D&D 5E 5E, HP, and Constitution

[Xeviat]

I've been talking about my dislike of the return to ye olde Constitution to HP. But, not because it's unbalanced. Con is mathematically balanced with Str, and probably weaker than Dex (for light armor wearers that is). The problem with Con is that it's good for everyone, and "no one" will dump it. A Con of 8 is unheard of. From my experience, 12 to 14 is more normal. I've never seen 10. I've seen 16 once.

I think I figured out a new way to address it. When looking at class balance, I'm not entirely sure that HP is really factored into class balance. They all seem to have a lot of class abilities, and I don't see too much extra damage or utility in the low HD classes. Maybe I'm wrong. But my idea is that rather than having classed based HP, instead have fixed HP per level (size based?) and then Con mod. If you're a melee character, Con is important. If you're a ranged character, maybe you don't focus on Con so much.

Mostly, I'm tossing ideas out there. I'm tired of Con being everyone's second or third choice. It's boring. It's a non-choice. There are other ways to solve it (I'm a huge fan of 4E's Con mod to healing surges).

What are your thoughts on Con?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

My thoughts on Constitution are this: I'm playing a 10 Constitution front-line fighter, and I've got plenty of hit points.

People pick a higher Constitution because it's important for their view of their character, and I see nothing wrong with that, even if it does mean that most characters played end up with similar scores - the entertainment factor of a character at the table is primarily generated by things other than Constitution score, hit point totals, or "build choices".

 

[Lanliss]

I've been talking about my dislike of the return to ye olde Constitution to HP. But, not because it's unbalanced. Con is mathematically balanced with Str, and probably weaker than Dex (for light armor wearers that is). The problem with Con is that it's good for everyone, and "no one" will dump it. A Con of 8 is unheard of. From my experience, 12 to 14 is more normal. I've never seen 10. I've seen 16 once.

I think I figured out a new way to address it. When looking at class balance, I'm not entirely sure that HP is really factored into class balance. They all seem to have a lot of class abilities, and I don't see too much extra damage or utility in the low HD classes. Maybe I'm wrong. But my idea is that rather than having classed based HP, instead have fixed HP per level (size based?) and then Con mod. If you're a melee character, Con is important. If you're a ranged character, maybe you don't focus on Con so much.

Mostly, I'm tossing ideas out there. I'm tired of Con being everyone's second or third choice. It's boring. It's a non-choice. There are other ways to solve it (I'm a huge fan of 4E's Con mod to healing surges).

What are your thoughts on Con?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I played a monk with 8 CON. Was good fun, and added depth to the character, rather than just another strong punching guy. Maybe I am a loner on this, but I do not see it as a required choice at all, it is just one of the choices I can make to flesh out my character.

If you are looking at this from an optimized point of view, maybe consider what your players will be doing with those high stats that they don't need to put in CON anymore? Seems like it will simply shift things to a different choice, probably DEX I think.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

A wizard should never have more HP than a fighter of the same level. That about sums up my stance on HP.

How to reflect that within the game rules is another matter entirely. Maybe remove the Con bonus to HP, and say that your number of Hit Dice in a day is equal to your Con bonus plus a third of your level?

 

[mellored]

They all seem to have a lot of class abilities, and I don't see too much extra damage or utility in the low HD classes

The biggest factor of being low HD (and armor) is range. Hitting someone from 100' is a lot safer than 5'.

But lower HD also have more utility. Fighter's and barbarians do damage, but that's it. They have no AoE effects like fireballs, can't fly, can't turn invisible, can't charm anyone, can't teleport, can't stun, can't hit and hide, etc...

 

[Ashrym]

The biggest factor of being low HD (and armor) is range. Hitting someone from 100' is a lot safer than 5'.

But lower HD also have more utility. Fighter's and barbarians do damage, but that's it. They have no AoE effects like fireballs, can't fly, can't turn invisible, can't charm anyone, can't teleport, can't stun, can't hit and hide, etc...

• Knocking over a bookcase does small AoE damage. So does collapsing a tunnel or bridge. It's there and just a factor of environment and/or preparation. See DMG pg 249 for improvised damage for an idea on it. If the DM allows gunpowder it's something the fighter might even craft on his own depending on background, and the secret for making gun powder could be a hermit secret for a fighter as a possible method of allowing it in the campaign with restrictions on access. It's another method for some AoE damage.
• I was flying with my griffon mount, could still climb, and could still jump.
• I was not turning invisible but I was hiding.
• Charm isn't a great ability in the first place. Advantage on a check can be done resource free with 2 members of the party where one uses the aid another action. If it's to stop incoming attacks then death or restraint accomplishes that as well.
• Teleporting also sucks in general without specifics like items from the location or existing circles of which the teleporter is aware. It can be convenient but traveling does accomplish the same thing. The typical use being getting home quickly after the important part is over or when fleeing.
• Dead > stun. Multiple attacks for grappling and pinning is effective to restrict opponents even without the stun, but other options such as poison coated weapons have useful effects as well. There's quite a bit of potential with poison whether the fighter is using contacts to supply it, or harvesting / creating his or her own. The choice also exists to knock someone unconscious instead of killing when dropped to 0 hp.
• They can hit and hide. Hitting and then leaving turns the encounter into a chase. The leaving part can be done taking the opportunity attack, or knocking opponents back first with a shove, or a combo shove with knock down and push first, or having taken the mobility feat. They aren't as good at it at rogues or monks, true, but the option still exists. They can do it as well as a rogue or monk momentarily by using action surge.

There are obviously things fighters cannot do but the lack of utility tends to get overstated. The utility just tends to fall into standard skill and equipment use.

The fact that fighters share the same hit die as rangers and paladins when both have spells and rangers have a fair bit of utility options, or applying EK to the fighter to add friends, invisibility, fly and fireball example spell options matching what was listed tends to dispute the hit dice / utility link. A bard (d8) has more utility than a wild sorcerer (d6), for example, so the higher hit die also has more utility in that example. I think utility is a factor but not the only one.

 

[mellored]

There are obviously things fighters cannot do but the lack of utility tends to get overstated. The utility just tends to fall into standard skill and equipment use.

Anyone can do all those things too.
But wizards can also do AoE when bookcases are not around, fly after the gryphon dies, sneak right past a guards face.

There's no denying that they have more utility than fighters.

The fact that fighters share the same hit die as rangers and paladins when both have spells and rangers have a fair bit of utility options, or applying EK to the fighter to add friends, invisibility, fly and fireball example spell options matching what was listed tends to dispute the hit dice / utility link. A bard (d8) has more utility than a wild sorcerer (d6), for example, so the higher hit die also has more utility in that example. I think utility is a factor but not the only one.

It's not the only factor, no.

Wild sorcerer's ability to twin-haste, or subtle suggestion is plenty powerful. Plus free random effects, most of which are beneficial.

 

[ccs]

Fighter's and barbarians do damage, but that's it. They have no AoE effects like fireballs, can't fly, can't turn invisible, can't charm anyone, can't teleport, can't stun, can't hit and hide, etc...

Sure I can! It's why I brought the wizard along in the 1st place. Right tool for the job at hand. If I need to stab something I use a sword, if I need to shoot something I use a bow, when I need one of those effects the wizard casts the correct spell on me....

And I could take things like the Magic Initiate feat or become an EK....

 

[Horwath]

I played a monk with 8 CON. Was good fun, and added depth to the character, rather than just another strong punching guy. Maybe I am a loner on this, but I do not see it as a required choice at all, it is just one of the choices I can make to flesh out my character.

If you are looking at this from an optimized point of view, maybe consider what your players will be doing with those high stats that they don't need to put in CON anymore? Seems like it will simply shift things to a different choice, probably DEX I think.

What?

I play currently 5th level monk with 12 con and I will I'm made of cheap glass.

I have 33 HP. You would have 23 HP. on 5th level. CR5 creatures hit from 15-20 on average. You are down in 2 hits for sure. Maybe even one.

Constitution is like a seatbelt, no one likes to bucle up, but it will save your life.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

My experience is similar to Horwath's. 14 and under for Con on a melee without consistent escape abilities seems like just asking to be down in the second round. And I don't feel that the games I play in are particularly deadly. I guess I could be wrong though.