for this table)
4: 1.4%
5: 2.8%
6: 4.6%
7: 6.9%
8: 9.7%
9: 11.6%
10: 12.5%
11: 12.5%
12: 11.6%
13: 9.7%
14: 6.9%
15: 4.6%
16: 2.8%
17: 1.4%
18: 0.5% (as 3’s note above)

 

[NoWayJose]

I actually really like it in this setting- people without the confidence and strength of personality necessary can't make their spells perform well, while it also reinforces the need for leaders to have high Charisma scores.

But there's so many examples of where Charisma isn't necessary. A sullen withdrawn stonecarver born with Stoneshape sorcery who couldn't convince a drunk guy to go a party could nevertheless shape stone with great ease and precision. And an outgoing popular stonecarver who could convince a drunk guy to go to a party is NOT inherently any better at shaping stone. There's no good way to model this and many other similar scenarios with the arbitrary high Cha = raw high power.

My problem is not that 'forcing willpower on the world' is the basis behind sorcery per se. My problem is that 'forcing willpower on the world' is arbitrarily entangled with Charisma score, leadership and personality, which can but often do not have anything to do with each other in context of sorcery.

Charisma = force of willpower does not stack with a cleric's Wisdom bonus when casting offensive divine spells, nor does it stack with a wizard's Intelligence bonus when imposing his spells on the world. A highly intelligent wizard presumably constructs more damaging fireballs than an average intelligent wizard, but the intelligence of the sorcerer is irrelevant when constructing that exact same fireball. So it's all rather arbitrary, more rules first, then fiction first. For me, the sorcerer-Charisma justification is simply more arbitrary and questionable than the rest.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Two ideas:

1. Addressing the Wisdom versus Charisma idea and "ideal builds" versus "MAD builds". What about using the Favored Soul specifics for casting. I believe (and may have this backwards or messed up) that Wisdom was the stat for DC and Charisma was the stat for bonus spells and highest spell known. If EVERYONE gets magic, then I think it makes sense to spread out the magic somewhat.

You could even houserule this to all 6 abilities, perhaps? (this will need some work, just throwing out a rough example):

STR: this was hardest for me... maybe a chance for a "proc" empowered/maximized spell?***
DEX: maybe casting speed? a chance for a "proc" quickened spell?**
CON: spells cost con modifier - spell level to cast*

INT: highest level spell known
WIS: DC
CHA: bonus spells per day

***e.g. with a str of 16 (+3) maybe a 30% chance of being improved, with a 1/4 chance (constant) of being maximized instead of empowered?
**e.g. with a dex of 14 (+2) maybe a 20% chance upon casting that the spell is quickened (limit of one quickened spell per round as usual)
*e.g With a con of 12 (+1), I could cast 0 lvl or 1 lvl spells for free, and every lvl 2 spell I cast would cost 1 hit point.



2. Limited spell options for NPCs of import, and even greater limitations on unimportant NPCs. Our group had an epic campaign with a warmage. He ended up taking 4 feats to just learn more spells (for versatility). Along the lines of themes and also reining in power, maybe dividing up spell lists (or just even using spell schools) could be of benefit?

 

[Mort]

But there's so many examples of where Charisma isn't necessary. A sullen withdrawn stonecarver born with Stoneshape sorcery who couldn't convince a drunk guy to go a party could nevertheless shape stone with great ease and precision. And an outgoing popular stonecarver who could convince a drunk guy to go to a party is NOT inherently any better at shaping stone. There's no good way to model this and many other similar scenarios with the arbitrary high Cha = raw high power.

My problem is not that 'forcing willpower on the world' is the basis behind sorcery per se. My problem is that 'forcing willpower on the world' is arbitrarily entangled with Charisma score, leadership and personality, which can but often do not have anything to do with each other in context of sorcery.

I'm cerainly not married to the Cha= only way idea, though I do see many interesting implications.

One solution: Instead of magic being tied to Charisma tie it to one stat (of the PCs choice and assign it for NPCs) that way it's not exceptional Charisma that dictates but exceptionalism in general. This was the sullen stonecarver might have a high strength or int and wouldn't have to be able to talk that drunk guy to a party. One problem with this approach - PCs will almost by definition be extremely strong in the magic department, as they no longer have to make sacrifices to to do so (unlike making a big sacrifice to have a decent charisma in addition to other stats).

Perhaps a better option: have charisma be the "default stat" but have feats that could magical affinaty regardless of charisma - or tied to other stats in a limited way?

 

[NoWayJose]

What if each family of sorcery was tied to a certain ability? ie., enchantment-related powers = Cha. Although there's still lots of room for arbitrariness. Is Stoneshaping based on Wisdom or Intelligence, but does every NPC spells really need to be tied to one of 6 ability scores? Maybe intelligence is generally tied to mostly to abomination Wizard magic.

Edit: Maybe Dexterity for something like Stoneshaping. The guy is born with stoneshaping ability. It comes naturally to him, like riding a bike. So mental ability bonuses need not necessarily apply to success. Success could be based on dexterity because the bottleneck for producing precise stonework is his finger dexterity. And if he's trying to produce a beautiful work of art, then stack with Charisma, or choose Dex or Cha whichever is higher?