Removing X ability score minimum to cast spells

[N'raac]

Only if you use encumberance....

If we start removing other rules, the comparables become more difficult.

If I don't use encumbrance, there's less reason for non-melee combatants to put points into STR. I could remove bonus skill points for INT and there's one less reason for characters to put points into INT, especially if they don't cast based on INT.

If we decide the game will revolve entirely around combat, with no social interaction (or, more common, all social interaction will be resolved by role playing, so the player's social skills are relevant and the character's are not), one less reason to sink points into CHA (or social skill ranks, for that matter).

At the extreme, we could provide no bonuses or penalties at all for characteristics - they're just flavor text and all Casters get the same number of spells with the same DC's, everyone with a club does the same damage, AC isn't changed by agility, all characters of the same level have the same save bonuses for favoured and non-favoured saves, etc.

 

[N'raac]

I'd go with a massive flat penalty: -1 spell slot per -1 of ability penalty for every spell level you can cast. It's brutally punishing, but at least it sucks evenly.
-blarg

And still sends the message that you must have a high Caster Stat to be an effective spellcaster. An 8 INT Wizard is more viable than under the current model - at least he CAN cast spells - but it's still a terribly inefficient build. Given that, what's the point of making a somewhat different, but still crippling, penalty for having a very low caster stat?

You can play a wizard with an 8 INT - he just can't cast any spells. You can play a Fighter with an 8 STR too - will he be more effective, lumbered under the heavy load of medium armor, a shield and a weapon?

 

[Alzrius]

As to other comments, I don't think removing the "need X ability score to cast Y level spell" will stop PCs from putting their highest stat in their spellcasting score, I think it's just an unneccesary carry-over, like demihuman level limits.

When you say "carry-over" you mean from 3.0 and 3.5, right? Because unless I'm misremembering (which I may very well be), I don't think that any previous editions had this rule.

 

[Stormonu]

When you say "carry-over" you mean from 3.0 and 3.5, right? Because unless I'm misremembering (which I may very well be), I don't think that any previous editions had this rule.

No, actually this was a 1E rule (PHB, p10). Interestingly enough, for 1E & 2E, a wizard had to have a minimum of 9 Int, but you could then cast up to 4th level spells max. Every 2 points of Int thereafter gave you one spell level higher, up to being able to cast 9th level spells at 18 Int. In a way, 3E conflated the need for high ability scores for wizards because you'd have to have a 14 to match what a 1E/2E wizard could cast with a 9 Int (though the older edition's wizard's spellbook would be filled with a lot more scribbled out spells he couldn't figure out how to cast).

I still believe I'm going to try this out and see what the results are. I don't think it will even be missed.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Thinking about it, removing the spell level to DC would be pretty good-- then casters don't need a high ability score, but ability damage is serious business.

 

[Xakk]

People are getting close to fingering it, but the real reason is to maintain some kind of categorical exclusivity. That is to say practically, characters who use swords and boards are not supposed to be getting into the spellbooks, unless their class was balanced for it. And even then they become a secondary caster, and need to figure out which of the two they're going to focus on. Given that casters for the most part casters gain higher spell levels as their class level go up faster than bonuses to the things abilities affect, it seems logical that the measure of power as a caster is the level of the spell they can cast.
Now if a fighter doesn't somehow have a brace of high stats, it's unlikely they'll be putting a higher number in a spellcasting ability. So if they suddenly change gears right into spellcasting, it's possible to do, but they'll be stuck with a brace of low level spells reflecting their beginnings in a non scholarly class. Plus, it also keeps casters of different sources from casting different kinds with equal proficiency. Although, in either case, if the player is determined enough to hit this upper limit, they've likely found abilities or gear to accomodate their casting aspirations.

 

[zag01]

I guess you have to ask yourself what is the point of having house rules. For me, it has to be something that is easily remembered and either adds fun to the game or changes something that upsets my group’s verisimilitude.

If, as you say, you “don’t think it will even be missed” then to me it’s a pointless change. If it won’t be missed, then it won’t be remembered in game play. In other words, the one time, corner case it does come up in the game either it’ll be forgotten completely or it’ll be remembered halfway thru and you’ll have to decide weather to retcon events or drop it for the duration, which, either way drags the game to a halt.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

 

[kinem]

I don't want to be drawn into an argument over a house rule that few people are likely to use, but I think it's a terrible idea.

It makes a huge amount of sense that higher level wizard spells are more complicated and require higher intelligence to understand. As Xakk said, we certainly don't want low intelligence warriors multiclassing into wizard and being able to cast the same spells that high-int wizards have spend a lifetime trying to master.

It's less clearcut in the cases of cleric and sorcerers, but I think a similar argument makes sense. You have to be wise to be a powerful priest, and for sorcerers, charisma doesn't make as much sense but really stands for a certain type of magical potential. (IMO sorcerers should better cast based on a special 'mojo' stat.) In any case it's certainly a nice bit of flavor.

 

[Fooly_Cooly]

I agree that doing this will unbalance the game. If you start letting casters cast the same spells with such low stats then they can put the better stats in in other areas and still be a magical pain in the rear. If thats the case then fighters should just get an automatic progression to damage so they can put there higher points else where. Then what happens a fighter with low str still pushes out high damage and can put his high stat in in or wis and cast almost as effectively is the pure casters. Then we have a major problem .

 

[Stormonu]

. As Xakk said, we certainly don't want low intelligence warriors multiclassing into wizard and being able to cast the same spells that high-int wizards have spend a lifetime trying to master.

.

I don't think that will be a problem, the pure wizard will still have access to higher level spells than the multiclasser.