D&D 5E How much do you value your Con score?

[Tony Vargas]

I've just noticed that 5e characters are already a lot squishier than 4e characters and low level characters with a poor Con score are extra fragile.

Only at low level. CON mod applies to every HD and you get a HD every single level. So the higher your CON, the faster you catch up.

 

[MoonSong]

Wow, this is where I show my scrubyness. Last time I was so going to dump Constitution, but I was forced to change it. Now as a DM I have found that most of my players prefer at least a 14.

 

[Leatherhead]

Normally I just put either 12 or 13 in it from the standard array.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I can take CON as low as 12 if I need to, but I definitely don't feel comfortable without at least some positive modifer, for any kind of character.

 

[Blue]

I think there was a poll done here a few months back and 14 was the most common.

 

[Caliban]

It causes me physical pain to consider anything less than a 14 con. I might consider a 12 con on an archer character, but I'd probably still go with 14.

 

[ccs]

If I get a choice, I rank it about 3rd out of the 6 stats.

Primary is my fighting/casting stat.
But not always. I have a PF cavalier (very melee oriented class) who I built to be more of a leader type. So his primary stat is CHA.

Then comes Dex - yes, even if I'm planning on wearing heavy armor. Because 1) Dex still helps my initiative, 2) Dex still helps my ranged attacks, 3) I can't ALWAYS be wearing my favorite, or even any, armor.... But oddly enough I always need an AC....


Now we come to Con. No matter what type of character I'm playing, more HP is always good. And if I'm playing a caster? Well, some of my favorite spells rely upon concentration. There's sooo many more interesting things to use magic for than causing damage.

 

[l0lzero]

On a barbarian, con gets maxed after strength, but before dex. Other martial characters I go for 12-14, any other class I keep it around 10. If it's rolled stats, I usually go attack stat, dex, con-wis (it's a toss up between the two if wis isn't the attack stat), cha (if it's not the attack stat), then Int (I don't play wizards, this is different, sometimes, for EK/AT, if I'm not going to use spells to attack, I totally still dump int and just take self-target/buff spells, and magic missile). I'm not usually worried about hit points except for levels 1-3, after that, it's meh for me. I'll pick up tough at some point usually if I feel like I'm too squishy, and enjoy the stats being in other places. Do my damnedest to avoid poison like the plague, and I do everything I can as a non-melee caster to not be in melee. If I'm a melee caster, i don't cast concentration spells so I don't care. I replace con with tactics (such as not grouping up to better avoid dragon's breath and fireball, cover, line of sight, etc.) in most cases. If I'm going melee ranged character, then I focus more on AC and important saves than worrying about HP, but I also am not too particularly worried about character death. I like making characters (not that they're suicidal, but they're totally suicidal) so when a character dies and it isn't going to be anytime soon that I get rezzed, I build a new guy and tell the party to loot me in honor of my character's noble sacrifice, and enjoy the extra XP. I've got a few characters that I like a good deal, don't get me wrong, and I've had a few characters I liked die on me, but that's what happens every now and again in a game where you fight hydras and liches and purple worms and whatnot...

 

[Horwath]

12 for ranged. 14 for high armor melee, 16 for low armor melee.

 

[CapnZapp]

I personally think having a good Con score is a priority in 5e. I mean I'm not going to bump it before maxing my attack/casting stat, but it's almost certainly second. Maybe it's because after all these years, I still prefer to play a tough melee character. It's easy to max Con with some characters like Fighter, Barb, and Rogue, but not so much with the MAD characters.

I've just noticed that 5e characters are already a lot squishier than 4e characters and low level characters with a poor Con score are extra fragile.

The reason I made this post is I've had a lot more time on my hands than normal and I've done a lot of reading people's guides and handbooks as well as a lot of the characters in the character build thread. I've noticed a lot of them ignore Con completely, and it got me wondering if I valued Con too much.

I made a poll a while back that resulted in what I expected: Con 10-11 is not at all the norm or even usual. Con 14-15 is.

When creating pregenerated characters issued by WotC and others, it's easy for the writer to assign ability scores thematically. But this sets a bad precedent, as if it was okay for a rogue, say, to have Con 10.

It's not. Con 10 needs to be viewed for what it really is: an outlier, something perhaps 10% of adventurers have.

We need to reinforce the notion that you are thin and frail and weak, not at Con 6 or some such nonsense, but at the Con 10 level.

Any character expecting combat needs a higher Con score, unless you're fine roleplaying a frail character.

PS. The poll got eaten.