Constitution. Are we happy with it, or should it be amended?

[Zaq]

So CON is an important stat for everyone. Everyone needs HP, casters need to keep it high enough to make Concentration checks special saves to maintain their spells, failing a CON save usually does worse stuff to you than failing many other saves, and you can't really get enough layers of defense to make HP entirely irrelevant. And since it affects how well you can spend your HD to self-heal, it's even more important than when it just determined max HP (as was the case back in 3.5, and it was certainly important in 3.5).

This isn't new to 5e. This isn't even an especially bad thing. Adventurers get into violent life-or-death situations on a daily basis (allegedly six to eight times over the course of a normal adventuring day), so every adventurer should need to care about how robust and full of vitality they are. And that's fine as far as it goes, but . . . the problem is that that everyone basically treats CON the same way. The game doesn't give you a whole lot of points to put in your ability scores (either at chargen or in the process of leveling up), and while everyone needs HP for the same reason, that means that basically everyone treats CON the same way.

You can't really afford to have more than 3 stats that matter, and you're likely to only get two stats that are above a +2 mod or so. So you put your offensive stat (whether that's your attack stat or your casting stat or both) as your highest stat. Then you have your secondary stat, which is usually either your AC stat (usually DEX, but sometimes STR on a Cleric or something) or, if you have secondary casting or pseudocasting, your casting stat (CHA on Paladins, WIS on Rangers and Monks). (The secondary stat can also be the weapon stat in the case of a primary caster who still uses weapons, like certain Clerics or Valorous Bards, but they're still likely to use that stat for AC.) And then you need to put points in CON, because everyone needs CON. If you get to use your attack stat as your AC stat (which basically means STR on a heavy armor user, DEX on anyone else), you have a little more wiggle room, but I think the vast majority of characters are going to fall into something close to that pattern. You might choose to put CON above your AC stat (but unlikely to match or beat your attack stat unless you're a heavy armor user who can afford STR/CON as their high stats and doesn't have to care about anything else), but it's unlikely to be MUCH higher, and it's still falling into the general pattern.

I mean, I'm not saying that every character ever is going to look exactly like this. You can come up with an exception or two (maybe a Rogue who dips Barbarian for CON to AC and then just pumps DEX/CON?), but that doesn't disprove my greater point: MOST characters are going to have CON as a tertiary score or as a secondary score that's pretty close to their tertiary. (I mean, nothing's saying you HAVE to put points in CON, but is anyone going to actually tell me that they think it's wise to play an adventurer with 8 or 10 CON? Seriously? Didn't think so.)

And then there's the fact that CON basically isn't used for anything else. Don't get me wrong, HP and saves are important. Really important. (There's a reason that everyone pays their stat tax to get decent CON.) But they're arguably too important—since CON is already so necessary, I think the developers were afraid to let you do much else with it. (Okay, dragonborn can use a fairly tame CON-based breath weapon now and again, and genasi use CON as their casting stat for their racial spells, but that isn't much.) CON is almost entirely reactive—there are vanishingly few options to use CON proactively.

So my question is, are we happy with this? Do we like the fact that CON is handled the same way by the majority of characters? Is it a useful game element, or is it kind of annoying that getting a CON of approximately 14 is de rigueur for more characters than not? Is it fun that basically everyone is required to invest in a reactive ability score?

I mean, I'm not suggesting getting rid of CON entirely. (In addition to SDCIWS being firmly embedded in D&D tradition, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to have an attribute representing health and vitality.) But I personally don't find it that thrilling to have everyone use the stat in the same way.

Compare to how 4e did it: CON had a minor effect on your max HP (you added your full score to your HP at first level, but ONLY at first level, and there were common backgrounds that let you swap that around), and then it affected your healing surge total. (If you didn't play 4e, spending a healing surge let you recover 1/4 of your max HP; anyone could spend them after a short rest, much like Hit Dice here, and the vast majority of combat healing involved allowing the target to spend a surge, possibly with a bonus, rather than healing them for a fixed amount.) You got a certain number of surges from your class (excluding the Vampire, who was a weird outlier that isn't relevant here, you got 6 on the low end and 8-9 on the high end, with most getting around 7 from the class), and then you got one extra surge per point of CON mod. Obviously, you wanted to have as many surges per day as possible, but you also weren't completely hosed if you couldn't afford to put a lot of CON in your build, because you'd still get a decent number of baseline surges from your class. You could obviously go longer with higher CON (someone with 10 surges per day could definitely take more risks than someone with 7 surges per day), but if you needed to put your points elsewhere, having low CON didn't make you a frail weakling who was little more than a liability. Sure, if you had extra points to spend and didn't need to put them anywhere else, you'd absolutely put your leftover points in CON, but the point is that choosing to do otherwise was still a viable decision. CON-heavy builds were noticeably sturdier, but you could still survive with low CON. (Fortitude was based on the higher of your STR or CON, so CON still protected you from poison attacks and stuff like that, but it wasn't the ONLY way of doing that.)

This allowed the developers to tie CON to other class features and other abilities. CON was a fairly common secondary score (meaning that you'd have class features and powers that actually used your CON mod, not just that you chose to put points in CON for the surges). Several classes could use CON for AC (kinda like the 5e Barbarian, but unlike in 5e, classes that got CON to AC didn't also need to rely on DEX for AC—CON was enough, because the game provided other bonuses), many classes had powers that used CON for secondary effects (a power might use STR for the attack roll and damage roll, but then the target would take a penalty equal to your CON, or you'd be able to grant a bonus to an ally that was based on your CON mod, or something like that), and CON got to be used like any other stat. There were even two classes (the Warlock and the Battlemind) that could use CON as a primary stat! Obviously, those classes/builds had more surges than they knew what to do with, but they still had weaknesses and were still totally balanced with other classes. (Just because you have surges doesn't mean that you have a way to spend them when things get really bad, and even if you have surges left to spend, the rest of the party might be running on fumes, so you still have to take everyone into consideration when deciding to keep going or retreat.)

Or look at how Legend does it. I don't think Legend's method is perfect, but I think there's merit to it. Every class has a designated Key Defensive Modifier (some classes choose for you, some let you pick from a couple options, but it's never, ever the same as your attack stat), and that stat does most of what you expect your stats to do to defend you—mainly it affects your HP and your AC. Why have CON at all, then? CON inherently does two things. First, it's the key ability for the Vigor skill, which basically lets you spend actions to gain temporary HP, forestall or mitigate conditions, or (at high levels) even activate fast healing, so having good CON makes you better at proactively tapping into inner reserves of toughness. (The DCs for the really good Vigor effects are kind of high, so CON-heavy characters definitely have an advantage there over low-CON characters, even though the skill is usable without being CON-primary.) Second, you automatically have damage reduction equal to half your CON mod (or at high levels, equal to your full CON mod), so using CON as your KDM has some inherent toughness baked into it compared to using any other stat as your KDM. (Fortitude in Legend is also based on the higher of your STR or CON, much like 4e.) So the upshot of the Legend method is that CON is still "the toughness stat," and people who rely on CON for defense have some ways in which they're naturally hardier than people who rely on other stats for defense, but if your class and/or your character concept has you using a different stat for defense, you're still perfectly viable. (Now, if anything, I think Legend went a little bit too far in terms of deemphasizing CON, but I don't think it's a horrible wreck as a result.)

Making changes to 5e that would fundamentally rewrite how we treat CON would probably take more work than any of us care to do (it's never easy to make Constitutional amendments, after all), but I still feel like there's some room for discussion here. I don't think either 4e or Legend did CON perfectly, but honestly, I don't think 5e did CON anywhere near perfectly, either. I feel like 4e did a better job than Legend did, for the record—everyone noticed CON, and some people thrived with CON, but it wasn't the kiss of death to make a character without much CON, and I feel like that should be the case for as many stats as possible. I don't really feel like that's the case for 5e. I don't feel like CON is an option so much as a requirement, and if nearly every character does more or less the same thing, maybe that thing shouldn't be treated as a meaningful character option, you know?

I mean, let's be clear. I'm not necessarily advocating getting rid of CON entirely—the stat exists for a reason. I'm not necessarily advocating tying all of CON's effects to other stats. I'm not necessarily advocating that everyone should get the benefit of high CON no matter how they choose to spend their stats. I'm not demanding that I be able to make a CON-dumping character who's exactly as robust and vigorous as a CON-heavy character. I just feel like there's room for discussion regarding how much actual fun it is to treat CON the way 5e treats CON (including all the implications as far as how many stat points you have to spend and all that good stuff.)

I don't hate 5e CON. But I definitely don't love it. Anyone have any other thoughts?

[brainface]

Low con is far too high a penalty compared to low values of other stats, and it irritates me that I feel the urge to make sturdy, health-conscious wizards and warlocks even if it doesn't make in character sense. So... yeah, I agree? I don't have an answer for you though. I mean taking a con penalty every level was something that needed to stay in 3rd edition, imo, and I don't know why they brought it back?

[Telok]

From my looking over various monster numbers I believe that stat 14 + proficency is the baseline for making about 50% of level appropriate saving throws. Since a character's non-proficent saves get worse as they advance in levels this means that not being proficent in Constitution saves is essentially saying "I want to fail the most common save in the game almost every time."

I don't have a good answer. This is the edition where dice rolls matter more than anything you can do in or out of character.

[Tanarii]

(I mean, nothing's saying you HAVE to put points in CON, but is anyone going to actually tell me that they think it's wise to play an adventurer with 8 or 10 CON? Seriously? Didn't think so.)I've done a ten with a couple of PCs I've made. Including a Str-based Valor Bard (S16 D14 C10 I14 W8 Ch14 1/2-elf) semi-skillmonkey, although to be honest that didn't work out so great. :smallsmile: I've had tons of players that have done a 10 Con, but they invariably put 8 in Str as well. Depending on the campaign, sometimes you just need attack score & maybe a casting score, and two to three other ability scores for skill use, more than you need HPs. Most common are Bard or Rogue skill-monkeys, but or Caster types that want solid skills across three non-caster stat ability scores for skills (Dex and two 'mental' stats). Then they just try to stay the hell out of melee combat or taking any damage at all.

I've even seen a few AL skill monkey's with a Con 10.

I've never seen a Con 8 though.

(I'm assuming we're going to talk exclusively about Standard Array and Point Buy here. It's possible in a rolled array you might have little option except to have a very average Con score.)

[Magic Myrmidon]

Well, about nine months ago, Easy_Lee put together an adaptation of the Legend way of doing attributes for 5e. It sort of addresses the con issue (depending on whether you use the optional rule for DA handling HP). I, personally, love it, and his system pretty much puts all of the stats on an equal level of priority in 5e.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?419447-System-Idea-Flexible-Attributes

[Theodoxus]

IDK, I think the high Con is a carryover mindset from 3.P. Without negative HPs to track, and death saves not getting a boost from Con mods, getting reduced to zero isn't horrible. Sure, at levels 1-3, it can be outright deadly - a decent crit, especially if you're already hurt, could throw you down to <minus HP total> and instant death, but eventually, even with a poor Con, you'll be pretty safe from that happening. (And using the 4E starter HP method really helps in that regard.)

Hit Points in general for 5E breaks realistic conceptions anyway... simply accepting that yoyo-ing between 100% battle effectiveness and unconscious is a valid way of life in the universe goes a long way to reducing the importance of Con.

If you're really that worried about it, I don't see the harm in lowering the threshold of Con mod by 2... so an 8 is +0, 10 is +1, all the way to 20 being +6. That extra point of mod certainly won't break BA, and only barely strains it. But when players using PB can stress less over Con, it means they can boost another tertiary or quadrinary stat, which I guess is the point the OP is looking for.

I don't even have much of an issue with Concentration checks - even non-proficient, with a 10 Con, that's a 50/50 with most hits (rarely have I seen something outside of magic hit a concentration user for more than 22 points of damage). In fact, grabbing Resilient Con is probably best for 8th level, when such hits will become more common place - if they don't have Warcaster anyway.

But, like most things, it comes down to the campaign style, party make up, player mastery and DM compassion. But at least in the games I've played and ran, Con boosting was more an indication of how much 3.P the player had experienced and less about trying to stay alive at all costs.

[JellyPooga]

to the OP; I think you may be overestimating the value of Con.

On the whole, I would tend to agree with you as far as "adventurers all tend to put at least something into Con", but isn't that as it should be? A professional adventurer doesn't last long without, as you say, a robust fortitude.

However:
1)Con has very few offensive applications. I think you mention all of them. This detracts from its appeal a little.
2)Con does one thing; keeps you alive. It doesn't help pick a lock, punch a guy in the face or cast a spell. Do you know what else keeps you alive? Killing the other guy first. Talking him out of killing you. Not being noticed for the killing to happen in the first place and many other active actions that Con does not help with.
3)Not every character is a "professional adventurer" and not every character is or should be "optimal". Raistlin Majere, one of the most infamous Wizards in roleplaying literature, had a famously low Con score and he was a professional adventurer. What about the character that has adventure thrust upon him or the one that was a humble [insert profession here] before vowing to avenge his family or whatever? These characters are just as fun to play as the professional murder-hobo and have legitimate reason for a low Con. It's important to remember that it's the "role" part of "roleplaying game" that's important, not so much the "game" aspect.

[pwykersotz]

I have always thought Con was a little out of line compared with the rest of the stats. I wouldn't mind scrubbing it entirely. The other stats are active, things you can do. Con is entirely passive.

Let HP be just a roll of the HD, maybe with a static modifier of your proficiency bonus or <insert stat and reason here>.
Let tests of endurance and fortitude use another system, possibly expanding the exhaustion system to cover them.

Alternately, tie it to something you can actually accomplish. Like your speed or...something else? I don't know what else there would be, actually.

But yeah, Con is a little weird. I'm happy with it overall, just because I don't think it's quite worth the effort to change. But I wouldn't mind seeing an update.

Edit: BTW Zaq, impressive wall of text. It took me a few gulps of soda and a successful Con save to gear myself up to read it. :smalltongue:

[Captbrannigan]

to the OP; I think you may be overestimating the value of Con.

On the whole, I would tend to agree with you as far as "adventurers all tend to put at least something into Con", but isn't that as it should be? A professional adventurer doesn't last long without, as you say, a robust fortitude.

However:
1)Con has very few offensive applications. I think you mention all of them. This detracts from its appeal a little.
2)Con does one thing; keeps you alive. It doesn't help pick a lock, punch a guy in the face or cast a spell. Do you know what else keeps you alive? Killing the other guy first. Talking him out of killing you. Not being noticed for the killing to happen in the first place and many other active actions that Con does not help with.
3)Not every character is a "professional adventurer" and not every character is or should be "optimal".

I agree the OP overvalues HP compared to offense. I do think your generic adventurer is decently hardy, 10-14 CON, but I wouldn't go higher than that unless it was my secondary.

A 12 CON Wizard is damn hardy imo. You also don't have to fight in every conflict to contribute. If you buffed someone with Mage Armor, scouted the place with your ferret, and spent most of the combats cowering - is that really much of a dpr loss compared to the occasional xbow bolt?

I agree that an 8 CON is a liability, but so would an 8 DEX. It's a primary defensive stat. IMO, an 8 CHA is a "liability" in an adventuring party. Mental stats are hard to RP, I get that, but 90% of heroes have heroic stats! Gimli easily had 12 CHA. He may have been dour, but he was a leader, dominant force of personality, and great for a party. Strider/Aragorn probably pushed 18-20, Legolas ~12, Frodo 14, Sam 12, etc. Conan easily 12-14. Han Solo 12. An 8 CHA is for those co-workers that are just a little intolerant, tell inappropriate jokes, always creep the ladies out, etc. Not the unbearable no deodorant curmudgeon in the back of the office that never talks, that's getting into the 6-7.

Anyways, if we're talking elite array/dump stats, that's a choice you have to weigh in building your character. I hate that it burns my WIS saves, but I like playing characters with decent/high INT paired with low/bad WIS. Clever but rash. Tactically sound but not taking into account surroundings/onlookers.

[RickAllison]

Han Solo 12. .

Based on the fangirls, I think is a severe underestimation :smallwink:

[REVISIONIST]

Based on the fangirls, I think is a severe underestimation :smallwink:

Now, now.. look at Chewies long locks, even he had a 14.

[RickAllison]

Now, now.. look at Chewies long locks, even he had a 14.

Well, he managed to get Carrie Fisher in his corner!

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4c/2a/15/4c2a154aa3b1ce9e25a76ef8d26ea7b3.jpg

[Talamare]

As an avid 4e player, EVERY table I went to 100% Banned the Int/Wis replacing Con as HP

As well as 4e was more Combat based, having low Con and low Surges was massive, most DPS only had 6 Surges and damage in 4e was pretty high.
Assuming a Basic Lv8 Wizard with 52 HP, 14 Con (8 Surges, 13 HSV) had 156 EHP per day
a Basic Lv8 Fighter with 71 HP, 14 Con (11 Surges, 17 HSV) had 258 EHP per day

Now I suppose this is an unfair comparison, one is a tank the other is a squishy caster. So let's look at 10 Con Wizard
Wizard with 52 HP, 14 Con (8 Surges, 13 HSV) had 156 EHP per day
Wizard with 48 HP, 10 Con (6 Surges, 12 HSV) had 120 EHP per day

36 HP or 30% more EHP per day for the 14 Con Wizard

5e numbers for comparison
Wizard at Lv8, 8d6 HD
Wizard with 50 HP, 14 Con (8d6+16) had 94 EHP per day
Wizard with 34 HP, 10 Con (8d6+0) had 62 EHP per day

Hmm... huh, well it looks like Con is even more important in 5e than 4e...
That's a 50% difference in EHP between the 2 Wizards

Edit - Curiosity
Wizard with 74 HP, 20 Con (8d6+40) had 142 EHP per day
Holy wow, Con is freaking amazing! That's another 50% more than a 14 Con
Even 130% better than 10 Con

[Blas_de_Lezo]

We won't be happy ever.

[Zalabim]

Holy wow, Con is freaking amazing!

For Wizards. Let me look at Barbarians for a moment.

[5e] Level 10 Barbarian 12 Con vs 18 Con
85 Max HP, 7.5 Hit Dice healing= 160 HP per day.
115 Max Hp, 10.5 Hit Dice healing = 220 HP per day.
137.5% more HP per day.

[4e] Level 10 Barbarian 12 Con vs 18 Con
81 Max HP (Rounding) 20 HSV, 9 Surges per day = 261 HP per day.
87 Max HP (Rounding) 22 HSV, 12 Surges per day = 351 HP per day.
134.5% more EHP per day.

For a barbarian, Con is ~2.25% more important in 5E than 4E (3 percentage points). That's discounting that 5E has more healing that doesn't care about your Hit Dice or Max HP, point buy that doesn't go over 15, stats that cap at 20, and anything I'm forgetting. For that wizard, it's ~17% more important.

I think the change to AC and HP is used to reduce the prevalence of SAD classes and base a consistent value for the constitution stat. As an example, Gauntlets of Ogre Power and the Headband of Intellect are both Uncommon, but the Amulet of Health is Rare I believe because constitution is a secondary stat for everyone and a secondary stat for everyone. Any character that cares about Str or Int can get 19 or higher Str or Int, but every character cares about Con and few characters will get Con to 19 or higher. Stats don't typically have the same value to all characters, and that's been considered elsewhere in the system.

[JellyPooga]

Wizard at Lv8, 8d6 HD
Wizard with 50 HP, 14 Con (8d6+16) had 94 EHP per day
Wizard with 34 HP, 10 Con (8d6+0) had 62 EHP per day

Just to put this into perspective, how much difference does that 16hp really make? A cursory glance at some level appropriate selections out of the MM might look a bit like:

Cyclops (CR:6) - Greatclub x2 19x2=38, Rock 28
Chasm (CR:6) - Proboscis 16+24=40
Young Green Dragon(CR:8) - Bite/Claw/Claw 15(+7)+11+11=44
Fomorian (CR:8) - Greatclub/Evil Eye 19+27=46
Hydra (CR:8) - Bite x5+ 10x5+=50+
Spirit Naga (CR:8) - Bite 7+38 = 45

So in many cases, assuming these bruisers can get at our Wizard in the first place, that increased Con is the difference between surviving a single round of melee with these guys and dying like a chump. More than likely, if you've managed to get yourself stuck in melee with one of these guys, you're going to die next round regardless, but hey, at least the higher Con bought one round to do something other than bleed, right?

This does not, however, take into account where the 5 character points Con 10 guy saved (assuming point-buy) have gone. Did he put it in Dex? More Wis? Cha? In Dex, it means he'll be hit around 10% less often. Put in Charisma, those points make him more likely to avoid the full effects of the Fomorians Evil Eye, or more able to strike a bargain with the Spirit Naga or deceive the Cyclops (using the old "Odysseus Gambit"). Not to mention the bonus to non-Con Saves you'll face when you're up against other spellcasters (NPC Mage CR:6), grapplers (Chain Devil CR:8) and some of the more exotic creatures you might face (Cloaker CR:8 - Attach (Str to escape), Moan (Wis to avoid)).

Con is good, don't get me wrong, but it's not essential. Not by a long shot. I'd rather spring for Resilient (Con) for the bonus to Saves than invest heavily in it. For me, the argument for removing Con from the game or significantly changing its impact comes not from it being too good, but for it not doing enough.

[Steampunkette]

I'd like to pop in here and say, for the record:

Well Punned.

[BW022]

So CON is an important stat for everyone.

I'll disagree. I've now seen a couple of couple of low-con characters in the two 5E campaigns and I am actually surprised by how effective they are.

One is a rogue who simply disengages from 90% of combat situations and either moves/attacks/disengages or disengages and then uses missile weapons all day. The other was a moon druid. Both work well in combat and the extra stats from not having to keep a 14 constitution are obvious. I can also imagine spell casters who levitate, spider climb, fly to stay out of most combats, etc. I can also imagine high AC cleric builds which simply stay back and heal or use ranged attacks. Maybe a wizard/sorcerer builds who stay back, a hill dwarf dragon sorcerer with the toughness feat, etc. A dex-based Halfling or gnome paladin who simply keeps their distance and uses a bow.

I don't see constitution as that necessary. In a point-buy the lowest it can be is 8. At 5th-level, that is only 15hp range (say 23 to 38 for a d8 character). Given 6 points of abilities scores to play with, other ways of gaining hit points, various abilities and tactics to remain out of melee, etc. one can certainly do away with it.




So my question is, are we happy with this? Do we like the fact that CON is handled the same way by the majority of characters? Is it a useful game element, or is it kind of annoying that getting a CON of approximately 14 is de rigueur for more characters than not? Is it fun that basically everyone is required to invest in a reactive ability score?


I would try making a low-constitution character. In 5E, most character have more hit points (rogues, wizards, sorcerers, etc. use large hit dice). Healing is now possible nearly by resting. Most creatures have more hit points, do more damage, and also and ACs tend not to be as good defences. However, staying out of melee is perfectly valid and ranged options on most creatures have limited (or no) ranged options.

I think it is more an issue of play styles. If you want to be up close and personal... yes... constitution is important in 5E. But it was in 3E also.

[JellyPooga]

I'd like to pop in here and say, for the record:

Well Punned.

It took me a while to get where you were coming from on this...but I guess I can forgive myself for not being American :smallwink:

[eastmabl]

We play a game that revolves around tactical simulation of small street fights with sprinklings of elf-magic for good measure. It's not surprising that the score which reflects your toughness is an important stat for everyone who gets into fights.

Considering mechanically how few things that Constitution affects, I don't think that it's the stat that needs to be amended. (I'm not naming names, Strength).

[JellyPooga]

Considering mechanically how few things that Constitution affects, I don't think that it's the stat that needs to be amended. (I'm not naming names, Strength).

There is an argument that there should be disparagement between the stats and how useful they are.

If all stats were equal, then why have different stats at all? Why not just have your Class denote the differences between characters? After all, Class determines your toughness (HD), your primary attack method (Fighters use Str, Rogues use Dex, Wizards use Int, etc.) and your defences. Everything else can be roleplayed.

If Int is equal to Str in usefulness, then there should be as many scholars as there are dock-workers. If Int is only useful to a small number of people, there's a good reason for there being only a small number of those people. Being a scholar or Wizard is considered a prestigious and lucrative sort of job. Why? Because few people take the time to cultivate the high Int necessary, due to the fact that outside of scholarly and wizardly pursuits, it's pretty useless. Thus, Int should be a stat with limited use compared to say, Dexterity or Strength, which can be applied to a much larger portion of professions and tasks.

[eastmabl]

If all stats were equal, then why have different stats at all? Why not just have your Class denote the differences between characters? After all, Class determines your toughness (HD), your primary attack method (Fighters use Str, Rogues use Dex, Wizards use Int, etc.) and your defences. Everything else can be roleplayed.

Isn't that what we have, for the most part?

- Unless you have 18+ Con/d6 HD, the majority of your HP is coming from your class.
- If you use a weapon, you attack with Str. If the weapon has a finesse tag, you can attack with Str or Dex. If you're attacking with a spell, you attack with your spellcasting stat.
- Your level 1 class determines which saves you're the best at. You can take a feat to become better at one other saving throw.


If Int is equal to Str in usefulness, then there should be as many scholars as there are dock-workers. If Int is only useful to a small number of people, there's a good reason for there being only a small number of those people. Being a scholar or Wizard is considered a prestigious and lucrative sort of job. Why? Because few people take the time to cultivate the high Int necessary, due to the fact that outside of scholarly and wizardly pursuits, it's pretty useless. Thus, Int should be a stat with limited use compared to say, Dexterity or Strength, which can be applied to a much larger portion of professions and tasks.

This is where the distinction between NPCs and PCs needs to come into play.

In the NPC world, it makes perfect sense that Str/Dex would be more important than Int for the reason you state. If you're playing Dockworkers & Dairy Farmers, you're totally right that Str/Dex would be more important for most people.

However, a player character is not the average person - she's already a very specialized type of person. His job is not to unload boats or milk cows - his profession involves adventure and intrigue. She slays monsters, unlocks traps and deals with nobility.

Since the game is designed around player characters and NOT having the NPC world make perfect sense, it should stand to reason that you would want different ability scores to be similarly useful. (They don't need to be identically useful, but just similar).

[JellyPooga]

This is where the distinction between NPCs and PCs needs to come into play.

Whilst I agree that NPCs and PCs don't necessarily have to cleave to the same mould, there should still be a correlation between the stats an N/PC has and the impact that will have on the NPC world. NPCs use the same stats and PCs after all.

The NPC world doesn't have to make perfect sense, but the more sense it does make the better. If it's completely nonsensical then we lose all sense of immersion.

Also, if high Intelligence is considered a rare trait, then reactions to it by the NPC population should reflect it too. If we "equalise" Int with the other stats, then the rarity value of that stat is lessened.

To make a comparison; let's hypothesize a low-magic world where Wizards and Sorcerers and other arcane magic is rare and feared. If one player plays an Arcane Caster, then we can preserve the low-magic feel of the setting; he suffers from some persecution, a few dodgy looks and the game goes on with him casting spells infrequently when in public and generally hiding his magery. If ALL the players decide to play Arcanists, however, then the whole point of magic being rare is somewhat lost; the characters don't really fit the setting and there's probably been some kind of disconnect between the type of game the players want to play and the one that the GM is pitching them. The world and the players are at odds and with the players casting spells all over the place (because that's the point of being a mage), the world being low-magic doesn't make sense because you're not getting that experience in play.

Now, in your standard sort of D&D setting, high Intelligence is an unusual trait. Most NPCs have little use for it. As a PC, few Classes have much use for it either. If every PC has a high Int because of an arbitrary ability being tacked on for "balance" reasons, then the experience of play doesn't reflect the "feel" that the setting is trying to portray.

Does that make sense? I'm not sure I'm explaining myself particularly clearly.

[Talamare]

Just to put this into perspective, how much difference does that 16hp really make? A cursory glance at some level appropriate selections out of the MM might look a bit like:

Cyclops (CR:6) - Greatclub x2 19x2=38, Rock 28
Chasm (CR:6) - Proboscis 16+24=40
Young Green Dragon(CR:8) - Bite/Claw/Claw 15(+7)+11+11=44
Fomorian (CR:8) - Greatclub/Evil Eye 19+27=46
Hydra (CR:8) - Bite x5+ 10x5+=50+
Spirit Naga (CR:8) - Bite 7+38 = 45

So in many cases, assuming these bruisers can get at our Wizard in the first place, that increased Con is the difference between surviving a single round of melee with these guys and dying like a chump. More than likely, if you've managed to get yourself stuck in melee with one of these guys, you're going to die next round regardless, but hey, at least the higher Con bought one round to do something other than bleed, right?

This does not, however, take into account where the 5 character points Con 10 guy saved (assuming point-buy) have gone. Did he put it in Dex? More Wis? Cha? In Dex, it means he'll be hit around 10% less often. Put in Charisma, those points make him more likely to avoid the full effects of the Fomorians Evil Eye, or more able to strike a bargain with the Spirit Naga or deceive the Cyclops (using the old "Odysseus Gambit"). Not to mention the bonus to non-Con Saves you'll face when you're up against other spellcasters (NPC Mage CR:6), grapplers (Chain Devil CR:8) and some of the more exotic creatures you might face (Cloaker CR:8 - Attach (Str to escape), Moan (Wis to avoid)).

Con is good, don't get me wrong, but it's not essential. Not by a long shot. I'd rather spring for Resilient (Con) for the bonus to Saves than invest heavily in it. For me, the argument for removing Con from the game or significantly changing its impact comes not from it being too good, but for it not doing enough.

You misunderstood something extremely important...

Being able to survive one more HIT is not the same thing as being able to survive one more ROUND

You could potentially still die in that same Round, or It could mean you survive another 10 Rounds.
A smart Wizard shouldn't ever get "stuck" in melee either tho, but he might get charged and get attacked once. Now Wizard without Con likely died to that one hit, since as you illustrated the numbers they are higher than 36. However Wizard with Con likely survived, even if only barely. Now next turn he potentially has options to run and continue the fight.

[eastmabl]

Whilst I agree that NPCs and PCs don't necessarily have to cleave to the same mould, there should still be a correlation between the stats an N/PC has and the impact that will have on the NPC world. NPCs use the same stats and PCs after all.

The NPC world doesn't have to make perfect sense, but the more sense it does make the better. If it's completely nonsensical then we lose all sense of immersion.

Also, if high Intelligence is considered a rare trait, then reactions to it by the NPC population should reflect it too. If we "equalise" Int with the other stats, then the rarity value of that stat is lessened.

To make a comparison; let's hypothesize a low-magic world where Wizards and Sorcerers and other arcane magic is rare and feared. If one player plays an Arcane Caster, then we can preserve the low-magic feel of the setting; he suffers from some persecution, a few dodgy looks and the game goes on with him casting spells infrequently when in public and generally hiding his magery. If ALL the players decide to play Arcanists, however, then the whole point of magic being rare is somewhat lost; the characters don't really fit the setting and there's probably been some kind of disconnect between the type of game the players want to play and the one that the GM is pitching them. The world and the players are at odds and with the players casting spells all over the place (because that's the point of being a mage), the world being low-magic doesn't make sense because you're not getting that experience in play.

Now, in your standard sort of D&D setting, high Intelligence is an unusual trait. Most NPCs have little use for it. As a PC, few Classes have much use for it either. If every PC has a high Int because of an arbitrary ability being tacked on for "balance" reasons, then the experience of play doesn't reflect the "feel" that the setting is trying to portray.

Does that make sense? I'm not sure I'm explaining myself particularly clearly.

I get what you're saying - I think that we disagree about the concept of game design.

You want game design to reflect the real world, where there is 1000-to-1 ratio between day laborers and wizards. To maintain immersion, Intelligence is purposefully less useful than the other five ability scores because those abilities are more useful.

I want game design to reflect the metagame, where there is an (approximate) 4-1 ratio between other characters and wizards, and all ability scores are roughly equivalent in utility.

I understand them both, but I prefer my game design to match the PC metagame because it's more likely to result in more fun for the PCs.

[JellyPooga]

A smart Wizard shouldn't ever get "stuck" in melee either tho

That's kind of my point though. A smart Wizard doesn't need lots of HP and as such, doesn't particularly need a high Con either. If the difference between having Con 10 and Con 14 is the ability to survive marginally longer in a situation you shouldn't really be getting yourself into...then I'm going to take Con 10 and get a bonus to something else. Something, I might add, that will probably help me avoid getting into situations where I might want those extra HP! At the end of the day, for a back-rank character, that 16hp difference (at level 8) is not a significant boon. The +10% chance of maintaining Concentration might be, but that also depends on the kind of Wizard you want to be.


I get what you're saying - I think that we disagree about the concept of game design.

That's fair. I still maintain that if that's the approach you're going for, then Ability Scores aren't really serving much of a purpose at all and IMO there are systems that better reflect the "metagame", as you describe it, than D&D.

[eastmabl]

That's kind of my point though. A smart Wizard doesn't need lots of HP and as such, doesn't particularly need a high Con either. If the difference between having Con 10 and Con 14 is the ability to survive marginally longer in a situation you shouldn't really be getting yourself into...then I'm going to take Con 10 and get a bonus to something else. Something, I might add, that will probably help me avoid getting into situations where I might want those extra HP! At the end of the day, for a back-rank character, that 16hp difference (at level 8) is not a significant boon. The +10% chance of maintaining Concentration might be, but that also depends on the kind of Wizard you want to be.

I'd say that a smart wizard doesn't go out in the world and burglarize dungeons, thereby putting himself in harm's way. A smart wizard sits in a dusty library and practices spells from the comfort of society. Unless he needs to save the world, he's content to sit in his wizarding tower and accumulate knowledge and power.

The PC wizard has a screw loose because he willingly puts himself in harm's way. He's going to want to be tougher than the average arcanist if he wants to survive longer because he and 3-5 of his closest companions are breaking into dungeons, killing monsters and taking their stuff.

"That boy ain't right."


That's fair. I still maintain that if that's the approach you're going for, then Ability Scores aren't really serving much of a purpose at all and IMO there are systems that better reflect the "metagame", as you describe it, than D&D.

Well, if you change too much about D&D, then you run the risk of the 4th edition problem where a lot of people don't want to play the game because it's too different. (Admittedly, I was among this group). The success of 5e is proof that some ideas need to be presented in a way that reminds players of the game before it.

But yes, there are some systems which reflect the metagame better than 5e. What they lack is the name recognition of D&D.

[JellyPooga]

Well, if you change too much about D&D, then you run the risk of the 4th edition problem

4ed, for me, is a perfect example of where homogonisation makes for dull gameplay. When I first looked at 4ed I was all "great, I can make the character I really want and it doesn't matter where I put my stats, it'll still be balanced and/or effective". When I played it and the more I toyed with the system, the more I realised that it was precisely that balance that made the game dull. It didn't matter if I played a big beefy Barbarian or a book smart Wizard...my character was the same either way; I had X,Y,Z in defence, X,Y,Z in attack and I was dealing X,Y,Z damage pretty much regardless of class, race or ability score distribution. It was boring and I didn't feel like I was playing a smart guy or a strong guy, I just felt like my stats didn't actually mean anything.

What I'm saying is that just as it's a characters' flaws that make him interesting, it's the imbalances in a system that makes it fun. Yes, you could always take the "optimal" choice for every character in an unbalanced system and I guarantee you'll swiftly get bored of playing the same character in every game. Or, you can find the imperfections, create a "flawed" character and play those flaws to the hilt. So, if the system doesn't allow for those flaws, you take away the possibility of playing a flawed character...and to me that just sounds boring.

[eastmabl]

What I'm saying is that just as it's a characters' flaws that make him interesting, it's the imbalances in a system that makes it fun. Yes, you could always take the "optimal" choice for every character in an unbalanced system and I guarantee you'll swiftly get bored of playing the same character in every game. Or, you can find the imperfections, create a "flawed" character and play those flaws to the hilt. So, if the system doesn't allow for those flaws, you take away the possibility of playing a flawed character...and to me that just sounds boring.

I think that we keep dancing around the issue and basically agree for different reasons. I'm not saying that ability scores have to be perfectly balanced, but they need to be in the same ball park.

When you make one stat markedly less useful than the others, it makes it easier to dump the stat without any real penalty. 5e has this problem with both Intelligence (mostly limited to casting stats and knowledge skills) and Strength (mostly applies attacks with versatile/heavy weapons and Athletics - both of which can be largely avoided by using finesse weapons and Acrobatics).

***

To discuss why I think that we largely agree:

I see a flaw on a character as a dump stat. When I get to play 5e, I always have at least one stat that's less than 10. For example, I have a halfling sorcerer with an 8 Wisdom who serves as the party scout. He stumbles upon ambushes instead of seeing them ahead of time. He has an 18 Charisma and proficiency in Persuasion, and is very good at explaining why he didn't see the ambush until it was too late.

However, in that same party of five, I also have the highest Intelligence score with an 11. Why? Intelligence is very easy to dump, and between a sorcerer, druid, cleric, monk and barbarian, no one needs to be that brainy. (Then again, we could really use some knowledge-based skills right now - but that may be the DM being punitive for our not-thinking-good).

[eastmabl]

4ed, for me, is a perfect example of where homogonisation makes for dull gameplay. When I first looked at 4ed I was all "great, I can make the character I really want and it doesn't matter where I put my stats, it'll still be balanced and/or effective".

Also, I'd suggest looking at 13th Age if you like 4E in theory but hate the homogenization. They do a really good job at making the classes interesting without making them seem the same.

Also, there are some tasty mechanics when the unmodified die roll has an effect on the game. I'm a big fan.

[JellyPooga]

Also, I'd suggest looking at 13th Age if you like 4E in theory but hate the homogenization. They do a really good job at making the classes interesting without making them seem the same.

Also, there are some tasty mechanics when the unmodified die roll has an effect on the game. I'm a big fan.

Heh, yeah, I like 13th Age...I think it's a fantastic system for sandboxing because it allows for a lot of player agency. 13th Age is what 4ed should have been, IMO.

[eastmabl]

Heh, yeah, I like 13th Age...I think it's a fantastic system for sandboxing because it allows for a lot of player agency. 13th Age is what 4ed should have been, IMO.

I say that 13th Age is proof that I would have liked 4E if it hadn't been called D&D.

But you're right - 13th Age should probably have been 4E - or maybe what D&D Essentials should have become if they were willing to go in on 4.5E. I think that 13th Age gets the benefit of learning from the lessons of 4E.

[Zaq]

4ed, for me, is a perfect example of where homogonisation makes for dull gameplay. When I first looked at 4ed I was all "great, I can make the character I really want and it doesn't matter where I put my stats, it'll still be balanced and/or effective". When I played it and the more I toyed with the system, the more I realised that it was precisely that balance that made the game dull. It didn't matter if I played a big beefy Barbarian or a book smart Wizard...my character was the same either way; I had X,Y,Z in defence, X,Y,Z in attack and I was dealing X,Y,Z damage pretty much regardless of class, race or ability score distribution. It was boring and I didn't feel like I was playing a smart guy or a strong guy, I just felt like my stats didn't actually mean anything.

Huh. I didn't feel that way about 4e at all. I feel like 4e does one of the best jobs I've ever seen of making the stats feel balanced, and that's partially because they tied so many different functions to the stats. If you wanted INT to matter, you didn't just have to be a Wizard or a similar character using INT as their primary casting stat (though you had several options if you wanted to do that), because there were a ton of classes that used INT as a secondary score (Warlord, Bard, Avenger, Warlock, Invoker . . . technically Rogue, even though no one did that), and those classes that used INT used it in different ways. (An INT secondary made an Invoker more leadery than if they chose a different secondary, while an INT secondary made a Bard more controllery than if they chose a different one. Both were good at INT-based things, but INT had different effects on them.) But you had plenty of ways of making an INT-heavy character without making them feel the same. And that was true for basically every ability score, so if you wanted to play a character with a high score in a certain stat, you weren't limited to just one or two options. You could focus on CHA to the point that it fueled your attacks (Warlock, Sorcerer, Bard, Ardent, Paladin), but if that didn't appeal to you, you could still make a suave and charismatic character (who had mechanical reasons to have high CHA) without doing that (Warlord, Cleric, Rogue, Barbarian, Monk, Wizard, Psion, Battlemind, Assassin). Contrast with 5e, where if you want to be a charismatic talker, you'd damn well better also have CHA-based casting, or else you're sacrificing something major in another area by focusing on CHA.

I suppose there's no accounting for taste, but I didn't find that having normalized attack/defense values made characters feel the same. Even if a Barbarian and a Wizard have similar AC values, that doesn't mean that a savvy Wizard will usually want to stand and bang on the front line with the Barbarian (for one, the Barbarian is going to have way more HP, and for two, the Barbarian's defensive powers/abilities are better at making them tougher or letting them shrug off things so they can keep taking hits, while the Wizard's defensive powers/abilities are about getting them the hell away from trouble so they don't have to keep taking hits), but it does mean that the Wizard isn't a glass cannon that will crumple like tissue paper if something sneaks past the defender and gets in a swing or two.

To me, having normalized defenses allowed the designers to explore ways of making characters distinctive beyond just "X has a better AC than Y." A Warden might have AC that's within a point or two of the Paladin, but they fulfill the job of "tank" (they're both defender classes) in incredibly different ways. And even if a Sorcerer decided to devote a ton of resources into pumping up their AC and got AC up to a level close to that of the Warden or Paladin, that doesn't mean that the Sorcerer is a defender, and if they get up close and personal with the enemies, they're going to have very different goals and techniques than the Warden will. But having normalized defenses meant that it wasn't some shocking or overpowered thing if the Sorcerer managed to get their AC up, and it also meant that there was more to making a defender class than just "you're hard to hit." (Plus, in reality, people had different defenses. ACs were rarely exactly the same even if they were in the same ballpark, and you're going to have an easier time hitting a Wizard's Fort than a Barbarian's, while the reverse is true for Reflex.)

Again, no accounting for taste, but I don't feel like 4e's stat flexibility made it such that "the stats don't mean anything." It's true that there generally wasn't exactly one way of getting a given benefit that a stat would give you (you can be dodgy without DEX, you can hit hard without STR, and so on), so you weren't locked into having a given stat, but the stats still mattered. Playing a WIS-secondary Fighter felt very different from a DEX-secondary Fighter or a CON-secondary Fighter. Playing an INT-secondary Bard was very different from a CON-secondary Bard, even though both were firmly viable. And while there were ways of accomplishing many goals even without the "traditional" stat for it, the "traditional" stat still usually had a leg up (you could absolutely make a character who was really good at knowledge skills without being INT-primary, but the INT-primary Wizard would have to invest less in achieving the same goal).

I think that's part of my problem with 5e. There isn't enough stat flexibility to do things in nontraditional ways, and it's not really viable for many classes to explore having very different secondary stats. (In 4e, Monks used DEX as their primary stat, and they could choose STR, CON, WIS, or CHA as their secondary. All of those secondaries were viable, and they all had different strengths and different weaknesses and different unique tricks. Whereas a 5e Monk who doesn't go DEX/WIS is going to be at a severe disadvantage compared to one who does, and even if they find a workaround, it costs them a lot to do so.) Which is why I brought up this topic in the first place—does it really make that much sense that CON is as inflexible as it is?

[JellyPooga]

I think that's part of my problem with 5e. There isn't enough stat flexibility to do things in nontraditional ways

does it really make that much sense that CON is as inflexible as it is?

My response to this is; why do you think a system should have stat flexibility? Non-traditional =/= Good. It can be fun, but shouldn't be inherently beneficial.

Constitution is literally your toughness and resistance to harmful effects. Does it makes sense that it should apply to anything else? It's supposed to be passive/defensive. Start tacking on offensive uses for it and you begin to stretch the definition of what Con is.

If, for example, you were to allow someone to use Int instead of Str to lift a portcullis (because you're using your smarts to apply leverage in the right place or something; a stretch, I know, but I'm using an extreme example), then you devalue the purpose of what Str is and you devalue the choice to have high Str.

By having more flexible stats, you reduce the impact of having different scores. If either Dex or Int can determine your AC, then what difference does it make which one is higher, all other things being equal*?

*which they're not, granted.

[Telok]

However, in that same party of five, I also have the highest Intelligence score with an 11. Why? Intelligence is very easy to dump, and between a sorcerer, druid, cleric, monk and barbarian, no one needs to be that brainy. (Then again, we could really use some knowledge-based skills right now - but that may be the DM being punitive for our not-thinking-good).
You're probably just fine. As long as the DCs don't go over 20 then with everyone rolling you're normally to have one 15+ roll just based on the dice. It's quite possible that for most checks five rolls at +0 are going to be better than one rol at +8.

[Talamare]

I think the problem with the system is the actual system

Too many specific stats that are useless for everyone else