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

[ccs]

I feel like either base hit points should have been doubled OR con mod should have contributed half what it does. As is, con is such a huge contributor to your hit points that it ends up being incredibly important to anyone who expects to see combat.

Base HPs are fine as is.

And there's never been an edition where having a higher Con score wasn't a desirable thing.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

Con is usually my character's second highest stat, especially if they are a caster who will be using concentration spells regularly. I also frequently play humans and take the Resilient ( Con ) feat because of how frequently Con saves come up, especially in conjunction with the aforementioned concentration spell use.

 

[CapnZapp]

In my book anything over 11 is high...

And you have good historical precedent to think so.

For every other ability it is still true.

But you, but more importantly the WotC staff that creates pregens (since this isn't about you, and whatever you do in your campaign does not affect others), would be much better off readjusting to reality, where Con 14-15 is the norm, and Con 10 is very low.

Getting one or two extra hp per level is that good. It might not feel that way when you place your points at L1.

But at tenth level the difference between 53 and 73 hp is more pronounced than ANYTHING else that might differ between the two rogues.

To me, it is very irritating to produce an example Rogue with Con 10. That's just not a character choice, that's outright broken for a pregen.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...outright broken...

Things not being made optimal does not equate to things being broken.

You have to show that a character with a 10 Con cannot overcome the normal expected level of challenge (which is different than showing it can't overcome the same expected level of challenge as a differently built character) to show that it is actually broken.

I don't know specifically about a rogue with a 10 Con, but I know my fighter with a 10 Con does just fine.

 

[Istbor]

I like to keep my Con at 14 or greater. Though I typically build melee characters.

I would kind of like to see a class where Con IS the stat you want to max out. Although, I have a hard time thinking what that class would be or do.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I like to keep my Con at 14 or greater. Though I typically build melee characters.

I would kind of like to see a class where Con IS the stat you want to max out. Although, I have a hard time thinking what that class would be or do.

I would say Barbarians want max Con. AC and doubles their HP because of rage.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[Gradine]

I have tended, for the past three editions, to treat Con as a dump stat. Granted, I rarely create melee characters, but even when I do I tend to treat Con as tertiary at best. Note that "dump" is not necessarily where I put my lowest score, but rather where I stick my 10-13 rolls. Single digit scores are penalties and therefore interesting, and D&D tends to treat Constitution in a fairly boring manner compared to, well, basically every other stat. If there were some fun skills to play around with, or even a good spread of class features that rely on Con, that'd be something. But there's barely anything. You are tougher to kill. Fin.

On the rare occasions I make a character that is meant to be tough to kill, then I certainly prioritize Con. But most of my characters aren't really designed that way to begin with (from a narrativist perspective, much less from a gamist one), and given the choice between 2-3 extra HP per level and a +2-3 bonus in a slew of interesting skills that would add more depth to my character? That's a no-brainer for me.

Not that I don't understand the gamist appeal of not neglecting Constitution; and when I roll characters in Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale or KotOR I give it the attention it deserves there. But that's simply not the approach I take when I sit down at an actual table to play.

 

[Rhenny]

It depends on the type of campaign.

If we are playing a mission oriented campaign with players who want to complete tasks and survive, 14 is the lowest magic number.

If we are playing a story heavy, roleplaying type of campaign where everyone is playing an interesting character concept, then it matters less.

Interestingly, someone did a poll before EnWorld lost the data and it seemed as if the mean score for character's currently being played was about 14.

 

[flametitan]

Looking at the three AL characters I have, I noticed that my characters tended to have a higher con than I considered myself aiming for (14 for the sorc and warlock, 16 for the fighter), but two of them were frontline fighters, while the sorcerer was a Dragonborn that I wanted to actually make use of breath weapon.

If it wasn't for that, I could reasonably see myself going lower on them.

 

[CapnZapp]

Things not being made optimal does not equate to things being broken.

You have to show that a character with a 10 Con cannot overcome the normal expected level of challenge (which is different than showing it can't overcome the same expected level of challenge as a differently built character) to show that it is actually broken.

Nope.

I happen to believe it is broken that WotC releases a pregen character that's supposed to be a frontline combatant that at 10th level gets 53 hit points.

So I will continue to say this as much as I like, thank you very much

PS. And it's not about you either, Aaron. To be honest, you can take your fighter and stuff it, because I do not care for the way you always take the criticism against the game so personally. I will certainly not allow you to redirect the discussion to be about you and your characters.

Repeat after me: it is still fine to play the game even if you admit not everything about is perfect. So there's nothing wrong with agreeing with me once in a while (even if that while does not have to be today). Thank you and have a pleasant afternoon.