Changing any class to casting off of Constitution would be unbalanced as hell. Are you suggesting that changes be made to compensate?
would it be though? classes stats are capped, not that much difference between a 20 chr 20 con sorcerer and 20 con 20 anything else class. Maybe 20 con, 20 dex, but fighter or rogue can already have that and it doesnt make hax.
Yes, it would. Casters already have it better than martial classes. Making it even easier for them to max out casting and concentration & HP makes it even more unbalanced. Giving casters an excuse to have better Con than some martial characters makes it more unbalanced. You would have to nerf a Con caster to the point of nigh uselessness to compensate.
You mean concentration spells might actually become usable for a Paladin tank, what a horror.
Paladins are usually rocking around with high AC which helps against the extra attacks coming their way for being in melee, plus they also have Aura of Protection; even with only +2 Constitution and Charisma they'd end up with +4 on concentration saving throws, so basically the same as Sorcerer at the same level (though obviously Sorcerer scales even without further investment), and that's better than other casters who specifically need to invest in Constitution and/or feats like Resilient (Constitution) or War Caster to improve it, which is something the Paladin can also do to maintain that lead.
Paladin's don't channel their magic like a Cleric, not sure where that comes from, they use the same type of magic (Divine) but the source is entirely different
Not really, for one they literally have the same Channel Divinity feature, implying their powers come from… well, channelling divinity. While Paladins are no longer required to declare an allegiance to a deity, that doesn't mean deities aren't behind the oaths that Paladins swear, it just might not be any particular one, could be a pantheon (e.g- Eldath, Sylvanus etc. for Oath of Ancients), the Paladin and order don't need to know, or they can make offerings to all possibilities or whatever.
Still feels a lot like that power has to be channeled from somewhere because if swearing an oath was all it took, then everyone would do it.
Ranger is less ability score dependent because they get less from ability scores, which at that point, what is the justification for even being mad? Surely the justification for being MAD is that you get more things but you can only specialize on those that you spec for with ability score.
I'm confused by what you're trying to say here? They're not MAD because they aren't MAD? Isn't that basically what I said? A ranged Ranger can pretty easily focus on Dexterity and Wisdom while taking only a little Constitution, because they should be able to avoid being hit so much, while a melee Ranger can flip Constitution and Wisdom around since they'll probably benefit more from the added durability, so in both cases they only really have two primary scores and one secondary (doesn't need to be increased much, if at all, depending upon starting score).
That still has trade-offs though, because the ranged Ranger will be less resistant to having their concentration broken if enemies do focus fire, while the melee Ranger will want to avoid casting ability reliant spells (i.e- attack and save spells), and their Wisdom skills will lag behind a little. That's hardly unmanageable for a half-caster though, so I don't see the need to reduce them down to only two scores required, since only two of them are really required in the first place?
Ranger's problems in 5e never stemmed from needing some mixture of three scores, it comes from some of their features being super situational to the extend they can be basically worthless without extra work by your DM to let you use them. Tasha's Cauldron of Everything showed some ways that can be fixed and it made a huge difference to Rangers in more varied/less tailored campaigns.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
You mean concentration spells might actually become usable for a Paladin tank, what a horror.
Paladins are usually rocking around with high AC which helps against the extra attacks coming their way for being in melee, plus they also have Aura of Protection; even with only +2 Constitution and Charisma they'd end up with +4 on concentration saving throws, so basically the same as Sorcerer at the same level (though obviously Sorcerer scales even without further investment), and that's better than other casters who specifically need to invest in Constitution and/or feats like Resilient (Constitution) or War Caster to improve it, which is something the Paladin can also do to maintain that lead.
Paladin's don't channel their magic like a Cleric, not sure where that comes from, they use the same type of magic (Divine) but the source is entirely different
Not really, for one they literally have the same Channel Divinity feature, implying their powers come from… well, channelling divinity. While Paladins are no longer required to declare an allegiance to a deity, that doesn't mean deities aren't behind the oaths that Paladins swear, it just might not be any particular one, could be a pantheon (e.g- Eldath, Sylvanus etc. for Oath of Ancients), the Paladin and order don't need to know, or they can make offerings to all possibilities or whatever.
Still feels a lot like that power has to be channeled from somewhere because if swearing an oath was all it took, then everyone would do it.
Ranger is less ability score dependent because they get less from ability scores, which at that point, what is the justification for even being mad? Surely the justification for being MAD is that you get more things but you can only specialize on those that you spec for with ability score.
I'm confused by what you're trying to say here? They're not MAD because they aren't MAD? Isn't that basically what I said? A ranged Ranger can pretty easily focus on Dexterity and Wisdom while taking only a little Constitution, because they should be able to avoid being hit so much, while a melee Ranger can flip Constitution and Wisdom around since they'll probably benefit more from the added durability, so in both cases they only really have two primary scores and one secondary (doesn't need to be increased much, if at all, depending upon starting score).
That still has trade-offs though, because the ranged Ranger will be less resistant to having their concentration broken if enemies do focus fire, while the melee Ranger will want to avoid casting ability reliant spells (i.e- attack and save spells), and their Wisdom skills will lag behind a little. That's hardly unmanageable for a half-caster though, so I don't see the need to reduce them down to only two scores required, since only two of them are really required in the first place?
Ranger's problems in 5e never stemmed from needing some mixture of three scores, it comes from some of their features being super situational to the extend they can be basically worthless without extra work by your DM to let you use them. Tasha's Cauldron of Everything showed some ways that can be fixed and it made a huge difference to Rangers in more varied/less tailored campaigns.
Sorcerers don't stand on the front line, Paladins do, so even with high AC, Paladin is still taking far FAR more hits. If the Paladin gets attacked 6 times, with 2 attacks hitting while the sorcer gets attacked 0 times, who is more likely to drop concentration? Channel Divinity is literally written differently for the two classes, Cleric's Channel Divinity says it's their Deity (External) while Paladin's says it's their Oath (Internal), so no. Still different.
The point with Ranger, is that they really don't have the features that reflect the different Attribute Points. Can you drop Constitution entirely if you go ranged? well no, you still need to make the occasional save. Can you really drop Wisdom if you go two-weapon fighting? Well multiple features actually do use Wisdom, but most of them are very on the meh side, they still however exist or rely on Wisdom. At the point you're doing two-weapon fighting, you're basically just an inferior fighter without those features tho. Ranger is better than it use to be, but it's still a class where the MAD justification doesn't really exist past lore.
Sorcerers don't stand on the front line, Paladins do, so even with high AC, Paladin is still taking far FAR more hits. If the Paladin gets attacked 6 times, with 2 attacks hitting while the sorcer gets attacked 0 times, who is more likely to drop concentration?
The comparison isn't that useful because how much this is a problem depends a lot on what they're each concentrating on; the Sorcerer is more likely to be concentrating on something substantial enough to incentivise enemies to focus fire on them to break that concentration. Paladin's real problem with concentration in 5e is that half their concentration spells are smite spells that never really justified being concentration spells in the first place, which OneD&D seems like it's going to fix at least.
Otherwise you're looking at things like self buffs (e.g- shield of faith, which makes you even harder to hit) or party buffs, but so many of the latter require actions to cast which isn't something you want to do on a Paladin in the first place because that's two full attacks (and Divine Smite opportunities) gone, which probably would have been more useful anyway.
Otherwise the question is also what you expect concentration to be for on a Paladin, because if you're veering into maintaining bigger support and control spells then that's only going to make Paladin even stronger as a class if they can all do it as standard. Concentrating on a spell should be a difficult choice on a class that is already strong in multiple areas, because otherwise you're just getting rid of one of its few remaining weaknesses; building for concentration should require investment and trade-offs to make it work, especially when they already get a buff to concentration as standard.
Channel Divinity is literally written differently for the two classes, Cleric's Channel Divinity says it's their Deity (External) while Paladin's says it's their Oath (Internal), so no. Still different.
I don't see where it says that? Cleric says "you gain the ability to channel divine energy directly from your deity", the Paladin version says "your oath allows you to channel divine energy", these are basically identical except for "from your deity", but where else do you expect divinity (literally "the state of being a god") to come from?
The only difference is faith in a specific deity, versus swearing an oath that doesn't require a specific deity to be named; but clearly something is still setting and enforcing the rules of the oath, because if you could become divine simply being saying a few words, then everybody would do it.
The point with Ranger, is that they really don't have the features that reflect the different Attribute Points. Can you drop Constitution entirely if you go ranged? well no, you still need to make the occasional save. Can you really drop Wisdom if you go two-weapon fighting? Well multiple features actually do use Wisdom, but most of them are very on the meh side, they still however exist or rely on Wisdom. At the point you're doing two-weapon fighting, you're basically just an inferior fighter without those features tho. Ranger is better than it use to be, but it's still a class where the MAD justification doesn't really exist past lore.
There are loads of good spells in the Ranger list that don't require high Wisdom; while a lot of them are more in the out of combat utility area these can still have impacts on combat if alarm prevents you from being surprised, or a stock of goodberries keeps the party topped up at full health etc. Things that Fighters can't do as standard (except a little bit of self-healing via Second Wind).
And again Rangers are not that MAD; they only have two primary stats, and one secondary, everything else is fully optionally. This is true of Fighter as well, since as a pure martial you're probably going to lean towards some mix of all three physical abilities anyway, same as a Barbarian does. The main difference with Fighter is they're affected by being MAD because they get two extra ability score increases, though really those are better spent on feats usually, but it depends what your goals are exactly.
Monks are are a far more MAD class because while Dexterity and Wisdom are arguably their primary scores, they also need a solid Constitution or they just don't have the durability to stay in any fight for long (or have to compensate by burning Ki faster). Monk definitely needs changes to make them less dependant on Constitution as a third score, having the same two primary + one secondary as everyone else should clearly be the goal. The last thing we need is an arms race with already powerful casters able to build with five dump stats.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Changing any class to casting off of Constitution would be unbalanced as hell. Are you suggesting that changes be made to compensate?
would it be though? classes stats are capped, not that much difference between a 20 chr 20 con sorcerer and 20 con 20 anything else class. Maybe 20 con, 20 dex, but fighter or rogue can already have that and it doesnt make hax.
Either every caster would need to use Con for casting or none of them can. Con for casting is just so much better than anything else because it also covers Hit Points (i.e. survivability) and Concentration. Making the class that gets it the only truly SAD class in the game. A Sorcerer with a 20 Con has the same hit points as a Barbarian with a 14 Con.
the value of needing only one stats, needing two stats, and needing three stats depends on how many extra stats people have. (in terms of power). If everyone easily has enough points to have two stats maxed, the value of needing one stat is limited. lets say points were just flatly given like point spread. 20 20 14 12 10 8. What is the big advantage of only needing con? all it is, is getting to select a second stat freely, but there is no hax advantage for doing so. Whats the actual insane stat combo we are fearing here?
A sorcerer/wizard/etc already usually has max con. So now the sorcerer can choose to be STR. does it actually matter if they choose STR instead of chr?
the power of needing less stats is effective only when you are losing out on stats. needing 3 stats is bad, because you only get enough points to max two. If we got enough points to max 3, the only issue would be one of player agency, not power level.
now, fairness wise, why does one class get to freely choose their other stats, might be a complaint, but thats not OPness problem.
the value of needing only one stats, needing two stats, and needing three stats depends on how many extra stats people have. (in terms of power). If everyone easily has enough points to have two stats maxed, the value of needing one stat is limited. lets say points were just flatly given like point spread. 20 20 14 12 10 8. What is the big advantage of only needing con? all it is, is getting to select a second stat freely, but there is no hax advantage for doing so. Whats the actual insane stat combo we are fearing here?
The issue isn't just the end point, it's everything in between; with a single ability score for hit-points, concentration and everything spellcasting related, you could have your character at its hit-point maximum (per level) and casting power by 8th-level (if not sooner), rather than 16th-level (or thereabouts).
To compensate for that you'd have to apply substantial nerfs to these caster(s), and really I just don't see the majority of players actually having a problem with needing two ability scores instead of just one, and most would probably prefer the classes to be balanced in potential and scaling.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
My main issue with Constitution as a spellcasting ability score is the balance problem; full spellcasters are already mostly single attribute dependent, as they get the most benefit from boosting their spellcasting score, so things like Dexterity for AC and Constitution for hit-points and concentration are secondary concerns, with feats often providing more benefit than boosting these directly.
I don't think Paladin or any half or third caster should use Constitution as a spellcasting score, as being multiple ability score dependent is very much part of the trade off involved. Plus it's not like Paladins are weakened much by having a lower Charisma score, or conversely by not maxing out their Strength, since Divine Smite more than compensates for any loss of damage.
For Sorcerer and Warlock I can see the arguments in favour of the change, though Sorcerer is the more convincing to me, but I think it'd take more than just dropping their hit dice by one increment to balance this change. Not having a separate spellcasting score means they'd be able to easily maximise both Dexterity and Constitution for better casting, better AC, better concentration and more hit-points than any other typical full caster.
I think if you wanted to emphasise the physicality of casting it should be done another way, like trading hit-points for a burst of power or similar.
CON/DEX isnt op, rogue, fighter, Ranger already can use that combo. having full benefit in AC is low value. they can get a level zero feat that let's them wear medium armor (and use a shield). It has benefits yes, but does it outweigh the benefits of high CHA? or high anything else? not really.
CON/DEX isnt op, rogue, fighter, Ranger already can use that combo. having full benefit in AC is low value. they can get a level zero feat that let's them wear medium armor (and use a shield). It has benefits yes, but does it outweigh the benefits of high CHA? or high anything else? not really.
I didn't say it was overpowered for Fighters or Rogues? But it will be for others if one of those two was also the spellcasting ability score, because it means no trade-offs to maximise not only hit-points/concentration but also spellcasting power. Might as well just propose all casters get to start at 20th-level with their choice of three starting artefacts.
Ranger as I've mentioned in other posts doesn't need a high Wisdom, but building them that way in making a trade-off (sacrificing spell attack and save DC to buff the martial side more). Half casters by their very nature are a balancing act.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
the value of needing only one stats, needing two stats, and needing three stats depends on how many extra stats people have. (in terms of power). If everyone easily has enough points to have two stats maxed, the value of needing one stat is limited. lets say points were just flatly given like point spread. 20 20 14 12 10 8. What is the big advantage of only needing con? all it is, is getting to select a second stat freely, but there is no hax advantage for doing so. Whats the actual insane stat combo we are fearing here?
The issue isn't just the end point, it's everything in between; with a single ability score for hit-points, concentration and everything spellcasting related, you could have your character at its hit-point maximum (per level) and casting power by 8th-level (if not sooner), rather than 16th-level (or thereabouts).
To compensate for that you'd have to apply substantial nerfs to these caster(s), and really I just don't see the majority of players actually having a problem with needing two ability scores instead of just one, and most would probably prefer the classes to be balanced in potential and scaling.
Its true that there is an early benefit, but I think its not end all be all, the way the game is designed, one stat is super important, and the other stats are less so. It wouldn't need a massive nerf to compensate, all you'd need to do is give another stat a moderate benefit for that class. Realistically, for a caster, the benefits of early con is literally a couple points difference. A lvl 4 charachter can be 19/16 with point buy. the power level dif at level 4 is therefore +1 hp per level, and +5% chance to keep spell if hit. it peaks at 8, with 2hp and 10%, then goes back to zero benefit.
As I said earlier, I am mostly thinking about new classes/subclasses possibly using con. Sorc is the only one I can see maining con, or maybe barb. The key reason to use CON as main stat in class design is if it aligns with the fantasy, or helps create interesting new playstyle/mevhanic choices. I don't think thats off the table design wise.
simple example, (inspired by pathfinder) lets say sorcerer had a 5-Cha *4% chance to take d10 damage when they use meta magic. Or, could use extra sorcery points by taking damage. ( Now, you have a mechanic that more clearly hits the fantasy of uncontrollable powers, and possibly simulates learning to control it as you level. The benefits to hp and concentration saves balanced by the extra damage and con saves you roll to use you power.
There tons of interesting ways to design in this way which can exemplify fantasies/play that incorporate toughness/survivability/grit. I wouldn't take it off the design table. But I wouldn't just give it randomly, it would have to be doing something for the fantasy/mechanics. I wouldn't just make it an option for the current sorc with no changes, for example. Not necessarily because its OP, but does it serve any purpose, other than an early level benefit?
Changing any class to casting off of Constitution would be unbalanced as hell. Are you suggesting that changes be made to compensate?
Agreed. Constitution is tied to hit points and concentration and having it be the main spellcasting ability for a class would be bonkers (in a bad way). And uhhh... Flavorwise, it makes no sense that the ability score about someone's fitness would connect to their magic. I mean, what, am I gonna cast fireball via my pristine musculature and excellent health?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Changing any class to casting off of Constitution would be unbalanced as hell. Are you suggesting that changes be made to compensate?
would it be though? classes stats are capped, not that much difference between a 20 chr 20 con sorcerer and 20 con 20 anything else class. Maybe 20 con, 20 dex, but fighter or rogue can already have that and it doesnt make hax.
Either every caster would need to use Con for casting or none of them can. Con for casting is just so much better than anything else because it also covers Hit Points (i.e. survivability) and Concentration. Making the class that gets it the only truly SAD class in the game. A Sorcerer with a 20 Con has the same hit points as a Barbarian with a 14 Con.
the value of needing only one stats, needing two stats, and needing three stats depends on how many extra stats people have. (in terms of power). If everyone easily has enough points to have two stats maxed, the value of needing one stat is limited. lets say points were just flatly given like point spread. 20 20 14 12 10 8. What is the big advantage of only needing con? all it is, is getting to select a second stat freely, but there is no hax advantage for doing so. Whats the actual insane stat combo we are fearing here?
A sorcerer/wizard/etc already usually has max con. So now the sorcerer can choose to be STR. does it actually matter if they choose STR instead of chr?
the power of needing less stats is effective only when you are losing out on stats. needing 3 stats is bad, because you only get enough points to max two. If we got enough points to max 3, the only issue would be one of player agency, not power level.
now, fairness wise, why does one class get to freely choose their other stats, might be a complaint, but thats not OPness problem.
WTF are you talking about? I have never ever ever seen a Wizard or Sorcerer with max con. Never! They max out their casting stat, not their Con. By making them Con-casters it allows them to do both thus massively increasing their power.
WTF are you talking about? I have never ever ever seen a Wizard or Sorcerer with max con. Never! They max out their casting stat, not their Con. By making them Con-casters it allows them to do both thus massively increasing their power.
In my experience, constitution is almost universally a dump stat for casters. I can't recall any I played with that had it higher than 12..
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Changing any class to casting off of Constitution would be unbalanced as hell. Are you suggesting that changes be made to compensate?
would it be though? classes stats are capped, not that much difference between a 20 chr 20 con sorcerer and 20 con 20 anything else class. Maybe 20 con, 20 dex, but fighter or rogue can already have that and it doesnt make hax.
Either every caster would need to use Con for casting or none of them can. Con for casting is just so much better than anything else because it also covers Hit Points (i.e. survivability) and Concentration. Making the class that gets it the only truly SAD class in the game. A Sorcerer with a 20 Con has the same hit points as a Barbarian with a 14 Con.
the value of needing only one stats, needing two stats, and needing three stats depends on how many extra stats people have. (in terms of power). If everyone easily has enough points to have two stats maxed, the value of needing one stat is limited. lets say points were just flatly given like point spread. 20 20 14 12 10 8. What is the big advantage of only needing con? all it is, is getting to select a second stat freely, but there is no hax advantage for doing so. Whats the actual insane stat combo we are fearing here?
A sorcerer/wizard/etc already usually has max con. So now the sorcerer can choose to be STR. does it actually matter if they choose STR instead of chr?
the power of needing less stats is effective only when you are losing out on stats. needing 3 stats is bad, because you only get enough points to max two. If we got enough points to max 3, the only issue would be one of player agency, not power level.
now, fairness wise, why does one class get to freely choose their other stats, might be a complaint, but thats not OPness problem.
WTF are you talking about? I have never ever ever seen a Wizard or Sorcerer with max con. Never! They max out their casting stat, not their Con. By making them Con-casters it allows them to do both thus massively increasing their power.
you max casting by 8, what do they max after that. I'm not talking about what they max first, I'm talking about their total stat spread. most optimizing wizards go int/con. by 20 they'll have full con.
level 4 looks like 18/16 int/con. this is whopping power difference of 1 mod. hardly game breaking. It doesnt even equal the base differences in classes. A class win con save has better saves, a class with d10 health has better health. All this would mean is the class is slightly tougher than other mages, which might fit the class fantasy, depending on the class concept.
bottom line; tell me what the con casting mages secondary will be, that will noticeably be stronger than the cha/con sorc or the int/con wiz
WTF are you talking about? I have never ever ever seen a Wizard or Sorcerer with max con. Never! They max out their casting stat, not their Con. By making them Con-casters it allows them to do both thus massively increasing their power.
In my experience, constitution is almost universally a dump stat for casters. I can't recall any I played with that had it higher than 12..
interesting, what is their secondary stat choice. Optimized sorc/wiz I know usually go con, because the benefit for other stats is virtually nil.
WTF are you talking about? I have never ever ever seen a Wizard or Sorcerer with max con. Never! They max out their casting stat, not their Con. By making them Con-casters it allows them to do both thus massively increasing their power.
In my experience, constitution is almost universally a dump stat for casters. I can't recall any I played with that had it higher than 12..
I wouldn't actually call it a "dump stat". I don't think it is for any class. Everyone benefits from having at least some points in constitution. But it's true that Isn't the main stat for any caster. And it shouldn't be, because it would break the balance of the game unless that caster had a very strong weakness.
Changing any class to casting off of Constitution would be unbalanced as hell. Are you suggesting that changes be made to compensate?
Agreed. Constitution is tied to hit points and concentration and having it be the main spellcasting ability for a class would be bonkers (in a bad way). And uhhh... Flavorwise, it makes no sense that the ability score about someone's fitness would connect to their magic. I mean, what, am I gonna cast fireball via my pristine musculature and excellent health?
flavorwise, it would be for a mage whose power requires great fortitude to channel. In other fantasy concepts, it might be an earth mage, or blood mage, possibly an undead mage/necro.
WTF are you talking about? I have never ever ever seen a Wizard or Sorcerer with max con. Never! They max out their casting stat, not their Con. By making them Con-casters it allows them to do both thus massively increasing their power.
In my experience, constitution is almost universally a dump stat for casters. I can't recall any I played with that had it higher than 12..
interesting, what is their secondary stat choice. Optimized sorc/wiz I know usually go con, because the benefit for other stats is virtually nil.
Wizards usually go: 8, 14, 14, 16,12,8 take a +2 INT at 4th, then take feats like Telekinetic, Telepathic or Skill Expert to max out INT by 12th then grab Warcaster or other feats like Tough or some of the species feats with damage resistances or occasionally Elemental Adept or grab a non-combat feat.
Clerics and Druids usually pick up Warcaster at 4th, Fey Touched at 8th, then max out Wis at 12th. They might take Resilient Con at 16 or often will MC at higher levels.
Sorcerers often take Ritual Caster or Warcaster at 4th, Fey Touched or Shadow Touched at 8th, then max out Cha at 12th - though taking Elven Accuracy and Telekinetic instead is often a good choice as well. Usually they take Dex as their secondary stat to up their AC without having to spend both their spells known at 1st level on Mage Armour and Shield.
interesting, what is their secondary stat choice. Optimized sorc/wiz I know usually go con, because the benefit for other stats is virtually nil.
Can't speak for BoringBard, but on my full casters I usually prioritise Dexterity over Constitution, because it benefits AC since mage armor is just like having good light armor you need to remember to cast now and then (unless you're Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer), either that or actual light armour on a Bard. If I can start with +2 in Constitution then I usually don't increase it at all unless I make it odd and pick up Resilient (Constitution) on a non-Sorcerer, otherwise I prefer to get War Caster to help with concentration.
Only exceptions are things like proper Clerics (as opposed to my usual Cleric dips) or a Hexblade since they can have better armour, though you still want a bit of Dexterity to maximise medium armour.
How much you actually need Constitution depends a lot on your DM and group; you'll obviously need to build for concentration if your DM has a habit of using meta-knowledge to focus fire on casters, but that's not really something they should do, as it may not be obvious you even are a caster until enemies see you do something. Though if there's a big obvious spell and you're the only one who could have done it, then they can have at it. Also depends on how likely the back line (ranged characters) are to be threatened, and how good your party is at adapting if they are. Even so, boosting Constitution isn't always the best way to help with concentration; Resilient (Constitution) and/or War Caster are much better than a +1, you only want Constitution if you're also struggling for hit-points, but if you are then you may have bigger issues as many casters have access to false life which should work just as well.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think if I wanted a Sorcerer to reflect their constitution into their ability to cast, I wouldn’t use CON for their casting ability. I would make a blood-magic sorcerer, and let them convert 3 hp per sorcery point, do able 1/turn as a free action (but not the other direction … but I might give them healing word).
They will want to have a high CON, and the Toughness Feat in order to fuel this, but they will still need the high CHA for the actual casting of spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes, it would. Casters already have it better than martial classes. Making it even easier for them to max out casting and concentration & HP makes it even more unbalanced. Giving casters an excuse to have better Con than some martial characters makes it more unbalanced. You would have to nerf a Con caster to the point of nigh uselessness to compensate.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Paladins are usually rocking around with high AC which helps against the extra attacks coming their way for being in melee, plus they also have Aura of Protection; even with only +2 Constitution and Charisma they'd end up with +4 on concentration saving throws, so basically the same as Sorcerer at the same level (though obviously Sorcerer scales even without further investment), and that's better than other casters who specifically need to invest in Constitution and/or feats like Resilient (Constitution) or War Caster to improve it, which is something the Paladin can also do to maintain that lead.
Not really, for one they literally have the same Channel Divinity feature, implying their powers come from… well, channelling divinity. While Paladins are no longer required to declare an allegiance to a deity, that doesn't mean deities aren't behind the oaths that Paladins swear, it just might not be any particular one, could be a pantheon (e.g- Eldath, Sylvanus etc. for Oath of Ancients), the Paladin and order don't need to know, or they can make offerings to all possibilities or whatever.
Still feels a lot like that power has to be channeled from somewhere because if swearing an oath was all it took, then everyone would do it.
I'm confused by what you're trying to say here? They're not MAD because they aren't MAD? Isn't that basically what I said? A ranged Ranger can pretty easily focus on Dexterity and Wisdom while taking only a little Constitution, because they should be able to avoid being hit so much, while a melee Ranger can flip Constitution and Wisdom around since they'll probably benefit more from the added durability, so in both cases they only really have two primary scores and one secondary (doesn't need to be increased much, if at all, depending upon starting score).
That still has trade-offs though, because the ranged Ranger will be less resistant to having their concentration broken if enemies do focus fire, while the melee Ranger will want to avoid casting ability reliant spells (i.e- attack and save spells), and their Wisdom skills will lag behind a little. That's hardly unmanageable for a half-caster though, so I don't see the need to reduce them down to only two scores required, since only two of them are really required in the first place?
Ranger's problems in 5e never stemmed from needing some mixture of three scores, it comes from some of their features being super situational to the extend they can be basically worthless without extra work by your DM to let you use them. Tasha's Cauldron of Everything showed some ways that can be fixed and it made a huge difference to Rangers in more varied/less tailored campaigns.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Sorcerers don't stand on the front line, Paladins do, so even with high AC, Paladin is still taking far FAR more hits. If the Paladin gets attacked 6 times, with 2 attacks hitting while the sorcer gets attacked 0 times, who is more likely to drop concentration? Channel Divinity is literally written differently for the two classes, Cleric's Channel Divinity says it's their Deity (External) while Paladin's says it's their Oath (Internal), so no. Still different.
The point with Ranger, is that they really don't have the features that reflect the different Attribute Points. Can you drop Constitution entirely if you go ranged? well no, you still need to make the occasional save. Can you really drop Wisdom if you go two-weapon fighting? Well multiple features actually do use Wisdom, but most of them are very on the meh side, they still however exist or rely on Wisdom. At the point you're doing two-weapon fighting, you're basically just an inferior fighter without those features tho. Ranger is better than it use to be, but it's still a class where the MAD justification doesn't really exist past lore.
The comparison isn't that useful because how much this is a problem depends a lot on what they're each concentrating on; the Sorcerer is more likely to be concentrating on something substantial enough to incentivise enemies to focus fire on them to break that concentration. Paladin's real problem with concentration in 5e is that half their concentration spells are smite spells that never really justified being concentration spells in the first place, which OneD&D seems like it's going to fix at least.
Otherwise you're looking at things like self buffs (e.g- shield of faith, which makes you even harder to hit) or party buffs, but so many of the latter require actions to cast which isn't something you want to do on a Paladin in the first place because that's two full attacks (and Divine Smite opportunities) gone, which probably would have been more useful anyway.
Otherwise the question is also what you expect concentration to be for on a Paladin, because if you're veering into maintaining bigger support and control spells then that's only going to make Paladin even stronger as a class if they can all do it as standard. Concentrating on a spell should be a difficult choice on a class that is already strong in multiple areas, because otherwise you're just getting rid of one of its few remaining weaknesses; building for concentration should require investment and trade-offs to make it work, especially when they already get a buff to concentration as standard.
I don't see where it says that? Cleric says "you gain the ability to channel divine energy directly from your deity", the Paladin version says "your oath allows you to channel divine energy", these are basically identical except for "from your deity", but where else do you expect divinity (literally "the state of being a god") to come from?
The only difference is faith in a specific deity, versus swearing an oath that doesn't require a specific deity to be named; but clearly something is still setting and enforcing the rules of the oath, because if you could become divine simply being saying a few words, then everybody would do it.
There are loads of good spells in the Ranger list that don't require high Wisdom; while a lot of them are more in the out of combat utility area these can still have impacts on combat if alarm prevents you from being surprised, or a stock of goodberries keeps the party topped up at full health etc. Things that Fighters can't do as standard (except a little bit of self-healing via Second Wind).
And again Rangers are not that MAD; they only have two primary stats, and one secondary, everything else is fully optionally. This is true of Fighter as well, since as a pure martial you're probably going to lean towards some mix of all three physical abilities anyway, same as a Barbarian does. The main difference with Fighter is they're affected by being MAD because they get two extra ability score increases, though really those are better spent on feats usually, but it depends what your goals are exactly.
Monks are are a far more MAD class because while Dexterity and Wisdom are arguably their primary scores, they also need a solid Constitution or they just don't have the durability to stay in any fight for long (or have to compensate by burning Ki faster). Monk definitely needs changes to make them less dependant on Constitution as a third score, having the same two primary + one secondary as everyone else should clearly be the goal. The last thing we need is an arms race with already powerful casters able to build with five dump stats.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
the value of needing only one stats, needing two stats, and needing three stats depends on how many extra stats people have. (in terms of power). If everyone easily has enough points to have two stats maxed, the value of needing one stat is limited. lets say points were just flatly given like point spread. 20 20 14 12 10 8. What is the big advantage of only needing con? all it is, is getting to select a second stat freely, but there is no hax advantage for doing so. Whats the actual insane stat combo we are fearing here?
A sorcerer/wizard/etc already usually has max con. So now the sorcerer can choose to be STR. does it actually matter if they choose STR instead of chr?
the power of needing less stats is effective only when you are losing out on stats. needing 3 stats is bad, because you only get enough points to max two. If we got enough points to max 3, the only issue would be one of player agency, not power level.
now, fairness wise, why does one class get to freely choose their other stats, might be a complaint, but thats not OPness problem.
The issue isn't just the end point, it's everything in between; with a single ability score for hit-points, concentration and everything spellcasting related, you could have your character at its hit-point maximum (per level) and casting power by 8th-level (if not sooner), rather than 16th-level (or thereabouts).
To compensate for that you'd have to apply substantial nerfs to these caster(s), and really I just don't see the majority of players actually having a problem with needing two ability scores instead of just one, and most would probably prefer the classes to be balanced in potential and scaling.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
CON/DEX isnt op, rogue, fighter, Ranger already can use that combo. having full benefit in AC is low value. they can get a level zero feat that let's them wear medium armor (and use a shield). It has benefits yes, but does it outweigh the benefits of high CHA? or high anything else? not really.
I didn't say it was overpowered for Fighters or Rogues? But it will be for others if one of those two was also the spellcasting ability score, because it means no trade-offs to maximise not only hit-points/concentration but also spellcasting power. Might as well just propose all casters get to start at 20th-level with their choice of three starting artefacts.
Ranger as I've mentioned in other posts doesn't need a high Wisdom, but building them that way in making a trade-off (sacrificing spell attack and save DC to buff the martial side more). Half casters by their very nature are a balancing act.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Blood Hunter might be a good candidate to use CON as a spellcasting ability score.
Its true that there is an early benefit, but I think its not end all be all, the way the game is designed, one stat is super important, and the other stats are less so. It wouldn't need a massive nerf to compensate, all you'd need to do is give another stat a moderate benefit for that class. Realistically, for a caster, the benefits of early con is literally a couple points difference. A lvl 4 charachter can be 19/16 with point buy. the power level dif at level 4 is therefore +1 hp per level, and +5% chance to keep spell if hit. it peaks at 8, with 2hp and 10%, then goes back to zero benefit.
As I said earlier, I am mostly thinking about new classes/subclasses possibly using con. Sorc is the only one I can see maining con, or maybe barb. The key reason to use CON as main stat in class design is if it aligns with the fantasy, or helps create interesting new playstyle/mevhanic choices. I don't think thats off the table design wise.
simple example, (inspired by pathfinder) lets say sorcerer had a 5-Cha *4% chance to take d10 damage when they use meta magic. Or, could use extra sorcery points by taking damage. ( Now, you have a mechanic that more clearly hits the fantasy of uncontrollable powers, and possibly simulates learning to control it as you level. The benefits to hp and concentration saves balanced by the extra damage and con saves you roll to use you power.
There tons of interesting ways to design in this way which can exemplify fantasies/play that incorporate toughness/survivability/grit. I wouldn't take it off the design table. But I wouldn't just give it randomly, it would have to be doing something for the fantasy/mechanics. I wouldn't just make it an option for the current sorc with no changes, for example. Not necessarily because its OP, but does it serve any purpose, other than an early level benefit?
Agreed. Constitution is tied to hit points and concentration and having it be the main spellcasting ability for a class would be bonkers (in a bad way). And uhhh... Flavorwise, it makes no sense that the ability score about someone's fitness would connect to their magic. I mean, what, am I gonna cast fireball via my pristine musculature and excellent health?
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.WTF are you talking about? I have never ever ever seen a Wizard or Sorcerer with max con. Never! They max out their casting stat, not their Con. By making them Con-casters it allows them to do both thus massively increasing their power.
In my experience, constitution is almost universally a dump stat for casters. I can't recall any I played with that had it higher than 12..
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.you max casting by 8, what do they max after that. I'm not talking about what they max first, I'm talking about their total stat spread. most optimizing wizards go int/con. by 20 they'll have full con.
level 4 looks like 18/16 int/con. this is whopping power difference of 1 mod. hardly game breaking. It doesnt even equal the base differences in classes. A class win con save has better saves, a class with d10 health has better health. All this would mean is the class is slightly tougher than other mages, which might fit the class fantasy, depending on the class concept.
bottom line; tell me what the con casting mages secondary will be, that will noticeably be stronger than the cha/con sorc or the int/con wiz
interesting, what is their secondary stat choice. Optimized sorc/wiz I know usually go con, because the benefit for other stats is virtually nil.
I wouldn't actually call it a "dump stat". I don't think it is for any class. Everyone benefits from having at least some points in constitution. But it's true that Isn't the main stat for any caster. And it shouldn't be, because it would break the balance of the game unless that caster had a very strong weakness.
flavorwise, it would be for a mage whose power requires great fortitude to channel. In other fantasy concepts, it might be an earth mage, or blood mage, possibly an undead mage/necro.
Wizards usually go: 8, 14, 14, 16,12,8 take a +2 INT at 4th, then take feats like Telekinetic, Telepathic or Skill Expert to max out INT by 12th then grab Warcaster or other feats like Tough or some of the species feats with damage resistances or occasionally Elemental Adept or grab a non-combat feat.
Clerics and Druids usually pick up Warcaster at 4th, Fey Touched at 8th, then max out Wis at 12th. They might take Resilient Con at 16 or often will MC at higher levels.
Sorcerers often take Ritual Caster or Warcaster at 4th, Fey Touched or Shadow Touched at 8th, then max out Cha at 12th - though taking Elven Accuracy and Telekinetic instead is often a good choice as well. Usually they take Dex as their secondary stat to up their AC without having to spend both their spells known at 1st level on Mage Armour and Shield.
Bards always take Dex as a secondary stat.
Can't speak for BoringBard, but on my full casters I usually prioritise Dexterity over Constitution, because it benefits AC since mage armor is just like having good light armor you need to remember to cast now and then (unless you're Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer), either that or actual light armour on a Bard. If I can start with +2 in Constitution then I usually don't increase it at all unless I make it odd and pick up Resilient (Constitution) on a non-Sorcerer, otherwise I prefer to get War Caster to help with concentration.
Only exceptions are things like proper Clerics (as opposed to my usual Cleric dips) or a Hexblade since they can have better armour, though you still want a bit of Dexterity to maximise medium armour.
How much you actually need Constitution depends a lot on your DM and group; you'll obviously need to build for concentration if your DM has a habit of using meta-knowledge to focus fire on casters, but that's not really something they should do, as it may not be obvious you even are a caster until enemies see you do something. Though if there's a big obvious spell and you're the only one who could have done it, then they can have at it. Also depends on how likely the back line (ranged characters) are to be threatened, and how good your party is at adapting if they are. Even so, boosting Constitution isn't always the best way to help with concentration; Resilient (Constitution) and/or War Caster are much better than a +1, you only want Constitution if you're also struggling for hit-points, but if you are then you may have bigger issues as many casters have access to false life which should work just as well.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think if I wanted a Sorcerer to reflect their constitution into their ability to cast, I wouldn’t use CON for their casting ability. I would make a blood-magic sorcerer, and let them convert 3 hp per sorcery point, do able 1/turn as a free action (but not the other direction … but I might give them healing word).
They will want to have a high CON, and the Toughness Feat in order to fuel this, but they will still need the high CHA for the actual casting of spells.