D&D 5E I'm really hating Constitution right now
- Thread starter Xeviat
- Start date
There's feels like there are a ton of issues here being rolled into one problem with stat point allocation, and to assume that this problem never really occurred to WotC during the bazillion playtests they must've had, feels a little like missing the point.
If players are desperate for HP because they feel too squishy, it's because the games they play are too combat focused, where HP balance is paramount. The rules of Bounded accuracy are explicitly intended that, in non life-or-death circumstances, a level 7 character does not feel useless if they're with a party of level 12's. The main difference is HP, and if your combats aren't all semi-lethal, meh, you can get away with it. If, however, there's plenty of intrigue, puzzles, and social interaction, then you're going to want to have at least 2 good INT, WIS, or CHA, or adequate.
Second point is the character creation itself - as someone mentioned above, rolled stats solve a lot of problems with choice. Speak to your players and rather than have them bring a character concept to the table before hand ("I want to play a Monk today, dude I'm really psyched!", "Well come in off the porch and we'll talk"). Rolled stats, character background, THEN choose a class. Alternatively, once the point buy is done, ask each player why their stats are like they are - poor justification leads to an immediate deduction of 2 from the stat. The wizard with 14 CON is going to have to come up with some pretty wacky
to justify being as physically hardy as the Ranger with 14 CON.
Thirdly, Maybe explain to your players that the difference between 10 Con and 14 CON is largely negligible - at 5th level, that's 10HP, have a better DEX or WIS save is just as likely to save you those 10HP (Maybe not mathematically exact, but close enough), and they aren't there to be hit anyway. HP, AC, and good saves all block damage in different ways - yes HP feels more reliable, but constantly fluffling WIS and CHA saves is fricking annoying.
Fouthly, CON is not a story skill (none of the physical stats are really, in most cases), and D&D is generally speaking about player stories, and about the story of the world itself. The more people focus on this, and the more they know the game will focus on this (I want to play a social polymath, but I'm worried the DM will keep trying to kill me with monsters) I suspect the more people treat CON as a nice-to-have option. If that isn't the game you want to play, and you do want a dungeon crawl hack-n-slash, CON is going to be the cleverest option.
Lastly. If you're still reallllllllly set on nerfing con. THen as someone mention above, MAX the HP dice per level and remove the CON bonus (except for racial perks that get +1 because that's their thing) - but leave CON with healing and everything else. Ergo, high CON scores recover quicker, but HP is more aligned to class.
If players are desperate for HP because they feel too squishy, it's because the games they play are too combat focused, where HP balance is paramount. The rules of Bounded accuracy are explicitly intended that, in non life-or-death circumstances, a level 7 character does not feel useless if they're with a party of level 12's. The main difference is HP, and if your combats aren't all semi-lethal, meh, you can get away with it. If, however, there's plenty of intrigue, puzzles, and social interaction, then you're going to want to have at least 2 good INT, WIS, or CHA, or adequate.
Second point is the character creation itself - as someone mentioned above, rolled stats solve a lot of problems with choice. Speak to your players and rather than have them bring a character concept to the table before hand ("I want to play a Monk today, dude I'm really psyched!", "Well come in off the porch and we'll talk"). Rolled stats, character background, THEN choose a class. Alternatively, once the point buy is done, ask each player why their stats are like they are - poor justification leads to an immediate deduction of 2 from the stat. The wizard with 14 CON is going to have to come up with some pretty wacky
to justify being as physically hardy as the Ranger with 14 CON.Thirdly, Maybe explain to your players that the difference between 10 Con and 14 CON is largely negligible - at 5th level, that's 10HP, have a better DEX or WIS save is just as likely to save you those 10HP (Maybe not mathematically exact, but close enough), and they aren't there to be hit anyway. HP, AC, and good saves all block damage in different ways - yes HP feels more reliable, but constantly fluffling WIS and CHA saves is fricking annoying.
Fouthly, CON is not a story skill (none of the physical stats are really, in most cases), and D&D is generally speaking about player stories, and about the story of the world itself. The more people focus on this, and the more they know the game will focus on this (I want to play a social polymath, but I'm worried the DM will keep trying to kill me with monsters) I suspect the more people treat CON as a nice-to-have option. If that isn't the game you want to play, and you do want a dungeon crawl hack-n-slash, CON is going to be the cleverest option.
Lastly. If you're still reallllllllly set on nerfing con. THen as someone mention above, MAX the HP dice per level and remove the CON bonus (except for racial perks that get +1 because that's their thing) - but leave CON with healing and everything else. Ergo, high CON scores recover quicker, but HP is more aligned to class.
I think if you remove it you negate many build options. Plenty of wizard builds and other classes can function without using spells that require concentration. If concentration checks are an issue spoiling fun, you can lower the bar to succeed but do remember that they are important to balance the dominance of caster classes. Constitution is also one of the key saving throw stats.
Rolling for stats works fine. I just banned pure stat boosts but players are still free to choose stat boost feats if they want.
Rolling for stats works fine. I just banned pure stat boosts but players are still free to choose stat boost feats if they want.
My solution? I never pay attention to how my players assign their ability scores. I also remember that low level characters are soft and squishy, and taste good to several monsters in my world.
Seriously. Low level characters are extremely easy to kill and a few hit points one way or another are not going to matter.
In other words, why does it bother you what people do that will be fun for them? Like the song says let it go...
Seriously. Low level characters are extremely easy to kill and a few hit points one way or another are not going to matter.
In other words, why does it bother you what people do that will be fun for them? Like the song says let it go...
It always seems when DMs here complain about PCs all seeming samey, invariably it's because of how they are mechanically built. Which tells me that the real issue is the role-playing (or lack thereof) of the players.
If the players have actually created individual characters with their own wants and needs and desires and personalities... the mechanics for them can be virtually the same (like it was for many 1E characters way back when) and the characters will all feel different.
Sent from my SM-J320V using EN World mobile app
If the players have actually created individual characters with their own wants and needs and desires and personalities... the mechanics for them can be virtually the same (like it was for many 1E characters way back when) and the characters will all feel different.
Sent from my SM-J320V using EN World mobile app
jodyjohnson
Adventurer
In general I think using any rule from a previous edition should be fine and a sort of 'no brainer' in regards to whether it would 'work' in D&D.
I'd change the way concentration works as well. The melee classes might still take Con, but the spellcasters would still likely take 14's because of the Concentration mechanic as written.
1. If everyone takes lower Con then it sorts out as fights have lower Difficulty (DMs tend to scale up combat to match combat focused PCs).
2. If the Concentration mechanic were changed back to Playtest levels Con is less important.
3. If you have less combat (with consequences) than the mental stats are more important and those stats get prioritized.
I'd change the way concentration works as well. The melee classes might still take Con, but the spellcasters would still likely take 14's because of the Concentration mechanic as written.
1. If everyone takes lower Con then it sorts out as fights have lower Difficulty (DMs tend to scale up combat to match combat focused PCs).
2. If the Concentration mechanic were changed back to Playtest levels Con is less important.
3. If you have less combat (with consequences) than the mental stats are more important and those stats get prioritized.
FarBeyondC
Explorer
I personally wouldn't do this, or play a game where someone did this, but it sounds like for you the best thing would be to simply remove the choice.
Remove one of the standard array scores (either the 12 or 13 to be 'balanced', or the 8 if you're feeling generous), tell your players to use what remains for the other five non-Constitution stats, and have Constitution be determined a different way.
If you'd like a bit a random, have them roll Constitution (via whichever method you prefer).
You could have their Constitution be based off their background, though this will (likely) lead to background shenanigans.
If you wanted to enforce certain stereotypes, have it be based off their class or their race.
Since virtually everyone in your games chose 14 Con (with those who didn't staying within two of that), you could have them all just start with 14 Con.
However you decide to determine their Con, just get the choice out of their hands.
Fanaelialae
Legend
You need to be careful making this change, lest you turn Constitution into a dump stat.
I think you may want to do some more analysis on why this issue exists (talk to your players about it) before making any changes. Could it be that the reason your players choose to do so is that they perceive your game as being too deadly? If that's the case, you might have more success leaving Constitution as is and ratcheting encounter difficulty down a notch. Otherwise, in a few weeks/months you might be starting a new thread about how you hate the Toughness feat because everyone in your group takes it.
To me this seems like an odd problem to have, as Constitution is generally considered a stat of tertiary importance in my group (admittedly, we roll stats, but allow them to be placed as desired). Some builds can get away with making it of secondary importance (Dex fighter) but I can't imagine how you would do so for a monk or paladin (do your players never play those classes?).
I'm not saying that you absolutely shouldn't make this change, but I think you might be better served first discussing this idea with your players than with us.
I think you may want to do some more analysis on why this issue exists (talk to your players about it) before making any changes. Could it be that the reason your players choose to do so is that they perceive your game as being too deadly? If that's the case, you might have more success leaving Constitution as is and ratcheting encounter difficulty down a notch. Otherwise, in a few weeks/months you might be starting a new thread about how you hate the Toughness feat because everyone in your group takes it.
To me this seems like an odd problem to have, as Constitution is generally considered a stat of tertiary importance in my group (admittedly, we roll stats, but allow them to be placed as desired). Some builds can get away with making it of secondary importance (Dex fighter) but I can't imagine how you would do so for a monk or paladin (do your players never play those classes?).
I'm not saying that you absolutely shouldn't make this change, but I think you might be better served first discussing this idea with your players than with us.
