Innate spells should be able to key off any ability score, not just Charisma

[Colette Brunel]

I think that innate spells should be able to key off any ability score, not just Charisma. I do not see why an elf monk with Otherworldly Magic or a gnome barbarian with First World Magic should not be able to use a physical ability score for the cantrip, flavored as channeling ki or totem spirits.

[Lucas Yew]

Seeing how they brutally penalized Kineticists for just being able to use Constitution offensively, I doubt if such goodness can ever happen...

[LordVanya]

Not likely, but I think they should anyway.
After all, isn't the playtest all about trying out wildly new things?

[Alchemic_Genius]

Tbh, a con based innate spell is super awesome thematically. I can see why they wouldn't allow, say, a str or dex based spell (simply because there's not a lot of justification) but con would still allow martials to get some nice use out of an innate spell without sacrificing much, and makes for a nice surprise feature in their abilities ("what?! That fighter is lobbing fire at us?!")

[Asuet]

Wrong forum. Also horrible idea.

[Colette Brunel]

Asuet wrote:

Wrong forum.

Innate spells come mostly from ancestries.

Asuet wrote:

Also horrible idea.

What makes you call it a horrible idea?

[Asuet]

It's a horrible idea because innate spells are supposed to come from within. Much like the sorcerer's powers. Having your innate spells work with something like dex is just power gaming. I think you could make an argument that divine innate powers could use wisdom for example but using the physical ability scores for that makes no sense thematically. Innate spells are not ki abilities or spirits. They are spells. If they add a feat where you can get a ki ability that's not an innate spell then I would also argue for not using charisma as the modifier.

[Colette Brunel]

Bards, sorcerers, and possibly clerics and paladins get to use innate spells that call for casting ability modifier to good effect. Why should, say, barbarians, fighters, monks, and rangers be shafted out of using innate spells that call for casting ability modifier?

[Ed Reppert]

"A spell is a process, not a thing." -- P.E.I. Bonewits, Authentic Thaumaturgy

[ErichAD]

The innate spells are locked in at trained only, keying them off a preferable modifier isn't going to make them much better. Since you're much better off picking a spell that always works, it's probably a good idea to facilitate whatever roleplay purpose someone has cooked up for having the spell be based on some other stat.

[Rysky]

Colette Brunel wrote:

Why should, say, barbarians, fighters, monks, and rangers be shafted out of using innate spells that call for casting ability modifier?

What Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, and Ranger Innate Spells are there?

[Corwin Icewolf]

The fact that wild order druids add their strength to their number of wild shapes per day makes me think you would need to support removing that for the "It can't be justified in character" argument to work. both leave a bad taste in my mouth though. "I push this magical power out harder with my mighty muscles!"

[EberronHoward]

I wouldn't mind allowing a choice between INT, WIS, and CHA as a compromise.

[Colette Brunel]

Another reason to decouple innate spells from Charisma is that various items grant innate spells that still rely on the character's own spell DC, and it seems weird that only Charisma-based characters can use these innate spells all that well.

[shroudb]

if you pick a spell with a feat, and you're a martial, you have to use charisma to attack with it (because it makes sense to use Charisma for innate spells, that's the whole premise of what innate magic isin pf)

if you pick a weapon proficiency with a feat, and you're a caster, you have to use str/dex to attack with it (because it makes sense to do so, that's how weapons work in pf)

what's the issue?

[Draco18s]

s/fighter/wizard

shroudb wrote:

if you pick a spell with a feat, and you're a wizard, you have to use charisma to attack with it (because it makes sense to use Charisma for innate spells, that's the whole premise of what innate magic isin pf)

Does it still make sense?

[shroudb]

Draco18s wrote:

s/fighter/wizard

shroudb wrote:

if you pick a spell with a feat, and you're a wizard, you have to use charisma to attack with it (because it makes sense to use Charisma for innate spells, that's the whole premise of what innate magic isin pf)

Does it still make sense?

Yes, innate magic is still defined as something that you invoke with your force of personality since the Sorc class has been published.

[sherlock1701]

Empyreal and sage sorcerors were things. Seems reasonable to allow a choice of mental stat.

[Fuzzypaws]

Highest mental ability score seems fine to me.

[Ed Reppert]

shroudb wrote:

Yes, innate magic is still defined as something that you invoke with your force of personality since the Sorc class has been published.

Defined where?

[Liir]

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Highest mental ability score seems fine to me.

Agreed here, along with Will Saves and Focus.

[HWalsh]

Draco18s wrote:

s/fighter/wizard

shroudb wrote:

if you pick a spell with a feat, and you're a wizard, you have to use charisma to attack with it (because it makes sense to use Charisma for innate spells, that's the whole premise of what innate magic isin pf)

Does it still make sense?

Yes, because the feat grants innate magic.

Easy way to explain it:

There are two types of "magical energy" in Pathfinder. Let's use the shorthand mana, even though that's not a pf term.

So you have external mana, which is what Wizards and Clerics use. This is magical energy from some outside source. Be it energy granted from a deity or natural ambient energy that takes years of study to utilize.

Then you have internal mana, which is inherent to the body and uses it's natural reserves. In PF1 this was the power source for Oracles and Sorcerers. In PF2 it is the Sorcerers, and natural power wells of Paladins, as well as "Resolve/Focus" pools.

As such, if it is internal magic, for cosmological consistency it should use Charisma.

[Voss]

LordVanya wrote:

After all, isn't the playtest all about trying out wildly new things?

No. It's for seeing if the current set of ideas as a whole will fly or flop with their customer base.

[Voss]

HWalsh wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

s/fighter/wizard

shroudb wrote:

if you pick a spell with a feat, and you're a wizard, you have to use charisma to attack with it (because it makes sense to use Charisma for innate spells, that's the whole premise of what innate magic isin pf)

Does it still make sense?

Yes, because the feat grants innate magic.

Easy way to explain it:

There are two types of "magical energy" in Pathfinder. Let's use the shorthand mana, even though that's not a pf term.

So you have external mana, which is what Wizards and Clerics use. This is magical energy from some outside source. Be it energy granted from a deity or natural ambient energy that takes years of study to utilize.

Then you have internal mana, which is inherent to the body and uses it's natural reserves. In PF1 this was the power source for Oracles and Sorcerers. In PF2 it is the Sorcerers, and natural power wells of Paladins, as well as "Resolve/Focus" pools.

As such, if it is internal magic, for cosmological consistency it should use Charisma.

Eh? Where in the setting material is that? Magic is magic. Different classes use different mechanics, but that's game systems, not setting.

There isn't much indication that a wizard's magic comes from 'outside,' and even clerical magic is dubious. I'm not sure how you'd tell if they were somehow being fed magic from another plane or just making it all up inside their own heads.

If anything, we're seeing more and more evidence that the spell difference is mostly to avoid having 'dump stats' at character creation. From a design perspective, the more classes that have to use a stat the better.