How much Con is enough?

[PeteNutButter]

So what the title says: How much Con is enough?

I find stat dumping more common and more attractive in 5e in comparison to earlier editions. But everyone needs con. Front liners need more hit points. Casters need to be able to concentrate on spells. Gishes, who are sometimes MAD, need con for both these reasons.

It should be noted that con mods are a greater percentage of hit points for lower hit dice classes. A wizard gets 4 hit points per level, but having a 14 con ups that to 6 for a whopping 50% increase. While a fighter's 6 hp per level is only 33% increased by a 14 con, ~29% for the barbarian, etc.

When point buying I generally go with the approach that everything gets at least a 14. To the extreme that I practically consider it a 20 point buy that starts with 14 con, basically a point buy tax. Now I know some MAD builds can justify pulling a little from it, maybe make it 12 or 13 going for resilient. But is 10 viable/survivable? Can a build even operate with an 8?

What successes and failures has the community seen with lower starting constitution on their characters?

Last week in our AL game, one of our regular players didn't have a character prepared for the low level (1-2) adventure we were running, so the DM gave him a pregen. The pregen was a wizard with a 10 con, and quite an impressive backstory and physical description. For some reason the wizard's "silver eyes" stuck out in my memory. Anyways the player asked me to help him make it not suck for him. So I simply rearranged the stats to swap his cha(14?) and con. Sure enough in the first fight he got crit for 14 damage. You may notice that's just enough to outright kill a level 1 wizard with anything less than a 14 con. It caused a roar of laughter at the table as they were all quite privy to the stats prior to the redistribution. So ol' Silver Eyes lives to tell the tale, because he worked on his cardio instead of socializing.

As always, thanks!

[Foxhound438]

My recent characters, in order of creation:

Monk; 14 con, managed to out-live that campaign
Paladin; 14 con, killed by my own teammate at level 1. DM felt bad and had NPC ex-machina revive me, after that saw a lot of go to 1 or 2 after a failed save of whatever stat.
Monk; 14 con, out-lived the campaign
Sorcerer; 16 con, but no dex made her easy to hit, barely survived that 1-shot
druid; 14 con, lived through his 1-shot fine. Note that it wasn't a moon druid, so that's a bit more of an accomplishment.
Fighter/warlock; 16 con, nigh unkillable.

So needless to say, I too think 14 con, or perhaps even more, is correct. However, aside from the time my teammate cast burning hands on me at level 1, the relatively small con mod has performed fairly okay. A game with no good healer would be a lot more rough with lower con, though. In a party with a life cleric even a 12 con would probably be okay on most things.

Also, I'm curious, why use 20 point buy? standard is 27

[bid]

Also, I'm curious, why use 20 point buy? standard is 27
Con14 is 7 points, leaving 20 for the rest.

[JellyPooga]

I can heartily recommend a minimum of Con 10. It wasn't 5ed (it was Pathfinder, I believe), but I tried dumping Con to 8 for a Halfling duelist type character. His AC was astronomical (IIRC it was in the region of about 27 at character level 4), but his HP were appalling (his AC was higher...) and it was only a matter of time before a monster hit him with a Crit. It happened to be an Ogre. Scratch one cheeky Halfling Rogue and cue one greasy stain on the dungeon floor! Low HP makes for a very unforgiving character; one (un)lucky hit and you're toast and you can't beat the odds forever.

I like to have Con 13 at char gen for any character that doesn't start with proficiency in it, with the intention of picking up Resilient (Con) at a later date. It's an important Saving Throw to have and a +2 mod plus proficiency is "enough", I think, but it's also not so important that you need it high right away...

...Unless you intend on spending much time on the front line, in which case Con 14 (after racial mods) is an absolute minimum. 16+ is preferable. I would always consider a race with a Con bonus when playing a melee front-liner; Dwarf, Gnome, Halfling, Half-Elf, Half-Orc or Human.

[Specter]

CON is always a secondary or tertiary stat. If it's secondary, 16. If tertiary, 14. If you plan for Resilient (CON), 13. Anything else sounds like poor building to me.

[JumboWheat01]

At the start of a character's career, 16 or 14 if they have the save (16 preferred for heavy front-line characters,) and 13 for those without the save if you intend to grab Resilience (Con). If you don't, I've found 12 fine for rear-line people, but I still try to get at least 14.

For most characters I don't bother touching their Con after that, the only exceptions being Fighters (because they get so many ASIs,) and Barbarians (because of their Unarmored Defense and rule-breaking cap stone.) For "lighter" characters, even ones that don't rely on it, Dex proves a bit more useful, and Feats can be pretty handy to have.

[JAL_1138]

My Valor bard is a bit low in Con--12--compared to the rest of these, and he does get KO'd pretty often. But that's because he ends up frontlining and taking a lot more hits than he's meant to; the extra 7 HP wouldn't make much difference.

[Ghost Nappa]

You can get away with a CON of 14 or 16 on most characters and never worry about it again.

I would NEVER suggest anything lower than a 10 and I will plead with you to make it to AT LEAST 14.

The reason is simple. Raising your constitution by 2 increases your HP by your character's level. At lower levels this is essentially multiplicative, particularly on casters.

A Wizard or Sorcerer that raises their CON from 10 to 12 at Level 4 increases their HP from 3d6 (avg: 10.5) to 4d6+4 (avg: 18).

At Level 16, it's 15d6 (avg: 52.5) to 16d6+16 (avg: 72).

Relatively speaking, the return is lower for higher CON scores and at higher levels, but there are times when you need to take a hit (>=5% of the time) and it's going to suck when it happens, but you need to be able to eat a hit once in awhile.

Barbarians ideally want to find time to maximize their CON because it improves both their unarmored AC (which is quite high if optimized at a potential 24 before magical gear) AND their HP.


If I have a say in the matter, I will not make a PC with con under 14. Always a secondary stat. If he is expected to take hits, then I will try for 16 if I can make that work.


I do believe that going as low as 12 is fine for a character who is not likely to take hits (not just "not supposed to", but actually has several competent meatshields to protect him), but it makes me nervous to see other PCs with con that low.

QFT.

[Slipperychicken]

If I have a say in the matter, I will not make a PC with con under 14. Always a secondary stat. If he is expected to take hits, then I will try for 16 if I can make that work.


I do believe that going as low as 12 is fine for a character who is not likely to take hits (not just "not supposed to", but actually has several competent meatshields to protect him), but it makes me nervous to see other PCs with con that low.

[mgshamster]

8 con is enough. ;)

[JAL_1138]

A variant human can stand a low Con with the Toughness feat, but it seems like a waste of a feat, unless the build isn't going to be taking any other feats and is pretty MAD to start with.

[Mandragola]

I'd also always aim for 14. Con is the difficulty slider of dnd. It is indeed a 20 point buy.

[Kane0]

Ive got a 10 con at the moment and its working out alright

Then again we all currently have 10s in everything in return for gestalting, so maybe not a perfect case study

[Naanomi]

There are exceptions, but...
12 for very MAD multiclass characters
14 for almost everyone
~This is *enough*, but some builds I would go with more...

16 for any race with a CON bonus that isn't particularly MAD
20 (24) for some barbarians, fighters, or rare characters who don't need anything else past maxing their attack stat and wouldn't benefit significantly from any feats

[D.U.P.A.]

10 Con can be fine for many classes. Ranged/Support Fighter and Rangers, Eagle totem Barbarians, Moon Druids, stealthy Rogues. Wizards have a problem with rather small hit die, but more martial classes can mitigate this by having larger hit die, as long they do not take tanking role.

[djreynolds]

Take a 13, and get resilient con sooner rather than later. This is pretty good for most characters.

For a fighter, paladin, barbarian, or cleric in combat. 16 or 15 and resilient con, for cleric and paladin.

A monk or rogue and ranger, I think 14 is fine.

[JakOfAllTirades]

For my characters, a CON score of 14 is usually high enough.

When I played a Barbarian it started at 16 and quickly went to 18; he was a combat monster with no armor.

I've got a few characters with a CON of 12 that "look sort of playable on paper" but I haven't run a single one of them in an actual game yet.

[Zevox]

14 tends to be what I go with on most all of my characters. I'd go higher if I ever played a straight-up fighter-type, but I basically never do - I like my magic too much. I might take a 12 on a character I figured would be a strictly hang-in-the-back caster type, like a pure Wizard or Tome Warlock, but only if I had a good idea what else I wanted to do with the points that would free up.

I would not take a 10 or lower. Being able to take a hit is too important to not have a constitution bonus to your health, much less have a penalty.

[Citan]

So what the title says: How much Con is enough?

I find stat dumping more common and more attractive in 5e in comparison to earlier editions. But everyone needs con. Front liners need more hit points. Casters need to be able to concentrate on spells. Gishes, who are sometimes MAD, need con for both these reasons.

As always, thanks!
I'd say choosing the right amount of CON depends on several things. Swaying the balance in favor (+) or "defavor" (-) of higher CON, I see the following...
+ you are a caster (unless niche AOE/non-concentration build)
+ you have a low hit die
+ you will be in melee
+ you have low DEX (more sensitivity to directly offensive spells)
- you can easily hide
- you get defensive features to avoid/reduce damage
- you easily get high AC (17+)
- you get THP or regen features
- you can find ASI to spend on Constitution or HP features.

So, for example, I would find an Eldricht Knight fine with starting as low as 12 CON, because he gets all armors and possibly shield, defensive spells and can spend a feat later to compensate, and could easily switch from melee to ranged depending on the build. Maybe even a 10 could be doable, although I never played a character with such low CON.

Ranger is another good example of class that can adapt. If you want high WIS for spells, you can focus on archery and hang back, so you can cope with 12 CON. Or you could focus on non-wis dependant spells and pump CON to 16 to be extremely resilient. :)

Instead, a Vengeance Paladin will always be in the thick of fight (because most features are melee-focused), and will start using Haste regularly when he gets it. So he will need a good Constitution, along with Resilient (13) or Warcaster (14) somewhere soonish in his career.

Finally, a niche build for those interested: any caster built for melee, using only utility/buff spells (so no need for high casting stat), bumping Constitution as high as possible, taking Durable feat to basically maximize the HP regain. Too bad there are so few features allowing you to roll hit dice (barring short rest) that I know of...
Not a build I'd recommend for a normal play, but for an unoptimized campaign could make a fun concept character... :)

[Slipperychicken]

Armor class really isn't a good substitute for hit points in games that use an AC/hp system like D&D does. Your PC will get hit, perhaps by something that doesn't even care about his AC, and he needs to survive it when that happens. If you want your PC to be durable, then you should have both good AC and hp.

[djreynolds]

Armor class really isn't a good substitute for hit points in games that use an AC/hp system like D&D does. Your PC will get hit, perhaps by something that doesn't even care about his AC, and he needs to survive it when that happens. If you want your PC to be durable, then you should have both good AC and hp.

There it is. Perfect assessment.

I had a bunch of orcs throwing javelins at me with disadvantage, and one got through and took me to half HP, and I ran. He didn't even have to kill me to take me out of the fight.

HP is important on many levels, including player psyche and fear. High AC is great, but a 20 hits no matter what and when it does... it will hurt.

[Slipperychicken]

There it is. Perfect assessment.

I had a bunch of orcs throwing javelins at me with disadvantage, and one got through and took me to half HP, and I ran. He didn't even have to kill me to take me out of the fight.

HP is important on many levels, including player psyche and fear. High AC is great, but a 20 hits no matter what and when it does... it will hurt.

I say it partly because of a similar experience one of my players had. It was an OSR game but the same principles applied. In chargen he rolled some fantastic stats, but got greedy wanting initiative and decided to put dex over con, to the point that he didn't even have a con bonus, saying something to the effect of "an ounce of prevention...". Sure enough, a skeleton rolled 19 to hit him and got maximum damage, oneshotting him and completely ruining his evening. Odds of that were 1 in 40. The poor guy had to run out because of how desolated he was. If he had any con bonus to speak of, he would have made it through and won the fight handily, since my monsters didn't land a single hit after that attack.

[djreynolds]

Its too true, I know the game isn't real, but at half HP... I'm looking to run. Especially when you crit for half of what you have.

[Georlik]

I always aim to make those 10 DC concentration saves an auto-sucess, counting Bless for those who cast it frequently. So:
16 for Paladin (3con+5aura+1bless+1dice) as you see i take only lowest numbers of the rolls. Also that's why I think that Resilience (Con) is an overkill on paladin.
13 for Cleric with Res(Con) being mandatory upping it to 14 (2con+6res+1bless+1dice)
16 for any caster with ConST proficiency, including transmuter (3con+6phstone+1dice)
18 for that EK wannabe they call a Bladesinger (4con+5int+1dice)
Any for Moon Druid with Res(Con) being mandatory (various constitution parameters from forms).

If you play without Feats or as a non-caster it does not really matter how much Con you have. The more - the better obviously, but it does not grant you invulnerability. You may try to optimize your first level survivability, where the Crit kills are most common, but thtat's like what - 1 or 2 sessions?

[Citan]

Armor class really isn't a good substitute for hit points in games that use an AC/hp system like D&D does. Your PC will get hit, perhaps by something that doesn't even care about his AC, and he needs to survive it when that happens. If you want your PC to be durable, then you should have both good AC and hp.
I don't know if you say this as a reaction to my post but I agree with you, with a nuance.

Having a high AC still means that you get less hits, so it still accounts for survivability. So it's obviously not a replacement for high HP as you illustrated, but it can justify keeping a "just good enough" CON, depending on all the other factors (including the presence of external healer/buffer which I forgot earlier).

As for low level, well, my experience is that when you luck out on an enemy attack while character level <3, unless you are an optimized Barbarian or the like, whether you have 10 or 16 CON you risk your life all the same. :)

In the game I DM, one of my player (who apparently forgot he was a lvl 1 Rogue + clearly didn't realize how gritty 5e is) got properly cut down in one turn (not even a critical), from full HP to 1. Good thing for him he managed to kill him off just after. ^^ My other player, a Monk, faced off two enemies and "unlucked out", in spite of having a decent 14 Constitution (and me using average rolls instead of actually rolling, because from experience with them it's usually easier on them than actually rolling damage). Higher AC would have made 1 of the attacks miss (while the others were too high rolls anyways). ;)

Another illustration of why having good defense and good hp are both equally important. ;)

[jas61292]

Personally, I find Con to be overrated. I know that is a weird thing to hear, but HP and Con saves are far, far less important than smart play. I've had characters in my party with high Con that go down all the time, and I've had characters in my party with 0 Con that almost never go down, and it has everything to do with playstyle, and nothing to do with HP. Hell, in a recent campaign, there was a warlock in my party that not only had a Con of 1 and rolled 1s for HP for his fist few levels in a row. And despite his practically non-existent HP, he almost never dropped, because, through positioning and control and other things, he kept himself out of harm's way. On the other hand, I have seen high Con Barbarians drop all the time because they allow themselves to take too many hits and spells.

Now, that said, if you are a front liner, I do think you need some constitution. You will get hit, like it or not, and while I think you can get away with a 12 with smart play, 14 is usually my recommendation. But if you are not a front liner, who cares what your Con is? Play smart, keep yourself safe, and don't act like you have stats that you don't. Now, this is not to say more Con is not good, but each point you put in Con is a point not being put elsewhere. Every ability has advantages, and ever character is different. If you know what you are doing, it putting points in different places instead of Con won't hurt you too much.