"... plus your Ability modifier (minimum 1)"

[DwarfFighter]

A number of ability modifier based effects let's you use a number of dice or affect a number of creatures, or use something a number of times, based on your ability modifier. But I can't think of any instances where you are actually punished for having +0 or negative ability modifiers.

Doesn't this sort of undermine the importance of "character weakness"? I mean, if you want your character to get their feature's or spell's or whatnot's effect at "plus 1" instead of seeing that number drop to zero or below, shouldn't you assign your 12 to that ability instead of your 8 or 10?

A Cleric can prepare (Wisdom ability modifier) + level number of spells. If you decide to build a Cleric with Wisdom 8, is it somehow unfair that he can prepare 0 spells at level 1?

If you are dead set on playing an incompetent character, how is it hurting the game that you don't get any ability in the areas where you have no competence?

-DF

[Avonar]

I mean it's a base line thing to make that a class can never be literally incapable of using its main mechanics. I don't see a problem with this. It will probably never come up granted, but still.

If you want to play a cleric who can't cast spells, just don't cast spells.

Also remember that for the 8/10/12 point, the minimum of 1 includes level. So at level 2 with 12 WIS you get 3 spells, with 8 WIS you get 1 spell still. It does affect it. Not to mention the DC/attack bonus for spells.

[Warder]

It's just part of 5e's design goals. I don't think it'd hurt the game any if you were allowed to make "bad" character decisions, but WotC have gone out of their way to make character customization choices few and safe. I personally think the game would be better if it included choices that came with drawbacks, but that's not the way they've gone with.

[Twelvetrees]

I think the designers were also likely trying to prevent issues with those numbers going negative. You can have a character with 4 Wisdom if you roll for stats, for example, and if we apply this to the hypothetical cleric you mentioned, they would prepare -1 spells at level 1 if the clause didn't exist.

Interesting enough, the paladin's Divine Sense doesn't have this wording. I'm not sure what it would mean to have negative uses of it per day, but you can make it happen with a Charisma score of 7 or less.

You can use this feature a number of times equal to 1 + your Charisma modifier.

[rlc]

I think the designers were also likely trying to prevent issues with those numbers going negative. You can have a character with 4 Wisdom if you roll for stats, for example, and if we apply this to the hypothetical cleric you mentioned, they would prepare -1 spells at level 1 if the clause didn't exist.

Interesting enough, the paladin's Divine Sense doesn't have this wording. I'm not sure what it would mean to have negative uses of it per day, but you can make it happen with a Charisma score of 7 or less.

If I were the dm, I’d play it as you get one use that works backwards, so you’re the one who gets picked up by their senses, but RAI would probably just default it to zero.

[DwarfFighter]

I mean it's a base line thing to make that a class can never be literally incapable of using its main mechanics. I don't see a problem with this. It will probably never come up granted, but still.

If you want to play a cleric who can't cast spells, just don't cast spells.

Also remember that for the 8/10/12 point, the minimum of 1 includes level. So at level 2 with 12 WIS you get 3 spells, with 8 WIS you get 1 spell still. It does affect it. Not to mention the DC/attack bonus for spells.

This is about the "pity treatment" you get from the rules, not how you can freely decide to limit your play by how you rolepay. Anyone can can role play a Fighter that never attacks, or a Wizard that pretends to know no spells.

And yeah, a Wis 8 Ceric can legitimately prepare 1 spell at level 2. But that is not relevant to the fact that the character gets a free ride at level 1, no more so than is the fact that the Cleric can increase his Wis to 10 at level 4.

It is clear that the designers want to have a mechanic for setting the "capacity" of features etc., adding a value ranging from 1 and up, or sometimes 0 and up. The only real options on the character sheet is the ability modifiers. The designers are very aware that this has a flaw: Negative ability modifiers are a thing! And hence they consistently apply a minimum capacity that in turn undermines the impact of low ability scores and thus undermines the idea that our heroes have weaknesses that actually matter.

-DF

[JNAProductions]

I don't see what's so bad about it. Yes, there are measures in place to avoid building cripplingly bad characters. You can still build absolutely atrocious PCs (VHuman Barbarian with 8 8 8 16 16 16 and the Linguist feat) but it takes effort.

I'm at a loss as to why that's a BAD thing. In older editions, you could end up with a character that couldn't keep up with the monsters you were supposed to face just by picking flavorful things. Now, you actually have to TRY to make a character that's truly incompetent.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm going to second the notion of "why?" because I just don't understand why you would want this.

Who wants to go out of their way to make a useless caster? Who wants that character in their party?

Besides, there will be plenty of impact from that 8 wisdom, they won't be able to reliably use any spells involving saves.

[PhantomSoul]

So far, I'm with the other commenters on not being sure why having a minimum of 1 is bad (guarantees a use, and as a bonus side-effect might enable some sub-optimal character ideas people want).


If you are dead set on playing an incompetent character, how is it hurting the game that you don't get any ability in the areas where you have no competence?

They're not incompetent; they have class levels, and therefore have class features. This means they can use their class features.

Since it was probably an intentional decision, maybe they're representing not having learned to cast as well, or perhaps they want to play on some other concept (e.g. a smart cleric who really isn't able to open up to the whole faith thing), or maybe they're building around an item (and want it to hurt when they go into an antimagic zone), or perhaps it's a moot point because their goal is to avoid casting. Sure, they could just never cast spells, but it probably feels more real if the mechanics reflect it.

[JNAProductions]

So far, I'm with the other commenters on not being sure why having a minimum of 1 is bad (guarantees a use, and as a bonus side-effect might enable some sub-optimal character ideas people want).

They're not incompetent; they have class levels, and therefore have class features. This means they can use their class features.

Since it was probably an intentional decision, maybe they're representing not having learned to cast as well, or perhaps they want to play on some other concept (e.g. a smart cleric who really isn't able to open up to the whole faith thing), or maybe they're building around an item (and want it to hurt when they go into an antimagic zone), or perhaps it's a moot point because their goal is to avoid casting. Sure, they could just never cast spells, but it probably feels more real if the mechanics reflect it.

I guess, but due to the way multiclassing works in 5E with stat minimums, that would mean you're just playing a PC with some real crappy mechanics. Excepting if you're building around an item.

And I'd consider a Cleric who can only cast one spell (sure, they can cast it three times per day, but they only have one spell prepared) to be a lot worse than a Cleric who can prepare four or five spells. And has a better save DC and hit bonus.

D&D is not a generic system.

[NecessaryWeevil]

To use the cleric example, possibly it's because spellcasting is assumed to be central to the class. Like, it's impossible to be a cleric without spells because you can't graduate from cleric school if you're that bad.

[Avonar]

This is about the "pity treatment" you get from the rules, not how you can freely decide to limit your play by how you rolepay. Anyone can can role play a Fighter that never attacks, or a Wizard that pretends to know no spells.

And yeah, a Wis 8 Ceric can legitimately prepare 1 spell at level 2. But that is not relevant to the fact that the character gets a free ride at level 1, no more so than is the fact that the Cleric can increase his Wis to 10 at level 4.

It is clear that the designers want to have a mechanic for setting the "capacity" of features etc., adding a value ranging from 1 and up, or sometimes 0 and up. The only real options on the character sheet is the ability modifiers. The designers are very aware that this has a flaw: Negative ability modifiers are a thing! And hence they consistently apply a minimum capacity that in turn undermines the impact of low ability scores and thus undermines the idea that our heroes have weaknesses that actually matter.

-DF

"Pity treatment"

"weaknesses"

Really now. Let's assume point buy, you have an 8 Wisdom. At level 1, you wish that you could not know any spells. But this is an issue that only affects the very first level in the game, the one that you'll probably be on for the shortest amount of time. Level 2 onwards that negative wisdom can limit your spells all you like but you'll still have them. Is that a weakness that matters? Hardly. You'll still have a garbage DC and spell attack, you'll get a penalty to healing spells, that's a weakness, right?

I seriously don't get the vehemence you have towards this when it's an absolute non-issue. You want to play a cleric that can't cast spells, don't cast spells! You can do that without being mechanically not allowed to.

I'm so confused why you think this is a problem...

[JNAProductions]

"Pity treatment"

"weaknesses"

Really now. Let's assume point buy, you have an 8 Wisdom. At level 1, you wish that you could not know any spells. But this is an issue that only affects the very first level in the game, the one that you'll probably be on for the shortest amount of time. Level 2 onwards that negative wisdom can limit your spells all you like. Is that a weakness that matters? Hardly. You'll still have a garbage DC and spell attack, you'll get a penalty to healing spells, that's a weakness, right?

I seriously don't get the vehemence you have towards this when it's an absolute non-issue. You want to play a cleric that can't cast spells, don't cast spells! You can do that without being mechanically not allowed to.

I'm so confused why you think this is a problem...

Or be a pious Fighter, or Paladin, or Rogue. Nothing says that an in-universe cleric has to be of the Cleric class.

[Avonar]

Or be a pious Fighter, or Paladin, or Rogue. Nothing says that an in-universe cleric has to be of the Cleric class.

Precisely, though that seems to ago againt this idea of having a mechanical weakness? You could totally play a mace wielding fighter who was thrown out of cleric school.

[JNAProductions]

Precisely, though that seems to ago againt this idea of having a mechanical weakness? You could totally play a mace wielding fighter who was thrown out of cleric school.

I guess-I'd ask why you want to play a mechanically weak PC.

Because I, as the DM, don't like that-I don't want to have to plan around several competent PCs and one incompetent.
And I, as a player, don't like that-I don't mind if some people are better built or played than others, but outright incompetence is a bridge too far.
And I, as a story person, don't like that-it rarely makes sense for a group of well trained, tough, and competent individuals who are going into very dangerous situations to take along someone who isn't competent.

I'm not saying it can't work-those are all "In general" statements, with exceptions galore. But in general... it's a bad idea, at least with me.

[PhantomSoul]

I guess, but due to the way multiclassing works in 5E with stat minimums, that would mean you're just playing a PC with some real crappy mechanics. Excepting if you're building around an item.

And I'd consider a Cleric who can only cast one spell (sure, they can cast it three times per day, but they only have one spell prepared) to be a lot worse than a Cleric who can prepare four or five spells. And has a better save DC and hit bonus.

D&D is not a generic system.

They are a lot worse (I don't really think that's controversial! :) ) -- but between the internet, the "quick build" part of the class description, the existence of DMs and other players, and reading even just the level 1 features of your class, I have trouble imagining someone making a cleric with negative wisdom being an accident, even if it's their first character. The net result is that I don't worry about it too much -- and having a minimum 1 is more generous than a minimum 0 which might be good for niche cases in case you want to use it on a wacky build. (Jump heights and distances from low strength are easier to miss, but also funnier.)

[Keltest]

Frankly, if somebody tried to play a cleric with a wisdom penalty (or some other class-stat combo that was basically crippling) then i would probably refuse to DM that character. Its hard enough balancing encounters for a party of basically even power level, let alone one who cant actually contribute. If you want to play a martial priest with low wis, play a fighter with a mace or a paladin who dropped out of cleric school or something. Dont force the burden of managing your character on everyone else.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Frankly, if somebody tried to play a cleric with a wisdom penalty (or some other class-stat combo that was basically crippling) then i would probably refuse to DM that character. Its hard enough balancing encounters for a party of basically even power level, let alone one who cant actually contribute. If you want to play a martial priest with low wis, play a fighter with a mace or a paladin who dropped out of cleric school or something. Dont force the burden of managing your character on everyone else.

Agreed. Active anti optimization isn't something I want, nor does it make much sense that the party would want to keep The Load around. It's an adventure of (nominal) equals.

[PhantomSoul]

Frankly, if somebody tried to play a cleric with a wisdom penalty (or some other class-stat combo that was basically crippling) then i would probably refuse to DM that character. Its hard enough balancing encounters for a party of basically even power level, let alone one who cant actually contribute. If you want to play a martial priest with low wis, play a fighter with a mace or a paladin who dropped out of cleric school or something. Dont force the burden of managing your character on everyone else.

Yeah, if they actually made their character useless, that's a problem (minimum or not!).

[Segev]

It isn't a "free ride" anyway. They still have penalties to anything they roll on that ability score. All this does is make having the feature actually do something. If you're hitting that "minimum 1" point, you're already pretty weak. You're literally getting minimal use out of it. And if it's something like spellcasting, your spell attack roll and save DCs will also suffer for the actually negative stat modifier. It's just that you do get to use the feature to have it suffer from the negative stat mod.

[meandean]

I mean, it's theoretically possible if rolling 4d6 x 6 to not get a 12, or maybe you do get one but you put it in CON, or whatever the deal is.

I'm sure the odds of that are infinitesimal in the first place, and then even if it did happen, both the player and the DM would have the common sense not to insist on working with it. But it could theoretically happen, so, why not have a rule to cover it, I guess.

I agree that it's not a question of "characters should have weaknesses". A "weakness" is, e.g., when you're a good fighter but you're dumb. I very much endorse that, in that scenario, your dumbness should be relevant. However, in any standard array/point buy scenario, choosing your worst stat as your class stat isn't giving your character a "flaw"; it's trolling the game. So I would just ignore that as not something the game should worry about, and assume this is for the (again, wildly unlikely) situation where you literally have no good stat.

[Reynaert]

Are there still effects that can temporarily lower your stats?
If so, that's obviously what the minimum of one is for.

[Pex]

Frankly, if somebody tried to play a cleric with a wisdom penalty (or some other class-stat combo that was basically crippling) then i would probably refuse to DM that character. Its hard enough balancing encounters for a party of basically even power level, let alone one who cant actually contribute. If you want to play a martial priest with low wis, play a fighter with a mace or a paladin who dropped out of cleric school or something. Dont force the burden of managing your character on everyone else.


Agreed. Active anti optimization isn't something I want, nor does it make much sense that the party would want to keep The Load around. It's an adventure of (nominal) equals.

Ditto. When playing a cleric you don't have to play a race that gives +2 WI nor even +1 WI, but you don't come to the table with only an 8 or 10 WI. Do what your class is supposed to do and be competent at it. You're not a superior player for willingness to play a class with an 8 or 10 in your prime. You're instead actively being a disruptive player. Of course the new player who didn't understand the significance yet is willing to learn and accept help to make changes is the acceptable exception.

[Greywander]

On the contrary, there are many spells that don't care about your casting stat. People have looked into optimizing 8 INT wizards and such, and the cleric actually has a lot of support spells that don't care about WIS. I'd question what you're getting in return for dumping WIS, and they would almost certainly be less powerful than a cleric who maxed out WIS, but whether they are incompetent is a question of how the player handles them. For the most part, it's just limiting your options a bit, which you do anyway when you select which spells to prepare.

If the player is going to insist on dumping their casting stat and then casting mostly spells that use attack rolls or saving throws, then yeah, I might have a few questions for that player as a DM. But if they're determined to find a way to be an effective member of the party despite such a handicap, I wouldn't have any issue with it. It's definitely not as bad as a martial who dumps STR/DEX and CON.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's also only having a couple of prepared spells for most of your career. That's a strong limit on what you can do, even if nothing cares about your mod otherwise. And I really doubt that those "no save, no attack" builds are as effective as white room optimization makes them seem.

[ezekielraiden]

Honestly, I don't see this coming up ever. Even the least optimization-interested player is unlikely to actively seek being BAD at their core focus. If any players ARE seeking that, the group either has a greater problem than can be solved by removing "minimum 1" rules,or they know what they're doing better than I can properly account for even with advice.


I mean, it's theoretically possible if rolling 4d6 x 6 to not get a 12, or maybe you do get one but you put it in CON, or whatever the deal is. I'm sure the odds of that are infinitesimal in the first place...
Completely agreed. The odds of rolling no higher than 11 on the other five 4d6-drop-lowest rolls (assuming you DID get a 12 and put it in Con) are .3835^5 = 0.008, so only about one in 120 rolled characters who DID get at least one 12 would qualify. For the all-six-rolls case, it's .3835^6 = 0.003, about one in 314 rolled characters. Pretty unlikely.


and then even if it did happen, both the player and the DM would have the common sense not to insist on working with it.
Sadly, can't agree here. What qualifies as common sense is a matter of perspective, and I have found PLENTY of DMs who are completely obstinate donkeys about adhering to rolled stats no matter what. It never surprises me anymore when people have weird hangups about ability scores and how they "should" work.

[Tanarii]

Pretty sure if you made a "primary stat must be an 8" party, you'd end up with a lot of martially-oriented casters and some castery-oriented Dex-adins and Str-angers.

[Mutazoia]

I think you guys are looking at this from the wrong angle. You all assume that "I want to play a wizard that can't actually cast spells, lulz!" is the default for this concept. But look at it from a standard character concept. Nobody intentionally creates a totally incompetent character for anything other than a joke.

You roll a Barbarian, and you want high Strenght, high Constitution, and high Dexterity, so you pump most of your points (assuming point buy) into those three stats. This means that you are going to have the stereotypical Wisdom 8 Barbarian. This means that you are going to be charmed and turned against your party any time the DM wants to screw with you all. Or banished. That +0 (or negative modifier) is really going to come into effect here. But you didn't make your Wis 8 barbar just to be a Wis 8 barbar.

Charisma is pretty much the default dump stat in the game, with Wisdom a close second. And there are definite penalties that arise from time to time that will punish you for dumping them to negative modifier levels.

The same can apply to the "stupid" fighter with Wisdom and Intelligence as his dump stats.

Or the Bard with a Strength and Constitution dump stats.

It all really just depends on what the player decides is a fair trade-off for the character he or she wants to create.

Sure, you can raise your dump stats at a later time, but then you are still technically handicapping yourself. You just gave up increasing your primary or secondary stat to raise a dump stat. Or you gave up a feat. These can, and will, delay your character progression as you try to "fix" your dumpstat at a later time. It's better to just leave the dump stat dumped, and use the ASI/Feat to improve what wasn't intentionally broken. (You made your bed, now lie in it.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's hardly relevant here. Because these abilities with the minimum clause are generally core to a class "primary build". So the minimum never comes up unless you've done something off beat.

Dumping a tertiary stat? Meh. I personally don't like it for my characters (I hate penalties), but I understand it.

Dumping a primary or secondary (ie CHA for a paladin or Wis for a monk)? Yeah, don't do that. Or if you do, you better have a darn good reason.

[Avonar]

I think you guys are looking at this from the wrong angle. You all assume that "I want to play a wizard that can't actually cast spells, lulz!" is the default for this concept. But look at it from a standard character concept. Nobody intentionally creates a totally incompetent character for anything other than a joke

I mean we're looking at this from the exact angle that the OP said: Why can't you lose out on a class feature because your stats are too low?

Dump stats are fine. They make things interesting. If you decided to play a barbarian with negative strength or con though, that's the issue.

[Pex]

I think you guys are looking at this from the wrong angle. You all assume that "I want to play a wizard that can't actually cast spells, lulz!" is the default for this concept. But look at it from a standard character concept. Nobody intentionally creates a totally incompetent character for anything other than a joke.

You roll a Barbarian, and you want high Strenght, high Constitution, and high Dexterity, so you pump most of your points (assuming point buy) into those three stats. This means that you are going to have the stereotypical Wisdom 8 Barbarian. This means that you are going to be charmed and turned against your party any time the DM wants to screw with you all. Or banished. That +0 (or negative modifier) is really going to come into effect here. But you didn't make your Wis 8 barbar just to be a Wis 8 barbar.

Charisma is pretty much the default dump stat in the game, with Wisdom a close second. And there are definite penalties that arise from time to time that will punish you for dumping them to negative modifier levels.

The same can apply to the "stupid" fighter with Wisdom and Intelligence as his dump stats.

Or the Bard with a Strength and Constitution dump stats.

It all really just depends on what the player decides is a fair trade-off for the character he or she wants to create.

Sure, you can raise your dump stats at a later time, but then you are still technically handicapping yourself. You just gave up increasing your primary or secondary stat to raise a dump stat. Or you gave up a feat. These can, and will, delay your character progression as you try to "fix" your dumpstat at a later time. It's better to just leave the dump stat dumped, and use the ASI/Feat to improve what wasn't intentionally broken. (You made your bed, now lie in it.)

That's the problem with barbarian or rather 5E's implementation of Point Buy, not dumping WI. I'd never play one with Point Buy if I wanted to be a naked barbarian. If I'm willing to wear medium armor, shield optional, DX doesn't need to be so high. For my barbarian we rolled for scores. I got so many odd numbers standard human was too juicy to pass up. I wasn't gunning for a naked barbarian, but when I looked at my final array I was happy enough to finally play one without gimping myself. Lowest score is 10. I had 12 WI which wasn't a problem until high level when I desperately needed and took Resilience.

Players have different priorities than me as what to dump. I've seen players dump WI without batting an eye. I've seen dumping CO. No one dumps their prime. They might not have 16 at first level, but it is 15 and they pump it as the levels progress. I've been in one-shots, though, where players dumped their prime. No higher than 14 at some level 4 or higher or not 14 before then. They're newbies. They learn quickly the mistake they made. That one player who put an 8 in CO . . . shiver. The math of the game matters.

[Delph]

Isn't this thread taken bad?

What about In-game change? There are many ways how to drop some attributes lower. Some special attacks, curses,...

[ProsecutorGodot]

Isn't this thread taken bad?

What about In-game change? There are many ways how to drop some attributes lower. Some special attacks, curses,...

And? Regardless of whether an ability has a minimum amount of uses anything that inflicts a penalty like that will still be detrimental.

Feeblemind is debilitating to a caster regardless of whether they maintain a single use of an ability like that, assuming they can even still use the ability.

[meandean]

The odds of rolling no higher than 11 on the other five 4d6-drop-lowest rolls (assuming you DID get a 12 and put it in Con) are .3835^5 = 0.008, so only about one in 120 rolled characters who DID get at least one 12 would qualify. For the all-six-rolls case, it's .3835^6 = 0.003, about one in 314 rolled characters.Thanks for doing that work! That's a lot more likely than I thought it would be. It makes sense to have a rule to cover that scenario. It'll come up more often than, say, Stonecunning. :smallwink:

[Segev]

Thanks for doing that work! That's a lot more likely than I thought it would be. It makes sense to have a rule to cover that scenario. It'll come up more often than, say, Stonecunning. :smallwink:

The rule itself is a catch-all default, more for future-proofing and preventing something that shouldn't but theoretically could come up than meant to be something that is seriously at issue.

[MoiMagnus]

I'd like to note that usually, the "minimum 1" is applied on the total, not to the modifier.
So a LV2 cleric with 8 Wis still get a single spell, so less than if he had 10 Wis.
A wizard with 8 Con gets 3HP when levelling up, so less than if he had 10 Con.
Etc.
So there is still plenty of situations in which a 8 (or lower) is punished by the rules.

[Segev]

I'd like to note that usually, the "minimum 1" is applied on the total, not to the modifier.
So a LV2 cleric with 8 Wis still get a single spell, so less than if he had 10 Wis.
A wizard with 8 Con gets 3HP when levelling up, so less than if he had 10 Con.
Etc.
So there is still plenty of situations in which a 8 (or lower) is punished by the rules.

Indeed. All it really means is that, for example, our level 2 cleric with 7 Wisdom (WHY!?) has 1 spell, even though the formula would otherwise say he has no spells.

And if he has a 1 Wisdom (-5 modifier), he needs to be level 7 before he gets more than one spell prepared per day. So yes, the level 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 version of this impossibly foolish Cleric is "getting a free pass" compared to his slightly-less foolish brethren who have Wisdoms of 2, 4, 6, and 8, but the fact that he has to somehow make it to level 7 to have 2 spells prepared (and that he still only has 2 spells prepared at level 7) means he's not getting away with much. The small mercy of having one spell prepared is hardly making his abysmal Wisdom fail to sting.

[Amdy_vill]

A number of ability modifier based effects let's you use a number of dice or affect a number of creatures, or use something a number of times, based on your ability modifier. But I can't think of any instances where you are actually punished for having +0 or negative ability modifiers.

Doesn't this sort of undermine the importance of "character weakness"? I mean, if you want your character to get their feature's or spell's or whatnot's effect at "plus 1" instead of seeing that number drop to zero or below, shouldn't you assign your 12 to that ability instead of your 8 or 10?

A Cleric can prepare (Wisdom ability modifier) + level number of spells. If you decide to build a Cleric with Wisdom 8, is it somehow unfair that he can prepare 0 spells at level 1?

If you are dead set on playing an incompetent character, how is it hurting the game that you don't get any ability in the areas where you have no competence?

-DF

"character weakness" should not prevent you from using your core abilities. if you're a cleric with an 8 in wis you lose most of your abilities already. allowing it to reduce to 0 would make this even worse.

[loki_ragnarock]

I fail to see the OPs problem.

Although, upon reflection, replacing all instances for class abilities that call out a specific ability score with "your proficiency modifier" would probably side step the objection.

Then it wouldn't matter where the stats were allocated and you could free up other concepts than wise clerics. Maybe charismatic clerics or intelligent clerics or strong clerics would then be made more viable mechanically while freeing people up to play them without making someone pull the hair out of their beard about "people playing wrong."

[ProsecutorGodot]

I fail to see the OPs problem.

Although, upon reflection, replacing all instances for class abilities that call out a specific ability score with "your proficiency modifier" would probably side step the objection.

Then it wouldn't matter where the stats were allocated and you could free up other concepts than wise clerics. Maybe charismatic clerics or intelligent clerics or strong clerics would then be made more viable mechanically while freeing people up to play them without making someone pull the hair out of their beard about "people playing wrong."

I think it would exacerbate the issue for OP (and the community in general) because scaling of proficiency takes all impact off ability scores.

Unless I've misunderstood, OP seems to want penalties to be a thing, with the possibility of being negative even.

[Segev]

I fail to see the OPs problem.

Although, upon reflection, replacing all instances for class abilities that call out a specific ability score with "your proficiency modifier" would probably side step the objection.

Then it wouldn't matter where the stats were allocated and you could free up other concepts than wise clerics. Maybe charismatic clerics or intelligent clerics or strong clerics would then be made more viable mechanically while freeing people up to play them without making someone pull the hair out of their beard about "people playing wrong."

The main thing running it off of proficiency does is limit low-level ability to use features while making multiclassing easier due to non-synergistic class ability score preferences mattering less.

It doesn't actually take the pressure off of the abilities if the class features use them for anything BUT a counter. If spell attacks or save DCs are based on them, that still makes them suffer.

It seems to me the push to shift more onto proficiency bonus is also a push to remove Ability scores as relevant at all. You can build a game around proficiency bonus being all that you get (maybe with proficiency, 2x proficiency, and 3x proficiency so you can keep the same ranges that ability + proficiency + expertise gives you). But I think you start stepping on sacred cows that are sacred for a reason if you try to make D&D go that route, and I worry that the push with proficiency bonus rather than ability score is already too much of a step in that direction.

For simplicity's sake, a unified proficiency bonus serves a good purpose of a "floating" bonus you can apply to situational things where your ability score is already considered. It makes it easier to track than multiple different bonuses (BAB, skill ranks, save bonuses, etc.). Having it scale with level as the primary numeric improvement is also reasonable. I even get using it for numbers of uses of things per day, since it scales with level and that means you can scale uses/day with level effectively.

I think, though, that it does need to be carefully monitored. Anything you were just going to scale with level anyway can probably safely be tied to proficiency bonus, but anything you were scaling with ability scores in other areas really shouldn't be shifted to that.

For example, I think scaling Druid Wild Shape uses (particularly Moon Druid, but not necessarily exclusively that subclass) per short rest to proficiency bonus might be a good idea. Let them have more than 2 uses per short rest between levels 5 and 20.

[Willie the Duck]

I guess I can see a rational for a 'if you are going to break it over half the ranges why have a formula at all?' kind of argument (however to me that would be an argument to separate such things from stats entirely). Beyond that, this seems to be the ultimate non-issue. A character who dumps a primary stat isn't going to somehow 'make out like bandits' by instead dumping their stats allotments into something else (some games, like Symbaroum, actively allow you to dump some stat and then wipe away any negative consequences of that choice). I can fashion some obscure concept like 'paladin who dumps Cha for combat stats, and mostly has spell slots to use for smites,' but that character is still going to underperform massively (either a regular paladin, or a fighter). Same with a bard who dumps cha because they are mostly trying to be a skill-monkey focusing on non-cha skills (we have something for that - rogues). Are these situations slightly better than they would be without the minimum of 1? Sure. Marginally.

[Ettina]

I'm shocked and appalled how many people would outright ban a deliberately weak PC. Seriously, guys? D&D isn't about being try-hards, it's about telling a fun story.

[KorvinStarmast]

It will probably never come up granted, but still. It came up in our first group to play D&D 5e, a group that formed during the late summer of 2014. The guy who played a dwarf paladin, vengeance, selected a score of 11 for his Paladin. No, he didn't care about optimization, and he didn't care about people skills. I took the trouble of asking him, as we neared 8th level, if he could please raise his ch score to 12 so we'd get the benefit of his aura and he'd be able to prepare another spell. His reply was: "I use spell slots to smite." The campaign ended not too long after that due to RL reasons.

[JNAProductions]

I'm shocked and appalled how many people would outright ban a deliberately weak PC. Seriously, guys? D&D isn't about being try-hards, it's about telling a fun story.

And the story is less fun when you've got a DM who has to account for an unneededly weak PC, when the competent PCs have to find reasons to bring along the weak one, and it probably wouldn't be a ton of fun for the weak PC's player anyway.

I've seen Commoner or other NPC class 3.5 games on this forum-and those, while not super appealing to me, make sense. Everyone is weak, everyone is incompetent by adventurer standards, and you have to figure out how to work in spite of that. But it doesn't work as well when it's ONE person who's weak.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm shocked and appalled how many people would outright ban a deliberately weak PC. Seriously, guys? D&D isn't about being try-hards, it's about telling a fun story. The authors of the game even publish a broad hint for a viable character in each class to enter into this fun story that comes from their adventures. How?
They offer up some text to explain where the class fits into the make believe world, and then they get down to brass tacks:
Quick Build (Basic Rules pp 23, 26, 29, 32 which is a subset of what's in the PHB)

You can make a cleric quickly by following these suggestions. First, Wisdom should be your highest ability score, followed by Strength or Constitution. Second, choose the acolyte background.

You can make a fighter quickly by following these suggestions. First, make Strength or Dexterity your highest ability score, depending on whether you want to focus on melee weapons or on archery (or finesse weapons). Your next-highest score should be Constitution. Second, choose the soldier background.

You can make a rogue quickly by following these suggestions. First, Dexterity should be your highest ability
score. Make Intelligence your next-highest if you want to excel at Investigation. Choose Charisma instead if you plan to emphasize deception and social interaction. Second, choose the criminal background.

You can make a wizard quickly by following these suggestions. First, Intelligence should be your highest ability score, followed by Constitution or Dexterity. Second, choose the sage background. Third, choose the light, mage hand, and ray of frost cantrips, along with the following 1st-level spells for your spellbook: burning hands, charm person, mage armor, magic missile, shield, and sleep.
They do this for all 12 classes in the PHB.

One has to go out of one's way to not create a character that has a reasonably decent spell casting ability, and so on.

[JNAProductions]

Also, as a DM, I would not just say "No, feel bad and redo it!"

I would talk to the player about why they wanted to play such a weak PC, and see how we can all have a fun game. There's a chance that their expectations are incompatible, and that's okay.

[Pex]

I'm shocked and appalled how many people would outright ban a deliberately weak PC. Seriously, guys? D&D isn't about being try-hards, it's about telling a fun story.

Being delibeartely weak actively hurts the game play. If you're constantly missing your attack rolls, and the bad guys are continusously making their saving throws against your effects you're not contributing. It's a waste of actions. The opposite is not always hitting and monsters always failing. If you fail a supermajority of your attempts to do anthing you're not contributing. You're wasting everyone's time and making the party fail with you. Telling a story is fun, but it's not the only thing that matters.

[Segev]

Being delibeartely weak actively hurts the game play. If you're constantly missing your attack rolls, and the bad guys are continusously making their saving throws against your effects you're not contributing. It's a waste of actions. The opposite is not always hitting and monsters always failing. If you fail a supermajority of your attempts to do anthing you're not contributing. You're wasting everyone's time and making the party fail with you. Telling a story is fun, but it's not the only thing that matters.

It's also hard to justify a story where the guy who can't land a hit is in a party of otherwise-competent characters without warping the story around that character. If the whole party is on board with it, that's one thing, but it could come off as demanding a special snowflake be coddled on a glorified escort mission to insist that "for the story" the party has to come up with a reason they insist on taking the cleric who lacks the wisdom or faith to make his spells land rather than finding an actually-wise priest who knows how to exercise his faith for effective minor miracles. Especially if this "weak" (some might say "active hindrance of a") character could be slowing the party down or otherwise making the party more vulnerable than if they just left him in a safe town somewhere.

Anti-optimization doesn't make for better stories than optimization.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Being delibeartely weak actively hurts the game play. If you're constantly missing your attack rolls, and the bad guys are continusously making their saving throws against your effects you're not contributing. It's a waste of actions. The opposite is not always hitting and monsters always failing. If you fail a supermajority of your attempts to do anthing you're not contributing. You're wasting everyone's time and making the party fail with you. Telling a story is fun, but it's not the only thing that matters.

The bold, for me, is the critical and unforgivable part. Table time is sacred. Don't waste it for other people because you want to tell a story. This is different if you get buy in from everyone ahead of time, as with most things. Then it's just what you agreed on, not a waste of time at all.

I had a player make a halfling cleric 2/barbarian 3 (I think) with low WIS and low STR (higher DEX and CON). And then insisted on using a greatsword. Literally the only time he did anything useful was when he was at range and had to use a sling. If the campaign hadn't been ultra-short-lived (like 5-6 sessions), I'd have required him to make a different one or retcon the character. And that was with me offering free, no-questions-asked total rebuilds up until level 5.

[Ettina]

It's also hard to justify a story where the guy who can't land a hit is in a party of otherwise-competent characters without warping the story around that character. If the whole party is on board with it, that's one thing, but it could come off as demanding a special snowflake be coddled on a glorified escort mission to insist that "for the story" the party has to come up with a reason they insist on taking the cleric who lacks the wisdom or faith to make his spells land rather than finding an actually-wise priest who knows how to exercise his faith for effective minor miracles. Especially if this "weak" (some might say "active hindrance of a") character could be slowing the party down or otherwise making the party more vulnerable than if they just left him in a safe town somewhere.

Anti-optimization doesn't make for better stories than optimization.

If you can't think of a story reason why a less optimal character is part of the story, that's a failure in imagination. I can think of dozens of reasons why "ditch the crappy cleric and get a better one" might not be a desirable or possible option in a story.

And if I had players who cared more about having every PC be similar in power than about engaging RP, I'd kick them out so they stop ruining the fun.

[Luccan]

If you can't think of a story reason why a less optimal character is part of the story, that's a failure in imagination. I can think of dozens of reasons why "ditch the crappy cleric and get a better one" might not be a desirable or possible option in a story.

And if I had players who cared more about having every PC be similar in power than about engaging RP, I'd kick them out so they stop ruining the fun.

This isn't any different than playing your PC in a way that conflicts with the party: if your group is genuinely fine with it, cool. If you're just building PCs that can't do their job properly in a normal group, you're being as disruptive as the "just playing my character" guy who always causes problems. You're not just less optimized as an 8 Wis Cleric, you're literally anti-optimized.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This isn't any different than playing your PC in a way that conflicts with the party: if your group is genuinely fine with it, cool. If you're just building PCs that can't do their job properly in a normal group, you're being as disruptive as the "just playing my character" guy who always causes problems. You're not just less optimized as an 8 Wis Cleric, you're literally anti-optimized.

Yeah. This is one of the (very rare) instances where an invocation of the Stormwind principle[1] is justified IMO: being bad at your central job is not the same as being better at roleplay. You can be good at your job and be an actual character with strong roleplay hooks. In fact, I'd rather say that there's a correlation the other way for clerics, specifically--the gods are unlikely to choose as their champions and channels those who are weak of faith and who struggle to perceive their will.

[1] I strongly dislike calling any of the informal "fallacies" by that name as I don't think it's useful to any form of discussion.

[Segev]

If you can't think of a story reason why a less optimal character is part of the story, that's a failure in imagination. I can think of dozens of reasons why "ditch the crappy cleric and get a better one" might not be a desirable or possible option in a story.

And if I had players who cared more about having every PC be similar in power than about engaging RP, I'd kick them out so they stop ruining the fun.

There's a difference between "less optimal" and "actively hinders the party." I'm a big advocate for 5e characters not worrying about every last +1 bonus; bounded accuracy means you can play somebody whose "primary" stat is 14, maybe even 12, and be viable. But if you're down in the 8 or lower range for the stat governing the majority of your numbers, you're not merely "less optimal," you're actively BAD at what you're supposed to be doing.

There's "we don't have the prodigy who is the best of the best on our team" for "less optimal." When you have the 8 Strength, 10 dex, 12 Constitution greatsword-wielding fighter with no armor who thinks Leeroy Jenkins is the epitome of tactitians, that's not "less optimal." That's anti-optimal. That's an active hindrance.

And we're talking about cases where there's an active -1 modifier to your primary stat. This is not merely "less optimal."

[Willie the Duck]

If you can't think of a story reason why a less optimal character is part of the story, that's a failure in imagination. I can think of dozens of reasons why "ditch the crappy cleric and get a better one" might not be a desirable or possible option in a story.

And if I had players who cared more about having every PC be similar in power than about engaging RP, I'd kick them out so they stop ruining the fun.

I don't have a dog in this fight. From Don Quixote to Fflewddur Fflam to Joxer, there certainly is a strong literary tradition of someone suboptimal at something trying it anyways (of course, there rarely are fellow party members played by fellow players in this equation, so whether you should translate this into a game is another question). However, if there is a story reason that you want a 'crappy cleric' in the party, having them mechanically be 'merely mediocre' likely isn't a problem. This seems to me to be another argument against eliminating the (minimum 1) rule -- if you want a story-wise poor cleric, they should still be mechanically sufficient to not disrupt all the mechanical aspects of the game. Neither version of 5e (the existing one or the proposed) changes this much, but AD&D and 3E had it for casters -- being literally unable to cast spells or unable to learn more than a few spells per level or similar -- where your character actually was effectively dead weight. There's no reason to have that in the game.

[Segev]

I don't have a dog in this fight. From Don Quixote to Fflewddur Fflam to Joxer, there certainly is a strong literary tradition of someone suboptimal at something trying it anyways (of course, there rarely are fellow party members played by fellow players in this equation, so whether you should translate this into a game is another question). However, if there is a story reason that you want a 'crappy cleric' in the party, having them mechanically be 'merely mediocre' likely isn't a problem. This seems to me to be another argument against eliminating the (minimum 1) rule -- if you want a story-wise poor cleric, they should still be mechanically sufficient to not disrupt all the mechanical aspects of the game. Neither version of 5e (the existing one or the proposed) changes this much, but AD&D and 3E had it for casters -- being literally unable to cast spells or unable to learn more than a few spells per level or similar -- where your character actually was effectively dead weight. There's no reason to have that in the game.

And, indeed, the story was about Don Quixote. Most stories where there is an obvious "load" character in a party, that character is a living MacGuffin and generally the one being escorted, not a true party member. This can work out, but you have to recognize that this means that that PC is bending the story around himself.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And, indeed, the story was about Don Quixote. Most stories where there is an obvious "load" character in a party, that character is a living MacGuffin and generally the one being escorted, not a true party member. This can work out, but you have to recognize that this means that that PC is bending the story around himself.

And importantly, Don Quixote was, to a large degree, the butt of the jokes. It wasn't all about "oh he's such a hero", but "oh, he's such a bumbling, delusional fool." Protagonist yes, hero, no.

And even beyond that, I dislike using fiction as sources for good RP concepts. Because the needs and tropes of a fixed-path fiction (where the author has full fiat rights) and a collaborative game where no individual has powers over the other characters except through gameplay are completely different. What makes for a good novel does not (CF Curse of the Azure Bonds trilogy) make for a good RPG "storyline" or character concept.

[KorvinStarmast]

And, indeed, the story was about Don Quixote. Most stories where there is an obvious "load" character in a party, that character is a living MacGuffin and generally the one being escorted, not a true party member. This can work out, but you have to recognize that this means that that PC is bending the story around himself. Plot Armor is not an armor class in D&D 5e, generally. (DMs can adjust to taste)
And importantly, Don Quixote was, to a large degree, the butt of the jokes. It wasn't all about "oh he's such a hero", but "oh, he's such a bumbling, delusional fool." Protagonist yes, hero, no. It was also, IIRC my classical lit class, a work of satire. (Cervantes was IIRC a combatant at the Battle of Lepanto IRL)

What makes for a good novel does not (CF Curse of the Azure Bonds trilogy) make for a good RPG "storyline" or character concept. Yeah.

And speaking of "The Load" there were two of them in LoTR named Moxie and Pepsi. Merry and Pippen. Complete loads. In Two Towers, they act as a catalyst for the entire Rohan/Isengard sub arc; for their party members, these two were the load they had to rescue from themselves. But they did wake up the Ents. (But the Ents was a deus ex machina anyhoo, albeit an enjoyable one for me the first time I read the book and a peek at deep lore that wasn't much addressed in Silmarillion either ... )

In Return of the King, they finally have agency.
Pippin vis a vis triggering the palantir (to offer a bit of misdirection to Sauron) and then alerting Gandalf to save Faramir
Merry to back stab the witch king.

Interesting narratively: a complete pain in the party's posterior for a D&D party going from levels 1 thorugh 9 unless there is buy in early regarding "The Load" PCs being a crucial element of the party having excuses to go off and do dangerous things. Merry and Pippin: NPCs, all said and done, for what they offered to the adventure arc.

[cookieface]

If you can't think of a story reason why a less optimal character is part of the story, that's a failure in imagination

As others have said, having a -1 primary modifier isn't "less optimal" territory, it is "active hindrance" territory. And for an adventuring group that deals with life-and-death obstacles regularly, they won't be keeping an active hindrance around very long.

[Tokeull]

I have made a lore bard with 8 or 10 cha. My only spell that used my cha was healing word. I was a mountain dwarf so i could a warhammer and medium armor. I had high int for my skill rolls and fine str and con to be in melee. I was playing mostly as a skill monkey with Expertise lore some lore and 8 proficiencies. Almost all my spells was non combat utility. So yes you can make someone with a 8 in there prime stat, that make sense.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I have made a lore bard with 8 or 10 cha. My only spell that used my cha was healing word. I was a mountain dwarf so i could a warhammer and medium armor. I had high int for my skill rolls and fine str and con to be in melee. I was playing mostly as a skill monkey with Expertise lore some lore and 8 proficiencies. Almost all my spells was non combat utility. So yes you can make someone with a 8 in there prime stat, that make sense.
At risk of being the negative nancy here, I don't see a particularly useful character here.

Do you recall the ability scores your character had other than their charisma? You mention Strength and Con but also Medium Armor and I'm worried you've made a very MAD but incredibly lucky to not be dead Bard.

What exactly did you gain by dumping your charisma here? Since you focused on intelligence wouldn't Arcane Trickster be a premium spellcasting skill monkey choice?

EDIT: Just to be clear, there's nothing wrong with the character as far as theming goes, a multi-talented but anti-social dwarf who sings like nails on a chalkboard could be a very entertaining character to party with but I'd be worried about their wellbeing in any adventuring day with more than one encounter.

[JNAProductions]

At risk of being the negative nancy here, I don't see a particularly useful character here.

Do you recall the ability scores your character had other than their charisma? You mention Strength and Con but also Medium Armor and I'm worried you've made a very MAD but incredibly lucky to not be dead Bard.

What exactly did you gain by dumping your charisma here?

Yeah. This was probably before Tasha's, but a VHuman Rogue with Skilled has 10 skills, two Expertises at level 1 and two more later, and is actually pretty useful in a fight.

[Pex]

I have made a lore bard with 8 or 10 cha. My only spell that used my cha was healing word. I was a mountain dwarf so i could a warhammer and medium armor. I had high int for my skill rolls and fine str and con to be in melee. I was playing mostly as a skill monkey with Expertise lore some lore and 8 proficiencies. Almost all my spells was non combat utility. So yes you can make someone with a 8 in there prime stat, that make sense.

You can but it's not effective. The party lost your spell support. You only have one Bardic Inspiration per long rest/short rest. You're not doing bard stuff so why play a bard?

[PhoenixPhyre]

You can but it's not effective. The party lost your spell support. You only have one Bardic Inspiration per long rest/short rest. You're not doing bard stuff so why play a bard?

And even healing word now averages only 1.5 points and has the chance to do nothing. Which is super sub-optimal support wise--0 HP healed doesn't pop anyone up off the ground.

[JNAProductions]

Although, can we all agree that if the table had fun and Tokeull did too, it's fine? I feel like we're kinda piling onto them, which isn't nice.

[Luccan]

You can but it's not effective. The party lost your spell support. You only have one Bardic Inspiration per long rest/short rest. You're not doing bard stuff so why play a bard?

It's a little easier on Spells Known casters because of fixed spell slots in 5e and there are theoretically enough spells that don't rely on your ability scores to make it work, but on Bard specifically, yeah, it messes with a major class feature other than spell-casting.


Although, can we all agree that if the table had fun and Tokeull did too, it's fine? I feel like we're kinda piling onto them, which isn't nice.

Agreed. Like I said earlier, if your group is fine with it you're good, it's just not something that should be assumed to be ok without talking about it

[ProsecutorGodot]

And even healing word now averages only 1.5 points and has the chance to do nothing. Which is super sub-optimal support wise--0 HP healed doesn't pop anyone up off the ground.

I'd never even taken into account that Healing Word doesn't have a minimum.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Although, can we all agree that if the table had fun and Tokeull did too, it's fine? I feel like we're kinda piling onto them, which isn't nice.

I can stipulate to that. It's the exception to many rules--if you get full buy in from the party and everyone's ok, knock yourself out.

[Tanarii]

Bard is actually one of the classes that works fine with a low to dumped Cha. They have plenty of spells that don't use their spell DC, their spells known doesn't depend on Cha, and valor hard gets passable armor and weapons. I wouldn't want to do it unless the entire party was doing a "dump primary stat" thing, but it's definitely a strong contender in that case.

I remember looking at a Bard where all of their spells were just divinations. They have enough to narrow it down that far if they like.

[Segev]

I'd never even taken into account that Healing Word doesn't have a minimum.

...does this mean it can inflict damage if your casting stat is low enough? :smallconfused:

[ProsecutorGodot]

...does this mean it can inflict damage if your casting stat is low enough? :smallconfused:

The rules don't say anything about healing negative hit points despite preventing negative damage rolls. Seems reasonable to me.

[JNAProductions]

The rules don't say anything about healing negative hit points despite preventing negative damage rolls. Seems reasonable to me.

And, to be fair, you're doing at absolute best(?) 1d4+1 damage. If you have a -5 modifier to your casting stat.

On the one hand, it's no save, just take it damage.
On the other hand, it's equal to a single Magic Missile. Not a single casting-just one of the missiles from it.

[Arkhios]

A class with Cure Wounds and Healing Word will suffer from spellcasting ability of 8 or lower, as these spells don't state a minimum modifier (with some bad luck, you may actually roll a total of 0 with both spells, if cast from 1st-level slot). Saving throw DC's will remain rather low, but still within reasonable limits for someone to fail against them. Some class abilities may not be usable at all, which may or may not be critical for a character concept, if the intent is to play an incompetent one.

If said ability score is keyed as your primary ability score for several abilities, such as spells, it is likely that you are stuck with that class from 1st through 20th level, because multiclassing requires a minimum of 13 in the key ability or abilities, in order to multiclass both to and from said classes. So far, only Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight are exceptions to this, as they don't need a minimum 13 Intelligence to become one.

In short, if you are for example a cleric with Wisdom 8, you can never multiclass into any other class; you are stuck with being a Cleric for all eternity, unless you use your ASI to increase Wisdom to at least 13. What's especially funny in this, is that you would still get just as many spell slots as normal, and you would still be able to cast your domain spells with those slots, so you wouldn't be entirely incompetent. In fact, if you had decent scores in other abilities, you might still be effective in and out of combat. Just, not with things relying on wisdom.

[J.C.]

Low Int Bladesinger works fine.

[Willie the Duck]

I have made a lore bard with 8 or 10 cha. My only spell that used my cha was healing word. I was a mountain dwarf so i could a warhammer and medium armor. I had high int for my skill rolls and fine str and con to be in melee. I was playing mostly as a skill monkey with Expertise lore some lore and 8 proficiencies. Almost all my spells was non combat utility. So yes you can make someone with a 8 in there prime stat, that make sense.

Although, can we all agree that if the table had fun and Tokeull did too, it's fine? I feel like we're kinda piling onto them, which isn't nice.

I can stipulate to that. It's the exception to many rules--if you get full buy in from the party and everyone's ok, knock yourself out.
Agreed, and this is a case similar to the discussion with Ettina and sucking for story reason -- if the game is being played at a sufficiently non-mechanically challenging level* that you can do these things, AND everyone in the group is fine with this arrangement, more power to you. And again, to me this is a argument against the OP-proposed modification -- if someone is already wanting to try this suboptimal option, what purpose does it serve to make it more suboptimal?
*and thank the designers that we finally got an edition where this is easy to set up if it is what you want.

Moving back to mechanics -- There are a few classes that can work acceptably without a major stat. Bards would be one (although 1 inspiration per rest kinda eliminates a major part of their concept). However, with just support spells, I kinda agree with the above mention of a rogue (with a few support spells or feats) being better at the skill-monkey role. Same thing with a charisma-less paladin -- sure you can do it (using most of your spells slots for smites or buffs actually would be usable), but at that point you are playing a more complex fighter. Same with Bladesinger mentioned above -- of course you can do it (although for them, the constraint on spells memorized at once really hurts), but what does it accomplish?

[Avonar]

Moving back to mechanics -- There are a few classes that can work acceptably without a major stat. Bards would be one (although 1 inspiration per rest kinda eliminates a major part of their concept). However, with just support spells, I kinda agree with the above mention of a rogue (with a few support spells or feats) being better at the skill-monkey role. Same thing with a charisma-less paladin -- sure you can do it (using most of your spells slots for smites or buffs actually would be usable), but at that point you are playing a more complex fighter. Same with Bladesinger mentioned above -- of course you can do it (although for them, the constraint on spells memorized at once really hurts), but what does it accomplish?

Now you have me imagining a negative-charisma paladin who actively detracts from everyone's saves (Fortunately: Not a thing).

[Segev]

Now you have me imagining a negative-charisma paladin who actively detracts from everyone's saves (Fortunately: Not a thing).

Sounds like something an Archfey might have her Oath of Ancients Paladin around for. He's a boor, but she sends him charging into the enemy lines and he "grants" them a save penalty against her Charms.

[Keltest]

Sounds like something an Archfey might have her Oath of Ancients Paladin around for. He's a boor, but she sends him charging into the enemy lines and he "grants" them a save penalty against her Charms.

Its something i actually had to look into. The party paladin got feebleminded once.