D&D 5E The Problem with Constitution

[DEFCON 1]

The other way to look at this situation and help explain why the 12-16 CON thing isn't much of a problem for some of us is like this...

...unless you as a player or as a DM spend a lot of time just looking at all the character sheets and continually see "CON 12" or "CON 16" written down and no 8s or 18... during gameplay those numbers never come up.

When I'm DMing, I have no idea what people's hit points are, or what their CON modifiers are. That's never a thing that gets actively used while we're playing. I mean, I KNOW all the PCs have varying numbers of hit points, but I couldn't tell you off-hand how/why they have those numbers. Is it because of a higher hit die due to class? Is it because of a certain CON modifier? Is it because a race/class/feat gives out additional HP? Probably any or all of those things. But I have no idea that X character has Y Constitution, or that A character has B Constitution, and that none of the PCs have an 8 or an 18 or whatever. So it doesn't impact or matter to me at all that I don't have any PC at the table who has taken a CON 8 or a CON 10. And if it does matter to you, it seems to me that you are going out looking for something to bother you.

It's the same quizzical look I give off when a DM complains that two PCs at their table both use the same weapon or are focused on the same stat or select the same feat, and that they want more variety at the table. Because to me...

1) Why should I give a rat's ass what the players choose to focus on for their PCs?
2) In the midst of playing and in the middle of combat why am I focused on how they are doing what they are doing (to the point where I'm actually hearing the same things repeatedly enough to actually get annoyed at it) rather than just marking off "Okay, this PC hit for 18 damage", this PC hit for 25 damage", "that PC hit four targets for 9 damage each"?
3) Character variety comes from how the PCs are roleplayed, not what random numbers are scribbled on a piece of paper. There's a reason why we still remember all of our characters being different back in the days of Basic and AD&D 1E even when every PC of the same class would have almost no differences in numbers on their sheet. Because it wasn't the numbers that made us different, it was how we played them.

Look, I get that in a white-room analysis of your table of PCs it probably feels better if every character has a wider swathe of space between what their random assortment of letters and numbers are on their sheet than any other and there's no "duplication". But when you are actually at the table? If you aim your focus at the characters and their personalities rather than what numbers come out of your player's mouths... any "duplication" in numbers gently drifts away.

 

[Sadras]

But I wouldn't bother with all that. It's easier to just eliminate it altogether. Just let everything that used to be a Con save become a Str save. Done. And D&D remains surprisingly well-balanced with only the five abilities.

You'd have to amend the rules for point-buy. Also 5 abilities makes it easier when improving ASI.
I would not suggest the removal of Con from monsters - too much work.

 

[FrogReaver]

Here's how to make it so an 8 in Con isn't fatal: Give each character 3 hit dice at every level. Yes, this nearly triples their hit points. But also roll triple the dice on every damage source: swords, spells, everything. Since the Con mod isn't tripled, it won't hurt so much to have an 8.

If that's too much trouble, you could just have a game where everyone must put 10 in Con. Then they're all equal(ish) and you simply have to design the monsters and encounters to suit their slightly lower hit point totals.

As for making it something people want to max (to 20)... really the only way to do that is to make it the primary attribute for a class. Or make something really important (like to-hit, spell DC, Persuasion skill, or Paladin aura) key off of it, which is basically a way of saying the same thing. People realy don't max anything that's not a primary attribute. The main issue here is that Con is already pretty important... it really isn't fair or practical to make it a primary attribute unless you remove or severely limit its effect on hit points. Which is fine... there's no law that says Con must affect hit points.

But I wouldn't bother with all that. It's easier to just eliminate it altogether. Just let everything that used to be a Con save become a Str save. Done. And D&D remains surprisingly well-balanced with only the five abilities.

If con saves became strength saves the issue would be worse. Now every caster would be super strong instead of super hardy. Casters will take whatever stat gives them concentration saves.

 

[Aldarc]

It boils down to this: Con's big use - and the reason almost everyone wants it as high as possible - is the hit point bonus. Problem is, if you take that away (or worse, move it to another stat e.g. Charisma) then Con immediately becomes a dump stat.

This one's been a headache all the way back to 1e, and as the designers of 4+ subsequent editions haven't found a way to fix it since then I'm ready to say we're - in all editions - stuck with it.

Of course you could just take Constitution away entirely, do away with bonus HP, and roll the Constitution score into Strength (e.g., Might, Brawn, Physique, etc.). What exactly would we be missing? If there is already a hitpoint bloat, then removing bonus HP from Con bonus would be a boon, no?

If con stops being hp and affecting concentration saves then I would go to 5 stats. Stregnth Dexterity Wisdom Intelligence Charisma. Strength would determine what it does now as well as hp recovery like healing surges. Hp would be class dependent and feat dependent.

While you are at it, may as well kill Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma. (Or at least reorganize them.) Right now it seems we have willpower split between Wisdom and Charisma, sagacity split between Wisdom and Intelligence, and wits split between Intelligence and Charisma. So I would advocate for a more delineated distinction of governing principles for each stat.

If con saves became strength saves the issue would be worse. Now every caster would be super strong instead of super hardy. Casters will take whatever stat gives them concentration saves.

If you are supposedly focusing on concentrating, then why not link concentrating with one of the mental stats?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[S'mon]

Oh, recently I've been doing more games with PCs rolling stats in order, that really solves the issue!

For balanced vs point buy I use best 3 of 4d6 in order, swap any pair, reroll if hopeless.

But I think my fav version is what I use for Primeval Thule - best 3 of 5d6 in order, then change any 1 stat for a '15'. It creates characters with a lot of +2 and +3 stats in odd places, which is great for the swords & sorcery tone and makes save-or-suck spells a bit less nasty.

 

[abirdcall]

Oh, recently I've been doing more games with PCs rolling stats in order, that really solves the issue!

Good on you.

I am not a fan of rolling stats but I have always believed that if you're going to roll you should do it in order. Otherwise, what is the point of 'random' scores.

 

[Lanefan]

Of course you could just take Constitution away entirely, do away with bonus HP, and roll the Constitution score into Strength (e.g., Might, Brawn, Physique, etc.). What exactly would we be missing? If there is already a hitpoint bloat, then removing bonus HP from Con bonus would be a boon, no?

Constitution has enough other uses and functions that removing it entirely (from any edition) would probably create lots more headaches than it solves.

If h.p. bonus were to be eliminated then I'd absolutely insist that h.p. be rolled, as the last thing I want to see is every class-x/level-y character having the same h.p. - which would otherwise be the result.

While you are at it, may as well kill Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma. (Or at least reorganize them.) Right now it seems we have willpower split between Wisdom and Charisma, sagacity split between Wisdom and Intelligence, and wits split between Intelligence and Charisma. So I would advocate for a more delineated distinction of governing principles for each stat.

The willpower split is an issue. I'd like to see it all go under Charisma, with sagacity and intuition put under Wisdom and wits under Intelligence.

However, if that leads to an imbalance in how many skills go with each stat (something the designers probably spent lots of time thinking about) then those would have to be tweaked as well.

If you are supposedly focusing on concentrating, then why not link concentrating with one of the mental stats?

Or any of them, for that matter - your concentration stat becomes whichever one is primary for your class e.g. Int for Wizards, Wis for Clerics, etc.

 

[KarinsDad]

What do you think? What con scores do you see in your game.

14
16
12 (19, Amulet of Health, we have 8th level PCs and started at 8th, so the DM allowed each player to pick one rare magic item from the DMG; two players actually wanted an Amulet of Health, but the DM only allowed one)
14
14
14

We have a group that enjoys a lot of combat, so Con is often the #2 stat behind primary stat.

But if you think about it, concepts like "the fragile scholar who goes out and adventures" doesn't make a lot of sense from a plausibility POV. PCs should be hale, healthy individuals due to their "profession". And the bonus to Concentration checks and Con saves doesn't hurt. Adventuring is a dangerous business.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Because they use the same rules to get their HP that the characters use. ... If you change the rules for the player characters, this should impact how many HP monsters have as well.

Why?

Monsters already don't use the same rules as PCs in many respects, maybe even most respects. 5E explicitly and deliberately doesn't create them the same way. There's zero reason determination of HP shouldn't also be different.