D&D 5E Alternate caster stats

[humble minion]

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.)

 

[bedir than]

Sorcerers between Charisma and Wisdom.

Yes, but Constitution. If their physical body is why they have magic, their physique should have something to do with it.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The biggest "exploit" in being able to choose your casting stat would be in multiclassing. For example, if a sorcerer can use wisdom, then they can dip a level of monk and improve their AC significantly. Effectively, it makes it much easier to build a SAD multiclass character.

If I implemented something like this, I'd at least consider making it an advantage exclusive to single-classed characters (in most of my campaigns, if you want to multiclass you have to do so during character creation, unless you intend for your character to take several years off from adventuring to learn a new class).

 

[cbwjm]

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.

I could see intelligence for bards, especially for the lore keepers. I think the druid could be the same as they seem like keepers of knowledge and rangers working with their intellect to take down enemies with their tricks and traps/spells.

I could actually see intelligence for sorcerers as well, inborn talent but study and experimentation needed to bring it out (though I normally use that as part of the explanation for wizards).

Wizards I sometimes think could be wisdom, engaging in introspection and unlocking the secrets of the arcane. This might fit well with backgrounds for hermits or tribal witch doctors.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

If it were me, I'd have wizards based on INT (NEEERRRRRDD!), Sorcerers on CON (BRUH!), and make warlocks have no stat whatsoever.

Warlock power comes from a pact, nothing else. It doesn't matter how smart you are or how forceful your personality is, the pact alone is your power. That way warlocks could truly use different mechanics than other classes.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

If it were me, I'd have wizards based on INT (NEEERRRRRDD!), Sorcerers on CON (BRUH!), and make warlocks have no stat whatsoever.

Warlock power comes from a pact, nothing else. It doesn't matter how smart you are or how forceful your personality is, the pact alone is your power. That way warlocks could truly use different mechanics than other classes.

ok, con sorcerer is based, but no stat warlock? so what, are they just gonna be 15-25% behind in accuracy compared to everyone else in the game? how would that work?

 

[humble minion]

Yes, but Constitution. If their physical body is why they have magic, their physique should have something to do with it.

I thought about that. It's just that everyone wants a high Con anyway, for the hit points. It seemed like a bit too much synergy and a bit overpowered, and having physical stats used for casting seems like a pretty big can of worms to open. I suppose my personal rationalisation is that it's not about what magic your physical body holds, but how you train yourself to tap into it. Plus, I kinda like there being an option for Wis-based arcane casters, and sorcerer seems to fit the bill.

The biggest "exploit" in being able to choose your casting stat would be in multiclassing. For example, if a sorcerer can use wisdom, then they can dip a level of monk and improve their AC significantly. Effectively, it makes it much easier to build a SAD multiclass character.

That's a reasonable point and one i didn't think of. I've never played a multiclassed caster though - how overpowered it it likely to be, in the worst case? Just eyeballing it, it'd seem to me you'd give up just as much or more in spell power than you'd likely get back in AC or whatever, especially at alternate levels when you're a full spell level behind the single-class caster. I mean, at my table our resident powergamer has a moon druid with one level of monk for the AC in wildshape, and that's probably as big an exploit of this sort as you're likely to find. We haven't found it terribly overpowering (or at least it wouldn't be if the DM stuck to the actual wording of Barkskin rather than letting it grant +6 to armour class on top of the wild shape AC and unarmoured defence, but eh, GMPCs, what are ya gonna do...?)

 

[Corinnguard]

In Pathfinder 2nd edition, there are four spell lists for Arcane, Divine, Primal and Occult, and depending on which bloodline a sorcerer has, they get to use one of these four spell lists. For instance, Sorcerers with the Angelic bloodline get to use spells from the divine spell list. Sorcerers with the Aberrant bloodline get spells from the Occult spell list. So your idea of a Sorcerer being able to use INT, WIS or CHA is alive and well in PF2 IMO. At least with that particular class.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

So your idea of a Sorcerer being able to use INT, WIS or CHA is alive and well in PF2 IMO. At least with that particular class.

this is, uh...not correct. your spellcasting modifier is not dependent on what spell list you use, and the sorcerer in pf2e is solely a charisma caster.

 

[Corinnguard]

this is, uh...not correct. your spellcasting modifier is not dependent on what spell list you use, and the sorcerer in pf2e is solely a charisma caster.

You're right. They still are Charisma casters. There goes my Investigation check.

 

[Clint_L]

Love this concept. One potential problem with making con one of the options is that it is probably always the best option in most campaigns, unless they are very combat light and exploration or role play heavy.

I don’t mind that this would mostly help Sorcerers and Warlocks, plus Clerics. Those first two could use a boost anyway and I don’t see swapping Wisdom for Charisma helping Clerics much.

 

[Clint_L]

Deleted

 

[Fanaelialae]

That's a reasonable point and one i didn't think of. I've never played a multiclassed caster though - how overpowered it it likely to be, in the worst case? Just eyeballing it, it'd seem to me you'd give up just as much or more in spell power than you'd likely get back in AC or whatever, especially at alternate levels when you're a full spell level behind the single-class caster. I mean, at my table our resident powergamer has a moon druid with one level of monk for the AC in wildshape, and that's probably as big an exploit of this sort as you're likely to find. We haven't found it terribly overpowering (or at least it wouldn't be if the DM stuck to the actual wording of Barkskin rather than letting it grant +6 to armour class on top of the wild shape AC and unarmoured defence, but eh, GMPCs, what are ya gonna do...?)

That's the thing. I don't really know what the most optimized combination an optimizer might conceive under this system. Yeah, giving up casting power is generally a big concern for casters, so it may be that this isn't too OP.

Something that could potentially be an issue would be something like a cleric/paladin, where you dip paladin for smite and then go cleric for the (much) faster spell slot acquisition. You'd be behind on casting, but barely behind a single classed cleric in terms of slots, and the ability to smite anything and everything could readily make up for it. And you'd still have the flexibility of using spells if you want to, almost as well as a full cleric. Is that OP? IDK.

The reason I suggested considering it as a bennie for single classes characters is because I'm quite confident that this change won't break anything in that scenario. Opening it up to multiclass characters? Much harder to say. By the time you realize you have a problem arising from it, it may be too late to put the genie back in the bottle.

 

[humble minion]

Something that could potentially be an issue would be something like a cleric/paladin, where you dip paladin for smite and then go cleric for the (much) faster spell slot acquisition. You'd be behind on casting, but barely behind a single classed cleric in terms of slots, and the ability to smite anything and everything could readily make up for it. And you'd still have the flexibility of using spells if you want to, almost as well as a full cleric. Is that OP? IDK.

People do that with the existing Cha casters - sorcerers and warlocks - now though. I'm not a fan personally, because all the 'builds' of that sort you see are all about maxing out smite power and very little about how your dedicated paladin decides to make a Hexblade pact or whatever, but the possibility has already been explored.

Your point is a fair one though. I'm far from a great character optimiser, and I'm sure there's exploitable edge cases that I've missed or hadn't thought of.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I did it for my Eberron campaign, and which ability score was primary was based upon the subclass the Cleric or Wizard had. So Knowledge, Arcana & Forge Clerics used INT; Trickery, Light & Tempest Clerics used CHA; Life, Nature, Grave and War Clerics used WIS.

Then Evocation, Illusion, & Divination Wizards used INT; Conjuration, Enchantment & Transmutation Wizards used CHA; and Abjuration & Necromancy Wizards used WIS.

Not all schools/domains aligned perfectly to the most logically assigned stat, but most did. A Knowledge Cleric using INT made perfect sense... a Transmutation Wizard using CHA not so much. But I wanted a relatively even distribution, so I placed them where I did. But it ultimately didn't really matter, since only one or two of them ended up being used through character creation anyway.

 

[CreamCloud0]

ok, con sorcerer is based, but no stat warlock? so what, are they just gonna be 15-25% behind in accuracy compared to everyone else in the game? how would that work?

i could see warlock having a different casting stat based on what patron or pact they take, i don't know if to leave them without a caster stat for their first two levels or just default to CHA for them before their choice, or if the variable casting stat would just be even more exploitable.

 

[TwoSix]

Just have the stats not impact spellcasting at all, and use proficiency modifier instead. Spell attack rolls are +(2xProf), and DCs are 8+(2xProf).

You can do the same for attacks, too, and relegate stats to modifying skills and saves.

 

[Horwath]

Just have the stats not impact spellcasting at all, and use proficiency modifier instead. Spell attack rolls are +(2xProf), and DCs are 8+(2xProf).

You can do the same for attacks, too, and relegate stats to modifying skills and saves.

had a similar idea while back:

Using abilities for only ability checks.

Yes, an idea to remove most effects from abilities so the only affect ability checks/skills. Have abilities only have mostly RP value. all combat is based on your level. In all other aspects of the game; attacks, saves, damage and DC's, ability mod would be replaced by your proficiency bonus...

www.enworld.org

 

[TwoSix]

had a similar idea while back:

Using abilities for only ability checks.

Yes, an idea to remove most effects from abilities so the only affect ability checks/skills. Have abilities only have mostly RP value. all combat is based on your level. In all other aspects of the game; attacks, saves, damage and DC's, ability mod would be replaced by your proficiency bonus...

www.enworld.org

More aggressive than my own house rule, but certainly workable. It's mostly a matter of feel as to how much mechanical weight you want the stats to bear.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

i could see warlock having a different casting stat based on what patron or pact they take, i don't know if to leave them without a caster stat for their first two levels or just default to CHA for them before their choice, or if the variable casting stat would just be even more exploitable.

that could work pretty well for 5e where warlocks get their subclass at 1st level, but uh...that's not what the guy suggested.

Just have the stats not impact spellcasting at all, and use proficiency modifier instead. Spell attack rolls are +(2xProf), and DCs are 8+(2xProf).

You can do the same for attacks, too, and relegate stats to modifying skills and saves.

well then now the attack/DC scaling of warlocks is out of wack with everyone else. they'll be behind everyone else by 5-10% until level 13, then edge out past everyone by 5% at 17.