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

[Xeviat]

Notice, my suggestion wasn't to remove Constitution from the game. My suggestion was to restructure its benefits so that it isn't perceived to be a necessary pick anymore. I saw a wider variety of Con scores in 4E because of the way Con added to Recovery more than HP, and the way Str and Con competed for Fortitude Defense.

Thinking towards making the other stats more useful for everyone, maybe if Int, Wis, and Cha had fun and more active things they added to characters, they'd get picked more over Con for classes that don't use them primarily. I think Str and Dex apply to everyone somewhat reasonably (in the newest game I'm running, there's a variety of Str and Dex scores, even with 8s being there in either score).

Int could have languages and maybe skills again. I know in 3rd, getting another skill was always a tempting part of Int. I'm not sure what Wis and Cha could do, though.

But the best solution may be to play around with subclasses. The more single stat focused characters (not Monk, Paladin, and Ranger) could have subclasses that utilize other ability scores, putting some pressure on Con for second highest ability score status.

As for Toughness not being a must pick feat, it isn't a must pick because it's boring and passive. Other feats are cooler. But, mechanically, the choice between Toughness and +2 Con is meaningful: more hp or more HD recovery and better Con saves? Your 14 or 13 (if you have a +1 Con race) stat in standard array isn't so tied up for many character classes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fanaelialae]

Doesn't some of that come back to what motivation are you giving players to not optimize for combat? If you have a combat heavy game, people will naturally optimize for that. Have a game with a lot of skill checks stressing a variety of abilities? You may get more balanced characters.

Or to shift the focus ever so slightly to the strength/dexterity debate from a usefulness perspective, if you see that as an issue then I would suggest that you balance out the perceived advantage of dexterity by making strength a little better. Let people buy bows that let you add your strength instead of dex to the attack. Track encumbrance and then have treasure hordes with lots of silver and copper. Make them climb mountains.

What I try to not do is overly penalize people for building the character they had envisioned. In addition I'd rather add to the rules (bows that allow for strength) than to take away things. Let people have their toys, their high con scores if they want a few more HP.

Absolutely. However, as I said above, this might be easier said than done. If your players prefer combat to RP, then it might be challenging to get them to engage with non-combat encounters. You can lead the horse to water, but you can't force him to drink.

I agree on adding rather than subtracting from the rules, but my point actually was that I suspect this isn't a problem with a rules solution. I mean, sure, if you attained some hypothetical where the benefits of all the ability scores were perfectly balanced against each other, you might get close (and this is again something easier said than done). Ultimately though, even if you achieved that ideal certain stats would still ultimately be more useful for some builds than others, so if you have optimizers and two or more play the same build then you again can complain that they are too samey. Because it's arguably not a problem (just a style preference). And even if it is a problem for you, what you really need is a social engineering solution, not a rules solution (unless your rules solution is just social engineering in disguise, like awarding non-optimized character bonus experience or something).

 

[Hillsy7]

My suggestion was to restructure its benefits so that it isn't perceived to be a necessary pick anymore

There's more than enough people don't perceive it as a necessary pick - a better question is why your players believe it is necessary. The answer may well be: we like fighting stuff and the extra HP helps - at which point taking their Con away is going to feel unfair, because Con does what they want it to do.

maybe if Int, Wis, and Cha had fun and more active things they added to characters, they'd get picked more over Con for classes that don't use them primarily

Int, WIs and Cha do have fun and active things the do for a character.....They are called 'Skills' and come with a free bonus perk: Personality.....

Fun fact - only 4 skills work off physical stats. 14(!) work off mental stats.

The more single stat focused characters could have subclasses that utilize other ability scores, putting some pressure on Con for second highest ability score status.

There is already half the game (non-Combat) pressuring Con for stat allocation, not to mention Saving Throws, finding traps, and solving puzzles.



Look, can we agree that you don't necessarily want to run games that are not Combat orientated, or at least RP light. And that's fine; D&D is flexible enough that you can run it multiple ways, and you can focus on your enjoyment.

From that standpoint: what you're actually lamenting is that in all class builds, only 3 stats max contribute to Combat effectiveness, and in several cases, it's just 2. You find that boring. (Again, that's OK, combat is great fun or Descent: Journeys in the Dark wouldn't be a thing). Because: no "Strong Wizard" only "Tough Wizard". Fine. And we can safely assume your players feel the same way because they aren't whining that they wish they had a higher Intelligence, but Con is too dear to them. Because: Splat.....

Right. Even then....nerfing Con is probably going to annoy your players unless you replace it with a suitably equivalent bonus from a number of other options. Why? Because they've clearly turned up to kick down doors and dice some monsters with their level 6 party and you've just taken away a dozen HP - giving multiple languages from having a Higher INT isn't going to replace that. Yes a Warlord Style party buff might suffice, or a Cleric keying damage spells off Cha and Healing off Wis, sure. But then you have to ask the question - is this what your players want? They might prefer their crutch of more HP and feel they've got enough options available already. At which point, who's got the problem?


Currently, your 'hatred' of Con isn't grounded in Con itself, but the pressures and preferences you feel are on your players. And hell, if you just wanna dick about with the rules anyway, that's fine too......It's fun and appealing and personalises the game. But fundamentally altering the rules without understanding precise reason why your players and making a specific choice is the wrong way to go about it.

 

[ccs]

There's a reason why people complain that the Fighter doesn't have enough class options that are non-combat, because they WANT to get involved in social and not just leave it to the Wizard and Warlock to read and talk to people.

So at what stat bonus does this involvement occur?
Is it +1? +2? +3? Or is it only at +4 & higher that the fighter players will bother?

 

[Ashkelon]

I feel that Con mod should not affect HP per level at all, and instead determine the number of "stamina" points a character has.

HP at level 1 would be equal to Con score + average (or rolled) hit die. Each level the average of the Hd is added again (or rolled).

Characters would have a number of stamina points equal to 3+ their Con mod. During a short rest, they can spend one or more points of stamina to recover 25% of their maximum Hp per stamina point spent. Each long rest they recover all spent stamina.

 

[Hillsy7]

I feel that Con mod should not affect HP per level at all, and instead determine the number of "stamina" points a character has.

HP at level 1 would be equal to Con score + average (or rolled) hit die. Each level the average of the Hd is added again (or rolled).

Characters would have a number of stamina points equal to 3+ their Con mod. During a short rest, they can spend one or more points of stamina to recover 25% of their maximum Hp per stamina point spent. Each long rest they recover all spent stamina.

Dragonborn tho, Dude. Dragonborn should get a little HP recovery more per Stamina spent.....Because: Lizard.....

 

[Hillsy7]

So at what stat bonus does this involvement occur?
Is it +1? +2? +3? Or is it only at +4 & higher that the fighter players will bother?

Well, inasmuch as any array of stats describes the actual (imagined) attributes of the character really, and you aren't simply playing the mechanics of the game (stat bonuses to skill rolls) completely separate from the conceptual world those attributes are attempting to describe.

I mean, sod it, why not just cut the conceptual link all together: My Druid is a man mountain, 7 feet tall, 5 feet wide, and strikes fear into those he turns his Ire upon. OK, he has a 10 in both STR and CHA, but hey, it's only 2 less on Athletics and Intimidation checks than someone with 15 in those stats, so statistically he's only 10% worse when it comes to lifting up trees and scaring recalcitrant Thieves. Meh, who gives a basilisk's ass, right? So what, he only succeeds in 5 of every 10 Athletics checks instead of 6, you wont really notice - I'll just play him as a hulking brute because, you know, who's really going to notice anyway?

So what you are saying, basically, is that the person who puts in the time and effort to weave a complex backstory for his Fighter, sacrifices points in combat optimal stats in order to have 15 Charisma and 14 Intelligence to better reflect his upbringing as a Prince of the Realm, has no more narrative right when faced with a tense meeting with a despotic monarch, to say "Guys, this is what I was born to do", than the person who says she's also a learned princess of another land, but has 10 in both stats and maxed out STR and CON. Because, hey, what's a +2 compared to a d20 roll? Hardly a sure thing against DC 13 is it?


OK, I'm being snide, but I mean c'mon. It's generally accepted that the main 6 stats articulate roughly the personality and general physicality of your character (and why you can do some amazing things with really low stats, character wise. The archetypal 6 intelligence Barbarian can be a star). Aside from generic checks, your party is hardly going to let you negotiate a deal with a powerful man if your CHA is 10 compared to the suave charming Rogue. I mean, that's his character, his personality. That's what he 'does'.

Yes, mechanically there's nothing stopping you from getting 'involved', again inasmuch as that with any stat array you can both roleplay any character regardless of stats, or roleplay your character perfectly within the group and the story. But that +1 or +2 difference is mechanically supposed to represent a lifetime of narrative choices and experience. To use another Critical Role reference: Vex'halia could just as easily be a money-crazed haggling-obsessed magpie with Charisma 12 or charisma 17 - but it makes more sense, and carries more weight - it is more satisfying - because Laura Bailey took the decision to take low CON and high CHA.....

Otherwise you might as well min-max and play whatever character you want over the top, and ignore stats outside combat altogether.

 

[cbwjm]

I looked at 19 PCs I've generated (not necessarily played) to see the stat average at 1st level just for the heck of it. It doesn't prove anything one way or another, I was just interested in finding out.

STR 11.68
DEX 14.37
CON 13.53
INT 12.21
WIS 11.42
CHA 13.53

Looking at things, I seem to give even my warriors at least a 12 in Charisma, only 3/19 had a charisma below 12 and never less than 10.
If going into a magical subclass, I ensure that my fighters have an Intelligence of at least 14.
I'd created two paladins, neither of them are heavily armoured. They were both high elves and I set them up as dexterity warriors.
I had three storm sorcerers, they all had 14 constitution because I assume they have a hardy lifestyle.

2 PCs had a 10-11 Con; 7 PCs had 12-13 Con; 6 PCs had 14-15 Con; 4 PCs had 16-17 Con. Looking at the classes, many of the skirmishers had a 12-13. The 16-17 were all meant to be durable frontliners.
I had an invoker with a 14 Con because they had to have a high Con in 2e and I still kind of build wizards so that they have a high secondary stat.

Finally, looking at stats, I value Dexterity the most. Constitution and Charisma are second equal, Intelligence is my 4th most valued stat and Strength is slightly more valued than Wisdom. Of course, this could change with more generated PCs since I have a number of Charisma casters but only two which value a Wisdom (1 cleric, 1 monk).

 

[cbwjm]

Well, inasmuch as any array of stats describes the actual (imagined) attributes of the character really, and you aren't simply playing the mechanics of the game (stat bonuses to skill rolls) completely separate from the conceptual world those attributes are attempting to describe.

I mean, sod it, why not just cut the conceptual link all together: My Druid is a man mountain, 7 feet tall, 5 feet wide, and strikes fear into those he turns his Ire upon. OK, he has a 10 in both STR and CHA, but hey, it's only 2 less on Athletics and Intimidation checks than someone with 15 in those stats, so statistically he's only 10% worse when it comes to lifting up trees and scaring recalcitrant Thieves. Meh, who gives a basilisk's ass, right? So what, he only succeeds in 5 of every 10 Athletics checks instead of 6, you wont really notice - I'll just play him as a hulking brute because, you know, who's really going to notice anyway?

So what you are saying, basically, is that the person who puts in the time and effort to weave a complex backstory for his Fighter, sacrifices points in combat optimal stats in order to have 15 Charisma and 14 Intelligence to better reflect his upbringing as a Prince of the Realm, has no more narrative right when faced with a tense meeting with a despotic monarch, to say "Guys, this is what I was born to do", than the person who says she's also a learned princess of another land, but has 10 in both stats and maxed out STR and CON. Because, hey, what's a +2 compared to a d20 roll? Hardly a sure thing against DC 13 is it?


OK, I'm being snide, but I mean c'mon. It's generally accepted that the main 6 stats articulate roughly the personality and general physicality of your character (and why you can do some amazing things with really low stats, character wise. The archetypal 6 intelligence Barbarian can be a star). Aside from generic checks, your party is hardly going to let you negotiate a deal with a powerful man if your CHA is 10 compared to the suave charming Rogue. I mean, that's his character, his personality. That's what he 'does'.

Yes, mechanically there's nothing stopping you from getting 'involved', again inasmuch as that with any stat array you can both roleplay any character regardless of stats, or roleplay your character perfectly within the group and the story. But that +1 or +2 difference is mechanically supposed to represent a lifetime of narrative choices and experience. To use another Critical Role reference: Vex'halia could just as easily be a money-crazed haggling-obsessed magpie with Charisma 12 or charisma 17 - but it makes more sense, and carries more weight - it is more satisfying - because Laura Bailey took the decision to take low CON and high CHA.....

Otherwise you might as well min-max and play whatever character you want over the top, and ignore stats outside combat altogether.

I had a friend who used his background of soldier to speak with an NPC soldier. It worked out really well. A monk player called up his Acolyte background to help resanctify a disturbed burial site. Using backgrounds is a great way of getting into the game and provides a handy way for handing out inspiration... I hardly ever remember to hand out inspiration.

 

[Hillsy7]

I had a friend who used his background of soldier to speak with an NPC soldier. It worked out really well. A monk player called up his Acolyte background to help resanctify a disturbed burial site. Using backgrounds is a great way of getting into the game and provides a handy way for handing out inspiration... I hardly ever remember to hand out inspiration.

Well yes, that's what Backgrounds are for, they're there to round out character.

However, the point here isn't something specific, but something more nebulous about what stats can (I won't go as far to say supposed to because that's badwrongfunning - Everyone is entirely entitled to play the game however they want) represent. So while your INT 10 fighter can chat to a Soldier and connect with him, get him to do him a favour, if the Sergeant comes up and threatens arrest because of Section 14 of Faerun law stating "coerscion from a non-military body is considered espionage". There's a hint of Bullshine in the air, but knowing this falls under an Intelligence check as it's not really covered by the Soldier background.

Now, with your Fighter is your Sorceror friend who used to work as a spy for a local Baron. He has 15 INT and 16 CHA. So he thinks he can challenge him and can argue on the points of Law (INT). Now, this option is open to the Fighter too, in theory. There's still a decent chance the Fighter will roll higher in an INT check because there's only +2 in it. But realistically, is a Martial Soldier going to be up to speed on the finer points of Law compared to an ex-political spy? With max STR and CON, the Fighter is more likely to Brute his way out of it (or try and use his narrow background perk).

It's not about the INT bonus to the roll, but rather that the relevant INT bonuses of the two characters means that the Fighter would never attempt the roll in the first place.

The stats mean more than just chances of success and failure, they are a very basic blueprint of how the character would generally behave, and that is in turn generated from the personality of the character themselves.