I usually don't allow changing casting stats. Every time I've seen it done, it winds up enabling some multiclass build that shouldn't exist.
If I know what the player is planning and it's something like your player's build, where the two classes could be multiclassed together already (ie you're changing both classes casting stats in the same way, int -> wis in this case) I'd allow it, depending on the party's composition. If theres already a Cleric or Druid who are gonna have a bunch of wisdom-based skills covered, and no characters with high Int, I'd ask the player to just keep the stats the same, so they don't overlap with another party member.
Oh yeah my Homebrew rule is you can change casting class IF:
1. You agree to No multiclassing.
2. It makes sense, you’re not just switching to WIS cause it’s the optimal choice.
In general our table allows for swapping out the mental stats for casting (for example, Int Cleric and Wis Warlock). We haven't run into any problems over the five years of play and I really can't think of any way this would ruin a game. It opens up some skill changes obviously, but nothing breaks from a EK/Wizard being able to see better or insight check people more.
On the contrary I think it's a very poor move.
The stat balancing in 5e is already quite poor, Dex and Wis are King, Con is necessary, Cha has a decent amount of saves and is the most common caster stat, Int and Str are the 2 most dumped.
An Int cleric would just be unnecessarily weaker and Wis Warlock would be unnecessarily stronger.
But none of these things makes a character inherently overpowered to the point where a DM has to balance a game around the PC and any synergy gained with the stat doesn't blow other traditionally built PCs out of the water. The game plays fine with the modifications.
I can see where a white room theory craft of the change could lead into a super optimized build for a player who aims to actually make it be super powerful could arise. A casual table where the player just has an interest in playing a build and is open with their DM about it, like OP has implied? Really not going to harm anything.
>But none of these things makes a character inherently overpowered to the point where a DM has to balance a game around the PC and any synergy gained with the stat doesn't blow other traditionally built PCs out of the water.
Counterpoint.
Just because it's not it does not mean you should let it happen at all.
Balance is not just number crunch ( aside the fact it can give marginal advantages you cannot perceive), but it's also a matter of how things are laid out. Balance it's also balance of opportunities, and EK don't have wisdom for them.
You mention you played it for 5 years. Like, good for you, but it's the same campaign/group? because that will make you blind to your own shortcomings, more than anything else.
1. If we were worried about disproportionate stat distribution inherent in 5e, and not letting it happen, nobody would roll dice for stats and we'd have to contend with the various other parts of the game that lend itself to it.
2. Parties I DM routinely doing comparable damage, having the ability to contribute out of combat with skills or other rolls, and all generally having fun seems pretty balanced to me.
3. Five years since I started DMing with the option for players to change mental focus stats. I've been playing and DMing with different tables since about 2015 for 5e. I have experience with older 3.5/Pathfinder, but just as a player and I didn't own any of the play materials so I don't add it to my experience.
I think you underestimate how many spells in the game are Wisdom saves chief.
Wisdom has 51
Intelligence has 6
Charisma has 14
It's not a small difference. Is it game breaking?..not explicitly I guess? But a huge power spike if you choose Wisdom...there's no reason not to just choose Wisdom.
And if you're doing it for Rp reasons...then why even changed the rules? Just rp it.
Excellent cherry-picking friend.
I can see you don't care about the merit of the discussion and just wanna be right.
It's a significant enough power gap that would hurt any non, Wis casters in the party and could cause resentment in those players. These kinds of changes often do that, I'm not just white-rooming a hyper-optimized Wisdom build in my head
I was just responding with the same energy as you calling me "chief" seemed condescending and dismissive. If that was not your intention I readily apologize.
By your own admission it is not inherently game breaking, which was my entire point. The addendum of it being a huge power spike doesn't hold water with me since DM's should be building encounters to challenge players. You can probably go an entire campaign without ever using a spell that targets Wisdom and still harm players with spells/abilities that use a variety of other saves or just straight damaging them. Building encounters correctly mitigates this perceived huge spike.
To your point of "why not choose Wisdom?" I maintain most players wouldn't give this stuff a second thought if playing another class or when it comes to what choice is best. If my players wanted to go an all Wisdom party because they felt it'd all give them a boost, I wouldn't stop them.
Per your personal experience I have the exact opposite. My players rarely notice that kind of game minutiae and no player feels like they are being outshined by another in a particular area or unchallenged. If there was any resentment that cropped up in our cooperative game down the road we would do just that. Cooperate and retune things, still haven't had to with 5e. I freely admit to still needing work on my DMing, but I firmly believe allowing players to change their mental stats has not and will not cause any problems for me or my tables.
>An Int cleric would just be unnecessarily weaker and Wis Warlock would be unnecessarily stronger.
They would be, but being honest... I find it hard to think WotC actually did the balance of the classes acounting to that... Hell, I find it hard to believe they actually *did* balance the classes
Druids are pretty much just WIS wizards and yet Wizards are objectively more powerful, I say it’s about the spells rather than the casting stat, besides I think you’re looking at this from a numbers crunching perspective, this character is clearly just trying to bring to life a character they want to play in a more appropriate way for them, take a step back from minmaxing and remember that dnd is a game we play for fun and at the end of the day it really doesn’t matter
What?? No, I was comparing druids and wizards and said it’s the spell list, NOT the casting stat, I never said anything about a WIS wizard being more powerful than an INT wizard… did you even read my post or did you just pick out key words that supported your point?
I don't know what you mean by it mechanically not making sense since all it changes is where the number comes from casting (which shouldn't break anything because a caster should prioritize their casting stat, it would track the same as Int), saves (which again, isn't that big of a deal in actual play), and skills (which range from RP things at best and just being good at different skill challenges at "worst").
For lore I've never been beholden to it since I've never DMed anything set in any setting other than my own. I apologize if OP said they were sticking to the standard lore at all and I missed it. So if there is anything in the WotC setting that forbids it, by all means, don't do it. For me though I've seen a great Wis Wizard who wasn't intelligent in the traditional sense, but played it as their relentless pouring over the materials allowing them to gain the power. Nobody's immersion was broken and if anyone had an issue with it we'd talk it out.
Well the word literally does entymologically mean "someone with a lot/too much wisdom."
I could imagine wizards performing their work through rote and tradition instead of creative individualism we do commonly see in arcane innovators.
There's a reason why basically every Martial wants to grab Resilient WIS at some point. WIS saves are super detrimental and especially so to martial characters. Giving it out basically for free is not going to break the game but it is something that should be considered and not allowed willy nilly.
On one hand, that certainly makes the character stronger. Wisdom saves are much more common than Intelligence saves and Perception has a more central role in the game than any other skill, whereas the usefulness of Intelligence skills tends to depend a lot on DMing style (and they lean towards "not useful" unless the DM makes a conscious effort to make them useful).
On the other hand, that doesn't break anything. You need to think long and hard about swapping mental stats when it makes a multiclass build more synergistic (e.g., Hexblade/Bladesinger), but this isn't an issue here because EK and Wizard are normally keyed off of the same stat.
I think that saying no on the grounds that the player can "just RP high wisdom" is fundamentally unreasonable (although it's possible, given that you're all new, that the player doesn't really understand what Wisdom is in D&D). It's *very* frustrating to play a character who should, in your opinion, be good at something only to have the game system decide that they're actually bad at it. People complain about that all the time: they might feel that their Barbarian should be able to scare people, only to have the character repeatedly fail because their Charisma isn't high enough (there's lots of other examples: Clerics with Religion, Rangers with Nature, etc).
Here's how I'd approach it:
* Make sure that the player understands that a high Int character is knowledgeable whereas a high Wis character is observant. They might not want to change after all; "wise" characters in fiction are often actually high Int/low Wis characters in D&D!
* I'd allow the swap if the player still wants to do it, but I'm also pretty liberal in that regard. I don't see any need for a "no multiclassing without approval" restriction because the other Wisdom-based classes don't have a lot to offer this build, but make it clear that this isn't permission to change *other* classes to Wisdom (i.e., no Hexblade dips).
If it's purely for RP reasons, there's no need to change: just RP high "wisdom" and call it high "intelligence" or whatever you want the character to be. Changing for RP is pointless.
Mechanically it's fine, it's a minimal balance concern. The reason I'd say you're more likely to want to disallow it would be if you cared about the flavour of classes, if you've made class flavour matter in your setting. For me, class flavour is important because I build my worlds around classes, so I would be more inclined to homebrew a cleric or druid-based EK or a "white mage" cleric subclass than to allow a wis-based wizard.
I allow players to swap casting stats, usually with the caveat that it limits their ability to multiclass since that make it both confusing and a pain in the ass to keep track of. In this case your player is asking to swap 2 classes casting stats and that’s an issue. If they wanted to play a WIS Wizard or a WIS EK thats completely fine, but switching both is problematic especially considering WIS is the strongest Mental stat. You know your player better then we do but honestly a WIS EK/Wizard sounds like a powergaming move, not an “RP” one.
If you want to try to work with the player, let them change the casting stat of the EK, but the Wizard has to remain INT and they still have to meet the INT MC requirement.
EK is already fairly mediocre at best and even if they are trying to "tricking" you into accepting this to make a multiclass work... what are they gonna do? one dip cleric or druid to take shillelag and be WIS SAD? Don't think that can be as broken as just... a cleric or a druid by themselves. I'd say go for it
WIS is attached to a certain set of skills in the game, and is regularly among the more often rolled saving throws. This *can* become unbalanced quickly. There is a reason why hight INT builds usually don't get (very) high perception at the same time, for example.
Honestly? I don't buy *"it's just for RP reasons"* ... Wisdom could be described as the most valuable mental stat in (out of the box) D&D. If your player wants high Wisdom, they should choose a corresponding caster class.
I'm all for it. I like the flexibility as long as the player isn't out to break the game. It might make them a bit stronger due to wisdom saves, but I'd roll with it. Depending on your group, it might make sense to see if other players are cool with it.
It could work just fine in isolation, but as others have said, multi-classing could rear its ugly head in the future as well. If the player decides to add a few levels of cleric/Druid/Monk (not sure how optimal and of those would be, but the possibility must be considered), problems could arise. Also, WIS saves are more common than INT saves.
I usually don't allow changing casting stats. Every time I've seen it done, it winds up enabling some multiclass build that shouldn't exist. If I know what the player is planning and it's something like your player's build, where the two classes could be multiclassed together already (ie you're changing both classes casting stats in the same way, int -> wis in this case) I'd allow it, depending on the party's composition. If theres already a Cleric or Druid who are gonna have a bunch of wisdom-based skills covered, and no characters with high Int, I'd ask the player to just keep the stats the same, so they don't overlap with another party member.
Oh yeah my Homebrew rule is you can change casting class IF: 1. You agree to No multiclassing. 2. It makes sense, you’re not just switching to WIS cause it’s the optimal choice.
In general our table allows for swapping out the mental stats for casting (for example, Int Cleric and Wis Warlock). We haven't run into any problems over the five years of play and I really can't think of any way this would ruin a game. It opens up some skill changes obviously, but nothing breaks from a EK/Wizard being able to see better or insight check people more.
Wis a ridiculously more powerful casting stat because it's the most common save in the game.
True, but it doesn't wreck the game to have it.
On the contrary I think it's a very poor move. The stat balancing in 5e is already quite poor, Dex and Wis are King, Con is necessary, Cha has a decent amount of saves and is the most common caster stat, Int and Str are the 2 most dumped. An Int cleric would just be unnecessarily weaker and Wis Warlock would be unnecessarily stronger.
But none of these things makes a character inherently overpowered to the point where a DM has to balance a game around the PC and any synergy gained with the stat doesn't blow other traditionally built PCs out of the water. The game plays fine with the modifications. I can see where a white room theory craft of the change could lead into a super optimized build for a player who aims to actually make it be super powerful could arise. A casual table where the player just has an interest in playing a build and is open with their DM about it, like OP has implied? Really not going to harm anything.
>But none of these things makes a character inherently overpowered to the point where a DM has to balance a game around the PC and any synergy gained with the stat doesn't blow other traditionally built PCs out of the water. Counterpoint. Just because it's not it does not mean you should let it happen at all. Balance is not just number crunch ( aside the fact it can give marginal advantages you cannot perceive), but it's also a matter of how things are laid out. Balance it's also balance of opportunities, and EK don't have wisdom for them. You mention you played it for 5 years. Like, good for you, but it's the same campaign/group? because that will make you blind to your own shortcomings, more than anything else.
1. If we were worried about disproportionate stat distribution inherent in 5e, and not letting it happen, nobody would roll dice for stats and we'd have to contend with the various other parts of the game that lend itself to it. 2. Parties I DM routinely doing comparable damage, having the ability to contribute out of combat with skills or other rolls, and all generally having fun seems pretty balanced to me. 3. Five years since I started DMing with the option for players to change mental focus stats. I've been playing and DMing with different tables since about 2015 for 5e. I have experience with older 3.5/Pathfinder, but just as a player and I didn't own any of the play materials so I don't add it to my experience.
I think you underestimate how many spells in the game are Wisdom saves chief. Wisdom has 51 Intelligence has 6 Charisma has 14 It's not a small difference. Is it game breaking?..not explicitly I guess? But a huge power spike if you choose Wisdom...there's no reason not to just choose Wisdom. And if you're doing it for Rp reasons...then why even changed the rules? Just rp it.
> Is it game breaking?..not explicitly I guess? Thank you.
Excellent cherry-picking friend. I can see you don't care about the merit of the discussion and just wanna be right. It's a significant enough power gap that would hurt any non, Wis casters in the party and could cause resentment in those players. These kinds of changes often do that, I'm not just white-rooming a hyper-optimized Wisdom build in my head
I was just responding with the same energy as you calling me "chief" seemed condescending and dismissive. If that was not your intention I readily apologize. By your own admission it is not inherently game breaking, which was my entire point. The addendum of it being a huge power spike doesn't hold water with me since DM's should be building encounters to challenge players. You can probably go an entire campaign without ever using a spell that targets Wisdom and still harm players with spells/abilities that use a variety of other saves or just straight damaging them. Building encounters correctly mitigates this perceived huge spike. To your point of "why not choose Wisdom?" I maintain most players wouldn't give this stuff a second thought if playing another class or when it comes to what choice is best. If my players wanted to go an all Wisdom party because they felt it'd all give them a boost, I wouldn't stop them. Per your personal experience I have the exact opposite. My players rarely notice that kind of game minutiae and no player feels like they are being outshined by another in a particular area or unchallenged. If there was any resentment that cropped up in our cooperative game down the road we would do just that. Cooperate and retune things, still haven't had to with 5e. I freely admit to still needing work on my DMing, but I firmly believe allowing players to change their mental stats has not and will not cause any problems for me or my tables.
>An Int cleric would just be unnecessarily weaker and Wis Warlock would be unnecessarily stronger. They would be, but being honest... I find it hard to think WotC actually did the balance of the classes acounting to that... Hell, I find it hard to believe they actually *did* balance the classes
Druids are pretty much just WIS wizards and yet Wizards are objectively more powerful, I say it’s about the spells rather than the casting stat, besides I think you’re looking at this from a numbers crunching perspective, this character is clearly just trying to bring to life a character they want to play in a more appropriate way for them, take a step back from minmaxing and remember that dnd is a game we play for fun and at the end of the day it really doesn’t matter
So a Wis Wizard with the Wizard spell list, *would* be objectively more powerful like you just said.
What?? No, I was comparing druids and wizards and said it’s the spell list, NOT the casting stat, I never said anything about a WIS wizard being more powerful than an INT wizard… did you even read my post or did you just pick out key words that supported your point?
It doesn't make sense for wizards mechanically or lorewise
I don't know what you mean by it mechanically not making sense since all it changes is where the number comes from casting (which shouldn't break anything because a caster should prioritize their casting stat, it would track the same as Int), saves (which again, isn't that big of a deal in actual play), and skills (which range from RP things at best and just being good at different skill challenges at "worst"). For lore I've never been beholden to it since I've never DMed anything set in any setting other than my own. I apologize if OP said they were sticking to the standard lore at all and I missed it. So if there is anything in the WotC setting that forbids it, by all means, don't do it. For me though I've seen a great Wis Wizard who wasn't intelligent in the traditional sense, but played it as their relentless pouring over the materials allowing them to gain the power. Nobody's immersion was broken and if anyone had an issue with it we'd talk it out.
Well the word literally does entymologically mean "someone with a lot/too much wisdom." I could imagine wizards performing their work through rote and tradition instead of creative individualism we do commonly see in arcane innovators.
There's a reason why basically every Martial wants to grab Resilient WIS at some point. WIS saves are super detrimental and especially so to martial characters. Giving it out basically for free is not going to break the game but it is something that should be considered and not allowed willy nilly.
I do consider it and build encounters accordingly. There are a lot more ways to challenge a PC than Wisdom Saves.
It's a buff and it enables synergy with wisdom things. All by itself it won't make a character OP, but it definitely enables some OP shenanigans.
On one hand, that certainly makes the character stronger. Wisdom saves are much more common than Intelligence saves and Perception has a more central role in the game than any other skill, whereas the usefulness of Intelligence skills tends to depend a lot on DMing style (and they lean towards "not useful" unless the DM makes a conscious effort to make them useful). On the other hand, that doesn't break anything. You need to think long and hard about swapping mental stats when it makes a multiclass build more synergistic (e.g., Hexblade/Bladesinger), but this isn't an issue here because EK and Wizard are normally keyed off of the same stat. I think that saying no on the grounds that the player can "just RP high wisdom" is fundamentally unreasonable (although it's possible, given that you're all new, that the player doesn't really understand what Wisdom is in D&D). It's *very* frustrating to play a character who should, in your opinion, be good at something only to have the game system decide that they're actually bad at it. People complain about that all the time: they might feel that their Barbarian should be able to scare people, only to have the character repeatedly fail because their Charisma isn't high enough (there's lots of other examples: Clerics with Religion, Rangers with Nature, etc). Here's how I'd approach it: * Make sure that the player understands that a high Int character is knowledgeable whereas a high Wis character is observant. They might not want to change after all; "wise" characters in fiction are often actually high Int/low Wis characters in D&D! * I'd allow the swap if the player still wants to do it, but I'm also pretty liberal in that regard. I don't see any need for a "no multiclassing without approval" restriction because the other Wisdom-based classes don't have a lot to offer this build, but make it clear that this isn't permission to change *other* classes to Wisdom (i.e., no Hexblade dips).
If it's purely for RP reasons, there's no need to change: just RP high "wisdom" and call it high "intelligence" or whatever you want the character to be. Changing for RP is pointless.
Mechanically it's fine, it's a minimal balance concern. The reason I'd say you're more likely to want to disallow it would be if you cared about the flavour of classes, if you've made class flavour matter in your setting. For me, class flavour is important because I build my worlds around classes, so I would be more inclined to homebrew a cleric or druid-based EK or a "white mage" cleric subclass than to allow a wis-based wizard.
I allow players to swap casting stats, usually with the caveat that it limits their ability to multiclass since that make it both confusing and a pain in the ass to keep track of. In this case your player is asking to swap 2 classes casting stats and that’s an issue. If they wanted to play a WIS Wizard or a WIS EK thats completely fine, but switching both is problematic especially considering WIS is the strongest Mental stat. You know your player better then we do but honestly a WIS EK/Wizard sounds like a powergaming move, not an “RP” one. If you want to try to work with the player, let them change the casting stat of the EK, but the Wizard has to remain INT and they still have to meet the INT MC requirement.
EK is already fairly mediocre at best and even if they are trying to "tricking" you into accepting this to make a multiclass work... what are they gonna do? one dip cleric or druid to take shillelag and be WIS SAD? Don't think that can be as broken as just... a cleric or a druid by themselves. I'd say go for it
WIS is attached to a certain set of skills in the game, and is regularly among the more often rolled saving throws. This *can* become unbalanced quickly. There is a reason why hight INT builds usually don't get (very) high perception at the same time, for example. Honestly? I don't buy *"it's just for RP reasons"* ... Wisdom could be described as the most valuable mental stat in (out of the box) D&D. If your player wants high Wisdom, they should choose a corresponding caster class.
No. Flat no. There's nothing stopping this player from roleplaying a wise person while using the game statistics for a Int based character.
I'm all for it. I like the flexibility as long as the player isn't out to break the game. It might make them a bit stronger due to wisdom saves, but I'd roll with it. Depending on your group, it might make sense to see if other players are cool with it.
It could work just fine in isolation, but as others have said, multi-classing could rear its ugly head in the future as well. If the player decides to add a few levels of cleric/Druid/Monk (not sure how optimal and of those would be, but the possibility must be considered), problems could arise. Also, WIS saves are more common than INT saves.
I'd probably allow it, but I wouldn't allow that character to multiclass.