D&D 5E The Problem with Constitution

[S'mon]

Barbarian is the only class that does something special with it. This is the part which I think is a lost opportunity. It would be nice if 1 or 2 other classes would have a reason to push to an 18 or 20 Con.

Yeah, Barbarians are the guys who will try to get CON 20, for the unarmoured defence, for the CON 24 at 20th, and for the doubled up hp bonus raging.

 

[S'mon]

I saw a player play a 5th level elf wizard with CON 10. She met a wraith and was dead-dead and reanimated as a spectre in 2 rounds. With CON 12 she'd have survived. CON definitely matters, but point buy definitely pushes starting CON in the 12-14 range.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It would be simple to create some martial powers/maneuvers, or some feats, or a new subclass, that played up Con a bit without rewriting the system. Just off the top of my head:

• An ability that lets you temporarily gain DR equal to your Con mod.
• An ability that lets you reduce the length required for a long rest by one hour per point of Con modifier. (This would have to "reset" every few days, but it'd be great for a multi-day adventure.)
• An ability that lets you use Con--a save? A skill check? Something else?--to resist the effects of exhaustion.
• A once/long rest ability that lets you attempt a difficult Con save or check to immediately gain the benefits of a short rest.

Those are just a few off the top of my head. I don't think any of them would be game-breaking, as long as they have a reasonable trade-off or opportunity cost.

Or maybe you hate them all. But the point is, I don't think the system needs reworking. Just a few new abilities, or at most subclasses, should do the trick.

 

[Xeviat]

And here's where we part ways. IME the only way for all options to be equally viable is to make every option identical, which in turn renders player choices irrelevant. Choices only matter if those choices result in measurably different results. As soon as you have different results it means you'll have outcomes that are more or less optimally suited for the desired result. That result can be combat efficiency, character concept fidelity, playstyle alignment, or whatever measure you care to use. A game system with meaningful choices will, by necessity, have some options that are more effective and some that are less.

I didn't say identical. I said viable. There's some wiggle for "that concept doesn't make sense", but like if a Fighter can be a TWFer or a Great Weapon Fighter than I want both options to be viable and for their to be reasons to choose one or the other (right now, TWFing falls severely behind GWFing at higher levels, so I have house rules for that, for example).

Constitution is a non-choice. Not everyone is bothered by that. Adventurers should be hardy. But someone who puts their 8 in Con is going to be punished for it in ways that every other stat has to get around (wear no armor or light armor, wear heavy armor, and don't talk ... lol).

A constitution based class would add the option for someone having Con as their primary stat, but I don't think it would solve making an 8 Con a viable choice.

Switching to 4E style HP feels like the easiest fix.

 

[Shiroiken]

I see several issues with Con, and ideas on how to "fix" it. However, each of these changes has ramifications to the game that may not be worth the benefit.

For example, you could add 1/2 Con score to starting HP, but nothing by level. This would make lower level characters more survivable while limiting the higher level characters. Major downside of this is that you have to redo all the monster HP as well. This will make high HD monsters, especially giants and dragons, much lower HP while making lower HD monsters, like kobolds and goblins, a buff (an 8 Con would be a +5 HP swing, for example).

 

[Xeviat]

I see several issues with Con, and ideas on how to "fix" it. However, each of these changes has ramifications to the game that may not be worth the benefit.

For example, you could add 1/2 Con score to starting HP, but nothing by level. This would make lower level characters more survivable while limiting the higher level characters. Major downside of this is that you have to redo all the monster HP as well. This will make high HD monsters, especially giants and dragons, much lower HP while making lower HD monsters, like kobolds and goblins, a buff (an 8 Con would be a +5 HP swing, for example).

I don't think you need to redo the monsters. Who cares how many HD a monster has? It's almost a useless statistic. Their HP is typically all that matters.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

You know, something I thought of a while back that would at make at least one class con-based: Sorcerers, and maybe even Barbarians...

I get the Cha as main stat because of the strength of personality, willpower, whatever. Why couldn't Sorcerers use Con and have their magic actually channeling through the body? They already have it as a save proficiency, and with Bards and Warlocks, we really don't need three Cha-based classes! I would like to move some warrior classes more away from Strength for the same reason, which is reasonable since many (not all) Rangers favor Dex builds over Str builds. Also Barbarians are known for their hardiness, of course, so could easily be a second viable option for Con.

Str: Fighters, Paladins
Dex: Monks, Rangers, Rogues
Con: Rangers, Sorcerers
Int: Wizards
Wis: Clerics, Druids
Cha: Bards, Warlocks

Just some initial thoughts on the idea.

 

[bedir than]

Things I want to do with CON in my next campaign;
Make it the Sorcerer attribute, since I don't see magic powered by bloodline and/or body being related to how leadery you are.
That's it.

I'd have no trouble running an 8 CON Rogue, Monk, or any Archer build. Wizards with 4-8 CON are OK too, as I think Raistlin is one of the most interesting PCs in D&D lore.

 

[Satyrn]

*Stalks away to find the script doctor, muttering about Xeviat getting all the good lines.*

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Things I want to do with CON in my next campaign;
Make it the Sorcerer attribute, since I don't see magic powered by bloodline and/or body being related to how leadery you are.
That's it.

I'd have no trouble running an 8 CON Rogue, Monk, or any Archer build. Wizards with 4-8 CON are OK too, as I think Raistlin is one of the most interesting PCs in D&D lore.

That is so funny that we both recommended it one after the other.