House Rule: Flexible Casting Stat

[Trianii]

So I'm considering a house rule for future campaigns that could help differentiate spellcasters a little more, and allow for more diverse character concepts. The basic rule is that, upon taking his or her 1st level in an arcane or divine spellcasting class, a character has a choice to make: If the class is arcane, the character may choose whether Intelligence or Charisma governs all aspects of his or her spellcasting (bonus spells, save DCs, school/bloodline powers, etc.); if the class is divine, the character may choose between Wisdom and Charisma for the same purposes.

Would this idea cause any significant balance issues? Obviously, a Charisma-based Cleric would have more uses of channel energy, but would also likely have a lower Will save than a standard Wisdom-based one. And a Charisma-based Wizard would have better social skills, but not as many skill points as the standard version.

As far as roleplaying goes, it would open the door to some interesting concepts; imagine the wizard whose spellbook is more akin to a sketchbook or painting portfolio, as he studies magic more as an art than a science (Charisma-based). Or the vivacious, passionate cleric whose faith comes from the heart rather than deep insight (Also Cha-based). Or even a sorcerer whose spells are powered by force of mind instead of force or personality (Int-based).

Any thoughts on this idea?

[blahpers]

Well, it'd fix what I consider the primary problem with the witch concept, at least.

[Ciaran Barnes]

It's not gonna kill anything.

[Blakmane]

I don't see any problem with this. You make mystic theurges a little stronger (CHA wiz/cleric) but honestly, who cares? Outside of that specific combo, CHA is almost always worse than WIS or INT so I don't expect you'd see much change anyway. Sorcs already have options for alternate casting so at most you would see WIS based oracles.

Now, an INT based divine caster (scholarly cleric?) or WIS based arcane caster (arcane philosopher?) would be more of a shake up, and potentially more interesting/prone to abuse. I still can't see how it would create major issues though.

Do you have any particular reason to introduce this houserule? I guess this is more a YMMV thing, but IME the less you change from the base game the more comfortable your players will be. Unless one of your players has specifically requested something like this, houserules may just be adding needless complexity to an already overly complex game.

[Trianii]

The idea mostly arose from a conversation I had with some of my players, one of which thought a wise Oracle (WIS-based) would be interesting, and another who was kicking around the idea of playing a naïve, oblivious Cleric (which can be hard to justify when the character has a stratospheric Wisdom score). Its main function would be to allow for a few more character concepts.

I definitely agree about not adding unnecessary complexity to the game, though; a house rule should always be carefully considered and looked at from all angles before it's established. That said, my group uses quite a few house rules already as it is (Vitality and Wounds, Unarmored Defense rules, and others), so they're pretty flexible when it comes to different rules/options.

[LoneKnave]

An alternative to this is to have all casters use all the casting stats.

Wis for spells/day, Int for spells known, Cha for spellpower/DCs/Rounds etc.

[Bandw2]

LoneKnave wrote:

An alternative to this is to have all casters use all the casting stats.

Wis for spells/day, Int for spells known, Cha for spellpower/DCs/Rounds etc.

and possible swapping them around for different classes.

this makes the classes less focused on a single attribute, and really changes up what a certain caster is supposed to be like flair wise via stats.

[Helaman]

LoneKnave wrote:

An alternative to this is to have all casters use all the casting stats.

Wis for spells/day, Int for spells known, Cha for spellpower/DCs/Rounds etc.

Oooooh - interesting. Will need to meditate on this as I've faffed around with Int/Cha or Wis/Cha but not all 3... though all 3 means that Clerics, which tend to be a bit MAD would suffer more.

[Kirth Gersen]

Helaman wrote:

all 3 means that Clerics, which tend to be a bit MAD would suffer more.

In the hands of halfway clever players, clerics are absurdly powerful in the core rules. You almost can't nerf them enough to put a dent in that.

[LoneKnave]

A bigger downside is that 6/9 and 4/9 casters (who actually are a bit more MAD) do suffer quite a bit.

Although 4/9 casters don't get big enough DCs and bonus spells anyway, so it may hit them a bit less, Bard/Magus/Inquisitor/Hunter may be spreading it a bit thin.

[Kolokotroni]

LoneKnave wrote:

A bigger downside is that 6/9 and 4/9 casters (who actually are a bit more MAD) do suffer quite a bit.

Although 4/9 casters don't get big enough DCs and bonus spells anyway, so it may hit them a bit less, Bard/Magus/Inquisitor/Hunter may be spreading it a bit thin.

Yea for primary casters its not really an issue. For the mixed guys though, thats pretty brutal I think.

[blahpers]

Helaman wrote:

LoneKnave wrote:

An alternative to this is to have all casters use all the casting stats.

Wis for spells/day, Int for spells known, Cha for spellpower/DCs/Rounds etc.

Oooooh - interesting. Will need to meditate on this as I've faffed around with Int/Cha or Wis/Cha but not all 3... though all 3 means that Clerics, which tend to be a bit MAD would suffer more.

Wouldn't clerics be less impacted because they already know all spells on their list, thereby making Int irrelevant to their spellcasting?

Edit: For that matter, I'm not sure what Int would do for wizards under that system. They know whatever's in their spellbook.

Ah, the level cap! That's what I'm missing. Never mind then.

[LoneKnave]

Technically wizards also don't have a limit, but I made the post with the asumption that both would get one. Which is only feair, wizard/cleric/druid basically switching his entire set of abilities out daily is jarring and, imo, totally unfair.