Yes, unilaterally the best argument against this is that it is too SAD and multi classing would be completely broken.
6 years later, I think most of my mechanical design work here is pretty bad in hindsight (I was new then lol) but the core concept of a high Con blaster who is great at maintaining concentration and can take a few more hits than a Wizard is still a good one.
For years people have told me that having a SAD Con class would be broken, but no one has ever explained why. Perhaps that was true in earlier editions, but with Skill checks and Saving throws, even if your CLASS depends on one attribute the GAME still requires you to diversify. Con has 0 skills attached to it. Yes you could muliclass into anything, but what would the harm of that be? You would still be worse than any pure class.
One way to mitigate the toughness of a CON caster is to force them to the front lines. This is what I tried to do with my (2014) take on a CON sorcerer subclass, the Spellfist. Having a clause where your features don't work in armor (similar to Martial Arts) can also limit multiclass shenanigans.
One way to mitigate the toughness of a CON caster is to force them to the front lines. This is what I tried to do with my (2014) take on a CON sorcerer subclass, the Spellfist. Having a clause where your features don't work in armor (similar to Martial Arts) can also limit multiclass shenanigans.
I don't even think that is necessary. The best Heavy armor has a strength requirement, and light armor is going to require a decent Dex.
People who are worried about Con saves are forgetting that there are other ways to break concentration. The Sleep spell (24) is a wisdom save that immediately breaks concentration on a fail. There really isn't such a thing as SAD anymore, even in combat.
First of all, dnd made sorcerers and warlocks because back im the day, charisma was a worthless stat. In early editions, the only thing it did was control the max number of hirelings or followers you could have. I cant remember when they had skills for persuasion and such. Mostly we said what our characters would say and thr dm decidd if it was a beluevable bluff or not. Anyway, charisma back in tye old days was pointless. So someone in thr office said "lets make a class where charisma is important". They probably could have just as easily saud "lets update the rules and remove charisma completely". But whatever.
Now we're stuck with everyone wanting to play warlock/paladin/sorcerers because they make some of thr most overpowered damage dealers and they get to dominate all the conversations with npcs.
If there was a CON caster, it should be the Warlock. As they were in 4e for the most part. It came down to whether CON primary, CHA secondary, or CHA primary, CON secondary, depending on the powers chosen.
CON for Warlocks would make sense, if they had unique spells and abilities, which would i.E. drain their hit points. Like blood-letting.
One way to mitigate the toughness of a CON caster is to force them to the front lines. This is what I tried to do with my (2014) take on a CON sorcerer subclass, the Spellfist. Having a clause where your features don't work in armor (similar to Martial Arts) can also limit multiclass shenanigans.
That more allows it rather then address it. If you wanted to reshape how the class operates in combat, you have to alter the spell list and have it favor certain parameters.
I haven't gone back through the previous years posts..... but if you wanted to alter the main strategy the class operates on, you bake the ability to dual concentrate on spells into the core feature list, figure out a drawback to doing so to add risk to the activity that can't be easily bypassed, and do another pass at curating the spell list with that in mind. I would also, at the same time, trim some of the wizard spell list, because its too prone to encroaching on the other casters AND just being better at it.
With the right draw backs at lower levels, it won't be a risk free dip like Warlock was. But knowing wotc, they'd probably just make concentration at dis advantage and call it day. I would make it something hefty, like not being able to apply proficiency bonus to Con saves while dual concentrating. That way its really difficult to work around needing a stat investment if multiclassing.
That's why I like Warlocks as Con casters. They are physically channeling magic from an entity with whom they made a pact. These pacts are rarely something that intelligent or wise people would want to make. Plus Warlocks have a very small number of spells to be cast in one fight. Only after resting for an hour do they have the physical endurance needed to cast more magic.
"These pacts are rarely something that intelligent or wise people would want to make."
players often like to take on the whole "bad boy" image of someone who "made a deal with the devil" and their soul will burn for all eternity after they die.
but 2024 rules has purged most things that reference alignment. paladins haven't had to be lawful good for a long time (2e? I think?).
and they also purged the idea that warlock patrons have to be evil soul sucking used car salesmen with a mile long contract and a million words of fine print.
One doesn't have to be emo-goth with black eyeliner to be a warlock any more.
and there arent' any baked-in consequences in the game if you play a warlock. If the DM starts pushing you around via your patron in ways you do not want, they should go hands off.
"These pacts are rarely something that intelligent or wise people would want to make."
players often like to take on the whole "bad boy" image of someone who "made a deal with the devil" and their soul will burn for all eternity after they die.
but 2024 rules has purged most things that reference alignment. paladins haven't had to be lawful good for a long time (2e? I think?).
and they also purged the idea that warlock patrons have to be evil soul sucking used car salesmen with a mile long contract and a million words of fine print.
One doesn't have to be emo-goth with black eyeliner to be a warlock any more.
and there arent' any baked-in consequences in the game if you play a warlock. If the DM starts pushing you around via your patron in ways you do not want, they should go hands off.
Since you asked, the last (sub-) edition which required the Paladin class to be Lawful Good in alignment was 3.5e, not 2e. However, 4e required paladins to share an alignment with their deity; it was 5.0e that removed explicit alignment requirements from the base class, although all three 2014 PHB subclasses mention suggested alignments by name or nearly so in their lore descriptions (LG for Devotion, NG for Ancients and a choice between LN and TN for Vengeance) and the 2014 DMG Oathbreaker was explicitly for evil-aligned (non-player) characters. I haven’t followed 5.5e that closely, but I would be very surprised if any mention of alignment was found in the paladin descriptions.
That's why I like Warlocks as Con casters. They are physically channeling magic from an entity with whom they made a pact. These pacts are rarely something that intelligent or wise people would want to make. Plus Warlocks have a very small number of spells to be cast in one fight. Only after resting for an hour do they have the physical endurance needed to cast more magic.
Yeah I don't see the con link or well any of that. Wise maybe they aren't, but intelligent people frequently do make deals that benefit them now with downturns far enough off in the future they don't care. And even the proverbial sell your soul pacts in the setting aren't necessarily 100% bad. As the afterlife is not just real but it has upward mobility there as well. You may be tied to pit fiend mr x but depending on what you accomplish you may be like a fairly powerful being working for X, who gets more powerful while you are there. And given that it is a potential eternity, Mr X can always fall and you can get free. D&D hell seems to work under different rules than we may assume. As there are countless examples of people who grew in power there and freed themselves from their bindings. Sure there are more examples of people who didn't. But plenty of smart people think they can beat the system.
And once you are out of the realm of the afterlife based sub classes the costs frequently wont be quite so large though they may be more immediate. Heck genie pact might be asking for material assets, or you could have some quest to free a genie from bondage, GOO due to my love of Cthulhu might be how you see reality, which others might view as you becoming insane. but while you are studying the lore, finding the secrets you would see more as seeing the truth behind the curtain. Which now makes me see them as conspiracy theorists. So next time I play one i'll have to try and mimic an annoying one. Feypact you might have already given it up in your background like 10 years of your life was already given as you loved as a servant in the feywild. And I'm sure people can think of logical pacts for the other subclasses that aren't so costly an intelligent person would turn it down out of hand. Even wisdom I'm not so use, it kind of depends on how you view wisdom.
And even lets take your statement as true, it currently is a charisma class so that works out as well under your idea. And then we get to con, sure they recover on a short rest but strong endurance and 2 spells don't really roll together imo. If anything they seem to be a anti con class with the weakest caster endurance out there, but with such a small endurance pool it at least refills quickly.(though I'll point out unless you get multiple short rests wizards get about a 1/2 as strong but more flexible version of it.)
One doesn't have to be emo-goth with black eyeliner to be a warlock any more.
and there arent' any baked-in consequences in the game if you play a warlock. If the DM starts pushing you around via your patron in ways you do not want, they should go hands off.
Well there is a game coming out where that seems to be the default, so I expect a resurgence of that branding if its a popular game.
And yeah while I don't think they should for some reason a lot of DMs at least per the internet seem to think Warlocks should be messed with by their patron more than any other class, not paladins and their oaths, clerics and their gods, druids and whatever they get their power from. But warlocks and their patrons.
They are physically channeling magic from an entity with whom they made a pact.
Says where?
Every caster channels magic in some way. Willpower could fit what you are describing as well.
Which raises the question of why no one asks why the warlock or sorc should be wis casters, since wis represents force of will. Cha is tied to force of personality, is it not? Con is physical endurance.
I wanna see a legit str and dex caster concept. I know of muscle wizard, but only creates magic like effects.
Charisma is not just personality. Really wish people stop tripping on that.
It's about using what is inside you to affect or change the world outside of you. It actually referred to a person's inner power and magic back when we used to believe in magic.
Charisma is NOT the "personality stat". All of the mental stats affect personality (int: focus, vocabulary, application | wis: instinct, wit | charisma: grace, emotion). Charisma, if anything, is the "soul" stat. It is "presence".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
6 years later, I think most of my mechanical design work here is pretty bad in hindsight (I was new then lol) but the core concept of a high Con blaster who is great at maintaining concentration and can take a few more hits than a Wizard is still a good one.
For years people have told me that having a SAD Con class would be broken, but no one has ever explained why. Perhaps that was true in earlier editions, but with Skill checks and Saving throws, even if your CLASS depends on one attribute the GAME still requires you to diversify. Con has 0 skills attached to it. Yes you could muliclass into anything, but what would the harm of that be? You would still be worse than any pure class.
One way to mitigate the toughness of a CON caster is to force them to the front lines. This is what I tried to do with my (2014) take on a CON sorcerer subclass, the Spellfist. Having a clause where your features don't work in armor (similar to Martial Arts) can also limit multiclass shenanigans.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I don't even think that is necessary. The best Heavy armor has a strength requirement, and light armor is going to require a decent Dex.
People who are worried about Con saves are forgetting that there are other ways to break concentration. The Sleep spell (24) is a wisdom save that immediately breaks concentration on a fail. There really isn't such a thing as SAD anymore, even in combat.
I'm late to this party, but....this anime already exists.
Indeed. That's what I was referencing with tongue squarely inserted in cheek.
First of all, dnd made sorcerers and warlocks because back im the day, charisma was a worthless stat. In early editions, the only thing it did was control the max number of hirelings or followers you could have. I cant remember when they had skills for persuasion and such. Mostly we said what our characters would say and thr dm decidd if it was a beluevable bluff or not. Anyway, charisma back in tye old days was pointless. So someone in thr office said "lets make a class where charisma is important". They probably could have just as easily saud "lets update the rules and remove charisma completely". But whatever.
Now we're stuck with everyone wanting to play warlock/paladin/sorcerers because they make some of thr most overpowered damage dealers and they get to dominate all the conversations with npcs.
Yeesh.
If there was a CON caster, it should be the Warlock. As they were in 4e for the most part. It came down to whether CON primary, CHA secondary, or CHA primary, CON secondary, depending on the powers chosen.
CON for Warlocks would make sense, if they had unique spells and abilities, which would i.E. drain their hit points. Like blood-letting.
That more allows it rather then address it. If you wanted to reshape how the class operates in combat, you have to alter the spell list and have it favor certain parameters.
I haven't gone back through the previous years posts..... but if you wanted to alter the main strategy the class operates on, you bake the ability to dual concentrate on spells into the core feature list, figure out a drawback to doing so to add risk to the activity that can't be easily bypassed, and do another pass at curating the spell list with that in mind. I would also, at the same time, trim some of the wizard spell list, because its too prone to encroaching on the other casters AND just being better at it.
With the right draw backs at lower levels, it won't be a risk free dip like Warlock was. But knowing wotc, they'd probably just make concentration at dis advantage and call it day. I would make it something hefty, like not being able to apply proficiency bonus to Con saves while dual concentrating. That way its really difficult to work around needing a stat investment if multiclassing.
With the right spell choices that's irrelevant. Shield, Agathys, etc.
With concentration based on Constitution there is a good reason not to allow full casters to double dip.
That's why I like Warlocks as Con casters. They are physically channeling magic from an entity with whom they made a pact. These pacts are rarely something that intelligent or wise people would want to make. Plus Warlocks have a very small number of spells to be cast in one fight. Only after resting for an hour do they have the physical endurance needed to cast more magic.
"These pacts are rarely something that intelligent or wise people would want to make."
players often like to take on the whole "bad boy" image of someone who "made a deal with the devil" and their soul will burn for all eternity after they die.
but 2024 rules has purged most things that reference alignment. paladins haven't had to be lawful good for a long time (2e? I think?).
and they also purged the idea that warlock patrons have to be evil soul sucking used car salesmen with a mile long contract and a million words of fine print.
One doesn't have to be emo-goth with black eyeliner to be a warlock any more.
and there arent' any baked-in consequences in the game if you play a warlock. If the DM starts pushing you around via your patron in ways you do not want, they should go hands off.
Since you asked, the last (sub-) edition which required the Paladin class to be Lawful Good in alignment was 3.5e, not 2e. However, 4e required paladins to share an alignment with their deity; it was 5.0e that removed explicit alignment requirements from the base class, although all three 2014 PHB subclasses mention suggested alignments by name or nearly so in their lore descriptions (LG for Devotion, NG for Ancients and a choice between LN and TN for Vengeance) and the 2014 DMG Oathbreaker was explicitly for evil-aligned (non-player) characters. I haven’t followed 5.5e that closely, but I would be very surprised if any mention of alignment was found in the paladin descriptions.
Yeah I don't see the con link or well any of that. Wise maybe they aren't, but intelligent people frequently do make deals that benefit them now with downturns far enough off in the future they don't care. And even the proverbial sell your soul pacts in the setting aren't necessarily 100% bad. As the afterlife is not just real but it has upward mobility there as well. You may be tied to pit fiend mr x but depending on what you accomplish you may be like a fairly powerful being working for X, who gets more powerful while you are there. And given that it is a potential eternity, Mr X can always fall and you can get free. D&D hell seems to work under different rules than we may assume. As there are countless examples of people who grew in power there and freed themselves from their bindings. Sure there are more examples of people who didn't. But plenty of smart people think they can beat the system.
And once you are out of the realm of the afterlife based sub classes the costs frequently wont be quite so large though they may be more immediate. Heck genie pact might be asking for material assets, or you could have some quest to free a genie from bondage, GOO due to my love of Cthulhu might be how you see reality, which others might view as you becoming insane. but while you are studying the lore, finding the secrets you would see more as seeing the truth behind the curtain. Which now makes me see them as conspiracy theorists. So next time I play one i'll have to try and mimic an annoying one. Feypact you might have already given it up in your background like 10 years of your life was already given as you loved as a servant in the feywild. And I'm sure people can think of logical pacts for the other subclasses that aren't so costly an intelligent person would turn it down out of hand. Even wisdom I'm not so use, it kind of depends on how you view wisdom.
And even lets take your statement as true, it currently is a charisma class so that works out as well under your idea. And then we get to con, sure they recover on a short rest but strong endurance and 2 spells don't really roll together imo. If anything they seem to be a anti con class with the weakest caster endurance out there, but with such a small endurance pool it at least refills quickly.(though I'll point out unless you get multiple short rests wizards get about a 1/2 as strong but more flexible version of it.)
Well there is a game coming out where that seems to be the default, so I expect a resurgence of that branding if its a popular game.
And yeah while I don't think they should for some reason a lot of DMs at least per the internet seem to think Warlocks should be messed with by their patron more than any other class, not paladins and their oaths, clerics and their gods, druids and whatever they get their power from. But warlocks and their patrons.
Says where?
Every caster channels magic in some way. Willpower could fit what you are describing as well.
Which raises the question of why no one asks why the warlock or sorc should be wis casters, since wis represents force of will. Cha is tied to force of personality, is it not? Con is physical endurance.
I wanna see a legit str and dex caster concept. I know of muscle wizard, but only creates magic like effects.
Charisma is not just personality. Really wish people stop tripping on that.
It's about using what is inside you to affect or change the world outside of you. It actually referred to a person's inner power and magic back when we used to believe in magic.
Charisma is NOT the "personality stat". All of the mental stats affect personality (int: focus, vocabulary, application | wis: instinct, wit | charisma: grace, emotion). Charisma, if anything, is the "soul" stat. It is "presence".
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.