D&D 5E I'm really hating Constitution right now

[Xeviat]

The real crux of the issue, cutting to the core of the system, is that the mono-stat attack formula makes this possible. If attacks/spells were reliant, even tangentially, to other stats, then this wouldn't be as prevalent. For example, in 4e the rider abilities on a lot of powers were determined by your secondary stat, and as a result I saw very few people go hard on Con in 4e unless they were a tank. If we had spells whose radius was affected by the mage's strength, or a sneak attack that incorporated strength into the damage, then we'd see a lot more people considering those factors rather than just pumping their main stat and then shuffling the leftovers into Con.

I had overlooked this until now. 4E characters did have a strong primary/secondary stat set up. 5E characters lack that to some degree, or at least they lack choices there. For most characters, Dex or Con are automatically secondary stats; Dex 14 is 'important' for characters without heavy armor, and Con 14 seems to be heavily favored. I've seen Primary 16, Dex 14, Con 14 a lot. Only Monks, Paladins, Rangers, and Eldritch Knights/Arcane Tricksters really vary from there.

Could that be helped with more robust subclasses? Maybe the Battle Master could be adjusted to favor mental ability scores? Maybe the Purple Dragon Knight can get more stuff with Cha. Maybe we can get a Tactician that uses Int, or something.

The current house rules I'm looking at end up being a mid to high level nerf for HP in a single combat, but a buff for HP across the day. This may take some pressure off healers to use their spells for healing, and thus would be a damage or utility buff across the board. Since I'm not looking to change the balance of the game with this, just expand players' perceived options, I may need to reevaluate some things. But, it might just make characters more likely to be able to push through 6 to 8 encounters in a day, which I can hardly ever achieve.

 

[schnee]

I've played around with changes such as these for a long time. A very simple solution, is the one you present yourself. Constitution Score + Full HD at first level. That has the added benefit of creating a more robust level 1 character. At levels higher than 1, you gain your average HD to hit points, no more, no less.

That is literally the rule for 5E.

Page 12:

At 1st level, your character has 1 Hit Die, and the die type is determined by your class. You start with hit points equal to the highest roll of that die, as indicated in your class description. (You also add your Constitution modifier, which you’ll determine in step 3.) This is also your hit point maximum.

Page 15:

Each time you gain a level, you gain 1 additional Hit Die. Roll that Hit Die, add your Constitution modifier
to the roll, and add the total to your hit point maximum. Alternatively, you can use the fixed value shown in your class entry, which is the average result of the die roll (rounded up).

Note that is alternately, as in 'always your choice always to make', and not optionally (like Feats or Variant Human) which means 'if the DM allows it'.

 

[schnee]

Also, I don't see the problem.

When we have squishy characters, I use weaker monsters, or fewer of them at a time, or we make the game less about combat and more about the problem-solving and scheming that squishy characters often have the best ways to solve.

One sub-plot of my current game is a prequel, with an Illusionist, a Bard, and a Rogue. The adventure is a classic Stagecoach Heist / Chase, with lots of personal interaction, investigation, a fun MacGuffin, and way more skill checks and environmental crises than hack and slash.

It's a very malleable game.

 

[Satyrn]

That is literally the rule for 5E.

Except for the couple changes that aren't, sure.

There's the not applying the Con mod to hit point total (which isn't actually in the post you quoted but is in the post that it quoted) and adding the Constitution score itself.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Because it's a boring non-choice. No one says "I want to play a Con 14 character". They may say "I want to play a tough character", but what does that mean when everyone is playing a tough character?

If they are all new players, then the only one who'd think it was "boring" that everyone had a 14 CON would be you. Because they're going to have so many different and varied abilities to learn, the fact that a single stat in their entire sheet was about the same as the other players won't even trigger a reaction. After all... are they going to react to the fact that they all seem to have the exact same proficiency bonus of +2? Doubt it. And do you find it boring that all the players are all equally skilled in their saving throws, attacks, and skills they are proficient in?

And in answer to your question of who is the tough character when everyone goes with a 14 CON? It's the PC with the 18 CON and/or the Toughness feat. The only thing you won't get is the "unhealthy" or "weak" character, but then again... you *are* going to get that anyway based upon the hit dice of the PCs. That wizard or sorcerer with the d6 hit die is going to be the "unhealthy" or "weak" character compared to everyone else because they're still going to have the lowest hit point total even though they might have a 14 CON just like everyone else.

Besides... using the CON score itself to denote how healthy a PC is is kinda useless anyway. Heck, if you compare a barbarian with an 8 CON against a wizard with a 14 CON, the barbarian still has more hit points than the wizard every level (11 + 6 each additional level vs 8 + 6 each additional level). So how would you consider the barbarian the "weaker" character, even though his CON modifier is 3 points less? He might be "unhealthy" for a barbarian, but he's still healthier than the wizard. And trying to make sense of this dichotomy in the fluff just makes things go goofy.

To know which PC is the weak and unhealthy one? See how the players play their PCs. The one who actually plays their PC as squishy and afraid of blood and not wanting to get hit because they think they bruise too easily and keeps demanding healing is the "weak" one... regardless of what number is under their CON.

 

[CapnZapp]

What are your thoughts?

Con is always your second or third highest priority (assuming a basic understanding of how the game works in reasonably combat-heavy games).

And I'm fine with that.

 

[Hillsy7]

To everyone saying "your combat is too deadly", as I said, 4 of these players are brand new to the game. Of the other 11 characters, three more of the players were new to my games. Only 2 of the players in this player circle have played in my games before. So, I don't believe that's the issue.

It's not that "Your combat is too deadly", it's that they don't have a point of reference - I don't want to die in the first turn is likely to be the immediate thought as soon as you link CON to HP for a new player, because that's what they know and are unlikely to be risk adverse. Experience players may well be comfortable building a glass cannon, new players are more likely to be more reserved in their choices. Hell, an experienced player might WANT to play a character with 6 Charisma, and not as a dump stat, but as a positive character choice.

A new player using point buy is going to be adverse to negative modifiers - and will hedge their bets with arrays, using typical dump stat options. Speaking to players and assuring them that you want their characters to be cool and do awesome things with dice will make people look more at their mental stats and feel more comfortable dropping CON to a 10 or 12.....

As for saying the mental scores would be more important if the game were more social, I feel like groups do just okay as long as somebody covers each skill.

In that case, what are they going to spend their points on? If they look across the table and see a bard and a wizard, the druid might as well sack off WIS and CHA in that case as "they've got them covered". Now if you are asking 1 character at the table to do all the Investigating, and 1 to do all the Persuasion, THEN you've got a problem at the table. Unless you are playing an optimised game where everyone wants to excel at their 1 thing, which means you're not going to get well rounded characters, which means they are going to pick (as someone mentioned) Primary, CON and DEX and to hell with the rest. That's cool if that's the game you're playing, but if you are playing a more social combat orientated game and only 1 character has a high Charisma, that's a problem.

In a real time video game, I could choose to play a less tough character if I can counter that by having them be nimble or protect them in another way. But D&D characters don't get to choose when to evade; AC is passive, and Dodge isn't a reaction. So, we're back to high Con.

I don't understand this argument. AC is active because its a direct challenge to the GM ("21 to hit?" "Haha, whiff sucker!"). Compare that to just saying, "OK" and subtracting damage from your inflated HP tally. Again, Rolling a Save is active, and thrilling in clutch situations. If players don't know, or don't value, the fact that CON buffing is only 1 of 3 ways to avoid damage, that's either a player choice, or something the GM can actively change.

The simple truth is, if there's too much CON in your game, there's not enough Character or social story - and that can be the fault of the GM or the players, or naivety/inexperience - or even just oversight - of both parties.

Put it this way....I pencilled out a suite of characters that I can grab whenever I want, one for each class and race. I reckon a full third, at least, had 10 CON. Why? Because when you're building character concepts first, my Halfling sorcerer is a Sherlock Holmes analogue so I'm stacking all 3 mental attributes. My Bard is a swashbuckling mercenary captain who has to be able to be cool, smart, dextrous and athletic........At no point am I thinking about HP because there's a dozen cool things I want to do per turn. By contrast if I'm a dwarf Barbarian, I want to be able to have a dragon bite me three times in a turn and laugh in it's face - which makes crazy CON a positive character choice, not a D&D necessity.

 

[cbwjm]

I tend not to think too hard about changing a single stat, if players rely heavily on Con, well, that's stats that aren't going elsewhere which may cause them to suffer in other areas.

I think the most that I would consider changing stats would be to change the modifier range to provide lower overall modifiers in a fashion similar to Basic D&D. That is, 13-15 (+1), 16-17 (+2), 18-19 (+3), 20 (+4).

 

[Xeviat]

I don't understand this argument. AC is active because its a direct challenge to the GM ("21 to hit?" "Haha, whiff sucker!"). Compare that to just saying, "OK" and subtracting damage from your inflated HP tally. Again, Rolling a Save is active, and thrilling in clutch situations. If players don't know, or don't value, the fact that CON buffing is only 1 of 3 ways to avoid damage, that's either a player choice, or something the GM can actively change.

What I mean is that in a real time video game, "git gud" is a valid response to playing a frail character. If my character has low health and low armor, I can cover that by having good reflexes and abusing a dodge mechanic. D&D doesn't have that option. Most characters end up with very similar AC with mild optimization, being within a range of 3 from each other from my experience. You can't "git gud" and simply not get hit.

That's what I mean by active or passive. Unless you're going to Dodge every turn (or maybe take the Defensive Duelist feat), there's no player skill that can increase your survivability like there is in real time, reflex games. AC and HP are passive things. Saving throws feel active, but unless you have an ability that lets you reroll them, you still have no control (unless you know how to load dice, in which case don't).

Perhaps it is because the players are coming to the game with less defined character concepts, allowing them the ability to afford spending those points on Con. Perhaps it's because they're building adventurers who are tough enough to have not died from a seasonal flu before adventuring, or aren't too sickly as to keel over at a dog bite.

But please do be careful to not load your statements as attacks on any individual.

 

[Oofta]

Because it's a boring non-choice. No one says "I want to play a Con 14 character". They may say "I want to play a tough character", but what does that mean when everyone is playing a tough character?

You're equating stats with character personality, which I don't see.

Anyway, I don't get into why and how people build their characters too much. If I'm playing I prefer a certain amount of synergy, but beyond that I don't care if their con is 8 or 18 as long as they do a decent job filling their niche and have fun playing their character.

Personality, mannerisms, backgrounds, choices made during RP are what define a character to me, not the numbers they have on their character sheet.

To each his own.