Different stats for melee attacks as a feat

[miburo]

So, the Hexblade UA opened up the door for the possibility of a using Cha for one-handed weapon attacks as a class feature, something that some folks were wary of beforehand for balance reasons. I'm wondering about how powerful it would be to grant something similar as a feat, but Int instead of Cha (for the fighter/mage types). Something like:

Intelligent Weaponmaster

You are a master of might and mind alike. When attacking with a melee weapon that you are proficient with and lacks the two-handed property, you can use your Intelligence modifier (instead of Strength or Dexterity) for the attack and damage rolls. In addition, you may use this weapon as a spellcasting focus.

Does that seem balanced? Would you allow something similar for Cha? No Great-Weapon Master or Sharpshooter shenanigans. Still need reasonable Dex or Strength for AC. I know this is technically homebrew, but wanted to explicitly compare to existing UA material.

[djreynolds]

Its not terrible. I mean there are already avenues for wisdom and charisma, and bladesinger exists also.

[coredump]

I don't like it. It seems too "3E" to me. I don't mind Cha or Wis or whatever doing increased damage on an attack. But I think the attack and standard damage should stick with Str or Dex.


The game is about choices and trade-offs. I don't like the "I use my intelligence to swing this quarterstaff at you" concept.




If I were to allow something like this, it would be on a limited basis, something like a spell that creates a weapon ala Flame Blade, or an ability you can activate a limited number of times a day.

[DivisibleByZero]

I don't like it.

For Hexblade, I think it's okay for one reason and one reason alone:
Warlocks are the red-headed-stepchild of DnD 5e casters. The intention was that they would be very diverse, but the reality is that they all basically play the same because EB is so powerful. Throwing them a little love and allowing them to be a little more SAD isn't inappropriate.

No other caster needs the help, and making SAD gishes for anyone else would be a mistake.

[GlenSmash!]

On the one hand I agree with the above, I think it de-values Martial Characters, because now casters can use their primary stat for regular attacks.

One the other hand using Constitution as an attack stat for a Martial intrigues the power-gamer in me.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I'm pretty much on the other side. I LOVE being able to use different stats for characters. It really feels like it opens up a lot of character concepts. But I feel like I'd be wasting a feat just to do something I could already do, with maybe a bit of a stat investment.

I personally really love the idea of EasyLee's flexible attribute system. It lets players choose the stats they use for attack, defense, and saves. Haven't gotten a chance to actually use it yet, though.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-419447.html

[Willie the Duck]

Its not terrible. I mean there are already avenues for wisdom and charisma, and bladesinger exists also.

There are avenues, but they are not so simple as pick a feat, and most have multiple limitations or costs associated with them. All of them, if not rabbit holes, are definitely bunny trails. The classic Shillelagh-in-attribute-you-want-to-max plus either multiattack or SCAG melee cantrip plus having an AC where you would ever want to be in melee is so much investment in the right race, the right feats, the right multiclassing (and attribute qualifying to do so) that it might be vaguely worth it, but is a whole lot of effort to end up pretty close to where you would be otherwise.

I think the splitting of Warlock into incompatible bladelock and hexblade is telling to WotC's strategy--you can have either simple multi-attack (or at least multiattack as a caster type), or you can have your preferred stat for combat, but not both (easily). Same is true with bards-if you want to easily get shillelagh or SCAG cantrips (at level 6), you don't get two attacks (because you are a lore bard). If you want the two attacks (valor), be prepared to wait until level 10 to have any combat ability.

The problem with making this a feat is that means that any race-class combo can have it. That means that you (meaning the designers, either WotC, or you as a home-brewer) have to limit your design options to not include any situation where this is abusable (or not care, which seems to be what caused some of the worst parts of 3.5). I worry that for every 1 build or character concept that creating this feat would allow, you would have to stifle 3-4 other good ideas, because the combination of that idea plus this feat would be abusive*.

*Not that I think it would break the game wide open, but it would be simply better. Let's say as an example a valor bard (who thus has med. armor prof) who just needs a 14 Dex, okay Con, and then dump everything into charisma for both spellcasting and multi-attack melee combat.

[miburo]

Seems like a reasonable consensus that the feat ability-switch option isn't a good idea. Makes sense to me. At first glance that flexible attribute system seems really interesting. I'll have to take a deeper look...



I think the splitting of Warlock into incompatible bladelock and hexblade is telling to WotC's strategy--you can have either simple multi-attack (or at least multiattack as a caster type), or you can have your preferred stat for combat, but not both (easily).


I didn't quite get this one. How are Hexblade and Bladelock incompatible? Isn't the former a patron and the latter is pact, so in fact they go really well together?

[DivisibleByZero]

I didn't quite get this one. How are Hexblade and Bladelock incompatible? Isn't the former a patron and the latter is pact, so in fact they go really well together?

Yes, this is the case.
Basically, Hexblade Patron was designed specifically for Pact of the Blade, to answer some of the community's concerns.

[Willie the Duck]

I didn't quite get this one. How are Hexblade and Bladelock incompatible? Isn't the former a patron and the latter is pact, so in fact they go really well together?

Huh. Shows how much I pay attention to UA material. I could have sworn that hexblade was a pact. Well that is surprising. Not as surprising as it would be with a cleric type or valor bard, since as a warlock you still need to figure out how to ramp up your AC. Hmmm.


Yes, this is the case.
Basically, Hexblade Patron was designed specifically for Pact of the Blade, to answer some of the community's concerns.

Alright, so they are deliberately breaking the pattern I was seeing to buff an otherwise often-criticized-as-weak character concept. Maybe it is the exception that proves the rule or whatever.

[DivisibleByZero]

Not as surprising as it would be with a cleric type or valor bard, since as a warlock you still need to figure out how to ramp up your AC. Hmmm.

I see this all the time, and it's just flat out wrong.

Plate (heavy armor) = AC 18 (shield potentially adds +2)
Half-plate (medium armor), Dex 14 (minimal investment) = AC 17 ( AC18 if you take Medium Armor Master feat) (shield potentially adds +2)
Studded Leather (light armor), Dex 20 = AC 17 (shield potentially adds +2)
No armor, Monk: Dex 20, Wis 20 = AC 20
No armor, Barbarian: Dex 20, Con 20 = AC 20 (single class with capstone, AC 22) (more realistic with Dex 14 = AC 17, AC 19 capped) (shield potentially adds +2)
No armor, Wizard/Sorcerer: Mage Armor, Dex 20 = AC 18

Armor type is immaterial in 5e, and heavy armor is hugely overrated. No matter what type of armor you wear you have the potential to reach a competitive AC.
If you want to min/max and you dump Dex, that's on you. It's not a fault of the system, or class design, or any of that. It's on you. Literally every single character in the entire game has the potential, right out of the box, to get a competitive AC between 17-20 (22 for single classed capped Barbarians, but 19 is more reasonable) before a shield or magic items are added.

[Lombra]

While leveling the playfield might look like a reasonable idea, differences and limitations are what make a game intreasting.

Making intelligence an attack stat wouldn't break anything, because intelligence is basically relegated to skills only and spellcasting (like charisma, but hexblade is very specific, while a feat would be too generic) but it would make the game more boring, which is the opposite of what you would think when you add features, but such is the way games work.
These are my opinions on the argument by the way, I am no designer to claim these as facts.

Now, a class or subclass that uses intelligence as the attack stat could work, but it would need major design behind it to make it feel fresh.

I'm all about making intelligence matter more during combat, but not just through using it to attack, make it matter in a different way, if that makes any sense.

[Willie the Duck]

I see this all the time, and it's just flat out wrong.

Plate (heavy armor) = AC 18 (shield potentially adds +2)
Half-plate (medium armor), Dex 14 (minimal investment) = AC 17 ( AC18 if you take Medium Armor Master feat) (shield potentially adds +2)
Studded Leather (light armor), Dex 20 = AC 17 (shield potentially adds +2)
No armor, Monk: Dex 20, Wis 20 = AC 20
No armor, Barbarian: Dex 20, Con 20 = AC 20 (single class with capstone, AC 22) (more realistic with Dex 14 = AC 17) (shield potentially adds +2 for a range of AC 17-22) (shield potentially adds +2)
No armor, Wizard/Sorcerer: Mage Armor, Dex 20 = AC 18

Armor type is immaterial in 5e, and heavy armor is hugely overrated. No matter what type of armor you wear you have the potential to reach a competitive AC.
If you want to min/max and you dump Dex, that's on you. It's not a fault of the system, or class design, or any of that. It's on you. Literally every single character in the entire game has the potential, right out of the box, to get a competitive AC between 17-22 before a shield or magic items are added.

One of us is completely missing the others point, because I don't think I said a single thing that contradicted any of this. The warlock still has to figure out how to get there.

But thanks for assuming I don't understand simple math under 20.

[DivisibleByZero]

One of us is completely missing the others point, because I don't think I said a single thing that contradicted any of this. The warlock still has to figure out how to get there.

But thanks for assuming I don't understand simple math under 20.

The Warlock isn't special in that way, so it's misleading for you to make the claim that he has to figure out how to get there.
Everyone has to figure out how to get there. And everyone can.

[Lombra]

There was a feat in 3.5 where with a successful nature or arcana check you would get a bonus to hit or/and (can't remember) what you successfully analyzed, I'd prefer something like this over just using your INT modifier to attack. Sadly a feat like that wouldn't fit well in this edition I think, maybe it should be a ranger feature, or a druid/nature cleric thing...

[Thrudd]

Allowing stats to be swapped like this is not a good idea, in general. It defeats the whole point of having different stats as a part of character creation. If a player can just use their highest score to do everything important, or even can make it so only three of the six scores have any effect on their character, then there is no reason for the game to have six scores.

If this is the direction people want to go, ability scores should be removed altogether. You might get a number of points to assign to your fighting ability, defense, HP, and magic ability. These are separate from the points you assign to strength, dexterity, mental, social (which are for both saving throws and skill checks). Then you get some proficiencies based on your background and class. There are no more "finesse weapons" - your fighting ability is your fighting ability for all weapons. You can be a spell caster with low mental or social scores if you want to be. You can be a great fighter who isn't super strong but is really smart. But you always need to choose whether you are a great magic user, a great fighter, or moderately skilled at both. Obviously, this is a spur-of-the-moment suggestion that would need to be adjusted for real balance and playability - but there's no reason D&D wouldn't work this way.

For game purposes, the functions of each score must be clearly delineated and there should be no cross over, whether this is in the traditional six-score method or a skill-point method. Making a character should not be an exercise in trying to circumvent limits or find exploits to make your character the most powerful possible with no flaws. The areas that you choose not to apply points to or select negative scores in should always be relevant in game play. Mitigating and limiting the effects of a character's flaws should be an in-game/in-character activity, not a meta-game/character building goal.

[DivisibleByZero]

Allowing stats to be swapped like this is not a good idea, in general. It defeats the whole point of having different stats as a part of character creation. If a player can just use their highest score to do everything important, or even can make it so only three of the six scores have any effect on their character, then there is no reason for the game to have six scores. {

One of the many problems with 4e.

[Sirdar]

I see this all the time, and it's just flat out wrong.

Plate (heavy armor) = AC 18 (shield potentially adds +2)
Half-plate (medium armor), Dex 14 (minimal investment) = AC 17 ( AC18 if you take Medium Armor Master feat) (shield potentially adds +2)
Studded Leather (light armor), Dex 20 = AC 17 (shield potentially adds +2)
No armor, Monk: Dex 20, Wis 20 = AC 20
No armor, Barbarian: Dex 20, Con 20 = AC 20 (single class with capstone, AC 22) (more realistic with Dex 14 = AC 17, AC 19 capped) (shield potentially adds +2)
No armor, Wizard/Sorcerer: Mage Armor, Dex 20 = AC 18

Armor type is immaterial in 5e, and heavy armor is hugely overrated. No matter what type of armor you wear you have the potential to reach a competitive AC.
If you want to min/max and you dump Dex, that's on you. It's not a fault of the system, or class design, or any of that. It's on you. Literally every single character in the entire game has the potential, right out of the box, to get a competitive AC between 17-20 (22 for single classed capped Barbarians, but 19 is more reasonable) before a shield or magic items are added.

Agreed. It feels like AC only becomes a problem if you go for Strength as attack stat, dump Dexterity (MAD?) and lack proficiency in Heavy Armor. Otherwise you should be able to get a decent AC from start with point buy stats. 1st level Fighter solves your AC problem otherwise (and gets you closer to action surge).

[DivisibleByZero]

Agreed. It feels like AC only becomes a problem if you go for Strength as attack stat, dump Dexterity (MAD?) and lack proficiency in Heavy Armor.

That's not a problem. That's a choice.

[Willie the Duck]

The Warlock isn't special in that way, so it's misleading for you to make the claim that he has to figure out how to get there.
Everyone has to figure out how to get there. And everyone can.

Well it was special, but then I looked back and actually read the hexblade, and my point completely collapsed.
However, here was where I was coming from: I had not seen that hexblades had medium armor proficiency. Thus, the hexblade-bladelock would need to either 1)choose a race or feat that gave them medium/heavy armor proficiency, or 2) deal with light/mage armor and then boost their dex up (in which case, what it the point of all this running around trying to get cha-based fighting, when you can just use dex). I had thought that was one hill that the hexblade-bladelock still had to climb, but I guess not. The fit the definition of a character who can just get that 14 Dex, decent Con, and then max their casting stat and then both cast and fight with it (including having multiattack) that I had been contending WotC was trying to avoid.
This is disheartening, as I rather thought it a generally genius move on their part. I guess they felt that the martial-dipping warlock was sufficiently weak as to warrant such.

Meh. Another perfectly good theory ruined by the evidence.

[Sirdar]

That's not a problem. That's a choice.
Well, that was actually what I meant.

[DivisibleByZero]

The fit the definition of a character who can just get that 14 Dex, decent Con, and then max their casting stat and then both cast and fight with it (including having multiattack) that I had been contending WotC was trying to avoid.

That's my point within the confines of this thread, though. I think it's okay for Hexblades, and ONLY for Hexblades.
Granting this to any other caster would be a mistake, but the fact that Warlocks are not fleshing out the way that they were envisioned (mostly because AgEB is so good) means that while there isn't a place for this in 5e in a general sense, Hexblades are the exception.

[sightlessrealit]

Seems perfectly fine to me. :)

[miburo]

That's my point within the confines of this thread, though. I think it's okay for Hexblades, and ONLY for Hexblades.
Granting this to any other caster would be a mistake, but the fact that Warlocks are not fleshing out the way that they were envisioned (mostly because AgEB is so good) means that while there isn't a place for this in 5e in a general sense, Hexblades are the exception.

I can see how Hexblades should be the exception because of problematic Bladelocks are already. I always wondered why Pact of the Blade didn't just turn Eldritch Blast into a melee attack, but that's probably because the SCAG-style melee cantrip ideas simply didn't exist at the time the PHB was written. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a "Revised Warlock" at some point, just like the Ranger...

Funny enough the Hexblade as written causes some problems by itself as a perfect 1 level dip for certain classes to gain Cha to attack. In particular a Valor Bard or a Stone Sorcerer could benefit heavily from this. No loss of feats, and the level 20 abilities for both classes are meh anyways. Of course, UA is explicitly not balanced for multiclassing, so I guess they'd have to revise it later anyways.

[DragonSorcererX]

I would like it, it would be really cool to have the Dragon Age Origins Arcane Warrior in 5e, a guy who uses Int instead of Str to wield weapons! I find it a really cool concept, something like a guy who infuses his muscles and bones with magic in order to wield heavy weapons and use armor, but I would put some limitations like it doens't works in AMF and stuff like that.

[ghost_warlock]

This isn't a balance issue, it's a personal preference issue.

It won't matter one bit, mechanically, if you let people attack with whatever stat they want. Sure, casters will be better at melee, but so what? Most rounds they'd be mechanically better off casting a spell. Gish characters will be a bit better, but since issues with building gish characters is still something that remains a common complaint in this edition, it'll just make them less unoptimized.

Martial characters are already using whatever stat they want to attack with, for the most part, since there's other reasons to prefer Str or Dex. Even if they attack with Con, they'll still need either Str or Dex for their defenses (since they'll need a high Str just to wear their armor if they're into that).

[DivisibleByZero]

Funny enough the Hexblade as written causes some problems by itself as a perfect 1 level dip for certain classes to gain Cha to attack.
UA material is not tuned for multiclassing.


This isn't a balance issue, it's a personal preference issue.

It won't matter one bit, mechanically, if you let people attack with whatever stat they want. Sure, casters will be better at melee, but so what? Most rounds they'd be mechanically better off casting a spell. Gish characters will be a bit better, but since issues with building gish characters is still something that remains a common complaint in this edition, it'll just make them less unoptimized.

Martial characters are already using whatever stat they want to attack with, for the most part, since there's other reasons to prefer Str or Dex. Even if they attack with Con, they'll still need either Str or Dex for their defenses (since they'll need a high Str just to wear their armor if they're into that).

No, it's a balance issue.
Yes Martials can already use their main stat to attack with.
They cannot also use that stat to cast spells. Not even the ones that cast.

Just look at Shillelagh and all the hoops that people jump through to try to get it. It's a problem. It breaks the design philosophy of 5e.
Now take that idea, and allow it with Int/Cha, and allow it with better weapons than a club or a staff, and you've broken the system even more, creating a gap between the power levels of casters and martials that martials cannot overcome.

Welcome to 3.5, take two.
No thanks.

[ghost_warlock]

UA material is not tuned for multiclassing.



No, it's a balance issue.
Yes Martials can already use their main stat to attack with.
They cannot also use that stat to cast spells. Not even the ones that cast.

Just look at Shillelagh and all the hoops that people jump through to try to get it. It's a problem. It breaks the design philosophy of 5e.
Now take that idea, and allow it with Int/Cha, and allow it with better weapons than a club or a staff, and you've broken the system even more, creating a gap between the power levels of casters and martials that martials cannot overcome.

Welcome to 3.5, take two.
No thanks.

Breaking "design philosophy" is not the same as breaking the game balance.

Martials will still have all the things that make them better at their role in combat than spellcasters, from multiple attacks to improved durability and the like. Letting casters make attacks with their casting stat won't change that any more than spells like shillelagh and shocking grasp already do - it's nice in a pinch but it won't suddenly make all your wizards and sorcerers extremely competent fighters. They'll still mostly try to hang in the back and hurl spells.

Every single class in 4e had the ability to make their main casting stat their attack stat and, again, other than the niche gish builds most people didn't bother. Even though it's a meme to say "everyone was a caster in 4e," it wasn't true. Casters still tried to stay out of melee and slung spells.

Literally zero game balance problems. All it will do is allow people to stop jumping through hoops for things like shillelagh so they can focus on having fun playing their character, instead.

[DivisibleByZero]

You can't use 4e for comparison here.
4e was designed so that every class worked exactly like every other class.
It didn't matter if you played wizard or a rogue or a bard or a paladin. They all felt exactly the same and worked basically the same, with a minor adjustment here or there in the actual class features. But they all had at-will, encounter, and daily "spells" which made balance practically a non - issue.

5e went back to different classes playing and feeling different. One of the results of this is that martials are typically weak casters and that casters are typically weak martials, and no one is both at the same time. Some get close, but no one is both.

One Stat To Rule Them All would change this.
Martials would not gain any power whatsoever, while casters would gain AN HUGE power boost.

This is a balance issue, either you want to admit it or not.

And if you aren't willing to admit that it's a balance issue, then you have to at least admit that it would become an optimization feat tax for every caster.... And that you'd be stupid to play a martial after such a feat existed.... And those basically boil down to the same thing, which is that it would be unbalanced.
Which makes it a balance issue.

[ghost_warlock]

It's not any more of a balance issue than War Caster is. It may as well be a built-in option of War Caster to allow them to make melee attacks with their casting stat because that's really what War Caster does, except it does so by allowing them to cast a spell.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill and pretending your "I don't like this flavor" complaints are rooted in mechanical problems.

What are casters actually going to do with their attack action even if they do use Intelligence or whatnot to attack with? The same thing they currently do - cast a spell.

You can't pretend that a caster attacking once with a quarterstaff or dagger with a +6 to hit, dealing 1d6+4 damage is going to be a major balance concern.

Even with the newer attack-spells like Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade, it's still not going to be a big enough advantage that they'll overshadow dedicated melee characters like fighters, paladins, barbarians, and rogues. By the time the casters are dealing noteworthy additional damage with these cantrips, the martial characters are either making multiple attacks (applying their own ability modifiers to damage multiple times) or are tossing handfuls of d6 Sneak Attack damage at an enemy.

Casters will use their basic attack to make the occasional opportunity attack and that's about it. And, because of bounded accuracy, all it's going to do is make it easier for them to actually land an opportunity attack by a couple points. A nice perk for the occasional time a caster finds themselves locked in melee with a fleeing enemy, but it's nothing to write home about.

[DivisibleByZero]

Then why even have stats at all?
I mean, if you're just going to let everyone pick a stat and max that one stat and do everything with it, why bother with them in the first place?
Just houserule that everyone starts with 20s across the board. Or remove stats completely and just increase the proficiency bonus by +5.
It will end up being the exact same game experience that you seem to want.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I'm not against strange stats being used for attacking purposes as much as stats being used to replace other stats. If a different stat can easily be used to replace strength with any and all attacks, strength might as well not be a stat.

[ghost_warlock]

Then why even have stats at all?
I mean, if you're just going to let everyone pick a stat and max that one stat and do everything with it, why bother with them in the first place?
Just houserule that everyone starts with 20s across the board. Or remove stats completely and just increase the proficiency bonus by +5.
It will end up being the exact same game experience that you seem to want.

Right, because everyone knows that casters only need their casting stat. AC, hit points, general saving throws, and concentration saves aren't important to casters at all.

I mean, it would totally ruin the game completely if casters were actually able to hit with an opportunity attack now and then. I'm sure if they could just use their casting stat for attacks with daggers and quarterstaves, they'll abandon magic completely. A single attack every round for minimal damage is way more powerful than casting spells, after all.

It would definitely ruin the game if gish characters didn't need three stats above 14 to be competent. People haven't been complaining at all since 5e came out about eldritch knights or bladelocks being MAD and needing to invest in a bunch of specific feats and invocations in order to perform not-quite-as-well as the other fighter and warlock archetypes.

And it's not like characters who want to be in melee aren't still going to invest in War Caster. The extra help in making concentration checks and not having to worry about fiddly, micro-managing rules about what they're holding in their hands would be completely useless to characters. Not to mention nobody would ever again want to use spells like booming blade and shocking grasp to make attacks of opportunity.

Yeah, saying that "it won't wreck your game if you let characters not be terrible at the weakest form of attacking" is totally the same thing as just giving all characters max stats in everything. That's not a hyperbolic temper tantrum that people are having fun wrong at all. :smalltongue:

Edit: I mean, I get what you're saying about different stats being used for different things. But this is a game about magic. Characters are already using their casting stat to make attack rolls. Why does a caster use their casting stat, rather than Dex, when trying to hit with a spell attack? They still need to aim the spell, right? Why does it make any difference when aiming that the attack is a spell rather than, say, a crossbow? If you're okay with a character using Wisdom to hit with guiding bolt, why is it such a mental hurdle for you to accept the same character using Wisdom to more precisely aim their mace? Presumably, their high Wisdom score would give them insight into weaknesses in the foe's defenses, allowing them to strike at a critical moment. The same could easily be said for Intelligence (being able to predict a foe's moves) or Charisma (a well-timed verbal quip momentarily throws the enemy off-guard or maybe the character is just so intimidating or impressive that enemies have a hard time maintaining their composure).

[agnos]

It's not a bad thing to add in a limited fashion for subpar weapons. You can already get Wis/Cha to wield quarterstaff; of those that do, only Valor Bard gets Extra Attack. Letting a Fighter or Barb use Con to attack with a polearm or Great Weapon would be unbalancing. But allowing them to wield a 1d8 non-heavy weapon like a hammer would be fine.

[90sMusic]

I honestly don't see the problem.

So what if a wizard can suddenly whack people with a sword using his intelligence modifier?
What good is that single sword attack for 1d8+5 when he could have instead been dealing 2d10, 3d10, or 4d10 firebolt damage from a safe distance? Or any other evocation cantrip. Where is the harm there?

Same for warlock. Who honestly cares that they can add charisma to attack and damage rolls? Eldritch Blast already does this and from an insanely long distance and does more damage. It's an invocation cost either way, but ranged will just about always be the better choice because it is safer.

And for the sake of argument, assume you're going to do something stupid like playing a 20 intelligence fighter. You're still in a MUCH worse position than if you had simply played a 20 strength fighter because you don't get any bonuses to your athletics that you need to do some of the staples of your job like knocking down doors or grappling enemies or even just resisting grapples. Instead all that extra intelligence only nets you a higher modifier on skills you shouldn't really even bother with like History or knowledge arcana. The only thing that it would be useful for is giving the Eldritch knight archetype higher DC on their spells. And honestly, that sounds like a reasonable trade-off for having garbage athletics. Until they get to the level where they can lob fireballs, they're going to do far more damage in melee anyway. You're just trading in versatility for versatility.

However I would argue it is hard to justify adding intelligence to attack or damage rolls... Being smarter isn't really going to improve your ability to hit or hurt things. Your "skill" is already represented by your proficiency bonus and being proficient in the weapon. I think if you took two swordsmen who conditioned their bodies and honed their skills to perfection and could fight a duel to a standstill, then took the mind of one and put it in a lanky guy with no muscles and wasn't dexterous, but maybe he was twice as intelligent, he is still going to lose that fight.

Some people in here are being drama queens about it for whatever reason. Dexterity and Constitution will always be useful to everyone, outside of that you just focus on your "primary" stat anyway. Everyone already plays this way. Stop being so dramatic and trying to fire up strawmen arguments just because you are vehemently opposed to someone else's ideas.

[ghost_warlock]

It's not a bad thing to add in a limited fashion for subpar weapons. You can already get Wis/Cha to wield quarterstaff; of those that do, only Valor Bard gets Extra Attack. Letting a Fighter or Barb use Con to attack with a polearm or Great Weapon would be unbalancing. But allowing them to wield a 1d8 non-heavy weapon like a hammer would be fine.

I don't honestly think it'd be that big of a deal at all.

Sure, it sounds like barbarians would all jump at the chance to use Con as their attack stat. But, keep in mind that rage specifically applies to Strength-based attacks. So, sure, they could use Con as their attack stat, but they'd make rage nearly useless if they did so. And it's not like they're going to suddenly dump-stat Dex, since they still need it for AC and saves. I have a feeling that barbarians wouldn't change at all.

As for fighters, I don't expect they'd change much, either. The odd eldritch knight might switch to Int, but other fighters will probably continue using either Str or Dex as they are now. The occasional fighter might choose Con as their attack stat, but they'll still probably want to invest heavily in Str because the best armors require a high Str. Dex-based fighters also aren't likely to change much because they still need Dex for their AC so it's more efficient for them to just keep using Dex to attack as well. Sure, they'd get to use things like Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master, but that just brings them up to the level of effectiveness in damage-dealing that Str-based fighters currently enjoy while still having, on average, a lower AC because they probably won't be rocking heavy armor as they may as well be Str-based if they were going to invest in Str enough to use heavy armor.

Dex-based archery fighters are already about as close as 5e comes to a SAD character so I doubt they'd suddenly decide to start using something other than Dex to attack.

[wilhelmdubdub]

Based on the UA already out there there is a way to finagle this:

Wizard Arcane Tradition: Theurgy
2nd level- Divine inspration: pick a domain, go with nature
6th level- Arcane acolyte: get 1st level benefits from you domain (not armor/weapon proficiency), acolyte of nature= get one druid cantrip of your choice. Although the lack of "this counts as a cleric cantrip for you" is noticeably missing. Also the arcane initiate under theurgy is missing a similar statement. Cast shillelagh on the staff you use as an arcane focus.

Try to convince your DM RAI means druid cantrip> cleric cantrip (intended) > wizard cantrip (intended)

This should be fair because you get it at 6th and you are locked in for your arcane tradition and cleric domain.

Good luck!

http://dy3lwm70ozrp8.cloudfront.net/vt-e8792f.jpg

[DivisibleByZero]

You keep going on about casters using this for OA only, but the fact is that this feat, if it existed, would be used to make a SAD gish.
That would be the only reason to take it.
Not for OAs, but to be a gish. And that means your entire argument and OAs is rendered invalid.

[Tanarii]

I mean, it would totally ruin the game completely if casters were actually able to hit with an opportunity attack now and then. I'm sure if they could just use their casting stat for attacks with daggers and quarterstaves, they'll abandon magic completely. A single attack every round for minimal damage is way more powerful than casting spells, after all.
It would certainly change their ability to tank or do some additional damage significantly, if they could do it with a single stat. That's part of the benefit 'martial' classes that are based on Str/Dex assume as part as a feature for their primary stat, so to speak.

And 5e casters, while certainly not as overpowered as 3e casters, also certainly don't need a buff. Not even bladelocks. They can invest resources (ability scores/ASI/feats, class features, spells or invocations) if they want that.


You keep going on about casters using this for OA only, but the fact is that this feat, if it existed, would be used to make a SAD gish. Not to mention this.

[Kurald Galain]

Allowing stats to be swapped like this is not a good idea, in general. It defeats the whole point of having different stats as a part of character creation. If a player can just use their highest score to do everything important, or even can make it so only three of the six scores have any effect on their character, then there is no reason for the game to have six scores.

Precisely. Spending a feat to base any value on your highest stat instead of the regular one was a mistake in earlier editions that should not be repeated here.

[Naanomi]

Dwarf Champion Fighter... stats 3/3/20/3/3/3... attack with Con, saves are bad but completely viable!

[Thrudd]

Precisely. Spending a feat to base any value on your highest stat instead of the regular one was a mistake in earlier editions that should not be repeated here.

Yeah. That philosophy basically seems to be saying that the characters actually shouldn't have any penalties in anything, +2 is the minimum they should have on any roll - but we want the players to feel like their characters are actually all different, so there are these other numbers there which don't do anything but make you feel like it's a "rounded character". But mechanically, they become more and more similar. In an attempt to let everyone have everything they want, the game slips toward mechanical homogeneity (because everyone really is going to want the same thing, effectiveness in combat).

I am not really fully on-board with the at-will attack cantrips in 5e, either - especially not the damage scaling with level -it really feels like toe-stepping to me. I get magic users wanting to feel like they are magical and having magic to throw around - but if the attack cantrips are basically going to be weapons, they should require physical abilities to wield them just like weapons. This will give eldritch knights some actual relevance. There is no reason whatever that a mundane object imbued with magic power or a physical thing formed out of magic should not require physical fighting skill to wield it like any other weapon - or an aimed spell shouldn't use dexterity to hit, just like something thrown or shot from a bow.

[ghost_warlock]

You keep going on about casters using this for OA only, but the fact is that this feat, if it existed, would be used to make a SAD gish.
That would be the only reason to take it.
Not for OAs, but to be a gish. And that means your entire argument and OAs is rendered invalid.

And you keep going on about SAD, but it wouldn't actually exist.

Any character who's going to be involved in melee is going to need either Str (heavy armor) or Dex for their defenses and Con for hit points.

Have you actually played this game?

[djreynolds]

Aside from constitution... wisdom, charisma (bards/warlocks) dex, and str can be used to attack.... does it matter that intelligence is used.

[DivisibleByZero]

Have you actually played this game?

And with that, I'm finished with you. Feel free to continue debating this with any one of the dozen other people here that agree with me.

[alchahest]

I can't think of a single character who would want to have only one high stat. attacking with Con, a fighter will still want strength or dex for defenses, probably wisdom for perception and will saves.

making it require a feat also removes an ASI from the equation, which further reduces those non primary attributes and, ultimately, your defenses and out-of-combat usefulness as well.

[Naanomi]

I can't think of a single character who would want to have only one high stat. attacking with Con, a fighter will still want strength or dex for defenses, probably wisdom for perception and will saves.
Hill Dwarf Champion Fighter, attacking with Con... could still have unrestricted AC 21 as long as he could physically carry the armor

Let's rock the defensive theme, defense and protection combat style... after maximizing Con and presumably spending an ASI on 'attack with my Con feat' I still have four ASI... five if I put Con at 17 and use a half-fear on Con (durable?)

Heavy Armor Master, Tough, Sentinel, (Alert or Lucky?)

[DivisibleByZero]

I can't think of a single character who would want to have only one high stat. attacking with Con, a fighter will still want strength or dex for defenses, probably wisdom for perception and will saves.
Hill Dwarf Champion Fighter, attacking with Con... could still have unrestricted AC 21 as long as he could physically carry the armor

That's a misleading metric anyway.
No one will have one good stat and 5 awful stats.
This feat would be for min/maxers, and they'd have stats arrays, after racial adjustment of:
16, 16, 14, 12, 8, 8 --OR-- 16, 16, 14, 10, 10, 8
So tertiary stats, like Con or Dex, would have a 14 or 16 to start anyway.
Two ASIs max you primary stat which would govern both casting and melee (basically ALL of your offense and a lot of your defense and utility), and then you can Feat it up or raise tertiary stats for more HP or AC or whatever.

This was what 4e did, and it was a min/max, cookie cutter nightmare where only half of your stats actually mattered, because the other three could be completely ignored and nothing was lost.
This is what the proposed feat does, and that's a problem.

[alchahest]

So the complaint is that it makes classes SAD (which is untrue, as every class will want at least one defensive stat, either str for heavy armor or dex for light or unarmored, and melee classes will tend to want a decent wisdom, to avoid domination/charm problems).

Pretend an EK can attack with INT for melee attacks, how does that change the ultimate end result of the build?

you can dump STR, but still need con for HP, and dex for defenses, so the trick is just that instead of going high dex/int and attacking with finesse, you're high int/dex and attacking with whatever. real "abuse" of this would be from going GWM and dealing tons of damage at the expense of toughness. but you could already do this with heavy armor and dumping dex for STR.

If your applicable stat for attacking can be justified as STR or DEX, then it's easy enough to have it be wis or int, even charisma (Wis is a fighting style that focuses on waiting for the perfect moment to strike, int is knowing the perfect place to put your blade and using mechanical de-animation to cripple your foes, and charisma is swashbuckling.) you're never going to top out at over +5 from an stat unless you're a 20th level barbarian, and they're limited to strength anyways. bounded accuracy keeps these things from being abused - so the best thing you can do if you're able to drop an ASI to use a different stat as your attack stat is increase your other stats sligtly (though at least one fewer times than normal). if you're dropping the ASI to a feat, you're slowing your progress on reaching 20 in that stat, or, if you're doing it after reaching 20, you're using extremely subpar (assuming you are dumping the normal attack stat) until you can take the feat.

[Kurald Galain]

So the complaint is that it makes classes SAD

No, the complaint is that this proposed feat makes zero in-world sense for the purpose of giving an unnecessary power boost. Turns out many players don't like such tradeoffs.

[DivisibleByZero]

No, the complaint is that this proposed feat makes zero in-world sense for the purpose of giving an unnecessary power boost. Turns out many players don't like such tradeoffs.

Exactly. That's one of the reasons, yes.


then it's easy enough to have it be wis or int, even charisma (Wis is a fighting style that focuses on waiting for the perfect moment to strike, int is knowing the perfect place to put your blade and using mechanical de-animation to cripple your foes, and charisma is swashbuckling.)

And in response to the above, this is garbage.
Wis is not a fighting style that focuses on waiting for the perfect moment to strike. That's something that you learn in general training. You can know that, and you still need to be able to physically perform the strike.
Int is not knowing the perfect place to put your blade. That's something that you learn in general warfare training. You can know that, and you still need to be able to physically perform the strike.
Cha is not swashbuckling. Dexterity is.

This is like saying that, because I'm good with math and physics, I'll be the greatest free throw shooter the world has ever seen. The fact that I can't tie my own shoes without horrendous knots notwithstanding, because my hand eye coordination doesn't factor into the math/physics.
That's garbage. I can know the best way, and I still have to physically perform it.
Knowledge =/= physical aptitude.

[ghost_warlock]

So the complaint is that it makes classes SAD (which is untrue, as every class will want at least one defensive stat, either str for heavy armor or dex for light or unarmored, and melee classes will tend to want a decent wisdom, to avoid domination/charm problems).

Pretend an EK can attack with INT for melee attacks, how does that change the ultimate end result of the build?

you can dump STR, but still need con for HP, and dex for defenses, so the trick is just that instead of going high dex/int and attacking with finesse, you're high int/dex and attacking with whatever. real "abuse" of this would be from going GWM and dealing tons of damage at the expense of toughness. but you could already do this with heavy armor and dumping dex for STR.

If your applicable stat for attacking can be justified as STR or DEX, then it's easy enough to have it be wis or int, even charisma (Wis is a fighting style that focuses on waiting for the perfect moment to strike, int is knowing the perfect place to put your blade and using mechanical de-animation to cripple your foes, and charisma is swashbuckling.) you're never going to top out at over +5 from an stat unless you're a 20th level barbarian, and they're limited to strength anyways. bounded accuracy keeps these things from being abused - so the best thing you can do if you're able to drop an ASI to use a different stat as your attack stat is increase your other stats sligtly (though at least one fewer times than normal). if you're dropping the ASI to a feat, you're slowing your progress on reaching 20 in that stat, or, if you're doing it after reaching 20, you're using extremely subpar (assuming you are dumping the normal attack stat) until you can take the feat.


No, the complaint is that this proposed feat makes zero in-world sense for the purpose of giving an unnecessary power boost. Turns out many players don't like such tradeoffs.

Exactly. A player can make a GWM or archery fighter in plate mail and pretty much ignore everything but Str until he caps it and doesn't have anything better to spend all his ASI's on. A rogue can max Dex and basically do the same thing. A moon druid can pretty much dump everything but Wis and be fine.

But if you want to play an EK and you want to do that same thing with Int, you're having fun wrong.

[alchahest]

You say zero sense, but, it makes as much sense to have an intelligent fighter as it does a brutish one, beign strong doesn't make you accurate, if we're looking for "in world sense" then all attack should be done using dex, as that represents coordination and agility. And if a player is willing to spend the ASI on fulfilling a concept they want, then that player has the choice to either like, or dislike, the tradeoff, right?

[Thrudd]

So the complaint is that it makes classes SAD (which is untrue, as every class will want at least one defensive stat, either str for heavy armor or dex for light or unarmored, and melee classes will tend to want a decent wisdom, to avoid domination/charm problems).

Pretend an EK can attack with INT for melee attacks, how does that change the ultimate end result of the build?

you can dump STR, but still need con for HP, and dex for defenses, so the trick is just that instead of going high dex/int and attacking with finesse, you're high int/dex and attacking with whatever. real "abuse" of this would be from going GWM and dealing tons of damage at the expense of toughness. but you could already do this with heavy armor and dumping dex for STR.

If your applicable stat for attacking can be justified as STR or DEX, then it's easy enough to have it be wis or int, even charisma (Wis is a fighting style that focuses on waiting for the perfect moment to strike, int is knowing the perfect place to put your blade and using mechanical de-animation to cripple your foes, and charisma is swashbuckling.) you're never going to top out at over +5 from an stat unless you're a 20th level barbarian, and they're limited to strength anyways. bounded accuracy keeps these things from being abused - so the best thing you can do if you're able to drop an ASI to use a different stat as your attack stat is increase your other stats sligtly (though at least one fewer times than normal). if you're dropping the ASI to a feat, you're slowing your progress on reaching 20 in that stat, or, if you're doing it after reaching 20, you're using extremely subpar (assuming you are dumping the normal attack stat) until you can take the feat.

The complaint is that there are six abilities that should all be relevant for the game, all the time. "Dump stats" should not exist, and the game is already bad about this without adding more fuel on the fire. When it is possible for every character to narrow down the stats required to be effective from six to three, then there is no point in having six stats in the game. Just give everyone the three stats, and let them arrange the points between those, it would be the same thing.

Referencing "out of combat effectiveness" is not really a good argument, either - the "out of combat" game for most D&D players is irrelevant to non-existent. I don't agree that this should be the case, but it is the practical reality of the game. When was the last time a character was killed or suffered because they lacked an out-of-combat ability?
"Whelp, I guess you should have put more into your INT, because you failed that knowledge check and didn't know that the roof was about to collapse - you take 15d6 damage"
That sort of thing happens rarely to never, rare enough that such skills don't matter. It isn't an equal threat alongside being effective in combat. The skills and saving throws that do matter are all connected to combat stats, primarily dexterity.

[alchahest]

Exactly. That's one of the reasons, yes.



And in response to the above, this is garbage.
Wis is not a fighting style that focuses on waiting for the perfect moment to strike. That's something that you learn in general training. You can know that, and you still need to be able to physically perform the strike.
Int is not knowing the perfect place to put your blade. That's something that you learn in general warfare training. You can know that, and you still need to be able to physically perform the strike.
Cha is not swashbuckling. Dexterity is.

This is like saying that, because I'm good with math and physics, I'll be the greatest free throw shooter the world has ever seen. The fact that I can't tie my own shoes without horrendous knots notwithstanding, because my hand eye coordination doesn't factor into the math/physics.
That's garbage. I can know the best way, and I still have to physically perform it. Knowledge = physical aptitude.

Well thank you for your honesty, I'm not sure I'd go around calling peoples' statements garbage and expect anything but a snarky reply back, however, I'll do my best.
You say that all these things that could be applied to int or wis are attributed to "general training". so you're training to be more wise or intelligent about your strikes, but you are not making use of your wisdom or intelligence to do so? I am having a bit of difficutly following your reasoning. If one can train brute strength to be a representation of hand eye coordination, I don't see it as a stretch to do the same with any other attribute. Especially in a high fantasy ruleset such as D&D 5E.

If it's purely because it's a percieved power spike then that's a different argument that may or may not have more merit, but, that's not how the argument is being framed so I am not as interested in exploring that line of reasoning (unless the topic of conversations shifts), though I don't see it being as large a power difference as others in the thread do.

[DivisibleByZero]

If one can train brute strength to be a representation of hand eye coordination, I don't see it as a stretch to do the same with any other attribute. Especially in a high fantasy ruleset such as D&D 5E.

If it's purely because it's a percieved power spike then that's a different argument that may or may not have more merit, but, that's not how the argument is being framed so I am not as interested in exploring that line of reasoning (unless the topic of conversations shifts), though I don't see it being as large a power difference as others in the thread do.

Strawman.
Brute strength isn't about hand eye coordination, and no one ever said that it was. Brute strength is about hammering through your foes' defenses.
This is why only certain weapons can be used with Finesse. These weapons are small enough and light enough that finding the right place to put it every time can be done. Those are (can be) about hand eye coordination, hitting the bull's eye, so to speak.
In all other melee weapons, it's not about coordination, it's about power.

It isn't purely about the power spike. That's part of it, yes, but not "purely" as you Strawman yet again.

[alchahest]

The complaint is that there are six abilities that should all be relevant for the game, all the time. "Dump stats" should not exist, and the game is already bad about this without adding more fuel on the fire. When it is possible for every character to narrow down the stats required to be effective from six to three, then there is no point in having six stats in the game. Just give everyone the three stats, and let them arrange the points between those, it would be the same thing.

Referencing "out of combat effectiveness" is not really a good argument, either - the "out of combat" game for most D&D players is irrelevant to non-existent. I don't agree that this should be the case, but it is the practical reality of the game. When was the last time a character was killed or suffered because they lacked an out-of-combat ability?
"Whelp, I guess you should have put more into your INT, because you failed that knowledge check and didn't know that the roof was about to collapse - you take 15d6 damage"
That sort of thing happens rarely to never, rare enough that such skills don't matter. It isn't an equal threat alongside being effective in combat. The skills and saving throws that do matter are all connected to combat stats, primarily dexterity.

I'm sorry your games ignore the non-combat pillars, I've never been in a game where skills are irrelevant. If you've never had to deal with social situations, or researching solutions, investigating clues, dealing with traps, etc etc, then I can see how it may skew the perceived importance of your non combat attributes.

The example you used of the ceiling falling would in almost every case be a dex save, though - and a fighter that dumps dex for int/con/wis is not going to have a good time in that situation any more than a fighter that dumps dex for str/con/wis.

If powergamers are a problem in your games, then that's the powergamers, and something like this will neither create them nor will it allow them more power than otherwise - you're missing an ASI, at least, in the case of a feat to replace a stat for weapon attacks.

[alchahest]

Strawman.
Brute strength isn't about hand eye coordination, and no one ever said that it was. Brute strength is about hammering through your foes' defenses.
This is why only certain weapons can be used with Finesse. These weapons are small enough and light enough that finding the right place to put it every time can be done.
In all other melee weapons, it's not about coordination, it's about power.

It isn't purely about the power spike. That's part of it, yes, but not "purely" as you Strawman yet again.

Given this, a longsword is a power-weapon only, correct? dexterity means nothing in terms of fencing with a longsword? I am not going to disagree offhand, I am asking to clarify your position so I know what we're talking about. I would say as well that namechecking logical fallacies is not conducive to a good discussion - you're asserting that the examples I provided are garbage, and when I engage to discuss the mechanics behind your point of view, you dismiss it as strawman. We both know(Or rather, to avoid assuming - I know)that armor class is a combination of things, both the actual strength of any armor worn, and the ability of the target to dodge out of the way - how do you hammer through the air where your opponent was, but stronger, and expect it to hit? I am asking only for clarity not because I have some "Gotcha" prepared.

[DivisibleByZero]

Given this, a longsword is a power-weapon only, correct? dexterity means nothing in terms of fencing with a longsword?

Insofar as DnD 5e is concerned? Yes, this is true. Because a Longsword does not have the Finesse property.


I would say as well that namechecking logical fallacies is not conducive to a good discussion - you're asserting that the examples I provided are garbage, and when I engage to discuss the mechanics behind your point of view, you dismiss it as strawman.

I dismissed it as a strawman because that's what it was.
You were refuting arguments that hadn't been made to make your own point seem more valid. That's a strawman. That's what it is.

[Willie the Duck]

I honestly don't see the problem.

So what if a wizard can suddenly whack people with a sword using his intelligence modifier?
What good is that single sword attack for 1d8+5 when he could have instead been dealing 2d10, 3d10, or 4d10 firebolt damage from a safe distance? Or any other evocation cantrip. Where is the harm there?


I am pretty sure it isn't the single 1d8+5 attack that would be the issue. Shillelagh, for all the talk about it, proves that this alone is not that big a deal. Shillelagh, however, is fairly well walled-off and getting it set up with a decent melee AC, in a preferred stat, and with either a SCAG cantrip on top of shillelagh or with multi-attack requires an extreme expenditure in terms of dips, feats, or other opportunity cost (the rabbit holes or at least bunny trails I alluded to earlier). This feat has no such limitations. Not only does this give classes such as valor bards a new option which is just plain better than any previous build (we can argue whether valor bards needed a boost or not), but it limits the design space for other new material, as you have now eliminated a limiter you might otherwise have used to constrain a new archetype.

Note that 'just plain better' is the extent of this, and one of the reasons this is so debatable. It's 'merely' +1-5 to hit and damage, and the fact that the game can work with or without magic items, and with either point buy or rolled stats shows that the game will not go spinning off into oblivion from ticking the numbers up like this (Pun Pun, it is not). However, it gives several builds (in fact tons, given how broad a brush a feat is) an option which is just plain better than anything they had before with very few limiters to constrain its use.



Same for warlock. Who honestly cares that they can add charisma to attack and damage rolls? Eldritch Blast already does this and from an insanely long distance and does more damage. It's an invocation cost either way, but ranged will just about always be the better choice because it is safer.


Well, if no one cares, then why give the option any more than not give the option? That's more of an argument towards not addressing it one way or the other. But also, if eldritch blast is always better, why do bladelocks exist at all? Simple answer might be to save from having to take crossbow expert to avoid having enemies being within 5 feet imposing disadvantage on your attack rolls, but there are also twf+hex or Lifedrinker benefits. Beyond that, it is something people want to play. That's all the reason a class (or archetype) needs to have to exist. Normally, I would prefer if the bladelock+hexblade combo didn't exist, as it seems to violate WotC's otherwise consistent design philosophy (so far as I can glean). However, I admit that the melee warlock kinda needed a boost. I'm still not sure if I find that satisfactory.



And you keep going on about SAD, but it wouldn't actually exist.

Any character who's going to be involved in melee is going to need either Str (heavy armor) or Dex for their defenses and Con for hit points.

Have you actually played this game?

In the history of online fan-forums, no one has ever won an argument by implying that their opposition doesn't actually participate in the activity the forum is dedicated to. They have however, repeatedly allowed the rest of the forum to see their true maturity and understanding of how debate works (in that, you actually have to convince others). This is not a productive method of convincing others of your position. You should really rethink your strategy. The rest of us recognize DivisibleByZero as having a reasonable, if debatable position, and our agreement/disagreement with him hinging mostly on value judgment on things like 'too good' or not (EDIT: Okay, I started writing this before he started referring to things as garbage. I'm not going to be defending that). You seem to be upset with him for the basic act of disagreeing with your position and thus you are making ad hominem attacks. Simply put, this does not make you look very good. Take or leave this advice as you like.




But if you want to play an EK and you want to do that same thing with Int, you're having fun wrong.

Did you really try to imply that people are telling you that you are having fun wrong because they are arguing that this feat is a bad idea? Really?

[Willie the Duck]

Referencing "out of combat effectiveness" is not really a good argument, either - the "out of combat" game for most D&D players is irrelevant to non-existent. I don't agree that this should be the case, but it is the practical reality of the game. When was the last time a character was killed or suffered because they lacked an out-of-combat ability?

I'm not sure I agree with this assertion, but I certainly think that combat effectiveness shouldn't be balanced too much by out-of-combat concerns.

[alchahest]

Insofar as DnD 5e is concerned? Yes, this is true. Because a Longsword does not have the Finesse property.



I dismissed it as a strawman because that's what it was.
You were refuting arguments that hadn't been made to make your own point seem more valid. That's a strawman. That's what it is.

The discussion is, quite literally, about using alternate attributes to make attacks. I am speaking about the current method of strength applying to your accuracy. Can you please provide me an attribute that is currently used for attack that I can use as an example, other than strength? I would like to discuss this with you but so far you've just called my arguments garbage and refused to engage a good faith discussion because it doesn't agree with your point of view. Obviously, this thread is a discussion about what coudl be, with a given new feat. To provide a frame of reference I have chosen to use the current attribute used for all but a small selection of weapons, as an example and as an argument for expanding it.

Obviously, you are correct, currently there is a divide between finesse and non-finesse weapons. We are discussing other ways to represent prowess. "it won't work because it's not the way it already works" Then I don't know why you would enter into a discussion about a potential different way to do a given thing. If there is more to the argument than that, and more to the argument than pointing out that I'm not a debate champ, then I am happy to hear it. But if you aren't open to the idea of discussing something, in good faith, I don't know that anything I say will be of interest to you, since we disagree about this topic.

[DivisibleByZero]

The discussion is, quite literally, about using alternate attributes to make attacks. I am speaking about the current method of strength applying to your accuracy. Can you please provide me an attribute that is currently used for attack that I can use as an example, other than strength?
Sure.
Dexterity.

Look at it this way:
Str is used, as I have already said, to hammer through your foes' defenses. It isn't about accuracy. It's about power. Can you hit your foe hard enough that their armor is rendered useless against the blow?
Dexterity is about accuracy. Can you hit your foe accurately enough that you find the weak spot that you were aiming for?

Strength is about power.
Dexterity is about accuracy.
How healthy you are doesn't matter.
How smart you are doesn't matter.
How wise you are doesn't matter, unless you happen to have access to a spell that is inherently found only on one single spell list, because.... magic.
How charming you are doesn't matter, unless you happen to have made a pact with a sentient weapon.... because.... once again, magic.

This proposed feat? It's not magic, so refer to the list above. You can be healthy and smart and wise and charismatic, but if you want to use weapons you still have to choose whether you want to be powerful or accurate.


Obviously, you are correct, currently there is a divide between finesse and non-finesse weapons. We are discussing other ways to represent prowess. "it won't work because it's not the way it already works" Then I don't know why you would enter into a discussion about a potential different way to do a given thing.
There you go with your strawmen again. I never said "it won't work because that's not the way that it already works." I never even said anything remotely close to that.
I suggest you read Willie's post from above. It highlights many of the problems with this potential feat. Or just read through the thread again. There are TONS of reasons given why this is a bad idea. You don't have to invent arguments to debate against. There are plenty of points made within the thread that you could debate, however. Incidentally, I find it absolutely hilarious that you have now used a strawman three times on me alone, arguing against things that no one ever said, and yet you're telling me that I'm the one not debating in good faith.
That's comedy gold right there.

Willie's post that I mentioned, right here:


I am pretty sure it isn't the single 1d8+5 attack that would be the issue. Shillelagh, for all the talk about it, proves that this alone is not that big a deal. Shillelagh, however, is fairly well walled-off and getting it set up with a decent melee AC, in a preferred stat, and with either a SCAG cantrip on top of shillelagh or with multi-attack requires an extreme expenditure in terms of dips, feats, or other opportunity cost (the rabbit holes or at least bunny trails I alluded to earlier). This feat has no such limitations. Not only does this give classes such as valor bards a new option which is just plain better than any previous build (we can argue whether valor bards needed a boost or not), but it limits the design space for other new material, as you have now eliminated a limiter you might otherwise have used to constrain a new archetype.

Note that 'just plain better' is the extent of this, and one of the reasons this is so debatable. It's 'merely' +1-5 to hit and damage, and the fact that the game can work with or without magic items, and with either point buy or rolled stats shows that the game will not go spinning off into oblivion from ticking the numbers up like this (Pun Pun, it is not). However, it gives several builds (in fact tons, given how broad a brush a feat is) an option which is just plain better than anything they had before with very few limiters to constrain its use.

[Willie the Duck]

Well thank you for your honesty, I'm not sure I'd go around calling peoples' statements garbage and expect anything but a snarky reply back, however, I'll do my best.
You say that all these things that could be applied to int or wis are attributed to "general training". so you're training to be more wise or intelligent about your strikes, but you are not making use of your wisdom or intelligence to do so? I am having a bit of difficutly following your reasoning. If one can train brute strength to be a representation of hand eye coordination, I don't see it as a stretch to do the same with any other attribute. Especially in a high fantasy ruleset such as D&D 5E.

If it's purely because it's a percieved power spike then that's a different argument that may or may not have more merit, but, that's not how the argument is being framed so I am not as interested in exploring that line of reasoning (unless the topic of conversations shifts), though I don't see it being as large a power difference as others in the thread do.

The very concept of stats is pretty shaky. Fighting with a sword requires swinging it (dex), having the strength behind it to do damage (str), knowing where to hit (int I guess), waiting for your opportunity (is this part of what wis has evolved into?), and don't forget experience (if this is level, than it is factored in via proficiency bonus, if not, I don't even know). The very idea that these things can be parsed out into 6 discrete metrics is pretty arbitrary and gamist. In the game, one can have someone who is a master at acrobatics (lets say dex 20 and expertise in acrobatics skill) but has absolutely no muscle tone (str 3) and or health (con 3) whatsoever. In reality, all abilities will be a mixed smear of lots of factors, stats or otherwise. It's fairly reasonable, however, for the game to have one specific stat and say 'this is a rough approximation of what you use to successfully swing a greataxe, and we're calling it strength.'

It's a pretty debatable stance, but then all attribute discussions end up becoming naval gazing (almost as much as alignment ones). I agree that the power spike argument is better for these purposes.

[Kurald Galain]

The very idea that these things can be parsed out into 6 discrete metrics is pretty arbitrary and gamist.
There's a crucial difference there: parsing everything into six metrics is an abstraction. Assuming that any of these metrics can be used for just anything you like is arbitrary. The former is consistent, and the latter is inconsistent (and it turns out that many players enjoy consistency in their story building).


A moon druid can pretty much dump everything but Wis and be fine.
Perhaps the argument should not so much be "odd exception X exists and therefore every other exception should also exist", but more like "we don't really like odd exception X so let's not have more like those please".

[Willie the Duck]

There's a crucial difference there: parsing everything into six metrics is an abstraction. Assuming that any of these metrics can be used for just anything you like is arbitrary. The former is consistent, and the latter is inconsistent (and it turns out that many players enjoy consistency in their story building).

Good call. abstraction is a better term.



Perhaps the argument should not so much be "odd exception X exists and therefore every other exception should also exist", but more like "we don't really like odd exception X so let's not have more like those please".

Or, the simplify my argument to these terms, "the fact that odd exception X exists and works out okay does not mean that this exception can be generalized and opened up to all possible situations and be expected to work out fine."

[Waterdeep Merch]

Or, the simplify my argument to these terms, "the fact that odd exception X exists and works out okay does not mean that this exception can be generalized and opened up to all possible situations and be expected to work out fine."
Or in more divisive terms, "Please don't make 5e into 4e." The Burger King 'have it your way' attitude towards stats in 4e was one of the things I hated about it the more I played it. What stat you used was entirely trivial- all that mattered was which 1-3 stats the class decided were the ones that made all your numbers go up.

[alchahest]

The very concept of stats is pretty shaky. Fighting with a sword requires swinging it (dex), having the strength behind it to do damage (str), knowing where to hit (int I guess), waiting for your opportunity (is this part of what wis has evolved into?), and don't forget experience (if this is level, than it is factored in via proficiency bonus, if not, I don't even know). The very idea that these things can be parsed out into 6 discrete metrics is pretty arbitrary and gamist. In the game, one can have someone who is a master at acrobatics (lets say dex 20 and expertise in acrobatics skill) but has absolutely no muscle tone (str 3) and or health (con 3) whatsoever. In reality, all abilities will be a mixed smear of lots of factors, stats or otherwise. It's fairly reasonable, however, for the game to have one specific stat and say 'this is a rough approximation of what you use to successfully swing a greataxe, and we're calling it strength.'

It's a pretty debatable stance, but then all attribute discussions end up becoming naval gazing (almost as much as alignment ones). I agree that the power spike argument is better for these purposes.

discussing the shift in power is a much easier thing to do, as it's down to math. While there's interpretations of what is important for a character, and certain flavor items that are mechanically supported (Barbarians only get rage damage bonus / advantage on skills where it applies to STR, for example) But let's assume even just one feat, and explore how that would change character building. For example:

"Feat: Intelligent Swordsman - You may use your intelligence instead of strength for attack and damage rolls with swords"

How would this drastically alter the power of a character? Certainly they would likely still either have high STR (15 to be able to use plate effectively) or high DEX (for AC). so you've got high Int, in addition to at least one of the stats a fighter is already probably going to have fairly high. You will likely want at least a middling con of 12-14 just to ensure you're able to take some of the hits you'll be taking as a melee fighter. This leaves Cha and Wis as "dump" stats. Many min/maxers (And I do not min/maxers with derision, it's a perfectly fine way to play a game, so long as it matches up with the rest of your group - and it's not nearly as divisive as in 3.x) will be dumping one or two mental stats anyways, if they are melee combatants. I am wondering where the power shift comes from. I can see how this would increase the capability of Eldritch Knights to land save spells, certainly, however, with limited slots and the EK already juggling spells vs loads of attacks, it may not be as big a deal as it appears on the surface.

thoughts?

[DivisibleByZero]

thoughts?

Mountain Dwarf Wizard
Str 8 +2 racial = 10
Dex (7pts) 14
Con (9pts) 15 +2 = 17
Int (9pts) 15
Wis (2pts) 10
Cha 8
ASIs: +1Con/+1Int, +2Int, +2Int, +2Con, one still free for a feat, looking at:
Str10, Dex14, Con20, Int20, Wis10, Cha8
Fighter weapons, Fighter AC, Fighter combat ability, Fighter HP, all on a Wizard with a 10Str and max DC.

But no, it's not imbalanced at all. It seems perfectly reasonable for the Wizard to be just as good at hitting things, and just as durable than the Fighter, while retaining his capstone. Sure, maybe he doesn't have extra attack, but he can still swing a battleaxe with his 10STR just as well as the Fighter can.
That seems fair.

You know what else we need? We also need an option for Wis saves to be keyed off of Int. And then we need an option for Str saves to be keyed off of Int. And maybe Cha saves, too. Maybe we can have an option for stealth and thieves' tools to key off of Int.
Then this is the greatest single classed Wizard EVAR!!!!!!

Better yet, do it with an Elf and toss a level of Barbarian in there, just for fun, onto a Bladesinger.
MOAR SAD OPTIMIZATIONZZ!!!!!!

[alchahest]

Mountain Dwarf Wizard
Str 8 +2 racial = 10
Dex (7pts) 14
Con (9pts) 15 +2 = 17
Int (9pts) 15
Wis (2pts) 10
Cha 8
ASIs: +1Con/+1Int, +2Int, +2Int, +2Con, one still free for a feat, looking at:
Str10, Dex14, Con20, Int20, Wis10, Cha8
Fighter weapons, Fighter AC, Fighter combat ability, Fighter HP, all on a Wizard with a 10Str and max DC.

But no, it's not imbalanced at all.

I didn't ask if it was imbalanced. I suppose I wasn't even asking you, I was speaking to Willie the Duck as you'd suggested. But since you were kind enough to put some work into it, I'll ask what it is that makes this character imbalanced, as opposed to one with an additional feat? And is this built differently than another mountain dwarf wizard? And where was the feat to be able to use INT for attacking? a wizard gets five ASIs, you've listed four and a free ASI that can be used for a feat.

This is a really nice build for a heavily armored wizard, but it's not really one that's going to be able to make use of having a sword while still having the AC of the fighter as listed. it also doesn't grant multiple attacks, or action surge, so saying it's got the fighter combat ability isn't something I would agree with. However, this is a dwarf wizard who is good at swinging a sword once per turn, absolutely. does that make it more powerful than a wizard who isn't swinging a sword? If that last ASI was used for war caster, they'd have no problem maintaining concentration spells, and, they'd have a hand free for manipulating Material Components.

Can you expound on how it is imbalanced, so I can better see your point of view?
thank you

[DivisibleByZero]

Can you expound on how it is imbalanced, so I can better see your point of view?
thank you

It has been explained.
If you can't see how it is imbalanced yet, there's nothing that I can say to make you understand.

[alchahest]

It has been explained.
If you can't see how it is imbalanced yet, there's nothing that I can say to make you understand.

so far you showed a well built wizard that
a: does not have the feat we're discussing.
b: can make good one melee attack a turn, in place of casting a spell - if we assume that least ASI is used for the feat to allow int to melee attacks

I simply don't agree that this is "the same combat ability as a fighter" when a fighter at this level has four or even eight attacks a turn. If they're a battlemaster they're throwing in more dice and effects, and if they're an eldritch knight they're doing the same thing this guy does, plus more attacks.

So, you haven't shown anything yet. you've built a good, but rather standard Mountain Dwarf wizard that doesn't even use the theoretical int to melee feat we've been discussing.

[DivisibleByZero]

We're on page 3 of this thread. Lots of valid points have been made.
Read them. I'm not going to copy/paste a bunch of stuff to make it easy on you.
It's all already been said.

This is a bad idea.

[Willie the Duck]

I didn't ask if it was imbalanced. I suppose I wasn't even asking you, I was speaking to Willie the Duck as you'd suggested.

I am not routinely able to check giantitp more than once a day, expecting me to be able to get back to you with reasonable turnaround is not a good bet. But since I'm here I'll try to get this done before I have to get back to work. Apologies if I garble this.


This is a really nice build for a heavily armored wizard, but it's not really one that's going to be able to make use of having a sword while still having the AC of the fighter as listed. it also doesn't grant multiple attacks, or action surge, so saying it's got the fighter combat ability isn't something I would agree with. However, this is a dwarf wizard who is good at swinging a sword once per turn, absolutely. does that make it more powerful than a wizard who isn't swinging a sword? If that last ASI was used for war caster, they'd have no problem maintaining concentration spells, and, they'd have a hand free for manipulating Material Components.

Yeah, this build is just slightly better. A dwarven eldritch knight who does get multi-attack, and therefor gets to put all their boosts into Int (boosting both attacks and save DCs) might highlight the issues better. Also the medium armor half-elven or vuman valor bard, who could choose not to try to boost their dex past 14 to fight better with a rapier because it would be more efficient to boost their cha and take this feat. At least for me, the bigger issue is the design space you are permanently closing in new archetypes or races or whatever because you have taken this shillelagh-like mechanic, and removed any and all gatekeeping from it, when it seems clear to me that they went to a lot of trouble to keep shillelagh walled off behind lots of bunny trials.

And yes, the difference is either going to be a wizard-type who makes those emergency attacks with +5 hit and damage, or a gish-type who can get both their spellcasting ability and combat ability to 20 quicker and never has to make a tough decision between the two. It's not going to break the bank. It is, however, a clear optimized option and something I thought the designers were moving away from.

[Lombra]

Mountain Dwarf Wizard
Str 8 +2 racial = 10
Dex (7pts) 14
Con (9pts) 15 +2 = 17
Int (9pts) 15
Wis (2pts) 10
Cha 8
ASIs: +1Con/+1Int, +2Int, +2Int, +2Con, one still free for a feat, looking at:
Str10, Dex14, Con20, Int20, Wis10, Cha8
Fighter weapons, Fighter AC, Fighter combat ability, Fighter HP, all on a Wizard with a 10Str and max DC.

But no, it's not imbalanced at all. It seems perfectly reasonable for the Wizard to be just as good at hitting things, and just as durable than the Fighter, while retaining his capstone. Sure, maybe he doesn't have extra attack, but he can still swing a battleaxe with his 10STR just as well as the Fighter can.
That seems fair.

You know what else we need? We also need an option for Wis saves to be keyed off of Int. And then we need an option for Str saves to be keyed off of Int. And maybe Cha saves, too. Maybe we can have an option for stealth and thieves' tools to key off of Int.
Then this is the greatest single classed Wizard EVAR!!!!!!

Better yet, do it with an Elf and toss a level of Barbarian in there, just for fun, onto a Bladesinger.
MOAR SAD OPTIMIZATIONZZ!!!!!!

That's not unbalanced, it's just boring and unfair to the martials, not to mention that 10 STR brings along all the problems related to equipment weight and such. It's not breaking the game, it's just silly. Any dwarf wizard (actually, most wizards, regardless of race) has the same stats that you proposed, because concentration is a big deal, what are you doing with -at worst- a booming blade once every turn? I honestly can't think of game breaking combinations that could make this a problem. Bladesinger? It's not gonna break it, it won't make it more SAD than now, since dexterity and constitution should anyways be high for survivability.

It doesn't break the game, it just feels silly and increases biases towards the "martials vs casters" argument.

[alchahest]

I am not routinely able to check giantitp more than once a day, expecting me to be able to get back to you with reasonable turnaround is not a good bet. But since I'm here I'll try to get this done before I have to get back to work. Apologies if I garble this.



Yeah, this build is just slightly better. A dwarven eldritch knight who does get multi-attack, and therefor gets to put all their boosts into Int (boosting both attacks and save DCs) might highlight the issues better. Also the medium armor half-elven or vuman valor bard, who could choose not to try to boost their dex past 14 to fight better with a rapier because it would be more efficient to boost their cha and take this feat. At least for me, the bigger issue is the design space you are permanently closing in new archetypes or races or whatever because you have taken this shillelagh-like mechanic, and removed any and all gatekeeping from it, when it seems clear to me that they went to a lot of trouble to keep shillelagh walled off behind lots of bunny trials.

And yes, the difference is either going to be a wizard-type who makes those emergency attacks with +5 hit and damage, or a gish-type who can get both their spellcasting ability and combat ability to 20 quicker and never has to make a tough decision between the two. It's not going to break the bank. It is, however, a clear optimized option and something I thought the designers were moving away from.

OH - I definitely wasn't expecting you to answer immediately, that wasn't my intent. I had just meant that it was you I was responding to. Sorry about that! no apology required, and no pressure to respond!

With that said, thank you for the well thought out reply! Design space is an important thing to keep in mind, and much like charisma-to-attack for hexblade patron warlocks, It is something that could be carefully meted out in this way. I think there might be some kind of middle ground if they ever release class-specific feats for further differentiation within subclasses, though - I like the idea of this taking the place of an ASI as an additional cost for it.

I appreciate your taking the time to respond to me, thank you!

[DivisibleByZero]

It doesn't break the game, it just feels silly and increases biases towards the "martials vs casters" argument.

That's exactly right.
But in 5e, martials and casters are balanced well. So anything that tips that scale towards casters creates an imbalance.
When a feature creates a situation where you ask yourself "why would I play a martial when this thing exists?" then that thing is imbalanced.

[Lombra]

That's exactly right.
But in 5e, martials and casters are balanced well. So anything that tips that scale towards casters creates an imbalance.
When a feature creates a situation where you ask yourself "why would I play a martial when this thing exists?" then that thing is imbalanced.

It just isn't as cathastrophic as the opionion that I perceived from your post. I mean it doesn't make int-based classes better than martial classes at the job of martial fighting. It just feels unnecessary and out of place.

[DivisibleByZero]

It just isn't as cathastrophic as the opionion that I perceived from your post. I mean it doesn't make int-based classes better than martial classes at the job of martial fighting. It just feels unnecessary and out of place.

We're not talking specifically about Int base classes. That was just an example. We're talking about taking casting stats and turning them into combo casting/melee stats, without any restrictions other then an ASI spent.
That would absolutely, 100%, without a friggin doubt, be catastrophic for martials, and thus imbalanced.

[miburo]

So, uh, 3 pages later, I think I got my question answered about whether the feat made sense or not. I'm gonna say that issue is closed out <tips hat and backs out slowly...>