Con "Caster" more possible with tashas?

[moonfly7]

This is a topic I've seen discussed before on the playground, particularly when Eberron came out and we found out that Aberrant Mark used Con for its cantrip and Spell. With the introduction of the Rune Knight Fighter and the WildMagic Barbarian we have two decidedly magical classes that utilize Con for there save DCs. Obviously it's not 100% a con caster but a fire genasi with Aberrant Mark that has levels in either of these is going to get closer than any other has before.

[XmonkTad]

This is a topic I've seen discussed before on the playground, particularly when Eberron came out and we found out that Aberrant Mark used Con for its cantrip and Spell. With the introduction of the Rune Knight Fighter and the WildMagic Barbarian we have two decidedly magical classes that utilize Con for there save DCs. Obviously it's not 100% a con caster but a fire genasi with Aberrant Mark that has levels in either of these is going to get closer than any other has before.

A CON caster sounds like a cool idea. A Rune Knight can't really "cast" and still relies on weapon attacks and I don't see any runes that augment the Genasi Produce Flame cantrip (unless Frost Rune would apply to spell attacks??). I could very much see a Rune Knight 3/ WMB 17 being very CON dependent though not quite SAD. With the small problem that you can't cast produce flame while raging, so there's some antisynergy there.

[Garfunion]

I always felt the sorcerer should’ve been the Con caster, we already have enough Cha casters.

[AttilatheYeon]

My sorcerer in Rime of the Frost Maiden has the charlatan background. I think that should qualify him as a con caster. Hmmm. Maybe i need the criminal background to truly be a con caster.

[Throne12]

We have made it a switch yet but we all feel the sorcerer should be a con caster. Because of how they get or are born with there magic. And there are too many charisma casters.

[sayaijin]

I was hoping the Con-based caster would be something like the blood hunter. Using their own life (HP) to augment their spell casting.

[Joe the Rat]

I always felt the sorcerer should’ve been the Con caster, we already have enough Cha casters.


We have made it a switch yet but we all feel the sorcerer should be a con caster. Because of how they get or are born with there magic. And there are too many charisma casters.

If they'd stuck to their guns and kept Warlock as Int caster (as in early Next), we would have had a nice balance: 2 Int (Wizard, Warlock), 2 Wis (Cleric, Druid), 2 Cha (Bard, Sorcerer).

[Mr Adventurer]

Casting stat could have been a function of Warlock Pact Boon: Int for Tome, Cha for Chain, Con for Blade...

[moonfly7]

A CON caster sounds like a cool idea. A Rune Knight can't really "cast" and still relies on weapon attacks and I don't see any runes that augment the Genasi Produce Flame cantrip (unless Frost Rune would apply to spell attacks??). I could very much see a Rune Knight 3/ WMB 17 being very CON dependent though not quite SAD. With the small problem that you can't cast produce flame while raging, so there's some antisynergy there.
The only reason I mentioned Genasi isn't for synergy, it's because it uses Constitution for it's spell and Cantrip, which, even if it doesn't synergize 100% with the Rune Knight still lends more substance to the flavor since you do actually have some spells that rely on Con. As for Rune Knight not being a "Caster" thats kind of the point, it's as close as we can get to a con caster and refluffing/flavoring it would be easy.

I always felt the sorcerer should’ve been the Con caster, we already have enough Cha casters.
100% agree my friend. Every time I bring it up I get like 20 people telling me why thats stupid or broken or whatever but I've never understood why. Sorcerer's naturally cast magic, it's in their DNA, Con represents our bodies, I feel like it's a no brainer.

We have made it a switch yet but we all feel the sorcerer should be a con caster. Because of how they get or are born with there magic. And there are too many charisma casters.
Amen my friend, Amen.

Casting stat could have been a function of Warlock Pact Boon: Int for Tome, Cha for Chain, Con for Blade...
that....is not something I considered but it's an awesome Idea. the only issue is that you get that at level 3 so what about before that? Also what would amulet be? personally I think Blade would be Strength or Dex and Con would be amulet.

My sorcerer in Rime of the Frost Maiden has the charlatan background. I think that should qualify him as a con caster. Hmmm. Maybe i need the criminal background to truly be a con caster.

This made me chuckle. thank you.

[Mr Adventurer]

that....is not something I considered but it's an awesome Idea. the only issue is that you get that at level 3 so what about before that? Also what would amulet be? personally I think Blade would be Strength or Dex and Con would be amulet.

Yeah, you'd have to finesse a few things wouldn't you. Hmm. Maybe just have Warlocks choose Pact Boon at level 2 but just keep benefits where they are. That's the simplest way but it's a bit hacky.

Amulet is the outlier. I barely understand Amulet. Wis for Amulet (connection to others)?

Making Str or Dex casting stats might be wonky because they're already primary attack stats. The comments Hexblade already gets demonstrates some of the pitfalls with the approach.

[Valmark]

100% agree my friend. Every time I bring it up I get like 20 people telling me why thats stupid or broken or whatever but I've never understood why. Sorcerer's naturally cast magic, it's in their DNA, Con represents our bodies, I feel like it's a no brainer.



Probably because it makes them need one less stat- I personally don't consider it much of a change, but I can see how making a caster key off the same stat that governs hp and Concentration checks could make a few heads turn.

I personally find that balanced by leading to lower Cha saves and worst skill. Especially the former. **** those saves.

[Willie the Duck]

Probably because it makes them need one less stat- I personally don't consider it much of a change, but I can see how making a caster key off the same stat that governs hp and Concentration checks could make a few heads turn.

In a system where you never were going to have your Con or your casting stat less than 14, and lots of people using arrays already, it was never going to be thaaat big of a deal. I think much of the complaints are more 'principle of the thing' kind of arguments.

Personally I think Con has become something of an artefact stat in general and would rather see it removed completely rather than casters key off of it, but barring that I don't see a problem with Con casters.

[moonfly7]

In a system where you never were going to have your Con or your casting stat less than 14, and lots of people using arrays already, it was never going to be thaaat big of a deal. I think much of the complaints are more 'principle of the thing' kind of arguments.

Personally I think Con has become something of an artefact stat in general and would rather see it removed completely rather than casters key off of it, but barring that I don't see a problem with Con casters.

I like con a lot personally, and it's always bothered me that we don't have skills or classes tied to it. a Con caster would be awesome and I'm still grumpy that sorcerer isn't one.

[Keltest]

I like con a lot personally, and it's always bothered me that we don't have skills or classes tied to it. a Con caster would be awesome and I'm still grumpy that sorcerer isn't one.

Con is already in the top two stats for every class. Does it really need even more value?

[noob]

They could have made bards be int prepared casters as they were when they started.
Maybe they could give the option for sorcerers to be str casters?

[Garfunion]

They could have made bards be int prepared casters as they were when they started.
Maybe they could give the option for sorcerers to be str casters?

I think that was a option in 4e.

[moonfly7]

Con is already in the top two stats for every class. Does it really need even more value?

Ah yes, I was wondering how long it would take one of you to get here. Very good.

[Valmark]

Con is already in the top two stats for every class. Does it really need even more value?

Honestly, Con isn't nearly as important as it looks depending on character and campaign. I know most of my characters treat it as either the third or fourth most important stat.

[Keltest]

Honestly, Con isn't nearly as important as it looks depending on character and campaign. I know most of my characters treat it as either the third or fourth most important stat.

It doesnt have to be important to be valuable. It controls hit points and Con saves, two things that primary casters traditionally are less than peak in. Even if its not your highest priority, its always better to have more than less.

[Valmark]

It doesnt have to be important to be valuable. It controls hit points and Con saves, two things that primary casters traditionally are less than peak in. Even if its not your highest priority, its always better to have more than less.

Agreed on this- it's way different from saying that it's one of the top two stats for every class.

[AttilatheYeon]

The only reason I mentioned Genasi isn't for synergy, it's because it uses Constitution for it's spell and Cantrip, which, even if it doesn't synergize 100% with the Rune Knight still lends more substance to the flavor since you do actually have some spells that rely on Con. As for Rune Knight not being a "Caster" thats kind of the point, it's as close as we can get to a con caster and refluffing/flavoring it would be easy.

100% agree my friend. Every time I bring it up I get like 20 people telling me why thats stupid or broken or whatever but I've never understood why. Sorcerer's naturally cast magic, it's in their DNA, Con represents our bodies, I feel like it's a no brainer.

Amen my friend, Amen.

that....is not something I considered but it's an awesome Idea. the only issue is that you get that at level 3 so what about before that? Also what would amulet be? personally I think Blade would be Strength or Dex and Con would be amulet.


This made me chuckle. thank you.

You're welcome :-D

[Rule-Of-Three]

It's homebrew, so obviously apply sparingly as appropriate, but my table has long complained about the 5e sorceror, so I made some changes. I made CON the casting stat, and reintroduced overchanneling (from 2e Spells&Magic), allowing them to cast with no spell slots, spells they don't know, or spells of higher than normal level at great personal risk. Penalties on a successful attempt are exhaustion and a single automatic failure of a death save, failure can include damage, more failed death saves, and a wild surge-like effect.

The concept is that they are tapping into their genetic legacy and memory of potent, innate magic, but at great cost. Doing it even once a session is already risky, but potentially worth it. The campaign lasted about a dozen sessions, and my players are more story driven than mechanical, so didn't get the hardest stress test. Still, it was fun in application, as my sorceror player would have a clever idea, I'd calculate the odds, and we'd all watch with baited breath whether the attempt would rip him apart or not.

[XmonkTad]

The only reason I mentioned Genasi isn't for synergy, it's because it uses Constitution for it's spell and Cantrip, which, even if it doesn't synergize 100% with the Rune Knight still lends more substance to the flavor since you do actually have some spells that rely on Con. As for Rune Knight not being a "Caster" thats kind of the point, it's as close as we can get to a con caster and refluffing/flavoring it would be easy.

OK, I see. Maybe we'll both get our wish and Incarnum casters will be a CON based thing.

[Mr Adventurer]

It's homebrew, so obviously apply sparingly as appropriate, but my table has long complained about the 5e sorceror, so I made some changes. I made CON the casting stat, and reintroduced overchanneling (from 2e Spells&Magic), allowing them to cast with no spell slots, spells they don't know, or spells of higher than normal level at great personal risk. Penalties on a successful attempt are exhaustion and a single automatic failure of a death save, failure can include damage, more failed death saves, and a wild surge-like effect.

What's the check?

[LordCdrMilitant]

Oh god, I think there absolutely should not be a CON based caster.

Casters are pretty SAD already, being CON based would just be broken while CON isn't the god-stat DEX is, it controls HP and concentration. It would be entirely broken to have it as the primary offensive stat and be an entirely new level of single ability score dependence and min-maxing.

[Garfunion]

Oh god, I think there absolutely should not be a CON based caster.

Casters are pretty SAD already, being CON based would just be broken while CON isn't the god-stat DEX is, it controls HP and concentration. It would be entirely broken to have it as the primary offensive stat and be an entirely new level of single ability score dependence and min-maxing.

Are they really SAD? Please explain to me why sorcerers and wizards are more SAD than a rogue, fighter, a barbarian, druid, and cleric?
Wizards and sorcerers need to focus on 3 stats Dex, Con, and spellcasting ability stat. While other classes need to really only focus on two, because they have the armor proficiencies and/or higher hit die for hit points.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Are they really SAD? Please explain to me why sorcerers and wizards are more SAD than a rogue, fighter, a barbarian, druid, and cleric?
Wizards and sorcerers need to focus on 3 stats Dex, Con, and spellcasting ability stat. While other classes need to really only focus on two, because they have the armor proficiencies and/or higher hit die for hit points.

I consider wizards to need Int, and other casters to nee Cha. You don't need Dex, or Con, saying you do is just an acknowledgement of the inherent bias in the stats that makes Int useless and Dex the god stat so everybody wants to have it. None of your core class features are driven by Dex or Con, just the general nice to haves like AC, HP, and Initiative.

Fighters are pretty SAD, but can need at most 2 ability scores. Rangers have class features driven by Dex for their attacks and Wis for their spells, so they're MAD. Paladins are Str & Cha. And so on.



Basically, most full casters have only one important stat that absolutely must be good as is, and then kind of as a second note would like Con and Dex to not suck. Everything else can be dumped [in order of ascending general utility of Int, Str, Cha, Wis, Con, Dex]. A fighter can also by and large just take str or dex.


If you had a Con caster, you could focus on CON to the exclusion of all else, and have basically whatever combination of stats you want to be better at one of the other things. A general disadvantage of casters is having poorer driving ability scores, and moving that to a stronger ability score like dex or con would upset the balance.

[moonfly7]

I consider wizards to need Int, and other casters to nee Cha. You don't need Dex, or Con, saying you do is just an acknowledgement of the inherent bias in the stats that makes Int useless and Dex the god stat so everybody wants to have it. None of your core class features are driven by Dex or Con, just the general nice to haves like AC, HP, and Initiative.

Fighters are pretty SAD, but can need at most 2 ability scores. Rangers have class features driven by Dex for their attacks and Wis for their spells, so they're MAD. Paladins are Str & Cha. And so on.



Basically, most full casters have only one important stat that absolutely must be good as is, and then kind of as a second note would like Con and Dex to not suck. Everything else can be dumped [in order of ascending general utility of Int, Str, Cha, Wis, Con, Dex]. A fighter can also by and large just take str or dex.


If you had a Con caster, you could focus on CON to the exclusion of all else, and have basically whatever combination of stats you want to be better at one of the other things. A general disadvantage of casters is having poorer driving ability scores, and moving that to a stronger ability score like dex or con would upset the balance.

I met a guy who also thought casters were SAD once. Every single one of his casting characters died. He never seemed to listen to us that it was because no mage armor, Shield, or temp HP in the world would save him from bad to mediocre Con and Dex.
And he was a veteran player. Brilliant builds otherwise. Very effective. Not even a periapt of wound closure could save him though.

So, I don't think I can agree with you on that. Yes, a con caster would have 1 less attribute to worry about, but ignoring Dex is just as likely to kill you. Especially because, while having +5 hp added to a d6 every level is nice, it's still probably not going to be enough if you fail a save on a high level fireball. And if it's tagged onto the sorcerer lost the restrictive number of spells known is still going to be an issue, Con or Cha.

[Keltest]

I met a guy who also thought casters were SAD once. Every single one of his casting characters died. He never seemed to listen to us that it was because no mage armor, Shield, or temp HP in the world would save him from bad to mediocre Con and Dex.
And he was a veteran player. Brilliant builds otherwise. Very effective. Not even a periapt of wound closure could save him though.

So, I don't think I can agree with you on that. Yes, a con caster would have 1 less attribute to worry about, but ignoring Dex is just as likely to kill you. Especially because, while having +5 hp added to a d6 every level is nice, it's still probably not going to be enough if you fail a save on a high level fireball. And if it's tagged onto the sorcerer lost the restrictive number of spells known is still going to be an issue, Con or Cha.

Ok, but thats going into "Dex is nice to have, period" territory, not "Dex is a mandatory attribute for wizards".

Because frankly, theres always something that can get you in a niche situation. Feeblemind existing doesnt mean all sorcerers need int, hold person doesnt mean fighters need wisdom to function, etc...

Its good to have that stuff, and certainly better to have it than not, but you arent dependent on it for your class to function.

[Poe]

I had a conversation on Facebook several months ago (back when Rune Knight UA used Int), stating that rune knights should be CON-based. One person was really adamant that that was a crazy idea that was OP and made no sense, arguing that training your body isn't enough to access the magical Weave (mind you, not everyone uses that concept) and that intelligence is definitely enough "because Vancian magic" (that was pretty much his whole argument). I claimed that accessing powerful magic can require someone who is fit and has their body honed to a fine level - real world examples being how much things like the kundalini, chakras, shamanism, various forms of "witchcraft", etc all talk about having your body in alignment and working in harmony, and having the endurance to contain the energies. I myself follow a form of shamanism, and can attest to how important physical fitness can be. In addition, rune magic is the magic of GIANTS! Creatures renowned for their tremendous size, strength, girth, and vitality. If you're channelling the power of giants, it makes sense that you'd have to also be physically "giant" too. A small, studious person can work Harry Potter (wizard) style magic, but that same person would likely be unable to contain the raw, primal energies of the giants inside their bodies. Not to say the Harry Potter wizard is any less powerful, just a different way of containing it. He didn't have any response for this.

But yes, so I am all for rune knights using constitution, and definitely agree it should be used more. I get warlocks and sorcerers using charisma, since they're both usually quite charming people. Perhaps the ranger should use CON? The paladin, druid, and cleric all get their powers from their piety and devotion, whereas the ranger gets it more from being in touch with the natural world. Perhaps CON would be fitting for that.

[moonfly7]

Ok, but thats going into "Dex is nice to have, period" territory, not "Dex is a mandatory attribute for wizards".

Because frankly, theres always something that can get you in a niche situation. Feeblemind existing doesnt mean all sorcerers need int, hold person doesnt mean fighters need wisdom to function, etc...

Its good to have that stuff, and certainly better to have it than not, but you arent dependent on it for your class to function.
Arguably your character needs to be alive for your class to function. And his argument was definitely trying to say that since casters are SAD making that single attribute Con would break the game, but my whole point was that even with good con any character needs good dex or another way to bump AC and is therefore in some way dependant on more than one attribute to be a successful character. Especially because AC and Dex saves are much more common defenses. Obviously, as in your example, other saves exist and they aren't required, but dex is used for the most combat related protections, more so than even con, so I'd argue there is a big difference. I definitely didn't do a good job if making that clear though, and for that you have my apologies.

[sayaijin]

Well I threw together a Con-based Sorcerer subclass. It's not balanced, but it's a start.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?623834-Blood-Mage-(Sorcerous-Origin)&p=24841701#post24841701