Using charisma to determine DC for all Enchantment school spells

[Zogg]

What do you guys think about this?

Obviously this doesn't apply to bards or sorcerers, who normally use charisma to determine the DC for the Enchant school spells.

But what about wizards and clerics? Let's face it, a horrendously ugly wizard should have a really hard time charming ANYONE, even if his INT is really high. I'm currently running a beautiful cleric of Sune (cha 18) who has taken the charm domain (see the FRCS). This domain grants her various spells from the enchantment school and allows her to raise her cha by 4 for 1 minute each day. The problem is...raising her cha does NOTHING for her enchant spells! I think this is just wrong.

Luckily I have given her a level of bard and plan on giving her more, but I still have problems with the fact that her cleric enchantment spell DCs are not enhanced by her great charisma (her wisdom is currently only 16). What do people think about this?

 

[Dragon Child]

I like the idea, but I don't like making it so you HAVE to use your cha even for clerics and sorcerers. It would work good as an option, or even a feat like this:


Innate Charmer (General)
Requirements: Must be able to prepare first level divine spells, or first level arcane spells.
Benefit: Instead of wisdom or intellegence, the saving throw DCs for all enchantment spells you cast are instead based on charisma. You also gain a +2 effective charisma for the purposes of the DCs of all enchantment spells.



There. Howzat sound?

 

[Zogg]

I think that feat looks great! Perhaps I'll just send this on over to my DM and see what she thinks.

 

[zorlag]

-

This is similar idea to Psionics 3E, where each discipline is keyed to different ability score (I wont go into the balance discussion about MAD now).

I think it might be interesting to divide schools between Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma. This would weaken spellcasters somewhat though.

Z.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

Concerning the example given, literature is full of tales where the ugly witch/wizard/whatever charmed others through the power of their magic. So I personally don't have a problem with an uncharismatic (which does not automatically mean ugly) caster using spells to enchant others just as effectively as the charismatic spellcaster.

As for the feat, the only time anyone will take it is when it's better than Spell Focus (Enchantment), in which case it's overpowered, or when the player wants both feats on his character, which could also be overpowered. I like the flavor, but I see some balance issues.

My only real objection to this idea is that I don't want to have to keep track of two different spell DC's, one for Enchantment spells, one for all others. It's a small step to say that all schools should be based on a particular stat, rather than class, which will complicate things for, IMHO, little gain.

 

[Dragon Child]

anyone will take it is when it's better than Spell Focus (Enchantment), in which case it's overpowered,

How so? Remember that that Cha could just as well be the int or wis, so all the feat is REALLY giving you is increased flexability, and +1 enchantment DCs. Not too powerful, I would think.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

DragonChild, my point is that both feats serve the same purpose: raising the save DC's of enchantment spells. Since neither feat has any other effect on the game, I would be a fool to take Innate Charmer if my charisma wasn't at least 2 higher than my primary spellcasting stat. And if my charisma was 4 or more higher, then I'm getting more than +2 to the save DC's - which could be unbalanced. The Spell Focus feat is a flat +2. Innate Charmer is open-ended, dependent only on the caster's current charisma score.

I do agree that few casters will have stats where charisma is significantly higher than their primary spellcasting stat, so Innate Charmer will rarely provide a higher bonus than Spell Focus. But if it did, would it be balanced?

 

[Dragon Child]

Yes, but what about Weapon Focus (Whip) and Point Blank Shot?
Sometimes a feat is just better then the others you could take. Its a very, very limited circumstance, but is it truly overpowering?

Yes, it COULD be better then Spell Focus, but it more often then not isn't, and when it is, you're probally hurting yourself in the first place with your higher cha then wis/int.

 

[Zogg]

I'm going to have to side with Dragon Child here. Remember guys, this feat is focused on only 1 school of magic and only greatly benefits wizards or clerics with an extremely high charisma score and a mediocre INT/WIS. I would hardly call that unbalancing.

The reason I would take it is because my cleric of Sune (CHA 18, WIS 16) can, as a charm domain ability, raise her CHA by 4 for 1 minute each day. This would give her an effective CHA of 22 - which would give her Enchantment spells a MUCH better DC than a 16 WIS would. It would be nice if her Enchantment DCs could reap the benefit. That's all I'm asking.

Let's look at what this feat does for her in number terms for a 16 WIS and 18 CHA cleric:

Hold Person (2nd level spell)

-No feat:
DC = 10+2(spell level)+3(WIS) = 15 DC

-Innate Charmer Feat
DC= 10+2(spell level)+4(CHA)+1(feat) = 17 DC

-Charm domain ability and Innate Charmer Feat
*remember this will only be for 1 minute each day*
DC= 10+2(spell level)+4(CHA) +1(feat)+2(domain ability) = 19DC

So NORMALLY there will be a +2 DC difference - making it a questionable choice when compared to the regular Spell Focus feat. However, for those clerics/wizards that either a) have a high charisma or b) are able to really boost up their charisma (perhaps even by a potion of charisma) this feat CAN mean the difference between a held enemy and one that can decapitate you.

So this feat CAN be valuable, but it's hardly unbalancing.