I wasn’t familiar with that particular comic until I just looked it up right now.

The idea is that they don’t exactly NEED armor, if they can simply shrug off the damage that their strength simply absorbs. But against more powerful foes, yes the armor is a good thing.

Yeah, this seems to be a 3e/PF write up (which is fine!). Is it suppose to be a new class, or a build based on existing abilities?

So, there is the danger of making a class that can be deadly with spellcasting AND melee attacks. I believe this is the reason they did not apply this to classes that primarily rely on “physical” stats (i.e. Fighters, Rogues) and instead gave them a third ability as a basis of spellcasting (Intelligence). So, having a third stat to invest on, you know that you either will not be that good in the primary stats or your damp stats will be really weak. At least if you are not really lucky when rolling for stats.

I believe the remedy here would be to severely limit the available spell list for a Strength-based spellcaster as well as class proficiences (weapons, skills and armor). If I read correctly from your text I assume that you also imply limited proficiences in armor and weapons, so we are on the same boat here.

Finally, in D&D 5e, Intelligence does not affect the number of skills that you’re proficient with. So, for this kind of character you have two stats you really need (Strength and Constitution) and all the rest are pretty meh.

This proposition kind of reminds me of 4e Fighters. At least the concept behind them.