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

[Horwath]

I'm more in line to have constitution deleted as a stat.

and either calculate HP per level as having 14 con(+2 HP per HD)

or adding constitution mechanics to strength.

 

[shoak1]

Currently, a level 10 rogue (bard, etc) would have around 55 hp with a +0 con bonus. This rises (obviously) by +20 with a +2 con bonus.

Now, that represents a whopping 35% increase. That's a huge bonus to the character's staying power, easily encompassing two full levels worth. And hit points is the premier indicator of level and power in this edition.

That's your problem and solution right there.

Make a Constitution increase from 10 to 14 impact your hp total by less than two levels, or an increase of over a third. And you should see players making other choices.

The silliness and predictability of 14 CON point-buy peeps across all classes DOES need to end lol. And I think you identified a good example of the problem - that small HD classes (like the sulky Rogue you mention) get a lot of bang for their buck w/CON - proportionately more in fact than do martial types. Intuitively, this seems the opposite of "reality." But your solution hits all classes equally and therefore still leaves squishies w/their advantage.

So my proposal instead is that every CON modifier bonus/penalty, instead of providing a linear bonus/penalty of 1 to hp, instead provides a 15% percentage increase/decrease based on your hp sans CON bonus.

So CON 14 =+30% hp, CON 16=+45%, CON 18= +40%....CON 6= -30% hp

L5 mage w/d6 would have 20 hp sans CON...so w/14 CON he would instead get 26 hp in my system...

L5 fighter w/d10 would have 30 hp base and get another 9 hp from CON

So in my solution, the CON bonus for d6 squishies decreases by -48% from current rules, d8 dudes would lose -32%, fighters -18%, and barbarians would get -3%.

There - done. Frail wizards return to the world - much rejoicing ensues!!!!!!!

 

[Li Shenron]

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?

First of all, I agree that almost never a PC has a low Constitution score. It doesn't matter how many people chime up in this thread and say "I once played a low-Con PC and it was fine". I actually believe is IS fine, but I don't believe that players do that more than very rarely anyway. The vast majority of players are simply too scared by having their PC killed, they know that high Con means more HP means less likely to die.

That said, I am very disappointed to read in this thread suggestions that take away from Constitution, as a way to discourage players from boosting it. This basically means "let's make Constitution suck, so nobody takes it!" This does not so much solve the problem, but creates a new one! Every PC will be weaker and more likely to die as a result. In the best case, it'll make players look for other ways to boost their HP.

Instead, try to offer bonus HP to everyone, so that taking even more from Constitution would be overkill.

The way I handle it however is very different, but it is grounded in a specific gaming style that most do not want, so I am suggesting this: essentially I tell my players that their PCs will truly die only if the players agree, otherwise a "technical death" will default to some other penalty (captured, stranded, unconscious, lingering wound, or even permanent loss). So my players know that they don't have to worry maximizing their chances of survival.

 

[Blue]

13th Age adds Con mod to HPs once per tier of play instead of once per level. That might be an easy yoink. CON would still be important in 5e because it adds to spending HD.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

13th Age adds Con mod to HPs once per tier of play instead of once per level. That might be an easy yoink. CON would still be important in 5e because it adds to spending HD.

What's a "tier" in the context of 5E?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

What's a "tier" in the context of 5E?

Delineated by the shading on the Character Advancement chart, and explained on the same page (15) in the PHB.

1-4; 5-10; 11-16; and 17+

 

[Blue]

What's a "tier" in the context of 5E?

Page 15 of the PHB. 1-5, 5-10, 11-16, 17+

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

3) Cool. Right up until one of the slew of monsters with darkvision spots you. Better hope you’re a dex fighter too, else you really like that disadvantage for heavy armor.

As an aside: one of the really cool things about the Skulker feat is that it means you can hide from Darkvision in the dark. (Since Darkvision still leaves things lightly obscured, and Skulker means you can hide in light obscurement.)

It is definitely a feat to consider on any Fighter/Rogue scout-type.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm not a fan of arbitrary break points at certain levels where the mechanical effects of Constitution would insert themselves. I mean, we already have arbitrary break points for measuring progression, and that's what levels are; it would be weird to also have level tiers that do something.

Part of me would note that you could introduce the extra Hit Points alongside the normal ability score increases, since those are mechanically-distinctive levels anyway, and Fighters get more of them than anyone else.

Part of me wonders about just using Con modifier as flat DR, reducing the damage you take from every source instead of increasing your total HP.

 

[Uchawi]

Constitution is more important for saving throws, than hit points. So removing the hit point bonus will not really help reduce it becoming at least the third choice for high ability scores. For ability scores overall, I prefer the 4E approach where different class builds could have different primary attribute scores. At least that added more diversity to what class or race would be chosen.