D&D (2024) Buffing Int, Wis, and Cha (Mostly Int and Cha)

[CreamCloud0]

Which can still at least create the occasional smart Paladin, or charismatic Fighter.

Main stat being good isn't a problem, it's the completely predictable everything else.

true, but my point was even with fixed rolled stats people will likely still attempt to align those randomly generated highs and lows with their resulting class choice in the same way they would've aligned the stats if they had picked thier class first instead, even if a few secondary/tertary stats aren't cookie cutter assigned, unless they got multiple 17s or something i doubt players will try to do anything with them after generation in the same way they wouldn't of tried to with array or pointbuy, just enjoy having a higher than average score.

 

[rmcoen]

adding extra skill or 3 tools, languages or weapons per intelligence bonus seems like a good idea, but again, then you will have; why is wizard and artificer getting more skills than anyone else as they are now double dipping with Int increase.
partially goes to EK and AT.

IMHO, beast way is to balance out 6 saves that ALL have more or less similar power of effects to defend from and similar number of them.

I had an idea IMC for a boost from INT, and this was the first feedback I got. "The rich get richer." Which I think is kinda of a BS answer because looking at my PCs, the INT scores are 8, 10, 8, 10, 8, and 10. No wizards or artificers; a fighter/rogue (INT 8 arcane trickster, no less!), warlock, cleric, rogue/druid, ranger/barbarian, and bard [in that order of INT scores]. No one felt the need to have a positive INT score because why bother? If there had been a wizard, he would have INT 18, because of course he would; the current PCs all have 18s or 20s in their prime stats, after all. So... the wizard would get more mileage out of that 18, and the other PCs would get nothing (or another penalty).

But the point of the OP's idea is that such a rule would/should encourage the other PCs to maybe have 12s or 14s - that INT should be considered a "useful" stat for everyone. Like I don't care about having STR 8 on all my characters, except the heavy-armor-wearing paladin I played (and I still cheesed that one with mithril armor and STR 10!!)... but when I play Solasta (or BG3, a little), I make sure everyone has 10 or even 12 STR because there are frequent jumps you just 100% can't make without it, and it splits the party. (And in most CRPGs, STR determines carry capacity, and I always pick up everything.....)

So, yes, I'm onboard with increasing these under-valued stats, even if two of the 14? 20? classes will inadvertently AUTOMATICALLY get the maximum bonus from it too, because it will encourage the other 12? 18? classes to not dump the stat!

My idea for INT, btw, was not to straight give extra skills, but to give specializations or "knacks". Like every cleric has Religion, but your INT 12 cleric has a specialization in Undead, so when he makes any skill check that relates to Undead, he gets to add +1 to the check. You can give up two "knacks" for a specialization, and now the bonus is "+1d4" instead of +1. [I was also toying with related ideas. Like your first knack is random somehow, but the second could be chosen; why can't the rogue have the knack with Undead, while the cleric's knack is for Tumbling? Or having a knack with a specific weapon - "I've always had a knack with knives" - and getting that bonus to damage, or a once-per-fight accuracy boost?]

My house rule for CHA is "You get 1 free, loyal Contact for each point of CHA bonus." [You also get 1 or two for a detailed background, FYI.] You can define your Contact DURING PLAY, writing them into the story as a resource or defining an existing NPC as your Contact (with GM permission). For example, upon reaching the County capital, the bard's player said "I'm going to go look up my friend Terranik. He owns a tavern here; he'll know what's going on, and I can get us all rooms for the knight." Poof, Terranik is now the owner of the Broken Shield tavern, lower west side. Later in the campaign, the rogue (a princess-type that sneaks out of the castle to go on adventures) decided that the guard on the East Gate of her father's city - where the PCs were trying to sneak into town after being banished (for reasons) - was an old friend of hers from childhood. A quiet conversation later, the guard was "tricked (wink wink) into chasing a sighted bandit", leaving the gate conveniently unguarded for a couple minutes for the PCs to slip through.

Does the bard have more Contacts than anyone else? Yes. And the Warlock does too. And it's okay; these charismatic PCs know more people, and it's fine. But the CHA 14 rogue enjoyed her moment at the gate, and now there's a better-defined PC-tied NPC in the world that she cares about. Win-win!



Sorry OP, WIS has enough reasons to keep high (Perception and save-or-suck saving throws)!

 

[Horwath]

My idea for INT, btw, was not to straight give extra skills, but to give specializations or "knacks". Like every cleric has Religion, but your INT 12 cleric has a specialization in Undead, so when he makes any skill check that relates to Undead, he gets to add +1 to the check. You can give up two "knacks" for a specialization, and now the bonus is "+1d4" instead of +1. [I was also toying with related ideas. Like your first knack is random somehow, but the second could be chosen; why can't the rogue have the knack with Undead, while the cleric's knack is for Tumbling? Or having a knack with a specific weapon - "I've always had a knack with knives" - and getting that bonus to damage, or a once-per-fight accuracy boost?]

to steal from new cleric:
for every point of Int bonus pick one wis or cha skill, you can use int modifier for that skill.
This will not give extra skills or put that skill over maximum with ability modifier.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I had an idea IMC for a boost from INT, and this was the first feedback I got. "The rich get richer." Which I think is kinda of a BS answer because looking at my PCs, the INT scores are 8, 10, 8, 10, 8, and 10. No wizards or artificers; a fighter/rogue (INT 8 arcane trickster, no less!), warlock, cleric, rogue/druid, ranger/barbarian, and bard [in that order of INT scores]. No one felt the need to have a positive INT score because why bother? If there had been a wizard, he would have INT 18, because of course he would; the current PCs all have 18s or 20s in their prime stats, after all. So... the wizard would get more mileage out of that 18, and the other PCs would get nothing (or another penalty).

But the point of the OP's idea is that such a rule would/should encourage the other PCs to maybe have 12s or 14s - that INT should be considered a "useful" stat for everyone. Like I don't care about having STR 8 on all my characters, except the heavy-armor-wearing paladin I played (and I still cheesed that one with mithril armor and STR 10!!)... but when I play Solasta (or BG3, a little), I make sure everyone has 10 or even 12 STR because there are frequent jumps you just 100% can't make without it, and it splits the party. (And in most CRPGs, STR determines carry capacity, and I always pick up everything.....)

So, yes, I'm onboard with increasing these under-valued stats, even if two of the 14? 20? classes will inadvertently AUTOMATICALLY get the maximum bonus from it too, because it will encourage the other 12? 18? classes to not dump the stat!

My idea for INT, btw, was not to straight give extra skills, but to give specializations or "knacks". Like every cleric has Religion, but your INT 12 cleric has a specialization in Undead, so when he makes any skill check that relates to Undead, he gets to add +1 to the check. You can give up two "knacks" for a specialization, and now the bonus is "+1d4" instead of +1. [I was also toying with related ideas. Like your first knack is random somehow, but the second could be chosen; why can't the rogue have the knack with Undead, while the cleric's knack is for Tumbling? Or having a knack with a specific weapon - "I've always had a knack with knives" - and getting that bonus to damage, or a once-per-fight accuracy boost?]

My house rule for CHA is "You get 1 free, loyal Contact for each point of CHA bonus." [You also get 1 or two for a detailed background, FYI.] You can define your Contact DURING PLAY, writing them into the story as a resource or defining an existing NPC as your Contact (with GM permission). For example, upon reaching the County capital, the bard's player said "I'm going to go look up my friend Terranik. He owns a tavern here; he'll know what's going on, and I can get us all rooms for the knight." Poof, Terranik is now the owner of the Broken Shield tavern, lower west side. Later in the campaign, the rogue (a princess-type that sneaks out of the castle to go on adventures) decided that the guard on the East Gate of her father's city - where the PCs were trying to sneak into town after being banished (for reasons) - was an old friend of hers from childhood. A quiet conversation later, the guard was "tricked (wink wink) into chasing a sighted bandit", leaving the gate conveniently unguarded for a couple minutes for the PCs to slip through.

Does the bard have more Contacts than anyone else? Yes. And the Warlock does too. And it's okay; these charismatic PCs know more people, and it's fine. But the CHA 14 rogue enjoyed her moment at the gate, and now there's a better-defined PC-tied NPC in the world that she cares about. Win-win!



Sorry OP, WIS has enough reasons to keep high (Perception and save-or-suck saving throws)!

In Level Up, characters get additional skill specializations (bonus dice to skill rolls in specific areas) based on their Intelligence bonus. Make int useful for everyone, and diversified 5e's skill system at the same time. Genius!

 

[Xeviat]

I had an idea IMC for a boost from INT, and this was the first feedback I got. "The rich get richer." Which I think is kinda of a BS answer because looking at my PCs, the INT scores are 8, 10, 8, 10, 8, and 10. No wizards or artificers; a fighter/rogue (INT 8 arcane trickster, no less!), warlock, cleric, rogue/druid, ranger/barbarian, and bard [in that order of INT scores]. No one felt the need to have a positive INT score because why bother? If there had been a wizard, he would have INT 18, because of course he would; the current PCs all have 18s or 20s in their prime stats, after all. So... the wizard would get more mileage out of that 18, and the other PCs would get nothing (or another penalty).

But the point of the OP's idea is that such a rule would/should encourage the other PCs to maybe have 12s or 14s - that INT should be considered a "useful" stat for everyone. Like I don't care about having STR 8 on all my characters, except the heavy-armor-wearing paladin I played (and I still cheesed that one with mithril armor and STR 10!!)... but when I play Solasta (or BG3, a little), I make sure everyone has 10 or even 12 STR because there are frequent jumps you just 100% can't make without it, and it splits the party. (And in most CRPGs, STR determines carry capacity, and I always pick up everything.....)

So, yes, I'm onboard with increasing these under-valued stats, even if two of the 14? 20? classes will inadvertently AUTOMATICALLY get the maximum bonus from it too, because it will encourage the other 12? 18? classes to not dump the stat!

My idea for INT, btw, was not to straight give extra skills, but to give specializations or "knacks". Like every cleric has Religion, but your INT 12 cleric has a specialization in Undead, so when he makes any skill check that relates to Undead, he gets to add +1 to the check. You can give up two "knacks" for a specialization, and now the bonus is "+1d4" instead of +1. [I was also toying with related ideas. Like your first knack is random somehow, but the second could be chosen; why can't the rogue have the knack with Undead, while the cleric's knack is for Tumbling? Or having a knack with a specific weapon - "I've always had a knack with knives" - and getting that bonus to damage, or a once-per-fight accuracy boost?]

My house rule for CHA is "You get 1 free, loyal Contact for each point of CHA bonus." [You also get 1 or two for a detailed background, FYI.] You can define your Contact DURING PLAY, writing them into the story as a resource or defining an existing NPC as your Contact (with GM permission). For example, upon reaching the County capital, the bard's player said "I'm going to go look up my friend Terranik. He owns a tavern here; he'll know what's going on, and I can get us all rooms for the knight." Poof, Terranik is now the owner of the Broken Shield tavern, lower west side. Later in the campaign, the rogue (a princess-type that sneaks out of the castle to go on adventures) decided that the guard on the East Gate of her father's city - where the PCs were trying to sneak into town after being banished (for reasons) - was an old friend of hers from childhood. A quiet conversation later, the guard was "tricked (wink wink) into chasing a sighted bandit", leaving the gate conveniently unguarded for a couple minutes for the PCs to slip through.

Does the bard have more Contacts than anyone else? Yes. And the Warlock does too. And it's okay; these charismatic PCs know more people, and it's fine. But the CHA 14 rogue enjoyed her moment at the gate, and now there's a better-defined PC-tied NPC in the world that she cares about. Win-win!



Sorry OP, WIS has enough reasons to keep high (Perception and save-or-suck saving throws)!

Well written reply!

Putting skill specializations from A5E into D&D through Int bonus is an interesting idea! I've settled on languages or tools, though, for now for our first 5.24 game.

Contacts for Charisma is great too. I might give everyone 2 minus Cha mod contacts.

If I were to go back and give skill proficiencies to Int, I'd have to add some more skills that feel "required" by wizards and artificers (and mystics). Spellcraft, of making Arcana a requirement for their magic would be a start.