Removing X ability score minimum to cast spells

[frankthedm]

An important issue is that you severely reduce the value of stat damage as an anti caster effect. Just as attacking a big creature's dexterity score makes beating it easy, beating up a caster's casting stat can swiftly neuter them.

Not a fan of stat damage, but just wanted to mention this repercussion.

 

[KiloGex]

Is it really that bloaty to require a 19 for the highest level of spells?.

Completely agree with this. Taking away the spell-level requirement because of ability bloat is similar to saying "I'm thinking of taking away STR bonus to Attack Bonus, because it encourages fighters to put points into STR."

Each class has a primary and secondary ability, and it just so happens that INT is it for wizards. What else would they put the points into, after all - Charisma, Strength, Dexterity?

 

[Stormonu]

An important issue is that you severely reduce the value of stat damage as an anti caster effect. Just as attacking a big creature's dexterity score makes beating it easy, beating up a caster's casting stat can swiftly neuter them.

Not a fan of stat damage, but just wanted to mention this repercussion.

Ah, that is something to think about. However, the affect of the lowered stat on the DC should be enough of a pain. Will have to see how that turns out.

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.

 

[Thazar]

Overall I do not think this will affect casters that much. As was stated above the high ability score is more important for spell DC and bonus spells. This would allow a fighter or thief to more easily pick up a level dip or two to cast spells if they wanted. (I can think of a few characters with a 9 or 10 INT or CHA that would love to have the odd shield spell or expeditious retreat as a combat option... plus it opens up more scroll use.) Rangers would also probably really like this change.

One other comment. You said fighters and other classes do not have to have high ability scores to use armor and weapons... but that is not 200% true. The feats DO have minimum ability scores. the TWF, PA, CE, line of feats are at the top of those lists and require skill placement planning at or equal to the level of a caster's basic needs.

 

[udalrich]

I think that the main affect will be on secondary casters and multiclassed characters. These classes often have poor save DC's anyway, so they should focus on buffing or no-save spells anyway.

Paladins have plenty of reasons to bump charisma, but some ranger builds wouldn't mind dumping wisdom if it didn't cost them spells.

A one level dip into sorcerer would give a fighter True Strike and Shield several times a day. Even a 6 charisma should only cost a second level spell slot, so charisma can still be dumped. The -1 to hit is probably worth the +2 to Will saves.

An archer bard wants high dex and strength, and high int is also useful for knowledge and skills. A low charisma hurts with slightly fewer spells and rounds of bardic performance, but one less stat to keep high could certainly help.

 

[Stormonu]

Hmm, good point on the level dip for spells with no DC. To bad there's not a "cast" mechanic for such spells (well, one could be added, but that sorta defeats getting rid of the ability requirement).

I already allow fighters to ignore the ability prerequisites for combat feats (based on the monks ability to do so for certain feats), so for my game that evens things out a bit.

This does bring about a side question, which I haven't thuoght of until now - if casters get bonus spells per day for high stats, shouldn't fighters get something like bonus feats for high Strength (and what would rogues get - high Int already grants extra skill points)?

 

[N'raac]

This does bring about a side question, which I haven't thuoght of until now - if casters get bonus spells per day for high stats, shouldn't fighters get something like bonus feats for high Strength (and what would rogues get - high Int already grants extra skill points)?

Sure - after all, it's not like STR grants them any bonuses to fighting, like, say, improved chances to hit or enhanced damage, so they're not really motivated to bump up STR now, right? And, of course, encumbrance isn't an issue in lugging around all that armor and weaponry, so that's no reason to buy STR.

Oh, wait...

An alternative, I suppose, would be to make spells more powerful across the board and remove bonus spells for higher stats, or remove the bonus and give all casters more spells at lower levels. Of course, this also makes a 1 level dip a much better buy, since you can be a decent caster with a lousy casting score so long as you stick to spells with no saves.

 

[Stormonu]

Sure - And, of course, encumbrance isn't an issue in lugging around all that armor and weaponry, so that's no reason to buy STR.
.

Only if you use encumberance....

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I would agree with this, but mathematically I don't really know how to address "penalty spells"-- shouldn't a low casting stat penalize your highest spells first? (Actually... that's an idea. If your score is below 10, you subtract one spell per day from each spell level equal or higher than your score.)

But you're taking a pretty big drawback away from the classes that are pretty much already "winning" D&D. Maybe you should figure out some advantage to take away to compensate... perhaps adding your casting stat modifier to spell DC?

 

[blargney the second]

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