Why is charisma associated with spellcasting?

[delericho]

Why does intelligence help a wizard cast spells? I can see providing bonus spells or even limiting what spell levels you can cast, but why does it actually make your spells more powerful in terms of DC?

At university, I had a Maths lecturer who was forever going on about 'slick' proofs of things. He was a terrible, terrible teacher, but he did make a good point: the proofs he would show us were generally tighter and more focussed than the ones that we could arrive at through brute force.

So it can be said to be with Wizards - their intelligence allows them to shape their spells to they go off that little bit quicker, that little bit more powerfully, that little bit more focussed, than those with a lower Intelligence score.

What about wisdom which makes little sense for druids and rangers if we want to explain charisma in 3rd edition terms.

If we postulate that divine magic comes through either channelling the power of the divine, or of understanding the power of the divine (on an empathic rather than cerebral level), then one could argue that a higher Wisdom would directly help, either in giving the Cleric the willpower to survive channelling a greater portion of the divine energy, or in having a greater understanding of and so connection to that divine source.

I'm a great believer in the notion that an in-game explanation for (almost) any rules quirk can be described. So, in a fantasy realm I don't think it's necessarily terribly useful to talk about the rules in terms of 'realism'. They may not fit one model, but they probably fit some model. Of course, if the model they don't fit is the preferred one, that's certainly a valid reason for change... perhaps a more valid one than arbitrary notions of 'realism' in our fantasy subsystems.

 

[Delta]

Why not intelligence? Does the magic view you as a more likable, happier person, so it does what you command? Why are no spontaneous casters (save the beguiler and assassin0 focused on intelligence? Even self-taught casters...

My attitude is that it's a fairly silly 3.0-ism to balance everything mechanistically, and make all ability scores the prime attribute for some class somewhere.

 

[kenobi65]

My attitude is that it's a fairly silly 3.0-ism to balance everything mechanistically, and make all ability scores the prime attribute for some class somewhere.

Where's my Con-based class?

Oh, that's right...all of them.

 

[kenobi65]

Why does intelligence help a wizard cast spells?

{snip}

D&D has a lot of history that precludes certain measures.

I think you answered your own question. Intelligence helps wizards cast spells because it always has, even back when wizards had to wear the dorky "magic-user" shirt.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

I suppose you could replace Wisdom with Piety, for Clerics at least.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

Where's my Con-based class?

Oh, that's right...all of them.

3.0 Psionic Savants.

 

[Destil]

What I've been toying around with for a while is a con-based caster...

3.0 psionic savant.

 

[Klaus]

Intelligence = Mental Dexterity

Wisdom = Mental Constitution

Charisma = Mental Strength.

Charisma measures how well you can affect the world around you to conform to your wishes (through Diplomacy, Bluffing, Intimidation, or in the case of sorcerers, Magic).

 

[Nyeshet]

Charisma is a measure of how much influence you have on your surroundings. For most it is a social matter, but for spontaneous casters it also covers influence over one's surroundings (ie: over reality itself).

Point of fact, as a house rule I use Cha for Will saves IMCs, as I think this better reflects the 'strength of personality / will' rather than serene, meditative, and perceptive wisdom. I use a different save (perception) with Wisdom, one that deals with disbelieving illusions and other matters of perception. Matters of strength of will: resisting fear, domination, charms, etc - I leave to the Will save, which, as I said, uses Cha. It makes more sense to me and those I game with.

Also, I tend to think that a lot of spontaneous casters are poorly designed. I think if 3e were being designed today they would not have created / included the sorcerer, but instead would have created / included the warlock, perhaps with differing class specials on certain levels dependent upon the nature of the heritage (ie: DR vs cold iron instead of silver if of a fae heritage, for example) and a few dozen more invocations with some requiring one to be of this or that heritage (ie: celestial, faeish, draconic, aberrant, undead, etc invocations), with some invocations being heritage irrelevant. It would make building a 'sorcerer' more interesting and utterly unique compared to a wizard.

Ah well, that's just my opinion. Somehow, if 4e comes out anytime in the next few years and if it in any manner notably resembles 3.5e, I can see the sorcerer either no longer existing in it or in some other manner being wholy replaced by the warlock.

 

[Odhanan]

You'e definitely right, but this never really seemed like the most logical way to divide up attributes, to me. Wisdom and Charisma are just poorly defined, these days, and that's all there is to it. Frankly, I'd prefer to just go Unisystem-style and replace them with Perception and Willpower.

You could, Great Lemur. The truth is, I think, that it's just a matter of semantics. It's how you "name" the attributes and the mental pictures it evokes in your mind that fits the function of said attribute or not in the system that matters in this instance.

In DnD, you could just rename "Wisdom" with "Empathy" and "Charisma" with "Willpower" or "Magnetism" and have the system work just as it does right now. I'm certain that would solve the uneasiness you feel right now, wouldn't it? In that case, my advice would just be: find a PDF character sheet you can edit and do it, replace the names so that they suit better the meaning their function inspires to you and your players.