What if you could choose your class's primary ability scores?

[banthafett]

One of the things that distinguishes classes is their reliance on particular ability scores. This means that your abilities will generally follow one or two templates. The more you deviate from the template, aka the more stats you rely upon, the less individually powerful your stats are, and generally the weaker your character. This is why certain class/race combinations are more powerful, e.g. half-elf and any combination of Charisma-based casting classes. This leads to a lot of mechanically very similar characters, which in turn affects the role-playing of these characters. Paladins, Warlocks, Bards, and Sorcerors will generally trend toward being the more social characters. Druids, Clerics, and Rangers will tend to be more perceptive. Barbarians will be freakishly strong etc.

So, what would happen if we removed these restrictions/affinities?

What if a player could choose

1) the mental ability score associated with any class feature?
2) between Str and Dex for any class feature which uses either?
3) both 1 & 2?

To clarify, proficiency in skills is a class feature, but skills themselves are not, so they would still all be tied to their normal attributes. Likewise, proficiency in saves is class feature, but the saves themselves are not.

Obviously this would mean there would be an abundance of new multi-class opportunities, and I'm sure this would lead to some very powerful combinations being discovered, but given that right now we have characters who can do everything with one stat (Charisma) I'm curious if new combinations would end up being more powerful than what we already have. It would definitely be something to pay careful attention to.

My thinking is, that this could, on one hand, lead to some really interesting character diversity as players are free to make unusual characters without being mechanically punished. The brilliant druid, the dexterous barbarian, the wise wizard, etc. But, on the other hand, it could lead to homogenization as everyone decides what the 'best' combination of stats is and then just replicates it across all characters. The dexterous and wise wizard, the dexterous and wise sorcerer, the dexterous and wise paladin etc.

One thing that I think would be necessary would be an open mind regarding the flavor of the classes. A highly intelligent Paladin might be a battlemage who studied magic and war diligently, or a charismatic Druid might be a form of naturalistic sorcerer whose self mastery allows them to change forms. The characters don't have to be flavored differently than in the books, but it would allow for more diversity of character concepts to be realized, and it might help with the cognitive dissonance some people might feel between the lore of classes as presented in the book and the stats of an individual character.

So, what do you think would happen if players at your table had these options? What would you anticipate the pitfalls to be? How might you refine this idea?

[Emay Ecks]

While I haven't allowed players to complete freedom in choosing a class's primary ability score, I do let my players choose wisdom or charisma for paladin, and int/charisma for warlock. I haven't had any real problems with it, as what it mostly did was alter the flavor of the class, let players feel more confident picking particular skills to be more proficient in, and allow for some unique race/class combos. None of my players who took an alternate option ever multi-classed, though this is where I'd probably imagine the largest issue is. I'm not sure how much of a problem I'd have with it though, as right now it's hard to think of potential multiclass combos that are worse for games than coffeelock and sorcadin (aside from every caster taking the one level dip in cleric for martial weapons and heavy armor).

Ultimately I think a lot of the pitfalls can be worked out if a player talks to the dm about what they're trying to achieve. If a player told me (s)he wanted to be a master tactician paladin who worshipped the god of arcane magic, I'd probably be happy to let them use intelligence as a casting stat. If a player told me they wanted to be a charisma druid/charisma life cleric/charisma celestial warlock to have some of the most powerful heals in the game, I'd be a little more hesitant.

[KorvinStarmast]

What if you could choose your class's primary ability scores?
You'd have a different game system.

[Orc_Lord]

Have you noticed that no class has CON as a primary stat? There is a reason for that. Balance is achieved by competing priorities. If you remove them the balance gets even worse.

I don't like how D&D pigeonholes things. You can never play a dumb mage, a smart but uncharismatic bard without totally sucking in it.

I suggest you look at some skill based tabletop games like Shadowrun. They still rely on attributes but the correlation is not as strong.

Or if you want to meet in the middle how about not having a primary stat at all? What if everyone gets a +3 then it becomes a +4 and finally a +5 at ASI levels.

If your players are not powerplaying it won't matter as much but don't be surprised if combat becomes totally broken.

My CON based warlock/sorcerer says hi.

[banthafett]

Have you noticed that no class has CON as a primary stat?

Well, I'm not proposing allowing Con as a primary stat.


What if a player could choose
1) the mental ability score associated with any class feature?
2) between Str and Dex for any class feature which uses either?
3) both 1 & 2?

So, with option one, a Wizard could use Int, Wis, or Cha for spellcasting. With option two, a Barbarian could gain advantage on Str or Dex checks while raging. And, with option three, a Monk could use Int, Wis, or Cha, and Str, or Dex for unarmed defense. No option allows a character to use Con in place of any other ability.

[rmnimoc]

Basically nothing would change.

In 1, the floor for casters would get a bit higher.
In 2, martials get a bit of a boost.
In 3, monks get a nice buff, martials are a bit better, and the floor for casters is a bit higher.

I don't think you need to worry much about homogenization, since no one stat (sans constitution, dumping constitution is basically unheard of, that's unlikely to change from this) is that much better than the others. After constitution the next best stat (in general rather than for any build) is dex (dumping dex is pretty rare), but this doesn't make it that much better. It's pretty rare to see full casters who have more than one high mental stat, so clearly all 3 mental stats are pretty balanced with the others, that probably won't change. Strength is a dump stat for everyone who doesn't intend to melee, so that won't change much.

Basically, all that changes is that the average optimization level of characters in general goes up a tiny bit.

[MaxWilson]

One of the things that distinguishes classes is their reliance on particular ability scores. This means that your abilities will generally follow one or two templates. The more you deviate from the template, aka the more stats you rely upon, the less individually powerful your stats are, and generally the weaker your character. This is why certain class/race combinations are more powerful, e.g. half-elf and any combination of Charisma-based casting classes. This leads to a lot of mechanically very similar characters, which in turn affects the role-playing of these characters. Paladins, Warlocks, Bards, and Sorcerors will generally trend toward being the more social characters. Druids, Clerics, and Rangers will tend to be more perceptive. Barbarians will be freakishly strong etc.

So, what would happen if we removed these restrictions/affinities?

*snip*

So, what do you think would happen if players at your table had these options? What would you anticipate the pitfalls to be? How might you refine this idea?

This might be a change of subject, but I'd rather explore the opposite direction: what would happen if we made warlocks an Intelligence-based spellcaster instead of a Charisma-based one?

Sorlocks instantly (mostly) cease to be a problem, and Paladins are much less tempted to "dip" warlock for ranged attacks. The fluff text for warlocks makes more sense ("seeker of powerful secrets" screams Int, not Cha). Int is less of a dump stat. Abjuror/warlocks abusing Armor of Shadows for free arcane ward recharge become more common, but that's a pretty minor concern in a game that already has Healing Spirit and Extended Aura of Vitality anyway, especially since many people don't like slowing down a wizard's spell progression--wizard/warlocks will remain a distinct minority of wizards even if they do become slightly more common. It's hard to say what happens to warlock invocations for gaining Charisma-based proficiencies (Beguiling something-or-other for Deception and Persuasion proficiency), whether those become more attractive or what. (Honestly IMO they should grant Deception and Persuasion Expertise to be worthwhile, not mere proficiency, and that's true even if you leave the warlock casting stat as Cha. That is, let them grant proficiency if you're non-proficient, and expertise otherwise.)

Because sorlocks are less common, warrior types (such as Eldritch Knights) get more spotlight.

Eldritch Knight 7/Warlock X becomes a more attractive combination. This is arguably a negative and could conceivably become as problematic as sorlocks--but at least the damage is worse than a dedicated sorlock spamming Quickened Agonizing (Repelling) Eldritch Blasts, although the longevity is better (no resource usage except arrows to Eldritch Blast + shoot an arrow). Then again, this is already possible today and it's not that common. The main difference relative to today would be a higher DC on your Eldritch Knight spells, and of course the absence of the competing sorlock option. I think in practice this wouldn't be a huge issue.

Overall I think switching warlocks from Cha back to Int improves the game by quite a bit. It even matches the original preferences of the 5E dev team. Ref: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/16/why-are-warlock-charisma-casters/


@JeremyECrawford Why are Warlock Charisma casters, when their descriptions in the PHB screams Intelligence caster?


Warlocks used Charisma in previous editions. Playtest feedback wanted that carried forward. (Our preference was to use Intelligence.) #DnD

[Spiritchaser]

some MCs would be impressive

Monkadin comes to mind

Bladesinger with either cha or wis could be wicked...

Cleric/Devo paladins could have 2 CDs for GWM. Up for an RP challenge? Throw in some hexblade and you’re SAD too

[Seekergeek]

I've done something similar where I have allowed my players to stick with the racial attributes of a given race, or take a floating +2/+1 to apply wherever they wished. Worked well, but that was before anything existed beyond the PHB, MM, and DMG. New racial options could, I guess, muddy those waters.

[Citan]

Have you noticed that no class has CON as a primary stat? There is a reason for that. Balance is achieved by competing priorities. If you remove them the balance gets even worse.

I don't like how D&D pigeonholes things. You can never play a dumb mage, a smart but uncharismatic bard without totally sucking in it.

I suggest you look at some skill based tabletop games like Shadowrun. They still rely on attributes but the correlation is not as strong.

Or if you want to meet in the middle how about not having a primary stat at all? What if everyone gets a +3 then it becomes a +4 and finally a +5 at ASI levels.

If your players are not powerplaying it won't matter as much but don't be surprised if combat becomes totally broken.

My CON based warlock/sorcerer says hi.
I very, very strongly disagree with that statement.
While playing a pure martial with crappy physical stats would indeed prove difficult without help, it would still be doable thanks to all ways to impose advantage or increase to-hit for weapon attacks.
And that's the worst case: the case of classes which completely revolve about one basic feature: weapon attack.

For a caster, it's *perfectly doable* to play an 10 INT Wizard or a CHA 10 Sorcerer without "totally sucking in it". In fact, being not far from "as great as the next standard one". Two, possibly three reasons for that.

1. Lesser reason: items: you can get some items to boost temporarily or permanently your stats, and you can get items to store spells so you can "try more" to compensate your lower reliability. But this is heavily campaign/DM dependent, so not a strong argument.

2. Significant reason: spell DC progression VS creature's saves: even with a 10 INT you'll start with a 10 DC (weak) and end with a 14 DC (not bad). Many, most in fact creatures have at least one mental stat they are not strong against, often two with at most +2 bonus, right up until CR 19+ creatures.
Then you have, indeed few, but existing, abilities to turn luck to your side too. For a Wizard, you can choose Diviner, Enchanter, Necromancer or Bladesinger. For Sorcerer, Shadow or Wild Magic will be your friends together with Metamagic. For Druid, you could mainly rely on Wild Shape as a Moon Druid if you really felt weak, although you are really not. Why? For the following...

3. Main reason: spell choices!!! You have many, plenty great spells that...
- don't care at all how potent your own mind/magic is.
- scale pretty well one way or another (because reducing increasingly stronger threats, or because strenghtening increasingly stronger allies, or because plain damage/heal/buff scaling).
- stay useful and relevant at all levels.
To pick back the Druid case, a Shepherd could perfectly cope with 10 WIS since he will eventually rely mainly on conjuration (exactly like the Necromancer Wizard doesn't care at all really, or Evoker doesn't care *that* all thanks to buffs to min damage).
Even a Land Druid with 10 WIS (sorry, I just really don't like negative modifiers ^^) could rock hard. Just pick Grassland (Invisibility, Haste) / Desert (Silence, Hallucinatory Terrain) / Forest (Divination), keep spells like Heat Metal / Healing Words / Pass Without Trace / Spike Growth / Plant Growth / Dust Devil / Sleet Storm / Conjure Animals / Polymorph at the ready.

The only requirement for such "dumped mental stat" builds to work is a bit more reflexion beforehand during leveling, because you'll focus more on a support party so you have to try and guess what your party needs most. Nothing more. :)

[Kane0]

Sounds interesting, I'd give it a try just to see what happens.

[MilkmanDanimal]

I think it would lead to hyper-optimization and the rise of a series of super-effective multiclass characters. It'd be like a mini version of the 3.5 character build metagame.

[Derpaligtr]

I feel like it would do the class based system a lot of good if it went something like...

What I'm awesome at

What I'm good at

What I'm not good at

Then leave it at that. Don't dictate role-playing with rollplaying aspects.

Want to play a stupid wizard who is actually guided by a deity? You can have a low Int, use the wizard class, and role play it however you want. Maybe the character's parents spent a fortune on wizard school but you couldn't cut it... But a deity feels really bad for you so helps you cast wizard spells.

Want to play a fighter who has low str and dex, but gets lucky **all the time**? Maybe the fat bumbling idiot type? Boom, you can still have the class features and be effective because you're still good at martial combat.

Ability scores aren't needed for anything other than describing your character. You can use the proficiency bonus system for a more role playing and roll playing friendly set up.

[Willie the Duck]

some MCs would be impressive

Monkadin comes to mind

Bladesinger with either cha or wis could be wicked...

Cleric/Devo paladins could have 2 CDs for GWM. Up for an RP challenge? Throw in some hexblade and you’re SAD too

I think Hexblade would have to be the first thing re-thought-through if this kind of rule were ever set up. Multiclassing in general would have to become much more well thought out.

[GaelofDarkness]

Yeah, there could definitely be some multi-classing synergies that would open up. That said, whether or not that's a bad thing depends pretty heavily on your group. If they aren't into hyper-optimization and tend to choose their stats with roleplaying or character concepts in mind... and work with the DM... and not being perfectly balanced is cool with everyone at the table - then you should be fine as long as you check some things on a case-by-case basis. Monkadins for example - what subclasses would you allow to pair and which wouldn't you - if any?

The other concern I'd raise is that in comparison between Strength and Dex - as was pointed out to me when looking into a home brew system last month - Strength is an active, offensive stat but Dex is an active, offensive stat AND is a defensive/evasive stat as well. They both have utility functions as well but that's mostly on the Dex side as well, with stealth, thieves' tolls, etc. Basically, the offensive and defensive aspects of "Toughness"/"Might"/"Beefiness" are split between Strength and Con. But the offensive and defensive aspects of "Finesse"/"Agility"/"Precision" are merged in Dex. The balancing factor is that Dex builds can't use the best weapons and armor. Even keeping the minimum Strength restrictions on Heavy Armor, why would anyone - except for a role-playing or character concept reason - choose to use a Strength build. They are always encouraged to use Dex.

That said - effectively have a single Stregnth/Dex stat like Physique or Fitness is not unheard of by any means. Just consider how that interacts with the game system you're adjusting.

[Kane0]

I feel like it would do the class based system a lot of good if it went something like...

What I'm awesome at

What I'm good at

What I'm not good at

Then leave it at that. Don't dictate role-playing with rollplaying aspects.

Want to play a stupid wizard who is actually guided by a deity? You can have a low Int, use the wizard class, and role play it however you want. Maybe the character's parents spent a fortune on wizard school but you couldn't cut it... But a deity feels really bad for you so helps you cast wizard spells.

Want to play a fighter who has low str and dex, but gets lucky **all the time**? Maybe the fat bumbling idiot type? Boom, you can still have the class features and be effective because you're still good at martial combat.

Ability scores aren't needed for anything other than describing your character. You can use the proficiency bonus system for a more role playing and roll playing friendly set up.

Rework proficiency to Primary, Secondary and Tertiary then assign one of those (or none) to relevant rolls?

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah, there could definitely be some multi-classing synergies that would open up. That said, whether or not that's a bad thing depends pretty heavily on your group. If they aren't into hyper-optimization and tend to choose their stats with roleplaying or character concepts in mind... and work with the DM... and not being perfectly balanced is cool with everyone at the table - then you should be fine as long as you check some things on a case-by-case basis. Monkadins for example - what subclasses would you allow to pair and which wouldn't you - if any?.

I guess, where I am on that, is if your primary goals are roleplaying and character-concept, why not get rid of (much of) the game value of stats altogether, and make them character-concept-anchors instead? Have a more oD&D-like game where the stats just don't do that much. Maybe just for things like combat/spell features, and leave them around for skills, or the like.

[ZorroGames]

You'd have a different game system.

Exactly. Might be a great game but it would not be D&D.

[Derpaligtr]

Rework proficiency to Primary, Secondary and Tertiary then assign one of those (or none) to relevant rolls?

I feel like the character sheet would be a lot simpler with this system.

[Cybren]

I’d never play d&d again

[GaelofDarkness]

I guess, where I am on that, is if your primary goals are roleplaying and character-concept, why not get rid of (much of) the game value of stats altogether, and make them character-concept-anchors instead? Have a more oD&D-like game where the stats just don't do that much. Maybe just for things like combat/spell features, and leave them around for skills, or the like.

I don't really disagree tbh. Part of the post was being a little tongue-in-cheek because that's not a short list. That said - a lot of groups fit that mold and the thing I have found is that a lot of players are just comfortable with the stat system, even like using it to guide their role-playing. I can see where they're coming from since the "I am good at" framework can feel like... I don't know the right word... contrived? Limiting? Like obviously these criticisms apply to the stats system too and it creates a different set of limitations, but side steps some of the limitations of a character-concept-anchors approach.

Though, personally I think that's more realistic to have a set of skills you're good at rather than having essentialist properties like stats define your character - I do still like stats. I couldn't really tell you why. Nostalgia? Comfortable familiarity? Problematic view of what properties define a person? I guess in a world where we tend to think of "the smart guy" in the story as being a mechanic, genius coder, having an encyclopedic knowledge of world history, being able to develop a cures that should count as medical miracles AND having the power to summon the unholy hosts of the netherworld, being able to describe your character as "intelligent" can be appealing. That actually fits some real-world interactions I've had pretty well. Seriously, I have a friend who is a genius legal scholar, champion chess player and wonky policy expert, but the amount of times she's asked instead about tech or medical stuff considering she has NO KNOWLEDGE in these areas is insane.

[Exocist]

If would be like swapping damage. Personally, I would allow people to "trade down" but never "trade up". I.e. a WIS or DEX focused class could become STR, INT or CHA focused, but a STR INT or CHA focused class could not become WIS or DEX focused. It's important to note you'd probably also have to ban multiclassing to prevent unintended consequences.

Same theory for damage types, you could trade up on this list, but not down:


Poison
Fire
Cold/Necrotic
Lightning
Acid/Thunder
Radiant
Force


Also the choice could only be made once - you want a Poisonball instead of a Fireball? Cool, but you're now forbidden from ever getting Fireball.

[Willie the Duck]

Though, personally I think that's more realistic to have a set of skills you're good at rather than having essentialist properties like stats define your character - I do still like stats. I couldn't really tell you why. Nostalgia? Comfortable familiarity? Problematic view of what properties define a person? I guess in a world where we tend to think of "the smart guy" in the story as being a mechanic, genius coder, having an encyclopedic knowledge of world history, being able to develop a cures that should count as medical miracles AND having the power to summon the unholy hosts of the netherworld, being able to describe your character as "intelligent" can be appealing. That actually fits some real-world interactions I've had pretty well. Seriously, I have a friend who is a genius legal scholar, champion chess player and wonky policy expert, but the amount of times she's asked instead about tech or medical stuff considering she has NO KNOWLEDGE in these areas is insane.

Aside from some hair splitting details (such as perception and willpower apparently being tied to 'wisdom,' etc.), the six stats are at least a reasonable way to divide characters into iconic types-- 'the strong one,' 'the smart one,' 'the talky one.' It even leaves open some room for iconic flawed characters like absentminded professors, book-dumb but level-headed, or strong-but-clumsy. Certainly once we stipulate the rest of the game as having placed ourselves into a class-based game, any incongruities that the stat system creates seem outside of the granularity of the rest of what we are dealing with.

As a reality emulator, however, the system breaks before we even get to skills (and how well D&D could emulate your legal chess-player non-doctor). Characters are Omni-competent at things that an adventurer would want to know how to do, but are not exciting (ex. putting on and maintaining armor, fording a river with a medieval backpack full of medieval rations without ruining them, etc.), have the option of becoming semi-competent (such that failure is a routine, plot-generating, possibility) at things that an adventurer would want to know how to do, but are exciting (climbing things, noticing things, sneaking past things) (and, as a side note, these abilities are broad strokes of the brush. "Scientists" in a "5e Modern" game would be the kind who would know both microbiology and nuclear physics), and (unlike some editions) generally undefined in terms of mundane skills which fall outside of the 'useful to adventurers' rubric.

In my mind, that's not the worst thing. The game plays to its strengths. I'm not sure how to tie this back into the OP question of switching out class abilities. But it is interesting to think on.