D&D 5E Negative constitution modifier

[Paraxis]

The method of generating stats is not a House Rule. It is one of many parameters which can be determined by the DM, at the start of the game. Rolling randomly is within the expected range of methods.

Likewise, taking the average for HP is an option, which may or may not be allowed on a table-by-table basis. Kind of like taking a Feat in place of increasing your ability scores, or allowing Gnomes in the game. None of these are wrong ways to play, and the game should remain playable in any configuration. That it's possible to roll a character incapable of gaining levels, because doing so would be instantly fatal, is an oversight.

When the DM deviates from the stated rules, it is a house rule.

Rolling 4d6 dropping the lowest and assigning as you wish, and the array of 15,14,13,12,10,8 are the two ways presented in the book and done so side by side with each other as an either or type thing.

Using the variant rule, point buy method is close to a house rule because of the variant status, much like using feats.

Any other method of character ability score generation is a house rule and the game can't be expected to take the use of them into account, that is the DM's job when deciding to make up his house rule.

Hit points are either a roll or take the average(round up) as the base assumed in the system, both presented as an individual option to the player that he can choose at each level. Anything else including demanding your players always roll is a house rule.

Not allowing gnomes, another house rule. But lets get back to hit points and negative Con modifiers.

If you use the rules as presented and the player manages to roll a 3 for an ability score (-4) modifier, and if he is silly enough to put it into Con and take a d6 hit die class like wizard, he will still be able to choose average(round up) in this case 4 h.p per level. Modified by his Con that is 0 h.p, not even a negative number. If the player wants to chance h.p, loss and rolls low enough on the d6 to get a negative number, that is his choice.

If the DM makes him roll for hit points, that is a house rule and again the rules of the game can't be written to accommodate every house rule at every table.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Rolling 4d6 dropping the lowest and assigning as you wish, and the array of 15,14,13,12,10,8 are the two ways presented in the book and done so side by side with each other as an either or type thing.

And rolling randomly, down the line, isn't even suggested in the DMG? Is that what you're really saying?

Hit points are either a roll or take the average(round up) as the base assumed in the system, both presented as an individual option to the player that he can choose at each level. Anything else including demanding your players always roll is a house rule.

That doesn't sound right. I'll check both books when I get home, but I'm almost certain that the DM is intended to have some say in the matter. If the DM says to roll, then that's not a house rule, or even resorting to rule zero, but just one aspect of the broad discretion which the DM is intended to wield.

Not allowing gnomes, another house rule.

At this point, you've clearly lost touch with reality. The choice of whether to include gnomes or not is one which the DM is expected to make, when creating or choosing a setting for the game, and there is no "wrong" or "unofficial" answer to that choice. Both are supported equally, as the intended way to play the game, regardless of whether one is presented as the default.

It's not like gnomes exist, as a rule, and as a house rule maybe they don't exist. The rule is that gnomes may or may not exist in any given setting, and a house rule would be if they get -2 to Strength.

 

[Paraxis]

And rolling randomly, down the line, isn't even suggested in the DMG? Is that what you're really saying?

That is what I am saying. There are only 2 default methods of generating ability scores, and 1 variant. Anything else is not talked about at all in the PHB. A look through the DMG and no I could not find a discussion on other alternate character ability score generation.

As to the gnome thing, the rules present all the races equally non are called out as variant rules, and it never suggests to run a campaign not using any of them. If the DM wants to not include gnomes in his game that is up to him but it would be the same as not including the Fighter class as a playable class, basically a house rule for his campaign.

Unless told otherwise way up front, any player should be able to assume he can play his dragonborn warlock in a campaign, as those are not called out as variant rules in the PHB. Now if he came to the table expecting to play a Winged Elf Ninja, a race and class he found online then that is out of line and kind of odd.

There are the rules as presented, published variants of those rules (like feats), and house rules. Not using some of the core published non variant items, is a house rule by omission.

 

[bedir than]

Why is it inconceivable to reduce hit points on level up? If you are playing a sickly weak character (Con of 7 or lower) they could get physically weaker over time, play it as them being anemic or something.

Aging and leveling are different mechanics

Speaking of which, where are the aging attribute change tables for 5e?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Aging and leveling are different mechanics

Speaking of which, where are the aging attribute change tables for 5e?

Pretty sure aging tables don't exist yet for 5e. One way to handle it might be to treat it as a flaw (crotchety, arthritic, etc).

I agree that the intent was most likely that you're supposed to gain a minimum of 1 hp per hit die, and that it was probably left out by accident.

 

[ad_hoc]

As to the gnome thing, the rules present all the races equally non are called out as variant rules, and it never suggests to run a campaign not using any of them. If the DM wants to not include gnomes in his game that is up to him but it would be the same as not including the Fighter class as a playable class, basically a house rule for his campaign.

Unless told otherwise way up front, any player should be able to assume he can play his dragonborn warlock in a campaign, as those are not called out as variant rules in the PHB. Now if he came to the table expecting to play a Winged Elf Ninja, a race and class he found online then that is out of line and kind of odd.

PHB p.33

"The dragonborn and the rest of the races in this chapter are uncommon. They don't exist in every world of D&D..."

They are specifically called out as not even existing in some worlds. There is a clear delineation between these races and the 'common' ones. Which is not true of the fighter.

I would put not including specific uncommon races in your game on the same level as including feats or multiclassing.

 

[Herr der Qual]

Really it is, they are both optional. Both are a DM's discretion, both are optional for effects on game mechanics.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That is what I am saying. There are only 2 default methods of generating ability scores, and 1 variant. Anything else is not talked about at all in the PHB. A look through the DMG and no I could not find a discussion on other alternate character ability score generation.

Yeah, that's... really weird. I'll admit that I'm wrong, and this is indeed the first edition to ever not even mention rolling down the line as an option. If you have a below-average Con score, then it's because all of your stats are below-average, or you specifically assigned it.

That does highlight another design problem - namely that every other stat in the game can be safely dumped by someone, but Con is vital to everyone. I mean, why even allow that stat to go range from 3-18, when anything below 10 is effectively a death sentence?

 

[Paraxis]

They are specifically called out as not even existing in some worlds. There is a clear delineation between these races and the 'common' ones. Which is not true of the fighter.

I would put not including specific uncommon races in your game on the same level as including feats or multiclassing.

That is true, not called out as a variant directly but still stated as not even existing in some worlds is basically the same thing, so using gnomes or not would be the same as feats or multiclassing.

Yeah, that's... really weird. I'll admit that I'm wrong, and this is indeed the first edition to ever not even mention rolling down the line as an option. If you have a below-average Con score, then it's because all of your stats are below-average, or you specifically assigned it.

That does highlight another design problem - namely that every other stat in the game can be safely dumped by someone, but Con is vital to everyone. I mean, why even allow that stat to go range from 3-18, when anything below 10 is effectively a death sentence?

I am pretty sure 4e never mentioned rolling down the line either, but I know it was one of the options in the 3e DMG.

I don't think it is a design problem, Con has never been a dump stat for any character in D&D, it is never the primary stat either. Constitution is almost always the second or third highest ability score for any character.

The stats range from 3-18 because of tradition and system unity, you need to scale ability scores up and down for monster/animal stats.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't think it is a design problem, Con has never been a dump stat for any character in D&D, it is never the primary stat either. Constitution is almost always the second or third highest ability score for any character.

Prior to 3E, you could play a character with Con 7 and it wouldn't really hurt you at all, and even a score of 4 would only put you at the same penalty as modern editions assigns a score of 8 or 9. It's really a modern invention that everyone benefits from Con, because the difference between rolling (1d6+3) or (1d6-1) is huge.

If the system goes from 3-18, and it's possible to have stats in that range (as unlikely as it may be), then gameplay shouldn't sharply deteriorate because you happened to have a score on the low end. For every other stat, it makes sense to use that range, because some people might really have a low Strength or a low Charisma, and it won't kill them. For Con, there is no class that can reasonably get away with having it below average, which means the average Con score ends up way above average, and now I have a headache.

There's also an element of system mastery involved, where that sort of thing is to be frowned upon in this edition. A new player won't necessarily know that making a wizard with low Con is much worse than making a wizard with low Strength, and is likely to suffer through no fault of his or her own.