From what I have seen at tables where I am a player and at my tables as a DM, the casters tend to hit their casting stat first, then do feats. Wizards I personally have never seen them invest in CON beyond character creation, but I have never played past level 11. Otherwise it is always feats that augment their casting. Bards tend to favor DEX after maybe one or two feats.
From what I have seen, if you are getting hit enough that you are needing to invest in CON as a full caster, you might need to adjust combat position.
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.
^^ This.
I usually go primary intellect stat > Dex > con > other intellect stats > str. If I am going to steal a point for RP or other reasons, I take it from con, and try to avoid being hit in the first place rather than an extra couple of points of health to survive the hit better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
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.
It's mostly nonsense here, The smite spells are generally rarely if ever used, unless really trying to do extreme Nova or hitting situational points, Divine Smite which doesn't cost a bonus action, can be used on attack and doesn't require concentration is almost always used over them. There are a few situational cases but really the smite spells being concentration just makes them even worse, I rarely see them used outside of their marginal situational uses. There is a reason in the UAs they have been trying to buff the Smite spells, removing concentration from literally all of them..
Shield of Faith is good early on, where AC matters more yes. However casting it on yourself is not always the greatest choice since you can still fail the con save on any attack you still take, if you're using it because you're caught out of position or because you're more an off tank than main tank then it works much better. Cleric also get this spell and they are generally much less likely to be on the front line and if they are, it's almost certainly not as main tank.
As for other spells for concentration, Bless, Divine Favour, Heroism, Spirit Shroud, Aura of Life, Aura of Purity, Circle of Power, Holy Weapon and Summon Celestial. Since Paladins generally do not use range, Bless is a good use for a round where attacking is difficult. Divine Favour would be fantastic damage, if you can ensure it stays up the whole combat, albeit being less damage than Hex or Hunter's Mark, it does not need moving around like they do. Heroism is good for getting rid of the frightened condition and is actually a great source of temporary HP as the temporary HP comes back every round. Spirit Shroud is basically a better Heroism while the Auras have their situational uses. Circle of Power is good for late game, Holy Weapon is more damage and Summon Celestial is an actual Paladin combat summon. All of these are concentration spells which don't work great with bad con-saves. Arguable Bless helps it's own con saves but that is only one of 9 different non-smite spells with combat utility.
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?
From the Oath, Paladins get their divine energy from their own internalized belief and dedication to their oath, this is literally how Paladin works lore wise in 5E. Paladins do not get power from a Deity like a Cleric does. A Paladin may serve a Deity or Deities but this is not actually a requirement, you can have an Atheist Paladin in 5E and they'd still have their powers and have Channel Divinity while, where as an Atheist Cleric is not really something that works in most settings.
And again Rangers are not that MAD
Err, yes they clearly are MAD, remind me again, what are the multi-class requirements of a Ranger? Dexterity 13 AND Wisdom 13, and yes as a Ranger, you always want Wisdom, not as much as you want Dexterity, it is not a choice like Paladin can potentially be but you still want Wisdom, it is not just required features but also for checks, Ranger tends to be an alternative to Rogue for stealthier activities, the "Expert Group" being that, so if you want your Perception, your Insight and your Survival (this latter one more so), these are all Wisdom based. In a party, a Ranger with a bow might be on back lines but you'd still want your ranger to be ready to move in to protect the casters should anything happen and AoEs still exist, so having HP and con saves still does matter.
Edit: mixed shield of faith with sanctuary for some reason... fixed.
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.
Bards always take Dex as a secondary stat.
First off, I'm not saying every caster should get an option to go con. I am saying designing a class with con as a spellcasting stat could be a good design choice, I think sorcerer could have a con main stat, though I'd expect features to play with this.
Also, looking at these choices, it looks like con's power is overated. only one caster by your take values con over some form of utility. and even that was a maybe. Its looking like if they could choose a casting stat, many might not even choose con.
interesting, what is their secondary stat choice. Optimized sorc/wiz I know usually go con, because the benefit for other stats is virtually nil.
Typically dexterity is the second most valued stat. And looking back at my post, no spellslinger with 12 or higher constitution is inaccurate, given that I'm playing one with a score of 14 in that field right now. But my point still stands: Outside of that, find it rare to see a caster who really cares about con and I typically see it as a dump stat. I do play with mostly newer players outside of my PBP game on this salt, so that's something to keep in mind. But generally and in my time playing, I don't think con is seen as hugely important for casters and its certainly drastically less important than the main casting ability.
PS. May we please trim quotes here?
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.
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.
That's basically giving the sorcerer infinite magic.
Imagine a Divine Soul Sorcerer Good affinity. Outside of combat you invest almost all your life in sorcery points that you convert into spell slots, you heal to the maximum with cure wounds, and you start again. Infinite spell slots.
It's mostly nonsense here, The smite spells are generally rarely if ever used, unless really trying to do extreme Nova or hitting situational points, Divine Smite which doesn't cost a bonus action, can be used on attack and doesn't require concentration is almost always used over them. There are a few situational cases but really the smite spells being concentration just makes them even worse, I rarely see them used outside of their marginal situational uses. There is a reason in the UAs they have been trying to buff the Smite spells, removing concentration from literally all of them..
Pretty sure I said all of that?
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?
From the Oath, Paladins get their divine energy from their own internalized belief and dedication to their oath, this is literally how Paladin works lore wise in 5E.
Nothing in the lore says this; in 5e paladins of various deities still exist, the oaths clearly are not something you just pledge to do and immediately get all the benefits for free because for the millionth time if they were then literally everyone would be a Paladin.
Paladins do not get power from a Deity like a Cleric does. A Paladin may serve a Deity or Deities but this is not actually a requirement
It's not a requirement that a Paladin declares or establishes which deity or deities their oath is to, but that doesn't mean there isn't one involved. Someone or something must define the oath, because it can't be the Paladin otherwise everyone could just swear an oath to do whatever the (figurative) hell they want and get unlimited divine power forever.
you can have an Atheist Paladin in 5E and they'd still have their powers and have Channel Divinity
There's no such thing as a proper atheist in the Forgotten Realms because deities have tangible observable influence on the world; you can't go two feet without tripping over a deity. Even if someone chooses to deny that and refuses to believe in any gods, if they're upholding an oath that a deity supports then the deity can grant its power if it wants.
Kelemvor for example could support the oath of any Paladin that swears to destroy the undead because that's what he's into. We can see this throughout the class description but here's one example:
Although many paladins are devoted to gods of good, a paladin’s power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god.
Not "it can come from either their commitment or a god", it comes from both; the oath is the "contract" that binds the Paladin to a particular path, but there is a deity (or pantheon, or the forces of good in their entirety) involved in granting that power to those that abide by that oath. The Paladin just doesn't need to be devoted to any of them, or even be aware of them, to swear the oath and uphold it.
And again Rangers are not that MAD
Err, yes they clearly are MAD, what are the multi-class requirements of a Ranger? Dexterity 13 AND Wisdom 13
Read what I said again please, because of course Rangers are Multiple Ability Dependent in the sense that they need more than one, but they're no more MAD than any other MAD class (meanwhile Monk has Ranger beat hands down on ability score difficulties).
And this was supposed to be about you justifying why Paladin or Ranger specifically need Constitution spellcasting when there's no clear mechanical or lore justification (other than you want them to be both stronger and less MAD than other classes). But I'm getting really tired of going around in circles on this, as it's getting more and more offtopic, and you're the one that replied to me claiming it would barely change anything, when it clearly does. I still stand by my first post, which is as correct now as it was then.
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 feel like the poll results are somewhat skewed by the assumption that Sorcerer wouldn't be getting a rework to balance out CON as a casting stat. Most arguments against it are balance-related rather than based on flavor. Balance issues can always be ironed out through class design. Flavor can't.
I feel like the poll results are somewhat skewed by the assumption that Sorcerer wouldn't be getting a rework to balance out CON as a casting stat. Most arguments against it are balance-related rather than based on flavor. Balance issues can always be ironed out through class design. Flavor can't.
The problem is how do you balance it out without making it worse overall?
Constitution as the casting stat as a concept is problematic because it already has such valuable benefits before you make it your spellcasting ability score as well.
People have suggested dropping Sorcerer from a d6 hit dice to a d4 hit dice. But that would only drop their average hit-points per level by 1; if we go by your typical 8th-level 5e Sorcerer's CON of +2, maybe +3, and compare that to proposed Sorcerer who could easily have +5 at the same point, then that's not enough of a drop, you'd need to make their hit dice d2 to keep them only roughly the same as a 5e Sorcerer investing in decent starting CON, but that would limit the maximum hit-points that a Sorcerer is capable of to be a lot lower than they can get now.
The only other alternative really is to give them features that are actively disadvantages to compensate, but that will suck for anyone used to playing 5e Sorcerer, or any other caster. Either is just slapping on a big detriment to the class which is going to make it horrible as a main class, and potentially open up weird exploits for classes that can dip into it without suffering too badly from those drawbacks.
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.
Typically dexterity is the second most valued stat. And looking back at my post, no spellslinger with 12 or higher constitution is inaccurate, given that I'm playing one with a score of 14 in that field right now. But my point still stands: Outside of that, find it rare to see a caster who really cares about con and I typically see it as a dump stat. I do play with mostly newer players outside of my PBP game on this salt, so that's something to keep in mind. But generally and in my time playing, I don't think con is seen as hugely important for casters and its certainly drastically less important than the main casting ability.
Con is generally the largest single increase to durability -- a character with AC 15 and Con 14 is almost certainly more able to withstand more attacks than a character with AC 16 and Con 12 -- it's just that it doesn't do anything exciting.
I have to say Sorcerer's should use CON as a casting stat.
First, CON Sorcerer distinguishes it from Wizard. In 5E Sorcerer and Wizard had similar starting points: d6 HP, Unarmored, and arcane spells. Wizards vs Sorcerer already invites comparison. I suspect the unified Arcane spell list failed because of causing "If they have the same spell list, what is the difference between Wizard and Sorcerer anyway?"
CON Sorcerer becomes an obvious choice for new players wanting a spell caster. Simple and survivable. Able to choose other stats for role play. Easily passes concentration checks.
CON Sorcerer could use Blood Hunter style abilities to sacrifice HP for effects.
Sorcerer subclasses could have significantly more variety. Such as a melee subclass.
Multiclassing for story purposes (eg Barbarian + Sorcerer) would be interesting. But designers would have to watch out for every possible multiclass possibility.
Switching Sorcerer from CHA to CON would reduce the number of CHA classes from 4 to 3 (depending on if Warlock's casting stat changes).
The valid concern about balance could be addressed in many ways.
If you ever need proof that D&D is really just a combat simulator with fluff all you have to do is read these post. If Con is you Spellcasting stat yes you get better hp, and better concentration. This doesn’t mean that you automatically get proficiency in Con saves. Also concentration and hp don’t matter if you don’t get hit. It does mean you no longer have a strong reason to improve your mental stats which improve your skill checks. So now you are weaker in other pillars of play. If a Paladin, Sorcerer, or Warlock became Con caster they are no longer the party face. If a wizard is a Con caster he has to struggle for arcana and history checks. If a Druid became a con caster suddenly keeping your mental stats while in Wild shape isn’t that great, and they aren’t super perceptive or insightful anymore. There is definitely a loss to switching to Con as a casting stat. Now I would not allow a con caster to use their Spellcasting stat for weapon attacks like 5eR Warlock, Hexblade warlock or Battlesmith Artificer. That might be a little too much. Also I would have Con as a flexible casting stat option. And leave everyone’s saving throws, and features alone. So a Con Wizard would likely have less prepared spells than an Int Wizard. If Con is going to be the sole casting stat option I could accept it for Sorcerer, Warlock, and/or Druid. I think it would be clunky as the sole casting stat on other classes. It could work, but if a Wizard additional spells prepared was based on Int, and your Spellcasting stat had to be Con with no choice that might not be fun.
If you ever need proof that D&D is really just a combat simulator with fluff all you have to do is read these post. If Con is you Spellcasting stat yes you get better hp, and better concentration. This doesn’t mean that you automatically get proficiency in Con saves. Also concentration and hp don’t matter if you don’t get hit. It does mean you no longer have a strong reason to improve your mental stats which improve your skill checks. So now you are weaker in other pillars of play. If a Paladin, Sorcerer, or Warlock became Con caster they are no longer the party face. If a wizard is a Con caster he has to struggle for arcana and history checks. If a Druid became a con caster suddenly keeping your mental stats while in Wild shape isn’t that great, and they aren’t super perceptive or insightful anymore. There is definitely a loss to switching to Con as a casting stat. Now I would not allow a con caster to use their Spellcasting stat for weapon attacks like 5eR Warlock, Hexblade warlock or Battlesmith Artificer. That might be a little too much. Also I would have Con as a flexible casting stat option. And leave everyone’s saving throws, and features alone. So a Con Wizard would likely have less prepared spells than an Int Wizard. If Con is going to be the sole casting stat option I could accept it for Sorcerer, Warlock, and/or Druid. I think it would be clunky as the sole casting stat on other classes. It could work, but if a Wizard additional spells prepared was based on Int, and your Spellcasting stat had to be Con with no choice that might not be fun.
If using Constitution as a casting stat is equivalent to using any other stat, as you seem to claim, then riddle me this: why don't martials dump Constitution the way they dump mental stats?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Typically dexterity is the second most valued stat. And looking back at my post, no spellslinger with 12 or higher constitution is inaccurate, given that I'm playing one with a score of 14 in that field right now. But my point still stands: Outside of that, find it rare to see a caster who really cares about con and I typically see it as a dump stat. I do play with mostly newer players outside of my PBP game on this salt, so that's something to keep in mind. But generally and in my time playing, I don't think con is seen as hugely important for casters and its certainly drastically less important than the main casting ability.
Con is generally the largest single increase to durability -- a character with AC 15 and Con 14 is almost certainly more able to withstand more attacks than a character with AC 16 and Con 12 -- it's just that it doesn't do anything exciting.
Yeah. I agree that it seems more powerful for casters in my eyes, but I think most people still value dexterity over it and don't have high con as a result. Hence one of the reasons why making con a spellcasting ability would be massively different and have the stat be a megawatt higher for most.
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.
If using Constitution as a casting stat is equivalent to using any other stat, as you seem to claim, then riddle me this: why don't martials dump Constitution the way they dump mental stats?
Constitution is the only stat I don't see dumped by anyone, an 8 con is going to kill you no matter what class you play unless the game is incredibly easy.
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.
That's basically giving the sorcerer infinite magic.
Imagine a Divine Soul Sorcerer Good affinity. Outside of combat you invest almost all your life in sorcery points that you convert into spell slots, you heal to the maximum with cure wounds, and you start again. Infinite spell slots.
1- how are you going to have two sorcerer subclasses? ( divine soul and blood-magic)?
2- do one or the other (or both! of these:
2a- if the conversion cost of hp to sp is high enough, it won’t be worth it. Just adjust that.
2b- make the converted HP lower your maximum HP until you complete a long rest.
If you ever need proof that D&D is really just a combat simulator with fluff all you have to do is read these post. If Con is you Spellcasting stat yes you get better hp, and better concentration. This doesn’t mean that you automatically get proficiency in Con saves. Also concentration and hp don’t matter if you don’t get hit. It does mean you no longer have a strong reason to improve your mental stats which improve your skill checks. So now you are weaker in other pillars of play. If a Paladin, Sorcerer, or Warlock became Con caster they are no longer the party face. If a wizard is a Con caster he has to struggle for arcana and history checks. If a Druid became a con caster suddenly keeping your mental stats while in Wild shape isn’t that great, and they aren’t super perceptive or insightful anymore. There is definitely a loss to switching to Con as a casting stat. Now I would not allow a con caster to use their Spellcasting stat for weapon attacks like 5eR Warlock, Hexblade warlock or Battlesmith Artificer. That might be a little too much. Also I would have Con as a flexible casting stat option. And leave everyone’s saving throws, and features alone. So a Con Wizard would likely have less prepared spells than an Int Wizard. If Con is going to be the sole casting stat option I could accept it for Sorcerer, Warlock, and/or Druid. I think it would be clunky as the sole casting stat on other classes. It could work, but if a Wizard additional spells prepared was based on Int, and your Spellcasting stat had to be Con with no choice that might not be fun.
If using Constitution as a casting stat is equivalent to using any other stat, as you seem to claim, then riddle me this: why don't martials dump Constitution the way they dump mental stats?
just because it sucks at 8, doesnt mean it needs to be top two. Apparently con past 14 has no real value to most caster builds. But yeah different classes have different stat priorities, thats not really proof of much. Monk needs 3-4 stats, thats more about the monk class than the native value of stats.
Essentially the main value of stats is skills, if its not specifically needed by your class. Con is the only stat tied to no skills. So having a high stat investment in con, means your skills are worse. your ability to hold a con spell is 3 higher, in exchange for something being 3 worse.
Annnd sucking at skills is not great in dnd. it tends to limit your narrative choices. It begins to get pretty annoying when you can never convince any one, never see enemies coming, etc.
people pick defense stats only up to the point of survival.
If you ever need proof that D&D is really just a combat simulator with fluff all you have to do is read these post. If Con is you Spellcasting stat yes you get better hp, and better concentration. This doesn’t mean that you automatically get proficiency in Con saves. Also concentration and hp don’t matter if you don’t get hit. It does mean you no longer have a strong reason to improve your mental stats which improve your skill checks. So now you are weaker in other pillars of play. If a Paladin, Sorcerer, or Warlock became Con caster they are no longer the party face. If a wizard is a Con caster he has to struggle for arcana and history checks. If a Druid became a con caster suddenly keeping your mental stats while in Wild shape isn’t that great, and they aren’t super perceptive or insightful anymore. There is definitely a loss to switching to Con as a casting stat. Now I would not allow a con caster to use their Spellcasting stat for weapon attacks like 5eR Warlock, Hexblade warlock or Battlesmith Artificer. That might be a little too much. Also I would have Con as a flexible casting stat option. And leave everyone’s saving throws, and features alone. So a Con Wizard would likely have less prepared spells than an Int Wizard. If Con is going to be the sole casting stat option I could accept it for Sorcerer, Warlock, and/or Druid. I think it would be clunky as the sole casting stat on other classes. It could work, but if a Wizard additional spells prepared was based on Int, and your Spellcasting stat had to be Con with no choice that might not be fun.
If using Constitution as a casting stat is equivalent to using any other stat, as you seem to claim, then riddle me this: why don't martials dump Constitution the way they dump mental stats?
Bad riddle, I’ve definitely built ranged Martials with 12 Con.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
From what I have seen at tables where I am a player and at my tables as a DM, the casters tend to hit their casting stat first, then do feats. Wizards I personally have never seen them invest in CON beyond character creation, but I have never played past level 11. Otherwise it is always feats that augment their casting. Bards tend to favor DEX after maybe one or two feats.
From what I have seen, if you are getting hit enough that you are needing to invest in CON as a full caster, you might need to adjust combat position.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
^^ This.
I usually go primary intellect stat > Dex > con > other intellect stats > str. If I am going to steal a point for RP or other reasons, I take it from con, and try to avoid being hit in the first place rather than an extra couple of points of health to survive the hit better.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
It's mostly nonsense here, The smite spells are generally rarely if ever used, unless really trying to do extreme Nova or hitting situational points, Divine Smite which doesn't cost a bonus action, can be used on attack and doesn't require concentration is almost always used over them. There are a few situational cases but really the smite spells being concentration just makes them even worse, I rarely see them used outside of their marginal situational uses. There is a reason in the UAs they have been trying to buff the Smite spells, removing concentration from literally all of them..
Shield of Faith is good early on, where AC matters more yes. However casting it on yourself is not always the greatest choice since you can still fail the con save on any attack you still take, if you're using it because you're caught out of position or because you're more an off tank than main tank then it works much better. Cleric also get this spell and they are generally much less likely to be on the front line and if they are, it's almost certainly not as main tank.
As for other spells for concentration, Bless, Divine Favour, Heroism, Spirit Shroud, Aura of Life, Aura of Purity, Circle of Power, Holy Weapon and Summon Celestial. Since Paladins generally do not use range, Bless is a good use for a round where attacking is difficult. Divine Favour would be fantastic damage, if you can ensure it stays up the whole combat, albeit being less damage than Hex or Hunter's Mark, it does not need moving around like they do. Heroism is good for getting rid of the frightened condition and is actually a great source of temporary HP as the temporary HP comes back every round. Spirit Shroud is basically a better Heroism while the Auras have their situational uses. Circle of Power is good for late game, Holy Weapon is more damage and Summon Celestial is an actual Paladin combat summon. All of these are concentration spells which don't work great with bad con-saves. Arguable Bless helps it's own con saves but that is only one of 9 different non-smite spells with combat utility.
From the Oath, Paladins get their divine energy from their own internalized belief and dedication to their oath, this is literally how Paladin works lore wise in 5E. Paladins do not get power from a Deity like a Cleric does. A Paladin may serve a Deity or Deities but this is not actually a requirement, you can have an Atheist Paladin in 5E and they'd still have their powers and have Channel Divinity while, where as an Atheist Cleric is not really something that works in most settings.
Err, yes they clearly are MAD, remind me again, what are the multi-class requirements of a Ranger? Dexterity 13 AND Wisdom 13, and yes as a Ranger, you always want Wisdom, not as much as you want Dexterity, it is not a choice like Paladin can potentially be but you still want Wisdom, it is not just required features but also for checks, Ranger tends to be an alternative to Rogue for stealthier activities, the "Expert Group" being that, so if you want your Perception, your Insight and your Survival (this latter one more so), these are all Wisdom based. In a party, a Ranger with a bow might be on back lines but you'd still want your ranger to be ready to move in to protect the casters should anything happen and AoEs still exist, so having HP and con saves still does matter.
Edit: mixed shield of faith with sanctuary for some reason... fixed.
First off, I'm not saying every caster should get an option to go con. I am saying designing a class with con as a spellcasting stat could be a good design choice, I think sorcerer could have a con main stat, though I'd expect features to play with this.
Also, looking at these choices, it looks like con's power is overated. only one caster by your take values con over some form of utility. and even that was a maybe. Its looking like if they could choose a casting stat, many might not even choose con.
Typically dexterity is the second most valued stat. And looking back at my post, no spellslinger with 12 or higher constitution is inaccurate, given that I'm playing one with a score of 14 in that field right now. But my point still stands: Outside of that, find it rare to see a caster who really cares about con and I typically see it as a dump stat. I do play with mostly newer players outside of my PBP game on this salt, so that's something to keep in mind. But generally and in my time playing, I don't think con is seen as hugely important for casters and its certainly drastically less important than the main casting ability.
PS. May we please trim quotes here?
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.That's basically giving the sorcerer infinite magic.
Imagine a Divine Soul Sorcerer Good affinity. Outside of combat you invest almost all your life in sorcery points that you convert into spell slots, you heal to the maximum with cure wounds, and you start again. Infinite spell slots.
Pretty sure I said all of that?
Nothing in the lore says this; in 5e paladins of various deities still exist, the oaths clearly are not something you just pledge to do and immediately get all the benefits for free because for the millionth time if they were then literally everyone would be a Paladin.
It's not a requirement that a Paladin declares or establishes which deity or deities their oath is to, but that doesn't mean there isn't one involved. Someone or something must define the oath, because it can't be the Paladin otherwise everyone could just swear an oath to do whatever the (figurative) hell they want and get unlimited divine power forever.
There's no such thing as a proper atheist in the Forgotten Realms because deities have tangible observable influence on the world; you can't go two feet without tripping over a deity. Even if someone chooses to deny that and refuses to believe in any gods, if they're upholding an oath that a deity supports then the deity can grant its power if it wants.
Kelemvor for example could support the oath of any Paladin that swears to destroy the undead because that's what he's into. We can see this throughout the class description but here's one example:
Not "it can come from either their commitment or a god", it comes from both; the oath is the "contract" that binds the Paladin to a particular path, but there is a deity (or pantheon, or the forces of good in their entirety) involved in granting that power to those that abide by that oath. The Paladin just doesn't need to be devoted to any of them, or even be aware of them, to swear the oath and uphold it.
Read what I said again please, because of course Rangers are Multiple Ability Dependent in the sense that they need more than one, but they're no more MAD than any other MAD class (meanwhile Monk has Ranger beat hands down on ability score difficulties).
And this was supposed to be about you justifying why Paladin or Ranger specifically need Constitution spellcasting when there's no clear mechanical or lore justification (other than you want them to be both stronger and less MAD than other classes). But I'm getting really tired of going around in circles on this, as it's getting more and more offtopic, and you're the one that replied to me claiming it would barely change anything, when it clearly does. I still stand by my first post, which is as correct now as it was then.
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 feel like the poll results are somewhat skewed by the assumption that Sorcerer wouldn't be getting a rework to balance out CON as a casting stat. Most arguments against it are balance-related rather than based on flavor. Balance issues can always be ironed out through class design. Flavor can't.
The problem is how do you balance it out without making it worse overall?
Constitution as the casting stat as a concept is problematic because it already has such valuable benefits before you make it your spellcasting ability score as well.
People have suggested dropping Sorcerer from a d6 hit dice to a d4 hit dice. But that would only drop their average hit-points per level by 1; if we go by your typical 8th-level 5e Sorcerer's CON of +2, maybe +3, and compare that to proposed Sorcerer who could easily have +5 at the same point, then that's not enough of a drop, you'd need to make their hit dice d2 to keep them only roughly the same as a 5e Sorcerer investing in decent starting CON, but that would limit the maximum hit-points that a Sorcerer is capable of to be a lot lower than they can get now.
The only other alternative really is to give them features that are actively disadvantages to compensate, but that will suck for anyone used to playing 5e Sorcerer, or any other caster. Either is just slapping on a big detriment to the class which is going to make it horrible as a main class, and potentially open up weird exploits for classes that can dip into it without suffering too badly from those drawbacks.
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.
In the end, constitution is valuable enough already that anything you add to it would be too much.
Con is generally the largest single increase to durability -- a character with AC 15 and Con 14 is almost certainly more able to withstand more attacks than a character with AC 16 and Con 12 -- it's just that it doesn't do anything exciting.
I have to say Sorcerer's should use CON as a casting stat.
The valid concern about balance could be addressed in many ways.
If you ever need proof that D&D is really just a combat simulator with fluff all you have to do is read these post. If Con is you Spellcasting stat yes you get better hp, and better concentration. This doesn’t mean that you automatically get proficiency in Con saves. Also concentration and hp don’t matter if you don’t get hit. It does mean you no longer have a strong reason to improve your mental stats which improve your skill checks. So now you are weaker in other pillars of play. If a Paladin, Sorcerer, or Warlock became Con caster they are no longer the party face. If a wizard is a Con caster he has to struggle for arcana and history checks. If a Druid became a con caster suddenly keeping your mental stats while in Wild shape isn’t that great, and they aren’t super perceptive or insightful anymore. There is definitely a loss to switching to Con as a casting stat. Now I would not allow a con caster to use their Spellcasting stat for weapon attacks like 5eR Warlock, Hexblade warlock or Battlesmith Artificer. That might be a little too much. Also I would have Con as a flexible casting stat option. And leave everyone’s saving throws, and features alone. So a Con Wizard would likely have less prepared spells than an Int Wizard. If Con is going to be the sole casting stat option I could accept it for Sorcerer, Warlock, and/or Druid. I think it would be clunky as the sole casting stat on other classes. It could work, but if a Wizard additional spells prepared was based on Int, and your Spellcasting stat had to be Con with no choice that might not be fun.
If using Constitution as a casting stat is equivalent to using any other stat, as you seem to claim, then riddle me this: why don't martials dump Constitution the way they dump mental stats?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Yeah. I agree that it seems more powerful for casters in my eyes, but I think most people still value dexterity over it and don't have high con as a result. Hence one of the reasons why making con a spellcasting ability would be massively different and have the stat be a megawatt higher for most.
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.Constitution is the only stat I don't see dumped by anyone, an 8 con is going to kill you no matter what class you play unless the game is incredibly easy.
Heck no, Con would be stupid broken as a caster stat.
1- how are you going to have two sorcerer subclasses? ( divine soul and blood-magic)?
2- do one or the other (or both! of these:
2a- if the conversion cost of hp to sp is high enough, it won’t be worth it. Just adjust that.
2b- make the converted HP lower your maximum HP until you complete a long rest.
just because it sucks at 8, doesnt mean it needs to be top two. Apparently con past 14 has no real value to most caster builds. But yeah different classes have different stat priorities, thats not really proof of much. Monk needs 3-4 stats, thats more about the monk class than the native value of stats.
Essentially the main value of stats is skills, if its not specifically needed by your class. Con is the only stat tied to no skills. So having a high stat investment in con, means your skills are worse. your ability to hold a con spell is 3 higher, in exchange for something being 3 worse.
Annnd sucking at skills is not great in dnd. it tends to limit your narrative choices. It begins to get pretty annoying when you can never convince any one, never see enemies coming, etc.
people pick defense stats only up to the point of survival.
On point build, getting to 16 for anything but your primary attribute is very expensive. I tend to see 14 in both Con and Dex.
Bad riddle, I’ve definitely built ranged Martials with 12 Con.