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

[CapnZapp]

It seems to me that you run/play in a fairly optimized group, both from this thread and others. You have already said that monsters feel a bit on the easy side - maybe because the designers do not assume that a player will have decent hit points amongst other things. If a group of players determine to place at least 14 in Con (btw I'm not arguing that this isn't a optimal thing to do) then that's all fine, but in our group I would say 14 con is the highest I have seen and 9-12 far more typical. Letting down the team is not something we remotely think about when creating a character - and yes falling in combat isn't that unusual for us. I don't not feel the job of those creating pregens is to guide on character building beyond putting the highest stat in the right place. I also wouldn't want to see them with the same best feats and best spells either.

Again, my point doesn't come across.

Putting a higher score than 11 in CON for a Rogue is not optimizing or powergaming or best practice.

It is avoiding an obvious weak play.

That pregen is certainly not even close to being a charop build, and I have never complained about those pregens not having the "best feats and best spells".

In fact, you're the perfect example of what I'm arguing WotC should not do. Unfortunately, if I squint I see the argument (but I might be mistaken) "it's best to create unoptimized characters because that's what the game is built to handle".

The unfortunate part is/would be because you're right. It is - at higher levels - a real issue the way 5E has dropped the ball.

But really that's a separate discussion. You still don't hand out a 53 hp tenth level Rogue as a learning example to newbies, when you can have 73 hp without sacrificing essentially anything.

 

[CapnZapp]

The average isn't a +2 bonus. Or maybe it is, that doesn't actually matter right now. What matters is that you don't have enough information to state with certainty what the average Constitution bonus is - only what the average Constitution bonus of characters made by a specific, limited, known to be non-representative of the hobby community at large, sample (those folks that answered the survey you got that info from) is.

You want to take the discussion to a place where nobody can say what's right and what's wrong, a profoundly unhelpful destination - unless your aim were to shut down an argument that threatens to force you into admitting something isn't 100% perfect with your beloved game.

But I am completely uninterested in going there. You are, however, right in that it doesn't matter what the actual statistical average is (in some hypothetical survey that somehow manages to include all gamers). Luckily so - because how profoundly unhelpful it would have been to have to rely on such data.

What matters is that WotC (and of coure you too if you want) needs to view the average as +2. Yes - regardless of whether that's statistically true or not.

It's specifically the uncritical view "I guess since 10 is called the average it's good for my Con score too" I am arguing against. It's the superficial notion that doesn't distinguish between Constitution on one side (as an ability every character is helped by) and the other five abilities on the other (as an ability at least some characters can dump).

And before you start - no, I don't mind you having this uncricitical and superficial view, Aaron. I am (yet again) talking about whomever issued those pregens.

 

[Prism]

But really that's a separate discussion. You still don't hand out a 53 hp tenth level Rogue as a learning example to newbies, when you can have 73 hp without sacrificing essentially anything.

So let say you were advising a newbie rogue player where to put their second stat (14) after sticking their 15 in Dex. You could advise...

Put it in Con as your character will have more hit points and be more resilient in combat. They will also be better against things like poison traps.

Put it in Int if you want to be an arcane trickster or be good with traps and puzzles. (this is what the PHB suggests)

Put it in Cha if you want to be an infiltrator, good with disguises and impersonation, or information gathering. (this is what the PHB also suggests)

Put it in Wis if you want to be a scout and spot enemies, and detect traps.

Put it in Str if you want to be a swashbuckler type who can swing, climb and swim.

I think all those are valid options but to be honest the Con option is not what I would typically expect in a rogue. I would think given the choice most players would pick one of the other options for their 14 and also their 13 and maybe put the 12 or 10 in Con. I don't think the creator of the pregens has done anyone a disservice with their stat assignments considering they want to emphasis the skill aspect of the rogue class and are also following the PHB advice as well. Sure they might run out of hit points from time to time but they will be slightly better with their core skills every time they roll.

I also think you could apply this logic to most other classes, where Con becomes the 3rd or lower option

 

[Chaosmancer]

So let say you were advising a newbie rogue player where to put their second stat (14) after sticking their 15 in Dex. You could advise...

Put it in Con as your character will have more hit points and be more resilient in combat. They will also be better against things like poison traps.

Put it in Int if you want to be an arcane trickster or be good with traps and puzzles. (this is what the PHB suggests)

Put it in Cha if you want to be an infiltrator, good with disguises and impersonation, or information gathering. (this is what the PHB also suggests)

Put it in Wis if you want to be a scout and spot enemies, and detect traps.

Put it in Str if you want to be a swashbuckler type who can swing, climb and swim.

I think all those are valid options but to be honest the Con option is not what I would typically expect in a rogue. I would think given the choice most players would pick one of the other options for their 14 and also their 13 and maybe put the 12 or 10 in Con. I don't think the creator of the pregens has done anyone a disservice with their stat assignments considering they want to emphasis the skill aspect of the rogue class and are also following the PHB advice as well. Sure they might run out of hit points from time to time but they will be slightly better with their core skills every time they roll.

I also think you could apply this logic to most other classes, where Con becomes the 3rd or lower option

I agree with your point, but would like to offer a slight twist, because I like playing Devil's Advocate.

Racial score improvements.

I might be slightly unusual but I do not begin distributing stats until I see what race has been chosen. If we take an arcane trickster and a player who has never played and has no preference on race, we'd naturally suggest a race that either increased dex or int primarily, better if both.

15, 14, 13, 12

High Elf
Gnomes
Human

High Elf could give us a 17 Dex, 14 int, 14 con, 12 in something

Forest Gnome 16 Dex, 15 Int, 14 con, 12 in something, or 16 Dex, 14 Int, 14 Con, and 13 in something

Rock Gnome 15 Dex, 16 Int, 14 Con, 12 in something, or 15 Dex, 14 Int, 14 Con and 13 in something

Human 16 Dex, 14 Int, 14 Con, 12 in something

That I admit, that leaves low scores for Wisdom and Charisma, which the player may want to focus on, but the idea that we are looking at a static spread isn't quite true, and getting at least a +1 in con is ridiculously easy even if it is you your 4th highest stat.

And for Rogues in particular, having a low wisdom and charisma does not neccesarily stop them from being observant or persuasive, because expertise can overcome the mod very easily, leaving them still quite good at those skills.

 

[CapnZapp]

So let say you were advising a newbie rogue player where to put their second stat (14) after sticking their 15 in Dex. You could advise...

Put it in Con as your character will have more hit points and be more resilient in combat. They will also be better against things like poison traps.

Put it in Int if you want to be an arcane trickster or be good with traps and puzzles. (this is what the PHB suggests)

Put it in Cha if you want to be an infiltrator, good with disguises and impersonation, or information gathering. (this is what the PHB also suggests)

Put it in Wis if you want to be a scout and spot enemies, and detect traps.

Put it in Str if you want to be a swashbuckler type who can swing, climb and swim.

I think all those are valid options but to be honest the Con option is not what I would typically expect in a rogue. I would think given the choice most players would pick one of the other options for their 14 and also their 13 and maybe put the 12 or 10 in Con. I don't think the creator of the pregens has done anyone a disservice with their stat assignments considering they want to emphasis the skill aspect of the rogue class and are also following the PHB advice as well. Sure they might run out of hit points from time to time but they will be slightly better with their core skills every time they roll.

I also think you could apply this logic to most other classes, where Con becomes the 3rd or lower option

That's the worst kind of advice, Prism. You're asking the newb to choose between a number of badly defined "cool concepts" with no basis in the underlying statistics!

You're creating a false dichotomy here Prism, and then you're running with it to set up a conclusion where a 10 Con looks very reasonable if not outright attractive. This completely ignores the real choices.

First off: you can't infiltrate or swashbuckle or detect traps if you're dead.

Secondly: you can still infiltrate and swashbuckle and detect traps even if your bonus is slightly lower than in your scenario.

Thirdly: the PHB advice is consistently awful. It seems to be based more on wishful thinking than actual analysis. That is, its advice is based on "truths" rather than actually reflecting upon the new edition. Simply assuming you need Int for an Arcane Trickster is just lazy. See below for more examples.

You're pitting the abilities against each other like they are equal - they're most certainly not.

But more aggravatingly, you are equating cool character concepts with "14 in that ability". That's misrepresentative and just clumsy.

---

What you should do to help a newbie, assuming you are the DM or otherwise have insight in the campaign, is:

* talk to the player and assess whether he or she intends to enter melee much. If "yes", discourage the player from playing a Rogue at all.
* assuming Rogue is still on the table; if the campaign will be challenging combat-wise, advise a +2 CON bonus. It is okay to achieve this by assigning an odd number (that is, the number 13) and then "flipping" it (through racial modifiers or feat ability bonuses etc) - you do not have to start with a 14 before racial/feat mods.
* if the campaign will have a focus elsewhere, and/or the player has some experience with rpgs (including the skill to know when to retreat), you could let him get away with a 12 (or 11, per the above), assuming you leave him with a solid understanding the character is a relatively frail one and should be played accordingly

That is, begin with the end result. Not with the choice.

---

Now that you know what CON score to end up with (a 12 or a 14), you can provide solid advice that doesn't force the newb to make choices not well grounded.

Don't ask him or her to choose between being somebody that "spot enemies" and somebody that is "good with traps and puzzles". More importantly, don't set this up as a choice with the implication that if he chooses A he will perform badly at B and C.

First, inform him he will need a good Dex score. This part you actually do and do well by making it non-optional to place his best score in Dex.

Then, you should ask him to assign a decent number to Con. (This is the 11, 12, 13, or 14 numbers game I've talked a little about). Slightly simplified, tell him to put a 14 in Con if he wants to be brawny and sturdy or a 12 otherwise. Tell him he will thank you later (as in ten levels later).

Then and only then you can ask him what secondary "thing" he wants to be good at. Why? Because now you have taken the basic step towards helping him not to die before getting to do that thing!

---

Do note that "spot enemies" isn't primarily about a very high Wisdom. It's about choosing the Perception skill. And, for Rogues, Expertise.

Same with "find traps". As in, exactly the same. Traps is MUCH more about Perception than Int. And again, it's much more about Arcana and Expertise than actual Int.

As for Arcane Trickster - you only need a good spellcasting ability (or Int in this case) if you actually choose spells that force enemies to make saves. If you choose other spells, your Int score doesn't matter.

I could go on, but I won't. Point is, the connection between ability and end result is much less direct and strong than you make it out to be.

---

In the end, you should be careful with presuming which advice is the best, Prism. Other than that, I'll leave you to soak this in.

Have a good day.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You want to take the discussion to a place where nobody can say what's right and what's wrong

False.

...a profoundly unhelpful destination - unless your aim were to shut down an argument that threatens to force you into admitting something isn't 100% perfect with your beloved game.

Let's talk, briefly, about unhelpful destinations to try and take this conversation. Namely, let's address where you are trying to take this conversation with the above statement.

I have to assume you still haven't read this post of mine: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...evels/page12&p=6905873&viewfull=1#post6905873
neither when I posted it in that thread in response to you, or the time just the other day that I first linked you back to it because you seemed not to have read it then either.

I have to assume that, you see, because the only other explanation for your continued attempts to undermine my position of disagreement with you by way of claiming I can see no flaws in D&D 5th edition is that you are being intentional in the mischaracterization.

What matters is that WotC (and of coure you too if you want) needs to view the average as +2. Yes - regardless of whether that's statistically true or not.

No, WotC, nor I, or anyone else, does not need to view the average as being some thing you've decided it should be - especially if its not statistically true.

There is no purpose in doing that.

It's specifically the uncritical view "I guess since 10 is called the average it's good for my Con score too" I am arguing against. It's the superficial notion that doesn't distinguish between Constitution on one side (as an ability every character is helped by) and the other five abilities on the other (as an ability at least some characters can dump).

Here's something that may help your put this information in perspective: Not everyone playing D&D agrees that some characters can dump specific scores. As a direct result of that, not everyone playing D&D agrees that Constitution has some special case in which it can't be as low as would be acceptable for some other score to be.

And before you start - no, I don't mind you having this uncricitical and superficial view, Aaron. I am (yet again) talking about whomever issued those pregens.

Unless you can prove the pregens are not good enough to overcome challenges the game says should be appropriate for them - note that is significantly different from the pregens being not as good as a different build - then they have not this flaw you insist should have been noticed and removed.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

What you should do to help a newbie, assuming you are the DM or otherwise have insight in the campaign, is:

* talk to the player and assess whether he or she intends to enter melee much. If "yes", discourage the player from playing a Rogue at all.

This highlights exactly what it is that causes the disagreement on Constitution, I believe.

You've got this idea that the way you and your group play the game is the way that everyone else is playing the game, and that's not the case.

Many of the rest of us wouldn't tell a rogue they aren't meant to be in melee much - because they are meant to be in melee much, just with a friend rather than alone. But that much is clear when reading how sneak attack works, so it isn't a hard concept to help a newbie grasp.

Many of the rest of us also realize that, given the way numbers on either side of the "equation" can be different, there is no specific value scores of any kind have to be in order to have and survive "challenging combat." So we don't make insistence that the PCs reach some arbitrary threshold in specific numbers - we use monsters that will be challenging relative to whatever numbers they do have.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Umm...5e just isn't that deadly.

Melee rogues are fine. I'd definately to more for the higher con than wis or int on one, sure, but...con isn't a big enough deal to ignore int on an arcane trickster, IMO, nor is any rogue with at least 12 con too easy to kill for melee. Rogues aren't easy to hit, if played reasonably well. I'd say rogues want higher dex than most classes want high main stat, if anything. But a rogue with well rounded stats, or dex/int/cha and then 10s elsewhere, works fine.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What you should do to help a newbie, assuming you are the DM or otherwise have insight in the campaign, is:

* talk to the player and assess whether he or she intends to enter melee much. If "yes", discourage the player from playing a Rogue at all.

I'm also going to call this out as being false. The majority of Rogues I've seen prefer mixing it up in melee.

I won't argue they may be better at range (particularly if they can find a way to get longbow proficiency) but they are perfectly fine as hit and run fighters using disengage or a feat to go in and out. Heck, Swashbucklers are designed to be in melee almost exclusivity.