Lore Bard based on Intelligence instead of Charisma: would that create an imbalance?

[DEFCON 1]

I think swapping primary attributes for various classes based upon flavor of subclass is a great idea, and I'm actually planning on it for the cleric and wizard in my next campaign. As an example:

Abjuration - WIS
Conjuration - CHA
Divination - INT
Enchantment - CHA
Evocation - INT
Illusion - INT
Necromancy - WIS
Transmutation - WIS

Likewise for the cleric domains:

Arcana - INT
Forge - INT
Grave - WIS
Knowledge - INT
Light - WIS
Life - WIS
Nature - WIS
Tempest - CHA
Trickery - CHA
War - CHA

You could also do it easily for the Bard as well if you wanted:

Glamour - CHA
Lore - INT
Swords - WIS
Valor - CHA
Whispers - INT

Now obviously while some are obvious selections of subclass to ability (Arcana and Knowledge clerics using INT, Enchantment wizard using CHA) others are less cut and dried. But I want to keep numbers relatively balanced across each class so that no matter what mental stat you roll high on you have some options for subclasses in each class, and most of them I can make the case why I went with one over the other (like for example the War cleric is the most paladin-like of its subclasses and thus CHA as its stat.)

None of these house rules are at all necessary, but its just a nice way to vary things up. Plus, it helps avoid the oddball situations that often seem to crop up, which are things like how most Clerics all seem to be really good at Perceiving things (because Perception uses WIS). This won't float most people's boats, but if it does, then I say go for it.

 

[TwoSix]

None of these house rules are at all necessary, but its just a nice way to vary things up. Plus, it helps avoid the oddball situations that often seem to crop up, which are things like how most Clerics all seem to be really good at Perceiving things (because Perception uses WIS). This won't float most people's boats, but if it does, then I say go for it.

That does give a lot of interesting options to take with a Hexblade dip!

 

[Merudo]

I think swapping primary attributes for various classes based upon flavor of subclass is a great idea, and I'm actually planning on it for the cleric and wizard in my next campaign.

I think your change allows for problematic multiclassing like Abjuration/Life on a Hill Dwarf.

Also, changing the main spellcasting attribute from WIS to CHA or INT is a nerf, and changing INT or CHA to WIS is a boost. WIS is clearly the most useful mental stat.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think your change allows for problematic multiclassing like Abjuration/Life on a Hill Dwarf.

Also, changing the main spellcasting attribute from WIS to CHA or INT is a nerf, and changing INT or CHA to WIS is a boost. WIS is clearly the most useful mental stat.

That would be true if I allowed multiclassing just for mechanical reasons. But I don't. The whole point of doing things like feature swaps or alternate primary ability scores is so that players don't have to multiclass.

If multiclassing happens in my games, its usually because there's a story reason that has come up pretty far along in the PCs career, which at that point they multiclass into the new class that makes sense for the story. And how well those classes "mesh" never enters into it, because I just rework any niggly rules so that the character can stay relatively on point.

And as far as WIS being "clearly the most useful stat", that's only true if game mechanics trump anything else in your game. Fortunately for me, I don't have that issue. Because my tables put story ahead of everything and game mechanics are just a side bar that occasionally allow for interesting or weird things to occur that we might not have thought of as we were improvising at the table.

All of the ideas I suggested above are for those tables for whom they can work with it. Some tables are so mechanic-centric that any time you suggest something that makes sense flavor wise, like giving DEX an extra bennie for some corner rules case, you'll get some players freaking out because "DEX IS TOO GOOD ALREADY!!!". Which is why those players shouldn't use these ideas. But if you are someone like me who thinks that giving a Cleric the Two-Weapon Fighting fighting style that fighters and rangers get because the Cleric's deity's favored weapons are dual-wielded is absolutely no big deal whatsoever (and it saves that person from having take a single dip in Fighter just to get it), then just do it. Because the story trumps the mechanics and we'll worry about the mechanics later of if/when they come up.

 

[JonnyP71]

That would be true if I allowed multiclassing just for mechanical reasons. But I don't. The whole point of doing things like feature swaps or alternate primary ability scores is so that players don't have to multiclass.

If multiclassing happens in my games, its usually because there's a story reason that has come up pretty far along in the PCs career, which at that point they multiclass into the new class that makes sense for the story. And how well those classes "mesh" never enters into it, because I just rework any niggly rules so that the character can stay relatively on point.

And as far as WIS being "clearly the most useful stat", that's only true if game mechanics trump anything else in your game. Fortunately for me, I don't have that issue. Because my tables put story ahead of everything and game mechanics are just a side bar that occasionally allow for interesting or weird things to occur that we might not have thought of as we were improvising at the table.

All of the ideas I suggested above are for those tables for whom they can work with it. Some tables are so mechanic-centric that any time you suggest something that makes sense flavor wise, like giving DEX an extra bennie for some corner rules case, you'll get some players freaking out because "DEX IS TOO GOOD ALREADY!!!". Which is why those players shouldn't use these ideas. But if you are someone like me who thinks that giving a Cleric the Two-Weapon Fighting fighting style that fighters and rangers get because the Cleric's deity's favored weapons are dual-wielded is absolutely no big deal whatsoever (and it saves that person from having take a single dip in Fighter just to get it), then just do it. Because the story trumps the mechanics and we'll worry about the mechanics later of if/when they come up.

If I could give this post 1,000,000xp I would....

 

[DEFCON 1]

If I could give this post 1,000,000xp I would....

While I appreciate that... I'm already at Hydra (Lvl 25), and I don't know how much higher Morrus' XP table for the boards actually goes where the extra million would be necessary.

 

[FrogReaver]

INT on a lore bard sounds fine. As with most changes it's the multiclassing you have to worry most about. Such a lore bard could multiclass 2 levels into bladesinger wizard and that might be a little strong for him.

If the goal is a single classed character I'm good. If the character will multiclass with other int based classes after becoming int then I'm more skeptical.

 

[Blue]

As a house rule, I allow Bards and Paladins to pick INT instead of CHR at 1st level for their features if it's more thematic.

 

[Caliban]

Only possible issue I can see is you might end up with a "Super Investigator" Lore Bard if they take proficiency and Expertise in Investigate (and perception, but that would be a secondary stat in either case).

I have an AL lore bard that ended up like this because we didn't have a rogue in our Tomb of Annihilation group, so I took expertise in both Investigate and Perception, then took the Observant feat...and then found a Headband of Intellect.

At lvl 10, his passive Investigate is 27, and his passive Perception is 24. DM's either just tell him all the secrets or make up reasons for his skills not to apply.