D&D 5E Folding Constitution into Strength

[Oofta]

I'm just going to echo what others have said. The ability scores in D&D aren't perfect, but they do a reasonably decent approximation.

There's this myth that bodybuilders are juggernauts that never get sick, can take a dozen bullets and barely flinch and so on. It just isn't true.

Also from a gameplay standpoint I want to be able to represent that character that's as tough as nails, never gets sick, healthy as a horse but isn't big and beefy.

Now, from my perspective the biggest dissonance I get between D&D stats and the real world is the high dex acrobats with an 8 strength. But that's just me.

 

[Yunru]

Now, from my perspective the biggest dissonance I get between D&D stats and the real world is the high dex acrobats with an 8 strength. But that's just me.

"Folding Strength, Dexterity and Constitution into one stat"

 

[Aldarc]

It's an interesting change from a rules POV, which makes Strength as good as Dexterity.

That said, it doesn't make much sense to me.

To be honest, the whole "doesn't make sense" argument you outline has more to do with the norms of D&D than any actual realism. There are plenty of RPGs, for example, that don't distinguish between "brawn" or "stamina," yet people (and their sense of rationality) get along just fine with these RPGs without having these as separate stats.

 

[Fanaelialae]

To be honest, the whole "doesn't make sense" argument you outline has more to do with the norms of D&D than any actual realism. There are plenty of RPGs, for example, that don't distinguish between "brawn" or "stamina," yet people (and their sense of rationality) get along just fine with these RPGs without having these as separate stats.

No, I think it has to do with actual realism. There is no 1:1 correlation in the real world between muscle mass and health. While some people are blessed with both, there are others who are either strong or healthy (as well as those who are neither). As such, this is less realistic.

Now, it's okay for it to be less realistic if the trade off gains us something worthwhile. However, that doesn't make it not about actual realism. In this one respect D&D is more realistic than those other games you mention. That the people who play those games are satisfied with this is all well and good, but it doesn't make it any less so that you are decreasing the verisimilitude of an aspect of D&D with this change. If what you gain in return is worth that, then great! If not, then it's something you may want to reconsider.

 

[TwoSix]

It has some knock-off effects you'll have to account for, but it isn't going to break the game or anything. (5e is pretty hard to break.)

You'll probably see an upswing in casters taking Fighter or Cleric dips for heavy armor. Casters usually prioritize their casting stat first, their AC stat second, and Constitution third. If HPs, concentration saves, and heavy armor ability all come from the same stat, that will be every casters' secondary.

 

[Yunru]

Well I was probably going to move Concentration to Wisdom in general.
Doing a mental thing being based off of a physical stat makes no sense.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

No, I think it has to do with actual realism. There is no 1:1 correlation in the real world between muscle mass and health. While some people are blessed with both, there are others who are either strong or healthy (as well as those who are neither). As such, this is less realistic.

There's no 1:1 correlation between acrobatic skills and hand-eye coordination either, and even less correlation between willpower and perception, still, we're fine with Dexterity and Wisdom as abilities. For myself, I like D&D as it is, and I hope they never change the six abilities as they were originally stated (even if I'm willing to see the eventual changes, such as Dexterity now applying to damage rolls), but I'm pretty sure this is about tradition, not realism.

 

[Fanaelialae]

There's no 1:1 correlation between acrobatic skills and hand-eye coordination either, and even less correlation between willpower and perception, still, we're fine with Dexterity and Wisdom as abilities. For myself, I like D&D as it is, and I hope they never change the six abilities as they were originally stated (even if I'm willing to see the eventual changes, such as Dexterity now applying to damage rolls), but I'm pretty sure this is about tradition, not realism.

Right, but I never claimed that those were realistic. I was pointing out that if we merge Strength with Constitution, we are moving away from realism, rather than towards it. It's not necessarily a problem, but it is something to keep in mind when weighing the value of the change.

For example, if we were to separate Dexterity out into Coordination and Agility we would be increasing realism, because you can have one without the other. On the other hand, we would need to separate out which benefits from Dexterity belong to which score. This makes the game more fiddly (which depending on your inclinations might be a good or bad thing). So if you were to consider such a change, you'd want to include those factors when looking at the cost/benefit.

It's not about tradition. My above example is less traditional and more realistic. Strentitution is less traditional and less realistic. That isn't to say that what it buys you isn't necessarily worth the loss in verisimilitude, but it is something that one ought to keep in mind, IMO.

 

[Oofta]

"Folding Strength, Dexterity and Constitution into one stat"

Strextitution? Stextitution? Sextuition? wait...this is a family friendly game...ignore that last one.

 

[Aldarc]

No, I think it has to do with actual realism. There is no 1:1 correlation in the real world between muscle mass and health. While some people are blessed with both, there are others who are either strong or healthy (as well as those who are neither). As such, this is less realistic.

Now, it's okay for it to be less realistic if the trade off gains us something worthwhile. However, that doesn't make it not about actual realism. In this one respect D&D is more realistic than those other games you mention. That the people who play those games are satisfied with this is all well and good, but it doesn't make it any less so that you are decreasing the verisimilitude of an aspect of D&D with this change. If what you gain in return is worth that, then great! If not, then it's something you may want to reconsider.

That's fine and dandy, Fanaelialae, but there are games that distinguish between these stats, as per D&D, and there are those that don't. And I don't think that "realism" is a particularly convincing argument to make, when it's mostly about convention, aesthetics, and preferences. But it's difficult to make an argument of "verisimilitude" on the one hand while just about any other D&D convention exists on the other, particularly when it comes to personal attributes that we associate in the fiction with D&D stats.

It's not about tradition. My above example is less traditional and more realistic. Strentitution is less traditional and less realistic. That isn't to say that what it buys you isn't necessarily worth the loss in verisimilitude, but it is something that one ought to keep in mind, IMO.

I'm skeptical of this, to be honest. If D&D had Strentitution for 40+ years, would we be having this conversation at all?