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

[Iry]

I mean there's obviously a bit more to it than that... but I'm just not seeing where it becomes a must-have.

Constitution 14 = +20 HP at Level 10, but also +2 HP per Hit Dice when short resting, for a total of +40 HP. That's 53% more HP on a Barbarian, and 95% more HP on a Wizard.

 

[Xeviat]

Absolutely, the problem is that this should have been a default concern of Wizards when they were making the game, and fixing that now is tantamount to re-writing a huge number of class options. This is an issue with stats from a system-wide viewpoint, while the current topic is focused on the ubiquity of CON, we've had no shortage of discussions relating to dex being too good as well, and it's rooted in the same issue; too many classes have little reason to care about more than 2 stats.

Simply spitballing some ideas, I think one of the possible fixes would be to remove stats from hit calculations and simply double prof. bonus. This would lead to slightly lower accuracy in the beginning and slightly more at the end, but would be close enough. This would make it so that only classes that relied heavily on stats for damage, like high level fighters and barbarians, would feel the need to rush their main stat so much. A paladin, whose damage comes heavily from smites, might not mind having a STR of 14 if he knows it won't ruin his accuracy. You'd have to change the requirements for spell-casting though as this would make low int wizards have very few downsides.

Keeping with the above, you could use your preferred method of removing con from HP and then there would be a lot less combined pressure to pursue the usual 'builds'.

Hmm. Interesting things to think on. The fact that only a character's attack stat, con, and usually Dex apply to all characters (and to a lesser extend Wis because of Wis saves), the choices are less about choices. And yes, I'm fully aware that this is a gamist way of looking at things. The metagame does influence choices if some choices are simply more powerful than others.

So, accepting that, I am growing a little tempted to remove attack/damage/saves from the ability scores. But, that really sounds like a d20 Alt. It doesn't feel like D&D. So, I'm not terribly concerned. If more people would choose something other than Con as their secondary stat, like they did in 4E, and if Con wasn't an automatic tertiary after that, I'd be fine. It could likely be done with a subclass rewrite, and that would probably cover a large majority of it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm really hating how this limits character choices. In standard array, your 14 automatically goes in Con, unless you're a Dwarf. Hit Points are simply too important to all characters.

So, how could I fix this?

You could have other stats add to hps instead, or as well?

My first thought is to remove the +Con to HP per HD.

That could certainly help, the per HD bonus makes con increasingly important as you level. A difference in con can overshadow a difference in class, entirely. For instance, a 20 con dwarf wizard would start with more hps than a 10 con fighter, and would only pull further ahead unless ASIs went to con.

Maybe I'll restructure things and add Con Score to HP at first level

That's still make con highly desirable. You could just boost starting hps by 10. Or double them.

Instead of adding con to hps, add it to HD, prhaps?

 

[Xeviat]

You could have other stats add to hps instead, or as well?

That could certainly help, the per HD bonus makes con increasingly important as you level. A difference in con can overshadow a difference in class, entirely. For instance, a 20 con dwarf wizard would start with more hps than a 10 con fighter, and would only pull further ahead unless ASIs went to con.

That's still make con highly desirable. You could just boost starting hps by 10. Or double them.

Instead of adding con to hps, add it to HD, prhaps?

The current working thought is Con score to starting HP (the difference between a 10 and a 14 is bigger at 1st level and equal at 2nd, but smaller at 3rd and on and my games typically start at 3rd), remove Con mod to HP per level, but increase HD recovery to full on a long rest. Con mod still applies to HD healing, so it aids in recovery more than it aids in raw HP. Like in 4th.

It works out to be an increase in daily HP across the board. It ends up being a larger increase for lower con characters, but it's an increase for everyone. But, HP between short rests drops a bit past early levels.

I'm liking it more and more, and it would fade into an HP/WP system easily too.

 

[Li Shenron]

Sorry but the gamers want:

- the game to be deadly, in theory
- save-or-die effects to be rare (or none) -> meaning that HP loss is the primary way to die
- their own PC to actually not die

then the obvious consequence is that almost nobody wants to play a low-Constitution character.

So, how could I fix this?

Your idea of "no HP bonus from Con" is good and simple. But maybe in this case you could increase HP back in other ways (such as not rolling for HP but granting the full HD). Your target is not to have less HP per PC, just to encourage players to invest in some other ability scores.

You could also just have fixed Constitution 10 to all characters. Roll or point-buy scores only in the other 5 abilities.

Or use a less flexible method for arranging the stats, for example "roll in order, then swap max 2 abilities with each other" (or 3, or 4... just not all of them).

 

[staticdrifter]

Nothing is wrong with the Constitution Stat except for the game's constant reboot away from role-playing and the insidious idea that it's the DM's job to kill the players.

Let's face it... Hasbro (for those who don't know, Hasbro owns D&D) wants to open the game to more, and younger, players. To do this, they have rebooted the game to simplify rules.
Wizards of the Coast, the previous owners, wanted to expand playership by making the game closer related to their flagship success, Magic: The Gathering, and rebooted the game with MTG-like cards and miniatures rules.
Before that, they just wanted to capitalize on the "more modules = more money" idea and flooded the game table with hard-cover books.

How is this related to Constitution, you ask? Simple. To up the number of players and thereby increase profits, D&D had to become easier to play as a 'table' game. Role-playing became less important than simplification.
Through the years, the game has become more about fast-paced action with and end-game in sight, than about traversing and exploring rich fantasy realms with unique story lines.
As such, the experience marker has slowly moved from 50% kills and 50% RP values to about 99% kills and "oh who cares" RP.
To achieve godhood and impress your friends, you gotta kill stuff, period. To kill more stuff, you gotta survive, period. What's the best way to survive? Stay in the fight long enough to win. How? More hit points.

Now, to address the DMing. Once again, more players means more profit, but to insure the big bucks, you gotta sell all the books. Who needs ALL the books? The DM. But, that's a lot of stuff for the DM to remember and consider during the game, lots of pages to sift through when a rule goes awry or some idiot who still thinks this is a role-playing game decides to think about what their doing. The solution? Sell books that are more artwork than rules, and simplify the core mechanic to kill ratios. Now all a DM has to do is toss monster after monster at the players and all they players and monsters) have to do is kill each other.
So, it has become the DM's job to kill the players and the players job to survive.

If you want your players to role-play a rich character in your rich world, the "killing is all important" idea has to go out the window.

Develope better storylines, engage your players minds, and give them XP for other things besides kills. Lots of other things besides kills. And to do this, stop trying to kill them at every turn. Give them time to breathe. Give them things to think about.

Not buying the bull? Want to keep the kill, kill, kill vibe going in your game? Then do the obvious.

Make each player roll 3d6 for stats, 1 at a time, no re-rolling, and place the value in the boxes, in order, from top to bottom and say "that's your character - figure out how to keep him alive for twenty levels"

You don't let them pick from an array, you do away with point-buying entirely, and you don't allow them to commit suicide-by-orc so they can try to roll up a better character.

Be a DM! Let your players be players! All of you use your imagination more and stop trying to streamline a long-play, role-playing game into a quick-play, action-adventure, friday night video game.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using EN World mobile app

 

[Morrey_Baldurstrife]

Take your players through a training montage and let them come out with durable, let them go stand under a waterfall for 3 days and gain resilient, have them go to cooking school and gain gourmand, imprisonment with periodic torture for a stint to gain tough, or just have a good old tavern brawl crawl until you think they earned the tavern brawler feat. There are plenty ways to mend the gap with creativity. I agree with static drifter, d&ds meant to be about interactive story telling.

 

[Hillsy7]

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).

That's a bit of a false equivalence. In the same way you can't "Git Gud" and mask your frailty if you've got naff CON, you can't "Git Gud" and use your skill to hit things if you've got a naff attack stat. D&D combat isn't a game about 'Skill', it's much more about 'choices'. I choose who to attack and when, I choose where to stand during the monster turn, and those choices apply equally to attack and defence. Aside from the advantage mechanic (or the cover mechanic on defence), there's very little I can do as a player to modify any dice roll from one turn to the next.

You may rightly argue that Reckless attack (Barb), Manoeuvres (Fighter), Backstab (Rogue), smite (paladin), or Ki (Monk) allows the melee characters to do something 'different' with their attacks that widens choice - but then by the same argument, squishy spellcasters have a suite of spells they can choose between if they end up face to tooth with a dragon. In both cases, it's a combat choice, and nothing to do with 'skill'.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Hi ENWorld. In my last three games, encompassing 15 characters so far, 13/15 have started with a 14 Con (one started with a 16 and another started with a 12). 4 of those characters were brand new players to D&D (they've played wow and diablo and stuff where you don't choose ability scores the same).

I'm really hating how this limits character choices. In standard array, your 14 automatically goes in Con, unless you're a Dwarf. Hit Points are simply too important to all characters.

So, how could I fix this?

My first thought is to remove the +Con to HP per HD. Maybe I'll restructure things and add Con Score to HP at first level (especially if I go with WP/VP). Class HP per level could be raised to the full HD number (thus +2 HP for the d6s, 3 for the d8s, 4 for the d10s, and 5 for the d12). That might be a lot, but Con has been the second stat I've seen be raised to 20 after the attack stat.

Con should still apply to HD healing some how. Con should apply to Death Saves. An Endurance skill can be added to do some cool stuff. And Con applies to some environmental stuff like breathing; it could also apply to starvation and thirst too if those don't already call for Con saves. But would that be enough to make sure Con was balanced with the other stats?

I'm not saying Con isn't balanced with the other stats. It's the only stat that is balanced compared to Dex and your attack/spellcasting stat. But, it is never your weak stat, even if a Con of 8 could be balanced against a Dex of 8. Its such a nonchoice in my games that I feel the need to remove the choice.

What are your thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

you fix this by rolling for stats and avoiding cookie cutter builds. If you want to maintain intra party balance - simply let any player use any other player's array, wiht a small (1d3?) penalty to differentiate them/reward the original player

 

[Hillsy7]

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.

Again, having 10 CON doesn't mean that you'll die of consumption if you ever go to a major town, and if the players think that, then you can have a dialogue in which you say 10 is Healthy Human. Hell, Generic Pub Dwarf should only have 12 CON and he can have ale for three meals a day. 14 CON for a character concept should be tough to explain - Most fighters are going to have 16 CON for most of their first 10 levels and these guys have to withstand being punched in the face by a Mountain Giant.

Case in point: Critical Role.

Matt Mercer said he used the 4d6drop1 method and allowed them to be assigned as they wanted. At level 16-18, there are 3 characters with <14 CON, 2 with 14 CON and 2 with 16+. More importantly, out of those, only Grog (and Travis said he wanted to play the dumbest character possible), has more than 1 "Mental" stat that's less than 14 (in fact CON is 2nd lowest for 5/7 of them). And a few of that group were new to D&D. Looking at why Matt Mercer's home game is like that would be a more efficient analytical exercise in my opinion (especially as there is hundreds of hours of live gameplay to look at).

This isn't to say that people are badwrongfunning D&D if they pick 14 CON (There are many mechanical reasons, as well as making "safe" choices, and wanting to play a HP orientated hack 'n slash adventure), most of the time I suspect it doesn't even appear on their conscious radar, which is a good thing - it means they are enjoying what they are doing). But if it's bothering you as a GM, there are options available to you that are significantly less extreme than fundamentally changing the rules.