| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a thought the other night and I would like to hear some opinions. A Sorcerer's power is said to stem from their bloodline. Wouldn't it then make sense to use Constitution instead of Charisma, ie strength of body as opposed to strength of personality?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might make for an interesting archetype, but Charisma is more than just strength of personality. It's long also been a stand in for the strength of your soul. That's why innate magic is based on Charisma by default, as well as channeled energy, and PF1's UMD skill.
I for one would find con intresting for sorcerors as their spellcasting ability. Maybe for some specifik bloodline. But it might make them to good since then they would only need con, dex as their stats. I guess thats the main reason they have charisma as such.
If you swapped out charisma on the sorcerer you might as well eliminate it as a stat. Bards are lore keepers and can just use intelligence.
charisma is basically your ability to impose your will on things, whether it be people, magic items, or your magic itself.
really the biggest reason not do it, is it becomes REALLY hard to kill.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Go for it, casters are gimped in Pf2 and con adds a smaller percent of HP than it did in Pf1 and is no longer tied to the death mechanic. Giving them those extra HP wouldn't be game breaking at all. Cha adds to a lot of skills, con adds HP, fort, and that's it. The class would be receiving a loss in utility for a boost in survivability. Try writing an archetype for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Go for it, casters are gimped in Pf2 and con adds a smaller percent of HP than it did in Pf1 and is no longer tied to the death mechanic. Giving them those extra HP wouldn't be game breaking at all. Cha adds to a lot of skills, con adds HP, fort, and that's it. The class would be receiving a loss in utility for a boost in survivability. Try writing an archetype for it.
They are only gimped compared to 1e, comoared to other classes in 2e they fare fine.
Fort is the bigger impact imo. Given how devastating failing fort saves is now in many cases ;)
I don't think a con main stat would break the game, but I would also ask... why.
I agree that it wouldn't break anything, but aside form charisma based skills you're not losing anything by being able to switch to constitution instead.
I'd call this a flat upgrade to anyone who wasn't interested in playing a face character. I can't really find any compelling reason to allow it. As it sits a sorcerer can pretty freely increase their dex, con, and charisma without any impairment to anything else, and can focus on charisma while still starting with at least a 14 con and dex if they want.
TLDR; I don't think it's a horrible idea, I also don't think it's a good idea.
I guess i was thinking about it as more of a flavor point of view. Interesting thought experiment/discussion topic. Your ideas are appreciated.
If you took damage when you cast spells, that could balance out the extra HP. Or maybe gain a condition, like enfeebled.
Actually, that sounds better for a warlock.
You can cast spells at-will, but after the cast you gain a condition level equal to the level you cast.
Aberrant: Stupefied condition.
Fey: Fascinated condition.
Demonic: Drained condition.
Go for it, casters are gimped in Pf2 and con adds a smaller percent of HP than it did in Pf1 and is no longer tied to the death mechanic. Giving them those extra HP wouldn't be game breaking at all. Cha adds to a lot of skills, con adds HP, fort, and that's it. The class would be receiving a loss in utility for a boost in survivability. Try writing an archetype for it.They are only gimped compared to 1e, comoared to other classes in 2e they fare fine.
Fort is the bigger impact imo. Given how devastating failing fort saves is now in many cases ;)
I don't think a con main stat would break the game, but I would also ask... why.
I mean everything is only comparable of compared to anything. They're weaker than most martials by a long mile in 2e, especially pure casters, but I wager as more material comes out it'll balance out.
To Paizo's credit, the gap is exponentially smaller and the classes ate absolutely better balanced.
It's just casters got nerfed a little too hard, but later content or houserules can fix that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you took damage when you cast spells, that could balance out the extra HP. Or maybe gain a condition, like enfeebled.
this is just straight up a kineticist
Go for it, casters are gimped in Pf2 and con adds a smaller percent of HP than it did in Pf1 and is no longer tied to the death mechanic. Giving them those extra HP wouldn't be game breaking at all. Cha adds to a lot of skills, con adds HP, fort, and that's it. The class would be receiving a loss in utility for a boost in survivability. Try writing an archetype for it.They are only gimped compared to 1e, comoared to other classes in 2e they fare fine.
Fort is the bigger impact imo. Given how devastating failing fort saves is now in many cases ;)
I don't think a con main stat would break the game, but I would also ask... why.
I mean everything is only comparable of compared to anything. They're weaker than most martials by a long mile in 2e, especially pure casters, but I wager as more material comes out it'll balance out.
To Paizo's credit, the gap is exponentially smaller and the classes ate absolutely better balanced.
It's just casters got nerfed a little too hard, but later content or houserules can fix that.
full casters have aoe and shine in that regard. they're just not single target monsters anymore.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a bit surprised it took so long for someone to bring up Kineticist :)
Because a con-based caster is pretty much describing the kineticist exactly.
Off-topic, but I am actually working on a full homebrew kineticist as a focus-based caster. When I'm done I'll have the multiclass archetype for it and everything! Got the chassis done (and gave them a d6 HD because their casting stat IS con) and just need to work on the feats.
I'd go even further and give them more believable replacement options in the place of Verbal and Somatic components, such as Emotion and Thought, perhaps. If you have innate magic such things should not rely on culture/species dependent factors like a vocal language or a physical hand (just look at dragons, their front digits are no good for elaborate movements other than treading like big cats).
I'm a bit surprised it took so long for someone to bring up Kineticist :)
Because a con-based caster is pretty much describing the kineticist exactly.
Off-topic, but I am actually working on a full homebrew kineticist as a focus-based caster. When I'm done I'll have the multiclass archetype for it and everything! Got the chassis done (and gave them a d6 HD because their casting stat IS con) and just need to work on the feats.
yeah i was more thinking of a scarred witch doctor or whatever...
*looks it up*
oh wow they changed it... weird. scarred witch doctor used to use con to cast spells.
|
|
I'm a bit surprised it took so long for someone to bring up Kineticist :)
Because a con-based caster is pretty much describing the kineticist exactly.
Off-topic, but I am actually working on a full homebrew kineticist as a focus-based caster. When I'm done I'll have the multiclass archetype for it and everything! Got the chassis done (and gave them a d6 HD because their casting stat IS con) and just need to work on the feats.
yeah i was more thinking of a scarred witch doctor or whatever...
*looks it up*
oh wow they changed it... weird. scarred witch doctor used to use con to cast spells.
Yeah that was something they changed pretty quickly, if I recall. I vaguely remember it had already been errata'd by the time I got around to playing 1e regularly, so it got changed 4+ years ago