Hypothetical Concept : MAD Casters

[BobTheNob]

Now I know this will never happen and "it aint D&D", but in my work place every idea is welcome, so here goes.

A recent thread proposed Charisma as the casting stats for clerics.

Got me thinking. What if casters were NOT based on a single stat (so bonus to hit, save dc, damage bonus e.t.c.)? What if that stat that a spell was based on was derived based on the nature of the spell itself. For instance, A "Charm" spell was actually based on charisma? Or an illusion spell is based on your Intelligence, or a "detect" spell was based on wisdom.

Why?

One of the discrepancies in the current approach is that in order to cast a spell with potency, you need 1 good stat. In order to be able to resist that spell on an equal basis, given the save could be based on ANY stat, you need 6 good stats.

The other thing is that martial character have always been kinda mad. They benefit from all physical stats, where casters have always been 1. So, caster are a little more MAD.

Pure spit-balling, feel free to burn me for a heresy.

 

[Incenjucar]

It's unlikely to ever happen in D&D, but it would be rather nice if every stat did something for every character, and not just by acting as a saving throw.

It really requires a new system, or at least new classes, though.

...Maybe they could test it out with shadow and elemental classes... you know, in my dreams.

 

[FireLance]

Actually, I think the original 3e psionics system worked something like that. IIRC, Psychokinesis powers were based on Strength, Psychometabolism on Constitution, Psychoportation on Dexterity, Metacreativity on Intelligence, Clairsentience on Wisdom and Telepathy on Charisma.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Pure spit-balling, feel free to burn me for a heresy.

Heh, I won't be clamoring to burn you; you sorta ninja'd me by about 1 hour! I think it's a neat idea, to tie casting stat to spells rather than to casting classes.

Would that open up possibilities for CHA clerics or WIS wizards or INT sorcs? Would the difference between classes then be mainly on how they cast spells (eg, prepped vancian, or spont), while exactly which spells they cast would be up to the character (and, of course, external limiting factors like domains, alignment, etc).

Seems a nifty idea, but one diffilcult to do right. Also, as Incenjucar suggests, it's not likely to happen for D&D. It doesn't 'feel' like the D&D genre, whatever that means.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Pure spit-balling, feel free to burn me for a heresy.

For what it's worth, I reckon it's a brilliant idea. Part of the problem with the power level of the 3.x/PF wizard (that the 5e wizard is a closer relative of compared to the 4e wizard), is that they have such loose restrictions on the types of spells they can perfectly cast. Your idea takes away that capacity by forcing them to use three primary stats instead of one.

In addition, this alleviates to a degree the min/max approach to purchasing ability scores for a wizard who had little reason not to max out INT. All in all, a very good thing.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

PS: I think if you offered a single "ability trait" in each ability that has an ability score of 13+, you would likewise encourage player's to be good at several abilities rather than just one. An ability trait would allow the character to be particularly effective in a particular instance of that ability score.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I can't remember what system I saw something like this in, and am perhaps getting confused with a Fantasy Hero hybrid or maybe an old Dragon article from AD&D, but ...

Why stop at the actual casting? If you really want to make it fun, make the placement of a ranged spell require Dex, a melee spell based on Str. Then make sure "concentration" matters again, based on Con.

You can also make different aspects of a spell based on something different. For example, casting an illusion is based on Int, but the saving throw to disbelieve for your opponents is based on your Cha. Doing different, flavorful pairs that way is a fun way to distinguish schools, while still letting Int be important most of the time. (That's also an option to bring Dex and Str in for ranged and melee, without changing how D&D has worked. Make a "melee" spell saving throw based on Str, but still cast it on Int.)

Most casters will then focus on the spells that fit their strengths (not being able to do all six stats justice, but a fighter/wizard multiclass character might very well benefit from some "melee" spells, since he needs Str anyway.

 

[imurphy943]

That's an excellent idea. Casters that were actually designed around this concept would each gain an extra level of flavor- the 'Evil Advisor' guy always using Charm Person would actually have Charisma to go with it, and the guy always using Wall of Iron, Barkskin, and Bigby's X would actually be a big, tough guy.

I can see that this would leave casters free to just bulk up on physical stats, putting them further ahead in power than when they were confined to 'dump stats', but as far as I'm concerned, you can't spend all your time worrying about power gaming and lose awesome ideas in the process.

 

[The Shadow]

PS: I think if you offered a single "ability trait" in each ability that has an ability score of 13+, you would likewise encourage player's to be good at several abilities rather than just one. An ability trait would allow the character to be particularly effective in a particular instance of that ability score.

Please suggest this in your playtest feedback! I think this is a really good idea.

It could be something as simple as an extra skill often relevant to that ability. Like, an extra Lore for high Int.

 

[tlantl]

Certainly is food for thought. Cold make specializing interesting. Spell selection could be affected. Spell effectiveness could vary widely depending on the ability it's tied to.

I'd be open to at least giving it a test drive.

 

[Doug McCrae]

This is a fine idea. The only problem I see is that it's now a bit harder to distinguish between different kinds of caster. Previously wizards had int, clerics had wis, bards had cha, now they're all the same.

I think that, in 3e and earlier, many of the caster classes, particularly wizards and clerics, had access to too wide a range of spells, making them flavourless. Specialist wizards in 2e and 3e never seemed specialised enough. Sorcerers were a lot better because each individual sorcerer had a very small selection of spells known.

5e does seem to be going for more specialised casters, which is good, though maybe it's just the clerics.