D&D 5E Tired of using CON modifier as a bonus to HP? Here's a simple alternative...

[Redwizard007]

Ah... well, this was addressed in the OP:


So, no, this is not a "solution in search of a problem". The problem is out there (for some players) and people have posted about it for quite a while.

Uh, huh. But part of finding a solution is considering ramifications of both the existing rules as well as any changes one might make to them. Ignoring half of that equation leads to a laundry list of house rules to deal with unnecessary fallout. Most of us learned that in previous editions.

CON is the least dumped ability in 5E because of the desire for hit points.

Is it though? Concentration checks and saves have nothing to do with that? Every optimizer I've ever seen expresses a strong desire to shore up the big 3 saves and always stresses the importance of concentration checks.

D&D 5E - Where's the Dump?

So, now years into 5E and I want to see what peoples' experiences are with dump stats. I know the results probably won't be surprising, but hey, maybe they will be...? What ability is your most common dump stat? YOU CAN SELECT UP TO 2 OPTIONS.

www.enworld.org

It is very rarely (IME) less than the 3rd highest ability for each PC because of this.

Look at 90% of PC builds and you will see the following (unless they generate scores in order):

1. Most needed ability is highest: STR, DEX, INT, WIS, or CHA, depending on class.
2. The next highest is likely either DEX or CON.
3. The third highest is whichever wasn't second (remaining of DEX or CON).
4. Sometimes WIS will trump CON if high perception, survival, etc. is desired or because it is a fairly common save.

Where is the pushback on Dex? You see it as interchangeable as the 2nd or 3rd priority. It touches defenses, common saves, and initiative. How is that less OP than constitution?

Martials like high CON for the HP, and Casters like it for the HP and to help with Concentration checks. Even removing the HP bonus from CON, both would probably still desire a good CON for saves vs. poison, cold, life drain, paralysis, and other factors.

Oh, so you agree. It is more than just HP. Makes everything else in your comment a little misguided, doesn't it?

D&D has always had skills that became priority choices. That doesn't feel like a bug. Does it limit builds or RP opportunities? A little, maybe. Do any of the proposed changes really fix that? I don't think that they do. Casters, in particular, will still want high Con. If Con has any impact on short rest healing or HP it will still be a priority for martials. None of these proposed changes "fix" that.

If the problem is HP bloat, then sure. That you can solve by disconnecting Con from HP. Some of the posts in this thread address that wonderfully, but can't it also be solved by monsters doing an extra 2 (or 4 or 10) damage per attack?

I'm not saying this isn't a worthwhile discussion. If I thought that, I'd have just moved on without commenting. I just think it is worth looking at specifically what the problem is (and there doesn't seem to be a consensus beyond "every PC has high Con,") establishing what other abilities have that same problem (cough Dex,) and finding the most surgical way of addressing that problem without a cascade of further screwing up the game.

IMO, that would mean considering whether some abilities have a disproportionate effect on play, and how to properly redistribute those effects.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Uh, huh. But part of finding a solution is considering ramifications of both the existing rules as well as any changes one might make to them. Ignoring half of that equation leads to a laundry list of house rules to deal with unnecessary fallout. Most of us learned that in previous editions.

Fine, since you insist...

The issue was players feeling they had to have a good CON score because they needed the hit points. Period. Sure, there are other reasons to have a good CON score, but the issue was hit points, being abstract, shouldn't be one of them.

So, unless you want to have fewer hit points, you need a way of removing CON bonus from hit points. The easiest way to do that is to use the maximum of the HD instead of rolling. It keeps hit points close to what typical CON bonuses are.

Is it though? Concentration checks and saves have nothing to do with that? Every optimizer I've ever seen expresses a strong desire to shore up the big 3 saves and always stresses the importance of concentration checks.

Yes. Hit points are the primary reason not to dump CON overall. Casters have lower HD already, so having high CON is doubly beneficial to them--both hit point bonuses and boosts in Concentration checks. But, if you read my other posts here, you would see I directly addressed aspects of CON such as Concentration checks and various saves.

Where is the pushback on Dex? You see it as interchangeable as the 2nd or 3rd priority. It touches defenses, common saves, and initiative. How is that less OP than constitution?

I never said it was less OP than CON, did I? This is NOT a pushback on CON, so much as divorcing it from hit points so it doesn't feel as essential to every PC.

DEX, while great and yes, in my opinion OP, is not as essential. Here are the reasons:

1. Initiative is swingy and cyclical. DEX helps, but it is hardly essential for it. Once the order is established, you really only need to survive the first enemy turn, and then you go.
2. Having higher HP helps you survive, of course, as well as a better AC. However, there are many ways to take damage that has nothing to do with AC or DEX saves. HP helps in ALL those cases.

Easy fixes to make DEX less OP are:

1. Allow Initiative to be INT or WIS, instead of just DEX. Arguments can easily be made for both of those abilities instead of DEX.
2. Have DEX penalties apply even if wearing armor.
3. Allow DEX to assist in attack rolls with finesse or ranged weapons, but NOT add to damage.

These are all things my group do and decrease the important of DEX. It is still important, but not nearly as vital.

Oh, so you agree. It is more than just HP. Makes everything else in your comment a little misguided, doesn't it?

Not at all. It makes it more focused, certainly, but not misguided. I consider that a good thing.

D&D has always had skills that became priority choices. That doesn't feel like a bug. Does it limit builds or RP opportunities? A little, maybe. Do any of the proposed changes really fix that? I don't think that they do. Casters, in particular, will still want high Con. If Con has any impact on short rest healing or HP it will still be a priority for martials. None of these proposed changes "fix" that.

The goal is not to make CON as much of a priority as you seem to believe. It is to remove the link between CON and bonus hit points.

As I addressed in the OP, CON is still important due to:

For #2, CON is still used for a lot of saving throws for different types of damage, as well as concentration checks.

If the problem is HP bloat, then sure. That you can solve by disconnecting Con from HP. Some of the posts in this thread address that wonderfully, but can't it also be solved by monsters doing an extra 2 (or 4 or 10) damage per attack?

So, this is the problem. Hit point bloat leads to damage bloat, which escalates to more hit points, and then more damage, etc. You can see this from 3E on (even some in 2E). No, I would not increase damage per attack because damage is not only caused by attacks. It is caused by other things such as falling, failed saves, etc. It is easier to adjust hit points, not damage.

I'm not saying this isn't a worthwhile discussion. If I thought that, I'd have just moved on without commenting. I just think it is worth looking at specifically what the problem is (and there doesn't seem to be a consensus beyond "every PC has high Con,") establishing what other abilities have that same problem (cough Dex,) and finding the most surgical way of addressing that problem without a cascade of further screwing up the game.

Good. Hopefully we can have a worthwhile discussion on it (if you wish).

The problem is players feeling they need a high CON due to the need for hit points. Choosing to have a high CON for other reasons is fine, but hit points are abstract and having them linked to CON is a hold-over from the "meat" issue and prior editions.

Having proficiency in CON saves helps with everything else. Poison, cold, life drain, Concentration checks, etc. Now, CON saves are only default for three classes: Barbarian, Fighter, and Sorcerers. So, unless a PC takes the Resilient feat for CON, they might still feel the "need" to have a high CON for the other reasons noted. If they do, fine, but at least then we know it won't be just for hit points...

However, since CON has no linked skills, having it impact many other aspects of the game gives it back some balance IMO. Is it perfect, probably not! But it's a start.

IMO, that would mean considering whether some abilities have a disproportionate effect on play, and how to properly redistribute those effects.

Sure, we could address every ability if you want! I'll start with what my games do (besides RAW uses):

Strength:

• ranged weapons can be modified to include damage bonus (except if they have the loading property!)
• use variant encumbrance rules so STR 8 is only carrying 40 lbs.

Dexterity:

• does not ever add to weapon damage
• negative bonuses apply to AC even when wearing armor

Constitution:

• does not ever add to hit points
• adds additional "free" levels of exhaustion
• used by Sorcerers for spellcasting instead of CHA

Intelligence:

• can be used for Initiative
• grants additional proficiencies which can be used for languages and/or tools
• used by Warlocks for spellcasting instead of CHA

Wisdom

• can be used for Initiative

Charisma

• used by Clerics for spellcasting instead of WIS

There's probably more, but that is all I can think of at the moment. Cheers!

 

[Redwizard007]

Fine, since you insist...

The issue was players feeling they had to have a good CON score because they needed the hit points. Period. Sure, there are other reasons to have a good CON score, but the issue was hit points, being abstract, shouldn't be one of them.

So, unless you want to have fewer hit points, you need a way of removing CON bonus from hit points. The easiest way to do that is to use the maximum of the HD instead of rolling. It keeps hit points close to what typical CON bonuses are.


Yes. Hit points are the primary reason not to dump CON overall. Casters have lower HD already, so having high CON is doubly beneficial to them--both hit point bonuses and boosts in Concentration checks. But, if you read my other posts here, you would see I directly addressed aspects of CON such as Concentration checks and various saves.


I never said it was less OP than CON, did I? This is NOT a pushback on CON, so much as divorcing it from hit points so it doesn't feel as essential to every PC.

DEX, while great and yes, in my opinion OP, is not as essential. Here are the reasons:

1. Initiative is swingy and cyclical. DEX helps, but it is hardly essential for it. Once the order is established, you really only need to survive the first enemy turn, and then you go.
2. Having higher HP helps you survive, of course, as well as a better AC. However, there are many ways to take damage that has nothing to do with AC or DEX saves. HP helps in ALL those cases.

Easy fixes to make DEX less OP are:

1. Allow Initiative to be INT or WIS, instead of just DEX. Arguments can easily be made for both of those abilities instead of DEX.
2. Have DEX penalties apply even if wearing armor.
3. Allow DEX to assist in attack rolls with finesse or ranged weapons, but NOT add to damage.

These are all things my group do and decrease the important of DEX. It is still important, but not nearly as vital.


Not at all. It makes it more focused, certainly, but not misguided. I consider that a good thing.


The goal is not to make CON as much of a priority as you seem to believe. It is to remove the link between CON and bonus hit points.

As I addressed in the OP, CON is still important due to:



So, this is the problem. Hit point bloat leads to damage bloat, which escalates to more hit points, and then more damage, etc. You can see this from 3E on (even some in 2E). No, I would not increase damage per attack because damage is not only caused by attacks. It is caused by other things such as falling, failed saves, etc. It is easier to adjust hit points, not damage.


Good. Hopefully we can have a worthwhile discussion on it (if you wish).

The problem is players feeling they need a high CON due to the need for hit points. Choosing to have a high CON for other reasons is fine, but hit points are abstract and having them linked to CON is a hold-over from the "meat" issue and prior editions.

Having proficiency in CON saves helps with everything else. Poison, cold, life drain, Concentration checks, etc. Now, CON saves are only default for three classes: Barbarian, Fighter, and Sorcerers. So, unless a PC takes the Resilient feat for CON, they might still feel the "need" to have a high CON for the other reasons noted. If they do, fine, but at least then we know it won't be just for hit points...

However, since CON has no linked skills, having it impact many other aspects of the game gives it back some balance IMO. Is it perfect, probably not! But it's a start.


Sure, we could address every ability if you want! I'll start with what my games do (besides RAW uses):

Strength:

• ranged weapons can be modified to include damage bonus (except if they have the loading property!)
• use variant encumbrance rules so STR 8 is only carrying 40 lbs.

Dexterity:

• does not ever add to weapon damage
• negative bonuses apply to AC even when wearing armor

Constitution:

• does not ever add to hit points
• adds additional "free" levels of exhaustion
• used by Sorcerers for spellcasting instead of CHA

Intelligence:

• can be used for Initiative
• grants additional proficiencies which can be used for languages and/or tools
• used by Warlocks for spellcasting instead of CHA

Wisdom

• can be used for Initiative

Charisma

• used by Clerics for spellcasting instead of WIS

There's probably more, but that is all I can think of at the moment. Cheers!

That is a lot of adjustments, but it looks like they would be easy to adapt to with a good character sheet. If you have one, I'd love a link. Is it difficult to set them up for a virtual table top?

My initial thoughts are that a few of them might have dramatic effects on builds and/or gameplay, but im going to run some math on them and mock up a few characters to see how they play out before I get any further into this conversation. It's hard to be constructive when I'm coming from a largely unmodified 5e.

I can't think of a way to say this that doesn't sound blatantly argumentative, so apologies in advance, but if you are tweaking this much, is there a different system that is closer to what you want to play? With a dozen house rules about ability scores... thats just a lot.

 

[Ancalagon]

The GLOG has hp that is equal to your con - X - a level 1 character has con -4 hp, level 2 is con -2 etc. A few classes get +1 or +2 hp per level.

Oh and stats are determined by rolling 3d6, in order. What if your con is 4 or less? You show up to the party, die, the others loot your body and you make a new character

 

[DND_Reborn]

That is a lot of adjustments, but it looks like they would be easy to adapt to with a good character sheet. If you have one, I'd love a link. Is it difficult to set them up for a virtual table top?

I've made over a dozen character sheets, but really most of the changes are pretty easy to keep track of. No one has had any issues so far.

My initial thoughts are that a few of them might have dramatic effects on builds and/or gameplay, but im going to run some math on them and mock up a few characters to see how they play out before I get any further into this conversation. It's hard to be constructive when I'm coming from a largely unmodified 5e.

There are definitely some changes I have found, but those turned out to be the feature, not the bug.

I'll be intrigued to find out what you come up with!

I can't think of a way to say this that doesn't sound blatantly argumentative, so apologies in advance, but if you are tweaking this much, is there a different system that is closer to what you want to play? With a dozen house rules about ability scores... thats just a lot.

No worries, I get this a lot! You should see our full (always in progress) MOD--about 150 pages LOL! The vast majority of it is about character creation and leveling, as well as revised spell lists. Only 20% is about actual game play.

I'd prefer to go back to AD&D 1E/2E-hybrid which I played for over 15 years! But, my groups are all new(ish) to D&D and started with 5E. It would be a lot to ask to go back for them.

Anyway, I have a super hacked-down version of just 3 pages, which is what I am currently running to keep it simple for my newer group.

 

[Pauln6]

I don't think I have ever played with anyone who felt they 'needed' a high Con but most people aim for 12-14. The issue for me is more that the hit point disparity gets a bit wide if one of the players decides to pump points into Con. I have one PC with Con 16 and toughness who has about 200hp compared to everyone else's 90 - 110. So for me it's not about hp bloat but narrowing the gap.

e.g. with my suggestion of full hp plus a roll at level 1 and no con bonus after level 10
Wizard 20 Con10 6+(10x4) 40+(10x3) 30 = 76
Wizard 20 Con 16 6+(10x4+3) 70 + (10x3) 30 = 106

Barbarian 20 Con10 12+(10x7) 70+(10x7) 70 = 152
Barbarian 20 Con 16 12+(10x7+3) 100 + (10x7) 70 = 182

The gap between haves and have nots is 30 rather than 60. It's often melee martial classes who go for the highest AC and highest hp and so the gap between the class with the highest and lowest hit dice can get a bit polarised. I just think it would be better to narrow the gap a bit. I actually do prefer to roll for hp personally so that the characters are not too homogenous. I'm just not sure where to draw the line.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't think I have ever played with anyone who felt they 'needed' a high Con but most people aim for 12-14.

Not just most, but nearly all (90%+) IME:

D&D 5E - What's Your (Character's) Constitution Score?

The title says it, but this is a 5E thread so PLEASE only respond for 5E characters you've played or are playing currently. Thank you! :) It can be a current character or a favorite character, multiple characters (up to 6 votes), but please only vote once for each PC and use their current...

www.enworld.org

Meanwhile, I have happily seen more than 10% of players have 8-11 scores in STR, DEX, INT, WIS, CHA.

STR by basically any non-martial or finesse PC
DEX by any heavy armored PC and even some medium+shield PC
INT by any non-Wizard or non-Rogue
WIS by Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Rogue (not often), and non-WIS based casters
CHA by any non-CHA based casters and Rogues who don't care about being the "face" of the group

CON, however, only by players who want to play it as a role-playing thing (the "sickly" wizard trope, etc.).

The issue for me is more that the hit point disparity gets a bit wide if one of the players decides to pump points into Con. I have one PC with Con 16 and toughness who has about 200hp compared to everyone else's 90 - 110. So for me it's not about hp bloat but narrowing the gap.

That's fair if that is your goal. It isn't mine so much. If you take Toughness and are high level (given the hp I assume at least tier 3?), that is your thing--having lots of hit points. But if narrowing the gap and if your preference is rolling, the OP concept probably isn't for you. (Which is perfectly cool IMO!)

 

[Jahydin]

@DND_Reborn
Just thought of a few more options for those that like to roll and want CON to factor in somehow:
CON Mod doesn't add to your HD roll, but lets you reroll it that many times and take the highest.
CON Mod doesn't add to your HD roll, but guarantees at least that many HP when your roll.

Both would still benefit from the guaranteed HP bonus per level to keep the math on track I think.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@DND_Reborn
Just thought of a few more options for those that like to roll and want CON to factor in somehow:
CON Mod doesn't add to your HD roll, but lets you reroll it that many times and take the highest.
CON Mod doesn't add to your HD roll, but guarantees at least that many HP when your roll.

Both would still benefit from the guaranteed HP bonus per level to keep the math on track I think.

Both good ideas, and it makes me think of another which I considered using before:

CON mod does add to your HD roll, but only to a maximum for your HD.

This way it raises the average and the floor, but not the ceiling.

They could all work, really, just offer different "feels". I'll have to discuss it with my groups for our own use (if we do) and of course any of this might help other groups.

 

[Redwizard007]

@DND_Reborn
Just thought of a few more options for those that like to roll and want CON to factor in somehow:
CON Mod doesn't add to your HD roll, but lets you reroll it that many times and take the highest.
CON Mod doesn't add to your HD roll, but guarantees at least that many HP when your roll.

Both would still benefit from the guaranteed HP bonus per level to keep the math on track I think.

HP per level of your rolled HD with a minimum of twice your Con bonus could be interesting. It keeps Con valid and involved, doesn't invalidate rolls, and also prevents most barbarians ending up with less HP than a lucky wizard.