I think the issue is that "innate" casting is ambiguous and could mean so many things. You could innately cast magic that you feel deep in your bones as like a physical effort (Con), you can project your forceful personality into the world (Cha), or you could cast through sheer force of will (Wis). They all make about the same amount of sense
Now, another common problem i hear voiced about the sorcerer often is that it has a pretty weak niche among casters, and doesn't have much of its own reason to exist. I don't personally subscribe to that thinking, but I hear it a lot.
What if you could combine problem 1 (why cha? Vague, other stats could work in its place) with problem 2 (what's the niche?) to neatly address both issues?
One of the biggest things Sorc. has going for it is versatility with metamagic, varying playstyles, and different multiclass builds. What if you really owned that niche as kind of the casting class that's super versatile and goes with everything by allowing sorcerers at level 1 to choose their casting stat from either Con, Wis, or Cha? If that casting versatility extended to the casting stat, you could do so much more with the sorcerer (aside from making it more *the* go to multiclass option than it already is).
I agree that Sorcerers should cast with Constitution, but there are major balance issues with this in 5e. 5.5e/6e would have to fix that, or otherwise, you would have to do a massive overhaul of how Ability Scores work in 5e (like I have in my games). Constitution is a unique ability score, in the sense that literally everyone wants it, but no one wants to focus on it. Every class, from the Artificer to the Wizard needs Constitution in order to survive. This is mainly because it's used to determine how many hit points you have, but also because Constitution saving throws are arguably just as important to be good at as Dexterity saving throws. Furthermore, Concentration is dependent on Constitution saving throws, which is very important for every single caster in the game.
Constitution is so important for all of these things that it is thus too overloaded to allow a class focus solely on it. The closest we have gotten in 5e to having characters that care about Constitution more than any other stat are Genasi and Dhampir (UA) races/lineages.
If you were to straight up just make Sorcerers in 5e use Constitution for their spellcasting ability instead of Charisma, that would be way too powerful. They would only have to focus on maximizing their Constitution and Dexterity scores, which is something no other base caster class has to do (Wizards need Dex, Con, and Int, Warlocks and Bards need Dex, Con, and Cha, Clerics need Dex/Str, Con, and Wis, etc). Full casters are MAD for a reason, to keep them from completely outshining non-casting classes. This seems strange to say, as Sorcerers are widely considered the "weakest" base full casting class, but it would be too big of a disparity in terms of ability score balance when compared to other full casting classes.
I have my own fixes for this dilemma (making HP not be automatically based off of Constitution, making Concentration be a skill, etc), but it just doesn't work with "vanilla" D&D 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
You are reading way too much into this. Wizards were the only arcane class in 2nd edition and they were Intelligence based. 3rd came out and decided to introduce a new Arcane spell caster. In an attempt to change Charasma, from the garbage stat that almost no one used, they made Sorcerers Charasma based. When 5th edition came out, it also added a new Charasma based Arcane class but unlike the Sorcerer, it actually makes sense for the Warlock to be Charasma based. Wisdom or Constitution fit much better for the sorcerer than Charasma but Wisdom is already a primary stat for a casting class. I'm betting the only reason they didn't change it in 5E was because they didn't want blowback from the 3.5 fans.
You are reading way too much into this. Wizards were the only arcane class in 2nd edition and they were Intelligence based. 3rd came out and decided to introduce a new Arcane spell caster. In an attempt to change Charasma, from the garbage stat that almost no one used, they made Sorcerers Charasma based. When 5th edition came out, it also added a new Charasma based Arcane class but unlike the Sorcerer, it actually makes sense for the Warlock to be Charasma based. Wisdom or Constitution fit much better for the sorcerer than Charasma but Wisdom is already a primary stat for a casting class. I'm betting the only reason they didn't change it in 5E was because they didn't want blowback from the 3.5 fans.
Warlocks are not a 5e creation. They were created somewhere in the 3.x generation of the game. I think it was more a 3.5 thing. But it's still been around a long time and always been charisma based. If they wanted to change sorcerer's they've had a long time to do it.
Also... Concentration checks as we know them now were primarily formulated and haven't changed dramatically from 3.5 either.
As a fan of sorcerers - absolutely not, CHA is fine. Sorcs are powerful enough if you know how to play/build them. Srly ask any class “Would you like your primary attack/damage stat to also be your CON?”. How many are likely to say no?
CHA is fine to represent funneling your magic through your own soul/blood/whatever rather than having to study spells like wizards or serve something like clerics and druids. Besides, Sorcerers generally (whether DnD or not) are not really known for being a hulking statue of healthiness that surpasses most barbarians, in fact in literature most tend to be a bit frail.
That said, as always, your DM rules all.
If they think it’s cool and will work in their campaign, go for it.
I think that dnd should have an optional feature (like in Tasha's) that allows you to prepare spells and choose your spellcasting ability from constitution, intelligence, wisdom, or charisma. this would make them the most versatile casters, with them being as varied as their origins. It would also make them just as good as the wizard, because at the moment, wizards are far better and more flexible.
p.s.
I am sorry in advance if I hurt anyone's feelings.
I'm personally not super worried about sorcerers as a constitution caster balance wise. I think there would be two effects;
1) sorcerer would become an extremely popular multi class option due to the low stat requirement.
2) Full sorcerers may get more feats because they'll max their key stats faster.
3) They will max get the ASI they want faster
The only one that gives me pause is the multi classing as it would really make sorcerer the default multiclass, always available, always powerful. I don't hate the idea of sorcerers as flexible caster split around other classes nor do I think their abilities are so powerful it would be a balance problem but it probably pushes other classes out a bit too much.
In terms of the lore arguments the only constitution casting in 5e is from racial traits like a Genasi's spell casting and a dragonborn's breath weapon. It does seem to be the stat for innate abilities that come from a creatures physical structure but not its muscles or speed. There is a good argument that would apply to sorcerers because many have stories similar to Genasi, having magical heritages or being plane touched.
I think of charisma as a measure of how effectively someone asserts their will on the world. As sorcerer magic in inherent and internal, charisma matches very well with the class.
Constitution can be used as a measure of focus, but I think it's mostly a physical stat. Charisma is more closely tied to a character's willpower. Using con would also be a bit overpowered in my opinion. Sorcerers are supposed to be somewhat squishy, compared to other classes. Having your combat stat also give you extra health at every level would make you pretty tanky.
Constitution is a unique ability score, in the sense that literally everyone wants it, but no one wants to focus on it. Every class, from the Artificer to the Wizard needs Constitution in order to survive.
Yeah that's honestly why I personally believe it's a terrible design decision to have it as regular attribute like the rest. There's simply no advantage in having CON as regular attribute. You don't "use" it for anything (heck, even STR has an ability check!) and there's no reason why you'd ever not want to have it high on any character unless you don't want to play that character for very long.
Decouple HP calculation from it, make CON raise in the background like Proficiency Bonus (or heck, make things that use CON saves scale off of PB as well) and people would be free to raise something else than just their main attribute (and CON) for once. It would make MAD classes like Monks, Ranger etc way more satisfying to build and you could even go for various gish builds without having to resort to cheesy features like the Hexblade CHA attacks and such.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
I would say yes without hesitation. Charisma as a casting stat for sorcerer is in my opinion stupid, it doesn't matter that a lot of monsters use it for their innate abilities to, if you do a dumb thing twice it just means your stupid.
In regards to them being SAD, with maximum con you average HP is still like 9, so good but nothing game breaking, at least not without some sort heavy of investment for an AC boost. Also Sorcerer is already a really popular multiclass Sorlocks and Soradins are real strong and at least decently popular so no real shift there, if anything it weakens the Sorlock.
I think the issue is that "innate" casting is ambiguous and could mean so many things. You could innately cast magic that you feel deep in your bones as like a physical effort (Con), you can project your forceful personality into the world (Cha), or you could cast through sheer force of will (Wis). They all make about the same amount of sense
Now, another common problem i hear voiced about the sorcerer often is that it has a pretty weak niche among casters, and doesn't have much of its own reason to exist. I don't personally subscribe to that thinking, but I hear it a lot.
What if you could combine problem 1 (why cha? Vague, other stats could work in its place) with problem 2 (what's the niche?) to neatly address both issues?
One of the biggest things Sorc. has going for it is versatility with metamagic, varying playstyles, and different multiclass builds. What if you really owned that niche as kind of the casting class that's super versatile and goes with everything by allowing sorcerers at level 1 to choose their casting stat from either Con, Wis, or Cha? If that casting versatility extended to the casting stat, you could do so much more with the sorcerer (aside from making it more *the* go to multiclass option than it already is).
I wouldn't necessarily make it an outright choice of which attribute you want to fuel your power generically, but would perhaps tie it to specific subclasses. So Abberant mind for example would draw from Intelligence, while Divine Soul would draw from Wisdom, Daconic bloodline might draw from Constitution, and Fey bloodline from Charisma; I'm not sure what best aligns with Shadow (Dexterity even?) or Wild. Perhaps with Wild, roll a d4 (or d6) every long rest (or sunrise?) and for that day you draw from whichever one attribute the die landed on?
Honestly I think Sorcerers are the ones that should have the option to pick their spellcasting modifer, its innate magic in a sense so they should get to pick the modifer.
like why does the bard get to use Charisma(I know its because of music) for casting even though its learned magic like Wizards?
What I hear in reading through the posts is that many feel making the sorceror a single stat (Con) makes it too unbalanced and too OP as a multiclass, while no one is really clear on what the other stat in a standard multi stat class should be. To me willpower/wisdom is more about resisting efforts to change my mind and my ability to recognize “common sense” than it is about enforcing my will on others or the world - that is charisma. Keep in mind that one can have high charisma without being “likable” ( president Lyndon Johnson being a prime example- not very likable but boy could he get stuff done while the really likable guy (Kennedy) couldn’t). I don’t favor a single stat class, heck even the fighter needs a minimum of 2. I can see selected subclasses having the option to switch out the charisma for a different stat (wisdom for clockwork possibly) but that is really as far as I would go. What I might consider is changing their casting to be the average of their two stats rounded up instead of basing it on a single stat. So if you want your draconic sorceror to be a max blaster you need to get both con and charisma up to 20 in much the same way a fighter needs to get both strength and con up to 20 to be their most effective.
What I might consider is changing their casting to be the average of their two stats rounded up instead of basing it on a single stat. So if you want your draconic sorceror to be a max blaster you need to get both con and charisma up to 20 in much the same way a fighter needs to get both strength and con up to 20 to be their most effective.
What's the point with that? It would just nerf the sorcerer since the average of two stats will always be lower than what your main stat would be.
For example right now a Sorcerer would try to get CON and CHA up so let's say 14 and 16 at creation. Their modifier is a +3. With your idea the average would be (14+16)/2)=15, so the modifier would only be a +2. To get the same +3 they'd need to bring CON to 16 as well (or 15 if you really want to go with the rounding up clause). All you achieved was to make the Sorcerer more MAD. Admittedly in a unique way since the issue wouldn't be needing to have three high stats but just a second that would always need to be as high as your highest, but it's still bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
Thanks SfP, sometimes your blind to the holes in your ideas and need to run it out there for others to point out the flaws. Somewhat off topic I was also considering giving bonus sorcery points based on the bonus points from the con and Cha stats - if you maxed both you would get 10 extra points any problems there?
While I understand why people are suggesting "Con", I've always felt that Sorcerers should be "Wis" casters. They don't study to learn magic (Int casters), and they don't bargain for powers either (Cha casters, IMO), they just intuitively know it. I'd also argue that Paladins should be "Wis" casters for a similar reason, and that Clerics should be able to be Cha casters if they more directly interact with their divine intermediary.
In my mind (regardless of whatever the devs intent actually was), casting stat should be determined by how they got their power:
Intelligence casters studied, and figured out magic that way (Artificers and Wizards at minimum)
Wisdom casters understand magic intuitively, without any active studying (Sorcerers)
Charisma casters don't understand magic, but they gain magic through an intermediary (Warlocks)
All the other casters could fit under multiple entries
Druids could be Int if they actively studied nature, Paladins could be Wis if it's coming from an innate belief in themselves, Clerics could be Cha if it's through more direct interactions with their diety (#clerics_are_Warlocks), Bards could be Wis if they innately channel the weave through song, etc... About the only ones in my mind that can only be a single type, are Artificers (Int), Wizards (Int), Sorcerers (Wis), and Warlocks (Cha). All the others could be multiple types, though Charisma versions would arguably just be warlock look-a-likes.
I don't think any of the physical traits (Str/Dex/Con) should ever be used for spell casting stats (spell saves are fine though)
While I understand why people are suggesting "Con", I've always felt that Sorcerers should be "Wis" casters. They don't study to learn magic (Int casters), and they don't bargain for powers either (Cha casters, IMO), they just intuitively know it. I'd also argue that Paladins should be "Wis" casters for a similar reason, and that Clerics should be able to be Cha casters if they more directly interact with their divine intermediary.
In my mind (regardless of whatever the devs intent actually was), casting stat should be determined by how they got their power:
Intelligence casters studied, and figured out magic that way (Artificers and Wizards at minimum)
Wisdom casters understand magic intuitively, without any active studying (Sorcerers)
Charisma casters don't understand magic, but they gain magic through an intermediary (Warlocks)
All the other casters could fit under multiple entries
Druids could be Int if they actively studied nature, Paladins could be Wis if it's coming from an innate belief in themselves, Clerics could be Cha if it's through more direct interactions with their diety (#clerics_are_Warlocks), Bards could be Wis if they innately channel the weave through song, etc... About the only ones in my mind that can only be a single type, are Artificers (Int), Wizards (Int), Sorcerers (Wis), and Warlocks (Cha). All the others could be multiple types, though Charisma versions would arguably just be warlock look-a-likes.
I don't think any of the physical traits (Str/Dex/Con) should ever be used for spell casting stats (spell saves are fine though)
I like your approach to this, it adds more customizability to the origin of your Magic.
Also Spell less Rangers and Paladins should also be an option too,instead of spell slots they have a per long rest casting of their expanded spell list and smites tied to Superiority dice or proficiency bonus.
Thematically, it makes sense, but mechanically, it'd be broken. Whenever you get an ASI, you have to weigh various opportunity costs. Do you buff your primary stat so you hit better, your Constitution so you have more health, or do you go for a feat and give yourself more abilities?
Sorcerers are the definition of a glass cannon. Making that cannon out of metal will make it a normal cannon.
Running it as homebrew is great, as long as you account for the beefy Sorc running around with 100+ hp. But for the general game, with the rules the way they are it's just too unbalanced.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think the issue is that "innate" casting is ambiguous and could mean so many things. You could innately cast magic that you feel deep in your bones as like a physical effort (Con), you can project your forceful personality into the world (Cha), or you could cast through sheer force of will (Wis). They all make about the same amount of sense
Now, another common problem i hear voiced about the sorcerer often is that it has a pretty weak niche among casters, and doesn't have much of its own reason to exist. I don't personally subscribe to that thinking, but I hear it a lot.
What if you could combine problem 1 (why cha? Vague, other stats could work in its place) with problem 2 (what's the niche?) to neatly address both issues?
One of the biggest things Sorc. has going for it is versatility with metamagic, varying playstyles, and different multiclass builds. What if you really owned that niche as kind of the casting class that's super versatile and goes with everything by allowing sorcerers at level 1 to choose their casting stat from either Con, Wis, or Cha? If that casting versatility extended to the casting stat, you could do so much more with the sorcerer (aside from making it more *the* go to multiclass option than it already is).
I agree that Sorcerers should cast with Constitution, but there are major balance issues with this in 5e. 5.5e/6e would have to fix that, or otherwise, you would have to do a massive overhaul of how Ability Scores work in 5e (like I have in my games). Constitution is a unique ability score, in the sense that literally everyone wants it, but no one wants to focus on it. Every class, from the Artificer to the Wizard needs Constitution in order to survive. This is mainly because it's used to determine how many hit points you have, but also because Constitution saving throws are arguably just as important to be good at as Dexterity saving throws. Furthermore, Concentration is dependent on Constitution saving throws, which is very important for every single caster in the game.
Constitution is so important for all of these things that it is thus too overloaded to allow a class focus solely on it. The closest we have gotten in 5e to having characters that care about Constitution more than any other stat are Genasi and Dhampir (UA) races/lineages.
If you were to straight up just make Sorcerers in 5e use Constitution for their spellcasting ability instead of Charisma, that would be way too powerful. They would only have to focus on maximizing their Constitution and Dexterity scores, which is something no other base caster class has to do (Wizards need Dex, Con, and Int, Warlocks and Bards need Dex, Con, and Cha, Clerics need Dex/Str, Con, and Wis, etc). Full casters are MAD for a reason, to keep them from completely outshining non-casting classes. This seems strange to say, as Sorcerers are widely considered the "weakest" base full casting class, but it would be too big of a disparity in terms of ability score balance when compared to other full casting classes.
I have my own fixes for this dilemma (making HP not be automatically based off of Constitution, making Concentration be a skill, etc), but it just doesn't work with "vanilla" D&D 5e.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You are reading way too much into this. Wizards were the only arcane class in 2nd edition and they were Intelligence based. 3rd came out and decided to introduce a new Arcane spell caster. In an attempt to change Charasma, from the garbage stat that almost no one used, they made Sorcerers Charasma based. When 5th edition came out, it also added a new Charasma based Arcane class but unlike the Sorcerer, it actually makes sense for the Warlock to be Charasma based. Wisdom or Constitution fit much better for the sorcerer than Charasma but Wisdom is already a primary stat for a casting class. I'm betting the only reason they didn't change it in 5E was because they didn't want blowback from the 3.5 fans.
Warlocks are not a 5e creation. They were created somewhere in the 3.x generation of the game. I think it was more a 3.5 thing. But it's still been around a long time and always been charisma based. If they wanted to change sorcerer's they've had a long time to do it.
Also... Concentration checks as we know them now were primarily formulated and haven't changed dramatically from 3.5 either.
As a fan of sorcerers - absolutely not, CHA is fine. Sorcs are powerful enough if you know how to play/build them. Srly ask any class “Would you like your primary attack/damage stat to also be your CON?”. How many are likely to say no?
CHA is fine to represent funneling your magic through your own soul/blood/whatever rather than having to study spells like wizards or serve something like clerics and druids. Besides, Sorcerers generally (whether DnD or not) are not really known for being a hulking statue of healthiness that surpasses most barbarians, in fact in literature most tend to be a bit frail.
That said, as always, your DM rules all.
If they think it’s cool and will work in their campaign, go for it.
I think that dnd should have an optional feature (like in Tasha's) that allows you to prepare spells and choose your spellcasting ability from constitution, intelligence, wisdom, or charisma. this would make them the most versatile casters, with them being as varied as their origins. It would also make them just as good as the wizard, because at the moment, wizards are far better and more flexible.
p.s.
I am sorry in advance if I hurt anyone's feelings.
I'm personally not super worried about sorcerers as a constitution caster balance wise. I think there would be two effects;
1) sorcerer would become an extremely popular multi class option due to the low stat requirement.
2) Full sorcerers may get more feats because they'll max their key stats faster.
3) They will max get the ASI they want faster
The only one that gives me pause is the multi classing as it would really make sorcerer the default multiclass, always available, always powerful. I don't hate the idea of sorcerers as flexible caster split around other classes nor do I think their abilities are so powerful it would be a balance problem but it probably pushes other classes out a bit too much.
In terms of the lore arguments the only constitution casting in 5e is from racial traits like a Genasi's spell casting and a dragonborn's breath weapon. It does seem to be the stat for innate abilities that come from a creatures physical structure but not its muscles or speed. There is a good argument that would apply to sorcerers because many have stories similar to Genasi, having magical heritages or being plane touched.
I think of charisma as a measure of how effectively someone asserts their will on the world. As sorcerer magic in inherent and internal, charisma matches very well with the class.
Constitution can be used as a measure of focus, but I think it's mostly a physical stat. Charisma is more closely tied to a character's willpower. Using con would also be a bit overpowered in my opinion. Sorcerers are supposed to be somewhat squishy, compared to other classes. Having your combat stat also give you extra health at every level would make you pretty tanky.
Yeah that's honestly why I personally believe it's a terrible design decision to have it as regular attribute like the rest. There's simply no advantage in having CON as regular attribute. You don't "use" it for anything (heck, even STR has an ability check!) and there's no reason why you'd ever not want to have it high on any character unless you don't want to play that character for very long.
Decouple HP calculation from it, make CON raise in the background like Proficiency Bonus (or heck, make things that use CON saves scale off of PB as well) and people would be free to raise something else than just their main attribute (and CON) for once. It would make MAD classes like Monks, Ranger etc way more satisfying to build and you could even go for various gish builds without having to resort to cheesy features like the Hexblade CHA attacks and such.
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
I would say yes without hesitation. Charisma as a casting stat for sorcerer is in my opinion stupid, it doesn't matter that a lot of monsters use it for their innate abilities to, if you do a dumb thing twice it just means your stupid.
In regards to them being SAD, with maximum con you average HP is still like 9, so good but nothing game breaking, at least not without some sort heavy of investment for an AC boost. Also Sorcerer is already a really popular multiclass Sorlocks and Soradins are real strong and at least decently popular so no real shift there, if anything it weakens the Sorlock.
So yeah go for it.
I wouldn't necessarily make it an outright choice of which attribute you want to fuel your power generically, but would perhaps tie it to specific subclasses. So Abberant mind for example would draw from Intelligence, while Divine Soul would draw from Wisdom, Daconic bloodline might draw from Constitution, and Fey bloodline from Charisma; I'm not sure what best aligns with Shadow (Dexterity even?) or Wild. Perhaps with Wild, roll a d4 (or d6) every long rest (or sunrise?) and for that day you draw from whichever one attribute the die landed on?
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Honestly I think Sorcerers are the ones that should have the option to pick their spellcasting modifer, its innate magic in a sense so they should get to pick the modifer.
like why does the bard get to use Charisma(I know its because of music) for casting even though its learned magic like Wizards?
so let sorcs pick their modifer.
What I hear in reading through the posts is that many feel making the sorceror a single stat (Con) makes it too unbalanced and too OP as a multiclass, while no one is really clear on what the other stat in a standard multi stat class should be. To me willpower/wisdom is more about resisting efforts to change my mind and my ability to recognize “common sense” than it is about enforcing my will on others or the world - that is charisma. Keep in mind that one can have high charisma without being “likable” ( president Lyndon Johnson being a prime example- not very likable but boy could he get stuff done while the really likable guy (Kennedy) couldn’t). I don’t favor a single stat class, heck even the fighter needs a minimum of 2. I can see selected subclasses having the option to switch out the charisma for a different stat (wisdom for clockwork possibly) but that is really as far as I would go. What I might consider is changing their casting to be the average of their two stats rounded up instead of basing it on a single stat. So if you want your draconic sorceror to be a max blaster you need to get both con and charisma up to 20 in much the same way a fighter needs to get both strength and con up to 20 to be their most effective.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
What's the point with that? It would just nerf the sorcerer since the average of two stats will always be lower than what your main stat would be.
For example right now a Sorcerer would try to get CON and CHA up so let's say 14 and 16 at creation. Their modifier is a +3. With your idea the average would be (14+16)/2)=15, so the modifier would only be a +2. To get the same +3 they'd need to bring CON to 16 as well (or 15 if you really want to go with the rounding up clause). All you achieved was to make the Sorcerer more MAD. Admittedly in a unique way since the issue wouldn't be needing to have three high stats but just a second that would always need to be as high as your highest, but it's still bad.
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
Thanks SfP, sometimes your blind to the holes in your ideas and need to run it out there for others to point out the flaws. Somewhat off topic I was also considering giving bonus sorcery points based on the bonus points from the con and Cha stats - if you maxed both you would get 10 extra points any problems there?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
While I understand why people are suggesting "Con", I've always felt that Sorcerers should be "Wis" casters. They don't study to learn magic (Int casters), and they don't bargain for powers either (Cha casters, IMO), they just intuitively know it. I'd also argue that Paladins should be "Wis" casters for a similar reason, and that Clerics should be able to be Cha casters if they more directly interact with their divine intermediary.
In my mind (regardless of whatever the devs intent actually was), casting stat should be determined by how they got their power:
Druids could be Int if they actively studied nature, Paladins could be Wis if it's coming from an innate belief in themselves, Clerics could be Cha if it's through more direct interactions with their diety (#clerics_are_Warlocks), Bards could be Wis if they innately channel the weave through song, etc... About the only ones in my mind that can only be a single type, are Artificers (Int), Wizards (Int), Sorcerers (Wis), and Warlocks (Cha). All the others could be multiple types, though Charisma versions would arguably just be warlock look-a-likes.
I don't think any of the physical traits (Str/Dex/Con) should ever be used for spell casting stats (spell saves are fine though)
I like your approach to this, it adds more customizability to the origin of your Magic.
Also Spell less Rangers and Paladins should also be an option too,instead of spell slots they have a per long rest casting of their expanded spell list and smites tied to Superiority dice or proficiency bonus.
Thematically, it makes sense, but mechanically, it'd be broken. Whenever you get an ASI, you have to weigh various opportunity costs. Do you buff your primary stat so you hit better, your Constitution so you have more health, or do you go for a feat and give yourself more abilities?
And casting from con means you get 1&2 together til con is maxed and then your free to take feats.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Sorcerers are the definition of a glass cannon.
Making that cannon out of metal will make it a normal cannon.
Running it as homebrew is great, as long as you account for the beefy Sorc running around with 100+ hp. But for the general game, with the rules the way they are it's just too unbalanced.