As far as the game rules are concerned, dying through HP loss is pretty much the only way you can die, and any other sort of challenge can usually be resolved by fighting.
Note I didn't say anything about other ways of dying, only "Not dying" being your only measure (And therefore, Not Dying being your primary or sole concern). Now that may be Your opinion and preference, and that's totally fine, but for a large % of other players of the game, having a few HP less ranks lower on their measure of concerns than having high social stats. If your only available method of interacting with challenges is to get into a HP whittling contest, you are being penalised. Fact. The fact you might have absolutely no problems with this, and none of the players do, and you all bounce merrily along kicking down doors and beating up hobos is fortuitous. Other people disagree, therefore your not being hampered does not apply equally to them.
First of all, the DM can't just tailor encounters to the players or the party, because that's cheating. If the DM was going to tailor the encounters, then there would be no point in playing the game in the first place.
You know that as soon as you take the player level into account when designing an encounter, by your definition you're cheating?
Or you've got new players who aren't totally hot on the rules so you lob them some easy pitches - cheating right?
What about players who want to try cinematic and narrative things in combat (I want to try and disguise myself as a skeleton using this pile of bones and parlay with the Skeleton hoard) rather than get as close to maximum DPR as possible - would giving them more options in encounters to do just that be cheating?
Look - if that's the way you roll, knock yourself out. The game is
fundamentally designed otherwise.
Maybe some people play like that, but it's far from a given. More generally speaking, the players are free to engage the world as they see fit, and they are the ones who decide whether to fight or talk based on their understanding of their own abilities and the opposition and how the world works.
But based on your own arguments, if they want to engage with the word as a low CON character with high stats in WIS, INT, and CHA - they are weak. Fun, but ultimately weak. It's a second rate choice, an error, because "violence is regrettable...but effective".
The argument initially posited was that every character had no choice BUT to take high CON. You added to that saying taking CON had no drawbacks. I made the point that for many people, having low social stats IS a drawback. Now you're saying the players are free to engage with the world as they want - well if they want their character to focus on engaging with the world on a social level, their characters need social stats to reflect that (inasmuch as they NEED stats to do or approach anything - you're hulking brute may well prefer narratively to talk rather than fight, but with 8 CHA, he's more likely to just be ignored to be fair). Wanting to engage with the world socially, and dumping social stats in order to pump Con
Is A Drawback by definition.
Second, if the difference between high stats and average stats is not significant, then it's not a significant penalty to have an average stat instead of a high stat. The fighter with Charisma 14 and Constitution 10 isn't significantly better at talking to people, or significantly more likely to fall during any given combat, so whether one or the other might be more useful to the character depends mostly on the number of relevant situations they'll find themself in. For every ten Charisma-based checks the fighter is asked to make, one of those (on average) will hinge on the stat difference. The difference in personability between those two fighters is only noticeable after they've each been called on to prove themselves in ten situations.
I addressed that in a later comment - I'd warrant that if you've a 10% lower chance (in non-trivial, non-impossible) situations you wouldn't notice because people don't record this stuff. Besides, a Bard with 10 CHA and training in deception is going to destroy a 20 CHA Fighter in bluffing midgame anyway - in fact the game would not be significantly different if you removed everything except +4 and 0 stat mods and kept the proficiency bonus. Stats though, as I said, very loosely represent the type of person you character is, and the experience they've gained, which in turn informs how that person approaches challenges. The comparison of INT 10 to INT 15 may mean little in terms of dice rolling success, but it's massive in terms of character.
And honestly, how many Charisma-based checks will the Charisma 14 fighter be asked to make, when the Charisma 20 bard is standing right there? Is it greater than the sum of Constitution-based checks and HP-relevant combats they will be asked to participate in?
Again, you're power gaming. Which is totally fine and many people enjoy many games doing just that. As long as you've got a Wizard, a Druid and a Bard/Sorceror, you've got all the social pillars covered. Everyone pumps CON and DEX as their 2nd and 3rd stats and dumps the rest. Cool.
However, more character and narrative driven games are messier. The Fighter I WANT to play has 16 Charisma, and himself is a suave charmer in the Han Solo mould (He can mix it, but he's fundamentally a chancer and a charlatan). The Bard is a court Bard, and has 20 charisma. So now my character can't have any social play? Why not? It's what he does - He sees opportunity and tries to cut deals. Why wouldn't he engage using his Charisma? Just cos the Bard has a better stat? No chance - would Han Solo stand by and let someone else negotiate on his behalf?
Again I reference Critical Role: The party could have Scanlan do ALL the Social work. They don't. Percy does Diplomacy, Vex does Haggling, and Scanlan does BS......FFS Scanlan's Persuasion is +18! +18!!! Vex's is +9! But guess what, their character's don't work that way. Percy has 20 INT, Vex has 17 Charisma. They are going to engage with the world/story socially. So they do - they don't defer to Scanlan in every social situation because he has INSANE Charisma. Those stats aren't "wasted" in the slightest - they are fundamental pillars of the characters.
And it's a false dichotomy to say the only
value of stats is only the number of CHA rolls Vs HP close shaves. That's your valuation of those stats (and you're entitled to it, because we all value things differently)
For what feels like the
Billionth time: If you don't want to play the game that way, that's cool. Each to their own, you know, and that applies to the original post lamenting about homogeneous CON scores. But to categorically state that something is "Broken" because you have a narrow value of things is like announcing a screwdriver is "Useless" because you've been trying to bang in a nail and it just won't do it. Preferences aren't bad or wrong, especially not in a system like D&D which has such a broad scope and fanbase - and generally speaking people get to play the games they want to play because of it. What is badwrongfunning is saying one value system is fundamentally better because: Reasons.
