Why is Con so useless?

[Minigiant]

Con is only passive because we play normal humanoids.

But breath attacks, poisons, eye beams, and sonic howls would all be Con Based.

Instead we play elves who don't have venom dripping fangs.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Not sure I like this idea, but might as well throw it out there: In various games, there have been "strength limitations" and the like on using certain weapons. Well, these usually get dropped because someone finally informs the authors that bastard swords do not weigh 15 pounds, and that even a 4' tall, slender, 11-year old girl can use a rapier with a little conditioning.

What does make a certain amount of sense, however, and never seems to get used, is that the effects of encumbrance are more about constitution than strength. Strength is what you can lift. Constitution is how long you can carry it. Obviously, there is quite a bit of overlap in there, but the six D&D stats aren't exactly a mirror of reality anyway. So perhaps some kind of an abstract encumbrance system--that defacto cut out heavy armor, weapons, and big bags of silver coins for low Con characters--might be useful.

 

[Someone]

So is the expectation that in the next edition a player should be able to call upon any of the six abilities in any given situation? That seems like quite a stretch to me.

Quite the opposite.

Also, I appreciate the effort, but if to bypass a gate you have to turn yourself in to be tortured, you may be making things worse. Now you're the correct side of the gate, but in a cell, unarmed, possibly tied up and tortured.

Yes, this appears to be what the OP is saying. My response can be summed up as: So what? Why is this a problem?

Ok, have in mind I don't mean the concept of "balance" or "so and class will be overpowered", but consider this. If you're having a system closely linked to ability checks it doesn't make much sense to include an ability that's useless for making checks and is virtually just a combat stat. I think it's akward when the system starts with five abilities that are good for combat and good for non combat, and one that's good for combat and virtually useless outside of it. Not because it's any problem, but because it feels inelegant, a weird chimera of new idea and old sacred cow.

 

[Dausuul]

Ok, have in mind I don't mean the concept of "balance" or "so and class will be overpowered", but consider this. If you're having a system closely linked to ability checks it doesn't make much sense to include an ability that's useless for making checks and is virtually just a combat stat. I think it's akward when the system starts with five abilities that are good for combat and good for non combat, and one that's good for combat and virtually useless outside of it. Not because it's any problem, but because it feels inelegant, a weird chimera of new idea and old sacred cow.

Inelegant - perhaps so. However, over-focusing on elegance can lead to a bland system in which everything feels like everything else. In fact, I think this was one of the problems with early 4E.

I'm not saying elegance should never be a concern, but in general it should serve the larger goal of making the system easier to learn and/or play. I don't think "all stats have an active use" is particularly important in that regard. (I found it quite irritating when 4E tried to give Constitution an active use by shoehorning it in as the Infernolock's attack stat. Yeah, my character uses her healthiness to burn your face off. What, is my warlock pact with Jillian Michaels? I'm not saying Con can't be important for the Infernolock, but it should be used to resist nasty side effects, not for direct attack purposes.)

Also, Constitution is useful in exploration as well as combat; anything that puts you in physical danger (falling off a cliff, springing a trap on yourself, being caught in a rockslide, etc.) brings in Constitution. A social encounter is the only situation where Con is really useless, and the same could be said of Str and Dex. Meanwhile, what good is Charisma in either combat or exploration?

 

[thedungeondelver]

Hmmm...... your AD&D kung -fu has grown weak. Any non-fighter class gets a max of +2 hp from a CON of 16 +.

I would houserule otherwise.

I killed your master, and now you die as well. Clearly I was referring to a dwarven fighter-thief.

Ki-YA!

 

[Minigiant]

Inelegant - perhaps so. However, over-focusing on elegance can lead to a bland system in which everything feels like everything else. In fact, I think this was one of the problems with early 4E.

I'm not saying elegance should never be a concern, but in general it should serve the larger goal of making the system easier to learn and/or play. I don't think "all stats have an active use" is particularly important in that regard. (I found it quite irritating when 4E tried to give Constitution an active use by shoehorning it in as the Infernolock's attack stat. Yeah, my character uses her healthiness to burn your face off. What, is my warlock pact with Jillian Michaels? I'm not saying Con can't be important for the Infernolock, but it should be used to resist nasty side effects, not for direct attack purposes.)

Also, Constitution is useful in exploration as well as combat; anything that puts you in physical danger (falling off a cliff, springing a trap on yourself, being caught in a rockslide, etc.) brings in Constitution. A social encounter is the only situation where Con is really useless, and the same could be said of Str and Dex. Meanwhile, what good is Charisma in either combat or exploration?

The infernolock channels hellfire through her body. The healthier she was, the more she could channel without... burning to a crisp.

The starlock did the same with their star gifted energy. Without enough health, they would warp into monsters... or go crazy... if they were not crazy monsters already.

 

[Li Shenron]

Some more stamina cases to make Con useful more often:

- you use Str to lift a gate/portcullis, but you use Con to keep it lifted while your comrades pass

- you use Con against weather effects

- require a Con check to continue fighting at no penalties after a number of rounds (or use Con score to determine how soon you get fatigued)

Also let's keep in mind that Concentration (the only 3e Con-based skill) was mostly used vs spellcasting distractions only, but the same principle could be applied to distractions to anything. Normally if you are tight-rope walking and someone shoots at you, you made a Balance check, but why not a Concentration check?

 

[Traken]

A social encounter is the only situation where Con is really useless, and the same could be said of Str and Dex.

You don't drink your diplomatic opponents under the table?

 

[Nahat Anoj]

It's a sacred cow, they want to include everything D&Dish in 5E, so they won't get rid of Con, but if they were willing to make a good change for the system, I would ditch Con and have only 5 stats, or find another physical stat that is more proactive, or combine Int and WIs into a single stat while ditching Con to preserve the physical/mental balance of stats.

Rather than ditch Con, I'd reinterpret it to mean vigor, energy, and mettle. People with high Con are hard to keep down - either they just have a great amount of physical vitality, or they have zeal and drive to complete a task. I would have Con be the go-to ability for athletics, fighting spirit, valor, and presence. All these things require vitality and a will to endure. Placing them under Con's aegis would help make Con seem more active.

 

[Hassassin]

You don't drink your diplomatic opponents under the table?

This is why Con is the second most often used physical ability in our games' social situations. And it only comes second if you count pick-pocketing.