humble minion
Legend
I've never really liked how D&D puts fences around the character concepts for spellcasters, by making so much of their effectiveness dependent on a single pre-defined spellcasting ability score. Warlocks are the obvious example. Surely a quintessential warlock concept is the resentful unpleasant loner who made a deal with [entity X] for the power and respect they were otherwise denied? That doesn't sound like a high-Charisma character concept to me. (And yes, you could of course make a handwave justification of this by saying that part of the benefit of the pact to the warlock is increased personal magnetism, but you shouldn't HAVE to do this, and again, it limits character concepts). Same with Sorcerers - why should inheriting a ancestral legacy of magic automatically make you pleasant to talk to? That's a particularly arbitrary one.
It'd be nice to be able to play (and have the ability scores support) a good-hearted, sincere cleric with an engaging manner - who is nonetheless a bit naive and helplessly prone to temptation when confronted with attractive company and good wine. Not really a high-Wis character concept. Or a shy, self-effacing paladin who appears to be nothing special outwardly, and lets deeds speak rather than words.
It might be a bit of a sacred cow to slay, but I'd houserule to give most caster characters a choice of spellcasting ability (and general primary requisite for things like Channel Divinity and sundry other ability DCs). Martial PCs have been able to choose between Strength and Dex for years, after all. I'd propose that clerics can choose between Wisdom and Charisma - the contemplative or the preacher. Warlocks can choose between Charisma or Intelligence. Paladins between Charisma and Wisdom. Sorcerers between Charisma and Wisdom. This is a choice you make at level 1, and can't change afterwards.
It does get harder. I have trouble thinking of any stat other than Intelligence that's appropriate for wizards, or Charisma for bards. Druids and rangers could potentially choose to use Intelligence or Wisdom (knowledge of nature vs understanding of nature?), it's a little bit more of a stretch there though.
Can people see any obvious flaws or exploits in this house rule? Would it be something you'd be ok with playing?
(I'd even consider doing the same for monks - the quasi-Regency setting I'm tinkering with has a loose organisation of lady aristocrats and gentlewomen who quietly teach young heiresses and female servants how to - among other things - defend themselves in social or domestic situations against unprincipled men, in a society where men are legally privileged and women are expected to maintain strict standards of propriety without having power to back that up. A Charisma-based monk would seem to be perfect for this.)
It'd be nice to be able to play (and have the ability scores support) a good-hearted, sincere cleric with an engaging manner - who is nonetheless a bit naive and helplessly prone to temptation when confronted with attractive company and good wine. Not really a high-Wis character concept. Or a shy, self-effacing paladin who appears to be nothing special outwardly, and lets deeds speak rather than words.
It might be a bit of a sacred cow to slay, but I'd houserule to give most caster characters a choice of spellcasting ability (and general primary requisite for things like Channel Divinity and sundry other ability DCs). Martial PCs have been able to choose between Strength and Dex for years, after all. I'd propose that clerics can choose between Wisdom and Charisma - the contemplative or the preacher. Warlocks can choose between Charisma or Intelligence. Paladins between Charisma and Wisdom. Sorcerers between Charisma and Wisdom. This is a choice you make at level 1, and can't change afterwards.
It does get harder. I have trouble thinking of any stat other than Intelligence that's appropriate for wizards, or Charisma for bards. Druids and rangers could potentially choose to use Intelligence or Wisdom (knowledge of nature vs understanding of nature?), it's a little bit more of a stretch there though.
Can people see any obvious flaws or exploits in this house rule? Would it be something you'd be ok with playing?
(I'd even consider doing the same for monks - the quasi-Regency setting I'm tinkering with has a loose organisation of lady aristocrats and gentlewomen who quietly teach young heiresses and female servants how to - among other things - defend themselves in social or domestic situations against unprincipled men, in a society where men are legally privileged and women are expected to maintain strict standards of propriety without having power to back that up. A Charisma-based monk would seem to be perfect for this.)
Last edited: