How much do YOU value Constitution?

[CTurbo]

I'm just curious on how important Con is to you when you're making and leveling up your characters.

I know Con is a pretty boring stat, but it's also a universally important one. Every character wants as much Con as they can get, and it's the second or third most important stat on pretty much every everyone.

Personally, I usually put a lot more value in Con than the average player. That doesn't mean that I have to max it out on all of my characters, but I don't ever start with less than a 14 Con unless it's for a very specific rp reason.

[Jerrykhor]

I value it quite highly too. Most of the nasty debuffs are CON saves, plus having more hp is always nice. I will never dump it, i usually put 14-16 in it. I only have 1 character with 12 CON, and thats because its a moon druid.

[Luccan]

I'd like a minimum of +2 for every character. I never completely dump Con. The way I see it: If I'm going to be a big, tough front-liner I need to have a high HP so I can stay in the fight as long as possible. And if I'm a squishy archer or caster, I need HP for when someone beats or slips past the front line (and also because casting checks). I might consider relaxing on a skirmisher, particularly a Monk with high Wis and Dex, but it's really just too important on everyone to risk less than a 10 in that stat (and that's kinda pushing it).

Edit: Come to think, Con is the only stat that gives returns every level in 5e. Casting stats don't give bonus spells per day anymore and Str and Dex are static as ever. But even a +1 to Con is an extra 20 HP over the the course of an adventuring career.

[Vykryl]

Con seems to almost always be my characters second highest stat. Never lower than third.

[Afrodactyl]

I always treat Con as my next most important stat. Once I've covered everything my classes need to function, then I add the next highest stat to Con.

Every hitpoint matters.

[Chugger]

I play AL and so meet all sorts of players. Whenever someone has gimped Con, it almost always shows. They fail critical saving throws and lose concentration - or get some nasty effect - or die. And they drop to zero faster.

"But I put it in dex to have higher ac and cha so I could roleplay!" they argue - and of course they're right - they can do that and 5e won't crush them for it and sometimes that dex or cha is very handy.

But they suck at things they're supposed to be good at, like maintaining concentration on spells. And if it has +12 to hit, I don't care what your dex is - it's often better to have more hit points. You might survive a round or two longer.

When I'm healing - and I zap people who have been dropped to zero - it is quite often a character without even +2 con. For many characters +3 is quite good but yes, +2 is minimum - except 5e won't crush you if you don't - if you only have +1 or even less you can be effective (unless you're a meleer/tank type).

[Ignimortis]

I get as much as I can without gimping my primary stats. So, usually +2 mod. +3 is also fine. +1 is stretching it, because that's basically one hitdie size down, and +0 or lower is mechanically inexcusable.

[JellyPooga]

I place less focus on Con than most, but then I don't play characters that necessarily need it that much, as a rule. I've even dumped Con to 8 before (in a Pathfinder game) and had an absolute blast playing this slightly frail swashbuckling Halfling with a big personality. The only time he went down was when he went down for good and that was only because of a critical hit from an ogre; aside from that, he used less healing resources than any other character at the table.

In 5ed, I'll try for 12 or 14 Con, but I'm not too fussed if I leave it at 10. I won't tend to dump it to 8 unless I've got a good roleplaying reason to do so, but I'm not afraid to dump it either. This id obviously subject to the style of character I'm playing; front-line melee and concentration casters need at least a 14, preferably more.

[DarkKnightJin]

I have been able to play 3 different characters so far.
The lowest Con score on any of them was 12, and that was a Rogue that wasn't the type to get up in people's faces anyway, what with being a Courtier.

The other two are a Fighter/Death Cleric, and a Fighter(/Warlock) respectively, each with a 14 in their Con.

12 is the lowest I willingly put my Con score. Anything lower just doesn't work for me as a player.

[Asmotherion]

Usually my second highest stat, and I'll take proficiency in it over any other proficiency in any other save, since I'm a caster, and I don't want to be THAT guy (sets up a Concentration spell, gets hit by an arrow the next turn to loose said spell).

That's the main reason I personally value Sorcerer over Wizard when Building my Character. That, plus being a Charisma Caster giving me easier access to Agonising Blast :3

The bonus HP preventing me from being the definition of a Glass Cannon are just a bonus really.

[prototype00]

I always had it at 14 or 16. Makes sense really.

Knew an optimizer in AL, played a Bladesinger with layered defenses and items and everything, bragged that he didn’t need Con and dumped it to 8. Indeed, was untouchable in tier 2.

Disintegrated 2 sessions into Tier 3.

[Merudo]

Con is absolutely vital.

Wizards get ~4Hp per level, plus Con bonus. So every +1 to Con gives a bit less than 25% extra HP.

A level 10 Wizard with 10 Con has 42 HP. With 16 Con, that's 72HP. That's about 70% more HP, an incredible difference. A +3 to AC from 16 Dex (say) would not be nearly as impactful.

For Clerics, Bards, and Rogues, the situation is similar, with each +1 to Con giving about 20% extra HP.

A level 10 Cleric with 10 Con has 53HP. A level 10 Cleric with 16 Con has 83HP, about 60% more. Still huge!

IMO unless you play a MAD class, you should always put your second highest number in Con.

[JellyPooga]

Con is absolutely vital.

Wizards get ~4Hp per level, plus Con bonus. So every +1 to Con gives a bit less than 25% extra HP.

A level 10 Wizard with 10 Con has 42 HP. With 16 Con, that's 72HP. That's about 70% more HP, an incredible difference. A +3 to AC from 16 Dex (say) would not be nearly as impactful.

For Clerics, Bards, and Rogues, the situation is similar, with each +1 to Con giving about 20% extra HP.

A level 10 Cleric with 10 Con has 53HP. A level 10 Cleric with 16 Con has 83HP, about 60% more. Still huge!

IMO unless you play a MAD class, you should always put your second highest number in Con.

That's some misleading calculations, right there, because you're using level 10 as your baseline. At level 1, the difference between Con 10 and Con 16 for your Wizard is the difference between 4 and 7; still low enough that a single hit is worrisome. For your Cleric it's 8 to 11; still not too significant (two hits and you're down). At level 5, the Wizard comparison is 16 vs. 31 in an arena of critters that many are dealing an average of 15-25 damage(ish) per hit. Sure, that higher Con might keep you alive for one hit longer, but I wouldn't count on it.

I don't dispute that the additive nature of Con to your HP is a serious concern, as is the benefits to maintaining concentration on spells, but until you're past tier 1 play (around level 6ish), whether you have 10 or 18 Con, the difference to HP is (largely speaking) one hit at best. If you know the game is never going to go far past lower levels, or indeed that game isn't going to be all that combat heavy, investing significantly into Con can truly be a waste.

[Jerrykhor]

That's some misleading calculations, right there, because you're using level 10 as your baseline. At level 1, the difference between Con 10 and Con 16 for your Wizard is the difference between 4 and 7; still low enough that a single hit is worrisome. For your Cleric it's 8 to 11; still not too significant (two hits and you're down). At level 5, the Wizard comparison is 16 vs. 31 in an arena of critters that many are dealing an average of 15-25 damage(ish) per hit. Sure, that higher Con might keep you alive for one hit longer, but I wouldn't count on it.

I don't dispute that the additive nature of Con to your HP is a serious concern, as is the benefits to maintaining concentration on spells, but until you're past tier 1 play (around level 6ish), whether you have 10 or 18 Con, the difference to HP is (largely speaking) one hit at best. If you know the game is never going to go far past lower levels, or indeed that game isn't going to be all that combat heavy, investing significantly into Con can truly be a waste.

He's trying to prove a point, that the hp difference is big at higher levels. I have seen it myself that it was literally the difference between getting disintegrated into a pile of ash, and being alive. My friend's rogue had 10 CON, and he failed 2 DEX saves against 2 Disintegrates (even with inspiration). The DC wasn't that high, but he rolled terrible 3 times, and that was it, dead. If he had 12 CON, he would have survived.

[JellyPooga]

He's trying to prove a point, that the hp difference is big at higher levels. I have seen it myself that it was literally the difference between getting disintegrated into a pile of ash, and being alive. My friend's rogue had 10 CON, and he failed 2 DEX saves against 2 Disintegrates (even with inspiration). The DC wasn't that high, but he rolled terrible 3 times, and that was it, dead. If he had 12 CON, he would have survived.

That's just it, though; at higher level play Con plays a significant role, whether it's from the additive nature of HP, the slowing of damage values scaling (as a rule), or nastier insta-gib spells (like Disintegrate); it's all at higher levels. In lower level play, you don't see so many of the Con resisted killers and damage values of foes is still taking most characters out in two or three hits regardless of Con. I'm not saying Con is useless at lower levels, but it's certainly of less use than it is at higher levels.

[quinron]

I'm not saying Con is useless at lower levels, but it's certainly of less use than it is at higher levels.

This is why I tend to put something like 13 in Con - it's not a priority stat at 1st level, but it's usually the first one I upgrade.

[DeShurland]

The more HP you have, the longer you stay alive, simples really. I am currently playing a fighter, my next ASI is a choice between 2 points to strength or constitution. I am also proficient with con saving throws, so I do see some benefit to raising it further. The higher the possibility for a save, the more chance to stay alive.

Plus if I am correct any CON modifier raise is backdated for HP? That could be rubbish though.

Normally i look at what are the two most important skills for a character, and then stick CON between them.

[Cespenar]

Eh, it's a bit like insurance IRL. You don't know if you'll need it or not, but you get it mostly out of fear.

Of course it's one of the most useful stats, but like everything else, it depends on your playstyle. I've seen casters with 14 cons who got damaged maybe once every three battles, solely due to party composition and how good everyone else was at tanking and battlefield control.

I would say that in most cases, Con is the 2nd or 3rd most important stat. On non-tanking characters in parties of 5+ people or in parties with good teamwork and composition, it could be dumped in favor of getting Lucky for that once in a battle save-or-suck effect.

[DarkKnightJin]

The more HP you have, the longer you stay alive, simples really. I am currently playing a fighter, my next ASI is a choice between 2 points to strength or constitution. I am also proficient with con saving throws, so I do see some benefit to raising it further. The higher the possibility for a save, the more chance to stay alive.

Plus if I am correct any CON modifier raise is backdated for HP? That could be rubbish though.

Normally i look at what are the two most important skills for a character, and then stick CON between them.

Any change to your HP from a Con modifier change (positive or negative), is calculated through as if you had that Con modifier from 1st level onward.
So, getting an extra +1 to your Con mod at 10th level means you get 10 extra HPs to burn through before eating dirt.
On the flip side, suddenly going from a +3 to a +2 Con mod at 10th level means losing 10 HP right then and there.

[DeadMech]

There is one situation where I'd consider not making con one of my better stats. I rolled garbage during character generation and am purposefully trying to Leeroy Jenkins myself.

[Belier]

Con is the stat I really wish that I had but that is never above 14. I try not to go below 12. The problem with con is that it's not enabling much unless you are a barbarian.

[Aelyn]

It's the most important secondary stat for most builds (though for some SAD builds, DEX is up there too) - you rarely want to shove as much into it as possible, and generally feats will be worth more than investing a full ASI into it, but on the other hand you definitely don't want to dump it.

I generally make it a 13 or a 12 at level 1, with the 13 increasing to 14 through racial or half-ASI boosts. I wouldn't have it lower by choice except for RP reasons or to enable a convoluted multiclassing build.

[smcmike]

Depends - is my character concept “easy to kill?”

[mephnick]

I find once you get past early levels that HP and damage reduction is vastly more important than AC. It doesn't matter what your AC is at level 12, stuff will hit you most of the time, so it's better to have high HP and a way to reduce damage (rage, evasion, resistance, spells etc). I see a lot of people obsess over AC and I think their head is in the wrong place. Buff that Con and find a way to take the hits you take.

[KorvinStarmast]

Plus if I am correct any CON modifier raise is backdated for HP? You are correct.

Never below 14 Con once all racial bonuses are applied.

Because saves are tied to stats, and because of the frequency of con saves (Poison!) and because for a martial I need the meat, and for the casters I need the concentration, that stat has to be 14 in my eyes.
During chargen, either through a feat like resilient or by selection, the minimum I build Con to is 14.

I pondered making a draconic hill dwarf sorcerer so that +1's to HP would stack, as a theory craft, but I've not found a group where I could play that.

[KorvinStarmast]

I find once you get past early levels that HP and damage reduction is vastly more important than AC. It doesn't matter what your AC is at level 12, stuff will hit you most of the time, so it's better to have high HP and a way to reduce damage (rage, evasion, resistance, spells etc). I see a lot of people obsess over AC and I think their head is in the wrong place. Buff that Con and find a way to take the hits you take. I agree with your points on damage reduction, buffs, and "try to force disadvantage on attacks against you if you can.'
And a natural 20 always crits.

[strangebloke]

Con is overrated.

I mean, I usually don't put below a 12. No point. But there are lots of ways to compensate. Not with high AC, forget that crap. With alternative HP.

Temporary hp(inspiring leader, fiendlock, armor of agathys)
Moon druid
Polymorph
Tough feat.

A barbarian with the tough feat can pretty safely dump con. There's no reason to, but 8.5 HP per level is no joke

[Pex]

I am a devotee to the Adventurer's Tax that you need at least a 14 CO for all characters. The hit points matter. I play with some who have less than 14 CO. In one game my Sorcerer has more hit points than the Cleric, a max HD equivalent worth. He's fortunate I have Inspiring Leader feat to keep him healthy. The warlock in my paladin game gets dropped a lot, having only a 10 CO.

Low hit points means you'll go down at least one round sooner than you could have which is a big deal on the party's side. It also means using extra resources to heal back up before a long rest. I do not think this is bad game design. Players make their own choices. I choose to prioritize having hit points more than others I play with.

[Sigreid]

Always 1 or 2, depending on what I'm doing. Well, almost always.

[tieren]

If I plan to take Res (Con) in the build I'll start it at 13, otherwise plan for 14.

[2D8HP]

More HP is great, but I usually have CON be my second or third lowest stat.

I play the same three subclasses (Champion, Swashbuckler, and Thief, in that order, with a rare one level dip into Barbarian), and the same races (human, wood elf, and half elf, in that order, with one high elf)..

Highest stat is DEX as more Dexterity equals

Better AC

Better To Hit, even at Range!

More Damage, even at Range!

Better Stealth, and

Better Initiative.

After DEX, It's either STR, 'cause STR=

Athletics checks that come up a lot,

Encumbrance limits,

To hit, and damage when those aren't DEX based.

Plus sometimes my PC's start with Chainmail armor


If not STR then WIS are my PC's second highest stat, 'cause Wisdom =

Insight,

Medicine,

Survival, and most importantly

Perception which comes up a lot (not Animal Handling though).

CHA I usually have lowest or second lowest, unless the PC is a Half Elf, and/or I plan on playing a Swashbuckler.

Even though Investigation checks come up frequently, INT I usually keep low because I don't want to bother with keeping notes in order to try and role play someone more intelligent than I am IRL, so my PC's stats usually go (from most to least:

DEX

STR or WIS

CHA (if Swashbuckler)

WIS or STR

CON

INT

CHA (if not Swashbuckler)

[Sigreid]

More HP is great, but I usually have CON be my second or third lowest stat.

I play the same three subclasses (Champion, Swashbuckler, and Thief, in that order, with a rare one level dip into Barbarian), and the same races (human, wood elf, and half elf, in that order, with one high elf)..

Highest stat is DEX as more Dexterity equals

Better AC

Better To Hit, even at Range!

More Damage, even at Range!

Better Stealth, and

Better Initiative.

After DEX, It's either STR, 'cause STR=

Athletics checks that come up a lot,

Encumbrance limits,

To hit, and damage when those aren't DEX based.

Plus sometimes my PC's start with Chainmail armor


If not STR then WIS are my PC's second highest stat, 'cause Wisdom =

Insight,

Medicine,

Survival, and most importantly

Perception which comes up a lot (not Animal Handling though).

CHA I usually have lowest or second lowest, unless the PC is a Half Elf, and/or I plan on playing a Swashbuckler.

Even though Investigation checks come up frequently, INT I usually keep low because I don't want to bother with keeping notes in order to try and role play someone more intelligent than I am IRL, so my PC's stats usually go (from most to least:

DEX

STR or WIS

CHA (if Swashbuckler)

WIS or STR

CON

INT

CHA (if not Swashbuckler)


You've got a reasonable perspective. My group rolls and I've come to the conclusion that additions to AC are only better than more hp if you can get to a certain threshold. If your +dex is still going to have you hit almost every time +con is often better.

[Deathtongue]

Anyone else absolutely loathe the existence of the Constitution stat?

It's a passive stat doesn't add any real roleplaying value (unlike Dexterity or Strength or Charisma or Intelligence or Wisdom), but it really hurts if you neglect it. And if you do specialize in it, you just end up roleplaying that stuff didn't happen to you. People don't lift giant boulders or pick locks or convince magistrates or do anything active with Constitution. You just roleplay how you DIDN'T succumb to the poison or you DIDN'T get petrified.

Hot take: D&D should just straight-up get rid of the stat.

[DanyBallon]

I'd be the odd duck in the pond, but I don't care much about having a good constitution score in all my characters. In fact I find it pretty boring if all character needs to have a minimum 12 to 14 CON.
I play characters for the tales that comes from their career, either being a great accomplishment, lucky/unlucky stricke or an horrible death. While I put long times and efforts creating a character and its backstory, I don't mind if his career ends after 1 or 20 level. As long I had fun playing the character, weither it was for a single session of for many years, I'm not sad when a character dies. The life of an adventurer is harsh and full of perils. Surviving until the next sunrise is an exploit in itself for adventurers in a world full of magic and monsters.

That being said, it explains why I don't see as having more HP or better chance to resist CON save being that much important. Having a negative CON modifier can even lead to memorable moments, like that time where I played Balthazar, a grave domain cleric with 9 CON which got crushed to death under a rolling stone and is now remembered as a large pancake by his fellow adventurers. His death came from failing a DEX save (which was one of its strong attribute by the way) and took full damage from the rolling stone (55), my cleric only having 27 HP at the time (max HP for a 6 level cleric using average HP each level) suffered instant death since the remaining damage after being brought down to 0 was 1 over it's max HP total. If my character would had a 10 in CON, this wouldn't have happen, but it's death wouldn't have been as memorable as this one. And I'm pretty sure that I will rememeber Balthazar far more than many other character I played or will play in the future.

I'd say that having a high score in any attributes is as important, as the importance that you give to your character. For players that like to play a character through level 1 to 20, or for players that really don't like seing their character die, then carefully deciding how to allow your stats in order to make sure that their character have the best chance to survive is really important. In my case it isn't, maybe it's because I start playing the game when rolling 3d6 in order was common, or that I don't mind bringing new character to the table, or maybe that I just don't have that attachment some may have for a character they are playing for a long time. :smallsmile:

[sophontteks]

If I plan to take Res (Con) in the build I'll start it at 13, otherwise plan for 14.


That's some misleading calculations, right there, because you're using level 10 as your baseline. At level 1, the difference between Con 10 and Con 16 for your Wizard is the difference between 4 and 7; still low enough that a single hit is worrisome. For your Cleric it's 8 to 11; still not too significant (two hits and you're down). At level 5, the Wizard comparison is 16 vs. 31 in an arena of critters that many are dealing an average of 15-25 damage(ish) per hit. Sure, that higher Con might keep you alive for one hit longer, but I wouldn't count on it.

I don't dispute that the additive nature of Con to your HP is a serious concern, as is the benefits to maintaining concentration on spells, but until you're past tier 1 play (around level 6ish), whether you have 10 or 18 Con, the difference to HP is (largely speaking) one hit at best. If you know the game is never going to go far past lower levels, or indeed that game isn't going to be all that combat heavy, investing significantly into Con can truly be a waste.
But those numbers are very significant, probably more significant at lower levels then at any other time. You're looking at it from max health to zero, but what about instant death? The low con characters are at much, much higher risk of being outright killed from a big crit, espesially the wizard. There are plenty of things that can crit for 16 damage at level 1. Big difference between being unconcious and being dead.

[DivisibleByZero]

. Sure, that higher Con might keep you alive for one hit longer, but I wouldn't count on it.

That about sums up my thoughts on it as well.
Con is great and all, but I think it's overrated for this very reason.

[strangebloke]

That about sums up my thoughts on it as well.
Con is great and all, but I think it's overrated for this very reason.

I also want to add that a +1 to Con is like, not a great way to boost your HP at all levels past 1st. Tough gives you more HP, straight-up. Inspiring Leader gives +1 HP to the party multiple times over the course of the whole adventuring day.

Add this in to the phenomenal cost of having a 16 at level one for your character and I'm like... no thanks. I'll put a twelve in, because it's cheap, or a 14 if they're going to be a frontliner. 16 if they're a d6 class on the front lines or if I just want my guy to be absurdly tough.

[Deathtongue]

An additional stat bump to Constitution also gives a bonus to saving throws, which is critical because CON is simultaneously a devastating saving throw to fail and it's also very common, especially if you're a spellcaster. I think you could make a good case it's the most important saving throw to be good at, even moreso than WIS (which is also very important).

[JellyPooga]

An additional stat bump to Constitution also gives a bonus to saving throws, which is critical because CON is simultaneously a devastating saving throw to fail and it's also very common, especially if you're a spellcaster. I think you could make a good case it's the most important saving throw to be good at, even moreso than WIS (which is also very important).

I disagree. Con is the least of the Big-3 Saves, after Wis (most important) and Dex (second). Yes, there are some nasty effects resisted by Con, but many of them are just resisting damage (e.g. poison) or can be easily mitigated (e.g. the Poisoned condition can be mitigated by not doing anything that requires an active check). Further to that, most of the nastier Con effects aren't appearing until higher level, by which point proficiency equals or exceeds your ability score bonus or you're not proficient and are going to struggle to make the save whether you have +1 or +4 to it from raw ability.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the value of Con; it's an important stat and one of the Big-3 for a reason, but it's by no means an essential one to focus on to the exclusion of other stats (certain cases excepting, such as Barbarians or other front-line melee types that rely on having significant staying power). Add its passive nature and forgoing a little Con to bump up more active ability scores is...well, it's more fun.

[smcmike]

The real question to ask: just how deadly are your games? If people lose characters frequently, then pumping constitution might be a good idea. If not, and if you aren’t trying to tank, lower hit points might just add a bit of drama.

[solidork]

Not gonna lie, having a +9 to Constitution saving throws on my War Cleric is really nice. It's more or less impossible for mooks to break my concentration, and I love it.

My Fighter/Warlock has a 14 Con, and my Arcane Trickster had a 12 despite being melee focused. I'm generally much more concerned about the bonus to saves than I am the HP.

[bid]

Con14 is automatic.
Hill dwarf cleric would get Con16.

Maybe Con12 for a barbarogue.
Maybe Con16 / Dex14 on a medium armor caster.

I wouldn't take resilient(Con) before level 12, so no odd value either.

[2D8HP]

...I appreciate the value of Con; it's an important stat and one of the Big-3 for a reason, but it's by no means an essential one to focus on to the exclusion of other stats (certain cases excepting, such as Barbarians or other front-line melee types that rely on having significant staying power). Add its passive nature and forgoing a little Con to bump up more active ability scores is...well, it's more fun.


I agree with most of your post, except "one of the Big-3".

Unless I've got a level in Barbarian, I never put CON in the "big three".

[JellyPooga]

I agree with most of your post, except "one of the Big-3".

Unless I've got a level in Barbarian, I never put CON in the "big three".

It's a "Big-3" as far as Saves go, I mean. That only because of frequency rather than impact, IMO.

[Sigreid]

Starting a wizard this weekend. With rolling for stars I'll be able to max con and int as well as taking toughness. Assuming survival eventually most of his HP will not be from his class.

[strangebloke]

The real question to ask: just how deadly are your games? If people lose characters frequently, then pumping constitution might be a good idea. If not, and if you aren’t trying to tank, lower hit points might just add a bit of drama.

Two most common reasons characters died in my games:

Seperated from the party.

Actually I lied. That's the only reason they died. HP, AC, all that crap only matters to a point.

[Shining Wrath]

Depends on the class. For typical builds:
Most full casters: casting stat, dexterity for AC & initiative, Con.
Heavy armor clerics: Wisdom, Strength, Con.
Paladins: Strength, Charisma, Con.
Heavy armor fighters: Strength, Con.
Rogues: Dexterity, and then Con or Wisdom or Intelligence - depends on the build.
Rangers: Dexterity, Wisdom, Con.
Barbarians: Strength, Con.

[Deathtongue]

I disagree. Con is the least of the Big-3 Saves, after Wis (most important) and Dex (second). Yes, there are some nasty effects resisted by Con, but many of them are just resisting damage (e.g. poison) or can be easily mitigated (e.g. the Poisoned condition can be mitigated by not doing anything that requires an active check). Further to that, most of the nastier Con effects aren't appearing until higher level, by which point proficiency equals or exceeds your ability score bonus or you're not proficient and are going to struggle to make the save whether you have +1 or +4 to it from raw ability.Maybe my perspective is just skewed by playing mostly at the 5-15 level range (you blow by the early levels quickly in Adventurer's League) and also playing a lot of spellcasters, but in my opinion CON is way more important than DEX. Yes, you will make a lot of DEX saves, but failing DEX saves, even at higher level, doesn't take you out of the combat like failing CON saves at mid/higher levels do. You either get restrained (effects like Black Tentacles or Web) or take full damage. Then again, you're more likely to be taken out by a stray fireball/lightning bolt at level 5-7 than at level 9-11, so I can understand that perspective.

[the secret fire]

Not that much. I see it as a tax (which I pay), and a somewhat annoying one. The fact that saves are generally so weak in 5e is, to me, more of a problem than HP, and Con saves are ubiquitous. It's kind of a pain. I typically prioritize Con saves at least as much as HP, with my target Con being 14, with proficiency. This is a pretty typical plan, in my experience, with point buy characters.

This is one reason why I don't care for point buy stat generation. It leads to characters who are all pretty similar because the game harshly punishes you for not putting resources into certain areas.

[2D8HP]

Two most common reasons characters died in my games:

Seperated from the party.

Actually I lied. That's the only reason they died. HP, AC, all that crap only matters to a point.


Melee and traps.

I try to have my PC's avoid both.

Last time a PC of mine got down to zero HP was after my PC left the darkness he was firing arrows from to rescue another PC (a monk) who was one blow from death.

Like a chump, my PC tried to save the Monk who went into melee.

Bows are a thing, stay out of melee range!

[FelineArchmage]

It all depends on what class I'm playing, but I will almost always have at least a positive modifier. Only if I'm going MAD for crazy builds do I put a 10 in CON.

[Pex]

Anyone else absolutely loathe the existence of the Constitution stat?

It's a passive stat doesn't add any real roleplaying value (unlike Dexterity or Strength or Charisma or Intelligence or Wisdom), but it really hurts if you neglect it. And if you do specialize in it, you just end up roleplaying that stuff didn't happen to you. People don't lift giant boulders or pick locks or convince magistrates or do anything active with Constitution. You just roleplay how you DIDN'T succumb to the poison or you DIDN'T get petrified.

Hot take: D&D should just straight-up get rid of the stat.

Not every mathematical component of your character needs to be roleplayed for an Oscar. However, if you must roleplay it a low CO is the easy to tire out or wheezy character while high CO is the one who takes the punishment but ignores the pain and continues on.

[Potato_Priest]

Con is overrated.

I mean, I usually don't put below a 12. No point. But there are lots of ways to compensate. Not with high AC, forget that crap. With alternative HP.

Temporary hp(inspiring leader, fiendlock, armor of agathys)
Moon druid
Polymorph
Tough feat.

A barbarian with the tough feat can pretty safely dump con. There's no reason to, but 8.5 HP per level is no joke

Very well said. AC is nearly worthless once you get past level 7, but that doesn't mean that Con is the only way to get your hitpoints.

Personally, I tend to invest heavily in Con with my starting stat rolls (usually getting at least a 16), but I don't tend to improve it afterwards unless I'm a caster taking resilient(constitution). It's definitely worth the early game stat points, but +1 hp/level and a feat later in the game just doesn't compare.

[Spacehamster]

Either have it on 14 or 16 in all builds I do, mountain Dwarf barb or fighter is the exception where I bump STR and CON to 18 at level 4.

[Morty]

Anyone else absolutely loathe the existence of the Constitution stat?

It's a passive stat doesn't add any real roleplaying value (unlike Dexterity or Strength or Charisma or Intelligence or Wisdom), but it really hurts if you neglect it. And if you do specialize in it, you just end up roleplaying that stuff didn't happen to you. People don't lift giant boulders or pick locks or convince magistrates or do anything active with Constitution. You just roleplay how you DIDN'T succumb to the poison or you DIDN'T get petrified.

Hot take: D&D should just straight-up get rid of the stat.

I wouldn't say "loathe", but a lot of this is true. Con is everyone's secondary or tertiary stat. No one is going to max it, unless they arbitrarily make it apply to their attacks or magic (as 4e does for some classes). But no one wants to dump it, either. So it's just there as a tax of sorts. Merging it with strength would probably work out for the best.

[Xihirli]

Traditionally I put it at 14+, but I once made a skill monkey bard in a party with no wizard. Her background was con artist, so I gave her a good wisdom for Insifght checks because that made sense.
Con was left at ten.
She died after failing three CON saves.

[strangebloke]

Very well said. AC is nearly worthless once you get past level 7, but that doesn't mean that Con is the only way to get your hitpoints.

Personally, I tend to invest heavily in Con with my starting stat rolls (usually getting at least a 16), but I don't tend to improve it afterwards unless I'm a caster taking resilient(constitution). It's definitely worth the early game stat points, but +1 hp/level and a feat later in the game just doesn't compare.

Boosting AC is better when the enemy's hit chance is lower. In other words, the more AC you have, the better more AC is, and the more attack enemies have, the less good AC is. So to keep AC as an important part of your character's kit, you need to keep improving your AC. Past 5th level, that generally means magic items. Even then, the only very specialized builds with all the right magic items keep up with monster attacks.

Eldritch knight with +3 plate, a +3 shield, and the shield spell? Yeah, for him, AC is a good thing. For everyone else it is not so good.

AC is also good when you're fighting below-tier enemies.

[Protato]

My third most valued stat on most builds, second on Barbarians.

[Spore]

Con is always my second highest stat. highest is usually Strength/Dex for mundane or the casting stat for casters. Str > Con=Wis for casters with melee capability. I want to give my DMs the ability to hit my character a few times because this just adds immersion. In my very first regular group our sorcerer had Con 8, if a minion so much as coughed his way, he fell down. It didn't help that his 1st level schtick was Sleep, so he either won the fight single handedly or he was legging it from undead and constructs immune to it (Pathfinder so no relevant damage cantrips other than "Disrupt Undead" as he wasn't a fan of direct damage.)

Low con on a character CAN be used to increase drama and tension but it's usually only on character that are played by incredibly skilled players (so not me!). They use their ability mods elsewhere to better extent. For example a cleric that has high charisma, intelligence and wisdom to be the face and knowledge gal. 10/10/10 in Str/Dex/Con, so she used summons in fight, stood as far away from combat as possible and used spells as her defense. A decently levelled caster could have easily ended her with a quickened dispel magic followed by an empowered lightning bolt (Pathfinder).

I could have lowered Con in favor of something else on my buffing Ancestor's Oracle (would've been a Life or Grave Cleric focussed on buffs and healing) because usually my DM's minions focussed the - already buffed - other PCs rather than my buffing character, and seeing as healing was something we did AFTER the fight unless in critical danger, I could have easily added Strength, donned armor and flanked with a spear (she was basically a shield maiden anyhow). A tactic for which I would have needed con again.

[jas61292]

I tend to believe that Con is the most overrated ability score. A high score is always appreciated, but I feel like it is pretty much never super important except for on Dex based melee builds. While I would never dump it on any melee build, strength based ones get a high AC quick enough that a middling score is not a big hindrance.

But on anyone else, it's really not that important. I can't even count the number of times I've seen people prioritize it as a caster, only to play super cautious anyways, and rarely get hit. Sure, it seems like nice insurance to have, but like all insurance, it's not free. And unlike real insurance, where they cost is based on the associated risk, the cost of Con is fixed. Every point you have in Con is point you don't have elsewhere. So if a character is designed to be low risk, the value of Con is greatly diminished. On a character like that, I'd rather take an extra point in Dex or Cha, even if they are not primary or secondary starts, than Con, as the potential ability to avoid combat completely that abilities like those provide is a far more cost effective insurance policy, imo.

And while this is all true of casters, it is even more true about archers and the like, who don't even have concentration to worry about. Seriously, if you are an archer (especially if you are also good at stealth) and have Con as more than your 4th highest stat, at most, you are either building inefficiently, or are a really bad archer.

Now, that said, I'm always one to build to the character concept, and so I've played characters with Con scores across the entire spectrum. And yes, a 20 Con tank is fun. And if that's what you are doing, more power to you. But in the end, it's really not the super stat it's made out to be.

[SociopathFriend]

Depends, how important is it to NOT be oneshot/horribly crippled by a trap/spell/powerful attack?

That guy with high Con looks pretty good when the rest of the party gets tagged by one good AoE and suddenly all the squishy mages and Rogues don't want to be within a mile of danger anymore.

I'm playing Chult with are party that is almost entirely casters and rogues. Guess who did NOT get oneshot by the Flying Snakes? This guuuuy (points at the Fighter).

[strangebloke]

Honestly I think 90% of the "I always start with a 16 in CON and I never die, unlike others" mindset is just selection bias. You're concerned about not dying, so you play it safe and get good HP and you don't die. The people who are unconcerned with dying don' buff their HP, but they also play less conscientiously, and they get burned for that.

But I seriously doubt that 5 HP makes that much difference that often.

[GlenSmash!]

Depends, how important is it to NOT be oneshot/horribly crippled by a trap/spell/powerful attack?

That guy with high Con looks pretty good when the rest of the party gets tagged by one good AoE and suddenly all the squishy mages and Rogues don't want to be within a mile of danger anymore.

Yeah this happened to my group in LMoP.

We rounded the corner all bunched up. The Flameskull won initiative and Fireballed us. The Fighter went down, the Ranger went down, but even on a failed save my Barbarian had 3 hit points left. On my turn I picked the Ranger up and ran out of there, someone else got the fighter. Next time we came back with a better strategy.

If my level 4 Barb had a 14 con instead of 16 I would have went down too.

[Potato_Priest]

And while this is all true of casters, it us even more true about archers and the like, who don't even have concentration to worry about. Seriously, if you are an archer (especially if you are also good at stealth) and have Con as more than your 4th highest stat, at most, you are either building inefficiently, or are a really bad archer.


I highly doubt this claim. If you're an archer, you can expect some combination of the following to routinely put you in danger, regardless of skill.
1. Fighting in close quarters. In a game with dungeons in the name, this is not always unavoidable.
2. When there are ranged enemies. Even if you abuse your cover pretty hard, a stone giant taking the ready action to throw a boulder at you when you break cover to shoot can really mess up your day if you dumped CON
3. When the tank goes down. If you're a fighter or ranger archer (or a rogue with uncanny dodge) and the barbarian/paladin frontliner goes down, someone has to try to soak hits. And you, with your D10 hit die and finesse melee weapons, are naturally better suited to the task than the D6 hit die casters.

Additionally, archers really only need one primary stat: dex. Some archers may also have a casting stat, but it seems to me that con should at minimum be their 3rd best if optimizing for combat.

[strangebloke]

I highly doubt this claim. If you're an archer, you can expect some combination of the following to routinely put you in danger, regardless of skill.
1. Fighting in close quarters. In a game with dungeons in the name, this is not always unavoidable.
2. When there are ranged enemies. Even if you abuse your cover pretty hard, a stone giant taking the ready action to throw a boulder at you when you break cover to shoot can really mess up your day if you dumped CON
3. When the tank goes down. If you're a fighter or ranger archer (or a rogue with uncanny dodge) and the barbarian/paladin frontliner goes down, someone has to try to soak hits. And you, with your D10 hit die and finesse melee weapons, are naturally better suited to the task than the D6 hit die casters.

Additionally, archers really only need one primary stat: dex. Some archers may also have a casting stat, but it seems to me that con should at minimum be their 3rd best if optimizing for combat.

All true, but remember, an archer fighter has a d10 hit die. That's functionally the same as a +1 to your CON mod. You might want a 14 on a melee fighter, but you can probably be just fine with a 12 on an archer.

[Tanarii]

Personally, third or fourth on average, 13 or 12 in standard array.

But thats heavily dependent on race, class and background. A Barbarian, a Dwarven Rogue Guildmaster (locksmith) and a Bladelock I want higher Con. A hit and run / archery monk, rogue or ranger, or a back row sorc sage I might even put a 10 in Con.

[the secret fire]

Boosting AC is better when the enemy's hit chance is lower. In other words, the more AC you have, the better more AC is, and the more attack enemies have, the less good AC is. So to keep AC as an important part of your character's kit, you need to keep improving your AC. Past 5th level, that generally means magic items. Even then, the only very specialized builds with all the right magic items keep up with monster attacks.

Eldritch knight with +3 plate, a +3 shield, and the shield spell? Yeah, for him, AC is a good thing. For everyone else it is not so good.

AC is also good when you're fighting below-tier enemies.

This reminds me of whatI liked about the Rolemaster system, where to-hit and damage (and crit effects) were folded into a single roll (with an additional roll in the case of a crit, which was affected by the outcome of the first roll). The simplistic hit/don't hit dichotomy of how D&D resolves attack rolls leads to the kind of distortion you describe. I'd prefer a system where armor matters even if you do happen to "get hit".

Aside: Rolemaster's solution to the "HP are just an abstraction, dude" problem is also much better.

[CTurbo]

When I take the time to build a character, and set out to play in a campaign, my goal is to have this character survive, and I build him accordingly. Sure, it's not the end of the world if my character dies, and it is a part of the game. It happens, and when it does, I roll up a new character, but the goal is still the same, to survive.

I also want to be a team player, so I'm not going to roll up a character that's going to be crippled with a poor stat allocation. I played in a 4 character party and I was the Barbarian with 16 Con, there was a Paladin with 18 Con, a Cleric with a 12 in Con, and a Sorcerer with a 12 in Con. And this is with us rolling 4d6 drop lowest x3 stats when we all had super rolls. I had 20 Str, 16 Dex, and 16 Con, and the Pally had 3 18s, but the other two pretty much put their lowest roll in Con, and it showed, and the party suffered for it. The Sorcerer fulfilled the typical Glass Cannons stereotype, and any Concentration spell the Cleric ever bothered casting was wasted as soon as he got hit. It made life tough for the DM too, because anything that would be remotely a challenge for me and the Pally could one shot the other two.

So yeah I do tend to build my characters to be tougher than normal. I do like having a higher than normal AC too, but that's a different conversation for a different thread.

I did stick an 8 in Con for rp purposes once just for the fun of it, but yeah he didn't make it very long, and that is with me actually trying my best to keep him alive.

[Pex]

I tend to believe that Con is the most overrated ability score. A high score is always appreciated, but I feel like it is pretty much never super important except for on Dex based melee builds. While I would never dump it on any melee build, strength based ones get a high AC quick enough that a middling score is not a big hindrance.

But on anyone else, it's really not that important. I can't even count the number of times I've seen people prioritize it as a caster, only to play super cautious anyways, and rarely get hit. Sure, it seems like nice insurance to have, but like all insurance, it's not free. And unlike real insurance, where they cost is based on the associated risk, the cost of Con is fixed. Every point you have in Con is point you don't have elsewhere. So if a character is designed to be low risk, the value of Con is greatly diminished. On a character like that, I'd rather take an extra point in Dex or Cha, even if they are not primary or secondary starts, than Con, as the potential ability to avoid combat completely that abilities like those provide is a far more cost effective insurance policy, imo.

And while this is all true of casters, it is even more true about archers and the like, who don't even have concentration to worry about. Seriously, if you are an archer (especially if you are also good at stealth) and have Con as more than your 4th highest stat, at most, you are either building inefficiently, or are a really bad archer.

Now, that said, I'm always one to build to the character concept, and so I've played characters with Con scores across the entire spectrum. And yes, a 20 Con tank is fun. And if that's what you are doing, more power to you. But in the end, it's really not the super stat it's made out to be.

Spellcasters cannot always get out of the way. They will be attacked by arrows and damage spells. Certainly they have defensive spells, but not always all the time every time. As for warriors high AC is great, but they will still get hit sometimes and also have to deal with damage spells. You don't need 20 CO, and it's not a choice of 10 or 20 exclusive.

[KorvinStarmast]

But I seriously doubt that 5 HP makes that much difference that often. The difference between being 'fighting" and 'making death saving throws" is one HP.
Damage is very swingy in Tier 1 particularly.
I have see that 5 HP make a difference with some frequency at Char Levels 1-3.

In Tier 3? Not as much.
As I stated: my criteria involves 3 elements.
HP
Spell Concentration
Saves (in particular poison, since it crops up with some regularity in Tier one encounters)
Also, in my case, the number I shoot for is 14.

[strangebloke]

Also, in my case, the number I shoot for is 14.

Same. I'm speaking against the folks in here who are like: 'Never lower than 16 if I can help it. 18 is really what I prefer.)

That seems a massive overstatement. I mean, yes, you will die less with buckets of HP, but with point buy the price of starting with a 16 as opposed to a 12 or 14 is pretty significant. I don't think it's really worthwhile to spend ASI's on CON for most characters. Inspiring Leader, Tough, Warcaster... CON might be your best pick, but not generally.

[KorvinStarmast]

Same. I'm speaking against the folks in here who are like: 'Never lower than 16 if I can help it. 18 is really what I prefer.)

That seems a massive overstatement. I mean, yes, you will die less with buckets of HP, but there's other tradeoffs, and the price of starting with a 16 as opposed to a 12 or 14 is pretty significant.

My sword and board Tier 3 Fighter has a 16 Con. Helps that he's a half orc. ;)
My next ASI at level 14 will probably get my str to max, not a boost in Con.

[strangebloke]

My sword and board Tier 3 Fighter has a 16 Con. Helps that he's a half orc. ;)
My next ASI at level 14 will probably get my str to max, not a boost in Con.

I mean, he's a fighter. You have ASIs coming out of your butt.

You're at what, 6, 7, ASIs at this point?

[KorvinStarmast]

I mean, he's a fighter. You have ASIs coming out of your butt.

You're at what, 6, 7, ASIs at this point?
Here, let me check my butt first ...it will be my fifth at level 14.
(4 /6/ 8 /12 /14 /16 /19)

[the secret fire]

Same. I'm speaking against the folks in here who are like: 'Never lower than 16 if I can help it. 18 is really what I prefer.)

That seems a massive overstatement. I mean, yes, you will die less with buckets of HP, but with point buy the price of starting with a 16 as opposed to a 12 or 14 is pretty significant. I don't think it's really worthwhile to spend ASI's on CON for most characters. Inspiring Leader, Tough, Warcaster... CON might be your best pick, but not generally.

Resilient: Con can be a great feat for characters who start without Con proficiency and an odd Con score (like 13). That's the only time I will boost Con with ASIs, but I find it pretty useful.

[Bubzors]

I don't value it too much to be honest. Always do my main two stats then worry about con. Usually always a +1, +2 if I rolled well. Don't think I've ever used any ability improvements on it though.

However, I've also never played a tank type character like fighter, barbarian or cleric, so that influences my reasoning also

[Sigreid]

Honestly I think 90% of the "I always start with a 16 in CON and I never die, unlike others" mindset is just selection bias. You're concerned about not dying, so you play it safe and get good HP and you don't die. The people who are unconcerned with dying don' buff their HP, but they also play less conscientiously, and they get burned for that.

But I seriously doubt that 5 HP makes that much difference that often.

Actually I prioritize con highly because I play wizards mostly and I know with my play style I am going to take risks. I need the con to survive. Should my current wizard survive to level 20, I intend for him to have the hit points of a small European country.

[Ogre Mage]

I play casters exclusively. Therefore I refuse to run with less than a 14 Con after racial modifiers.

[strangebloke]

Actually I prioritize con highly because I play wizards mostly and I know with my play style I am going to take risks. I need the con to survive. Should my current wizard survive to level 20, I intend for him to have the hit points of a small European country.

I mean, with a wizard in particular it's a bit different since they start out with -1 HP/level due to their crappy hit dice.

[Kane0]

In my mind I know it's not critical to my survival, but the numbers don't lie. Except for rolls and other occasions I could not control my stats, 12/13 times I have played a Con 14 adventurer, and once a Con 16.

[SociopathFriend]

Yeah this happened to my group in LMoP.

We rounded the corner all bunched up. The Flameskull won initiative and Fireballed us. The Fighter went down, the Ranger went down, but even on a failed save my Barbarian had 3 hit points left. On my turn I picked the Ranger up and ran out of there, someone else got the fighter. Next time we came back with a better strategy.

If my level 4 Barb had a 14 con instead of 16 I would have went down too.


Like I've said before, I may be biased as typically when I roll as a Barbarian I am in a party of nothing but Mages and Rogues. The one time and one time only I ran with a Paladin (read that as another Front-line class) as a Barbarian was Straud's campaign and I (justifiably) never felt safe stupid silver dragons and their stupid "You have to be afraid of me" save that is stupid and makes no sense when there's a ton of scary stuff in D&D that doesn't have the stupid ability to make you scared just by being there

If you find yourself routinely going down into single-digit HP levels, then you can pretty safely say your Con score helped. It only takes a few levels with a Con of 14 or higher before, "Well- I'm down" becomes, "Holy crap- I'm almost down".

[Citan]

Hi OP!

First, about general reasons for dying and AC vs resistances vs HP strategies...

Two most common reasons characters died in my games:

Seperated from the party.

Actually I lied. That's the only reason they died. HP, AC, all that crap only matters to a point.
THIS. Really THIS.
Or, of course, a party that doesn't care about each other (for RP reasons or because they are just bad).

Now to answer the question...

I usually start with a 14 CON in characters because I usually manage to squeeze it while still affording 16 in the stats that are mechanically important for characters, even if it means dumping one stat.

But as someone else said above, that's just a "theorycraft insurance".
Depending on the class or party composition, I'd rather eat into any primary, secondary or tertiary stat to make a balanced character, or instead dump one stat hard to push others...

In general, I will go between 12 and 14 CON depending on class need for other stats (Paladin & Monk = 12, casters = 14) but I...

A/ May go as high as 16 for...
- Martial meleers that don't require mental stat (Barbarian, some Fighters, some Rogues, some Rangers)
- Casters which I plan on keeping often exposed or relying heavily on concentration (like several Clerics or some Sorcerers/Wizards/Druid).

B/ May go as low as 10 for...
- Characters which I plan on actively avoiding threat (mainly long-range casters and longbow martials)
- Characters which can get built-in ways to offset low HP (Rogue/Fighter that can afford a Tough feat, reduction spells/features, or CHA characters that grab Inspiring Leader, or Divine Sorcerer that can Extend Aid himself).
- Characters which are in parties in which HP is an active thing (allies with HP boosts like Aid or Heroism or Inspiring Leader, or Healer feat, or Bardic Inspiration, or damage reduction features like Nature Cleric's one, etc).

So, yeah, CON is always a nice stat to put a 14 into, but even a 20 CON won't prevent you from dying in a ****ty party, whereas even a 8 CON character properly played in a proper party would be fine.

In short:
- For a character that I make "standalone", I'll think much before putting lower than 12, and I'll try to get a 14 at least usually.
- Whenever I know in advance who I'm gonna play with, and the character class they are going to take... I'll just optimize around, even if it means dumping CON to 10 and instead boost DEX (like I'm making a Sharpshooter Fighter to go with a Barbarian and Cleric for example).

(Note: all of this is obviously made on the assumption we are restricting discussion to point-buy or array stat characters ;))

[Rashagar]

I tend to try starting a character with a 14 in con but can't always afford it.
About half the time I'm willing to drop to a 12 to make the rest of the concept work (but slightly nervously and tend to feel more cautious in play).
I don't think I'd ever be comfortable starting with a 10.
And I don't think I'd ever invest a full ASI into boosting con. It's just too boring an option.

[Xetheral]

Boosting AC is better when the enemy's hit chance is lower. In other words, the more AC you have, the better more AC is, and the more attack enemies have, the less good AC is. So to keep AC as an important part of your character's kit, you need to keep improving your AC. Past 5th level, that generally means magic items. Even then, the only very specialized builds with all the right magic items keep up with monster attacks.

Eldritch knight with +3 plate, a +3 shield, and the shield spell? Yeah, for him, AC is a good thing. For everyone else it is not so good.

AC is also good when you're fighting below-tier enemies.

Increasing AC does indeed provide increasing proportional benefits, but the absolute benefit increases linearly (until you fall off the d20). For example, decreasing the chance to be hit from 15% to 10% decreases the damage you expect to take by 33%. (Actually, less than 33%, since crits do extra damage, but I'll ignore that for the time being.) But the absolute difference in average damage recieved is still the same as decreasing your chance to be hit from 65% to 60%. (Note: these figures (and the ones below) change if you have a reliable way to impose disadvantage or the enemy has a reliable way to get advantage.)

Whether the proportional or the absolute benefit matters more will depend on what you're trying to optimize. If you're just trying to minimize the average damage taken, the absolute benefit is the relevant figure (i.e. every point of AC decreases expected damage identically, until you reach a 5% chance of being hit). If you're trying to maximize the number of rounds you can survive, the proportional benefit is more relevant.

If you're trying to maximize the chance that you take the enemy to zero HP before the enemy takes you to zero HP... then it gets complicated. Whether the absolute or proportional benefit matters more will depend on the specific HP, hit chance, crit chance, average damage, and damage distribution of each combatant. (For some combinations, each point of AC will actually provide a decreasing improvement to the odds of winning, but usually only if you're already a favorite to win.)

Also, this is relevant: https://xkcd.com/1252/

[Ivor_The_Mad]

Personally I like to have my Con score decently high. I like to have my characters decently "durable".

[strangebloke]

Increasing AC does indeed provide increasing proportional benefits, but the absolute benefit increases linearly (until you fall off the d20). For example, decreasing the chance to be hit from 15% to 10% decreases the damage you expect to take by 33%. (Actually, less than 33%, since crits do extra damage, but I'll ignore that for the time being.) But the absolute difference in average damage recieved is still the same as decreasing your chance to be hit from 65% to 60%. (Note: these figures (and the ones below) change if you have a reliable way to impose disadvantage or the enemy has a reliable way to get advantage.)

Whether the proportional or the absolute benefit matters more will depend on what you're trying to optimize. If you're just trying to minimize the average damage taken, the absolute benefit is the relevant figure (i.e. every point of AC decreases expected damage identically, until you reach a 5% chance of being hit). If you're trying to maximize the number of rounds you can survive, the proportional benefit is more relevant.

If you're trying to maximize the chance that you take the enemy to zero HP before the enemy takes you to zero HP... then it gets complicated. Whether the absolute or proportional benefit matters more will depend on the specific HP, hit chance, crit chance, average damage, and damage distribution of each combatant. (For some combinations, each point of AC will actually provide a decreasing improvement to the odds of winning, but usually only if you're already a favorite to win.)

Also, this is relevant: https://xkcd.com/1252/
Oh yes, I know about the absolute vs. proportional bit.

They're both valid viewpoints when it comes to damage reduction. However, someone who views AC as absolute damage reduction has pretty limited incentive to invest a lot in it.. For example, let's say we have a wizard with 16 AC and maxed INT. He has an ASI, and can put it in DEX or CON. If he puts it in DEX he can reduce enemy damage by 5% on average, or he can increase his CON and get a scaling benefit that lets him take bigger/more hits.

On the other hand, if he's looking at it proportionally he might say, "with my shield spell I'll have 22 AC. That means that I'll take 20% less damage from someone with a.+5."

In the case of the wizard, I'd look at it from an absolute damage reduction perspective, but that's just me.

[Deathtongue]

Not every mathematical component of your character needs to be roleplayed for an Oscar. However, if you must roleplay it a low CO is the easy to tire out or wheezy character while high CO is the one who takes the punishment but ignores the pain and continues on.Like I said, doesn't really add any roleplaying value. When I have an 8 DEX or 8 INT, it comes up unless I'm specifically taking steps to hide it, which I think is a bit dishonest at times. 8 WIS means that I'm constantly distracted, quick to trust people, and maybe even lack common sense. 8 CON means that I'm frequently winded and need to take breaks. 18 CON means that when the rest of the party is exhausted I'm doing just fine. I also can do better at drinking contests.

It doesn't really change my character's personality or how the world interacts with them. It's a boring, mostly mathhammery aspect on my character sheet. If Constitution wasn't so important to the game mechanics, I'd dump it to 8 for practically every character who wasn't meant to be an outstanding athlete. And for those characters I'd just keep it at 12, no higher.

It's a crummy stat that hurts the experience of D&D. Get rid of it already.

[Samayu]

I played a monk with a +0 CON bonus. I kept going down, and had to spend an ASI on it. I stopped dying after that, but also I think I (and also the team) reached a point where I was taking a lot less damage. So for non-melee fighters, CON is most important to around 6th or 7th levels. At higher levels, and extra 6 or 12 hit points is not going to help you. You're either not getting hit or you're going down.

[RevelationMD]

I'll let you know after tonight's session.

Starting my very unhealthy wizard - con 8. 5hps max with 3 per level...

Survivability is so 2017.

[Citan]

I'll let you know after tonight's session.

Starting my very unhealthy wizard - con 8. 5hps max with 3 per level...

Survivability is so 2017.
I'm eager to hear from you. Godspeed and Gambare! ^^

[RevelationMD]

I'm eager to hear from you. Godspeed and Gambare! ^^

Just to about to start and looks like we have nothing that even resembles a ''tank''. This could be a quick experiment lol

[Sigreid]

So, just this past weekend my wizard only survived because of pumping con when an undetected glyph of warding went off.

[strangebloke]

So, just this past weekend my wizard only survived because of pumping con when an undetected glyph of warding went off.

Do you mean "only survived" or "only avoided dropping to zero."

Why would inspiring leader or tough not have prevented his death?

[jas61292]

I think a big thing with constitution is a kind of selection bias. People remember the times where their low Con character died by being reduced to zero by just enough that an extra point of Con might have saved them. They do not remember all the times where it didn't make any difference at all. Furthermore, they are far less likely to remember the times that they avoided death due to utilizing the ability scores they boosted instead of Con. Whether that is avoiding being hit at all due to an extra point of dexterity, avoiding combat completely thanks to that extra point of charisma, avoiding surprise thanks to the extra point of wisdom, or simply killing an enemy one turn sooner thanks to that extra point of strength. And this is not necessarily an intentional bias; it's not always as obvious when other abilities make a difference as it is with Con.

But as had been mentioned, a well balanced party and good tactics are ultimately going to matter far more than what you put in one specific stat. How much value the extra Constitution is depends a ton on how likely you are to be taking hits over your allies, and also how useful to the group what ability you could boost instead would be.

[Deathtongue]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regret_(decision_theory)

I don't think it's just selection bias. Failing Constitution saves tends to be a lot worse in consequence than failing other checks. If you fail a dexterity check by 1, you alert the guards. You fail a wisdom check by 1, you don't notice the assassins. You fail a charisma check by 1, the guards don't let you into the party. These are all very bad, but they're not (especially at higher levels) pound-for-pound devastating as going down a round early due to hp depletion, dropping concentration on a vital spell like Greater Invis or Conjure Elemental, or failing a save against some paralyzing or poisoning nonsense.

Constitution is that perfect storm of frequent and devastating. The other stats are common-but-not-devastating (Dexterity, Strength) or devastating-but-uncommon (Charisma, Intelligence). The only other stat that reaches that level of pain is Wisdom.

It's especially frustrating because Constitution isn't really used in roleplaying, except for roleplaying how something bad didn't happen. If Constitution and Strength were folded together (and honestly, they should be) I'd be annoyed by the stat much less.

[Sigreid]

Do you mean "only survived" or "only avoided dropping to zero."

Why would inspiring leader or tough not have prevented his death?

I mean survived, it was a very high damage roll. Inspiring leader might have but the party is not level 4, doesn't have a lot of charisma and no one has that feat at this time.

[strangebloke]

I mean survived, it was a very high damage roll. Inspiring leader might have but the party is not level 4, doesn't have a lot of charisma and no one has that feat at this time.
It must have been!

Glyph does 5d8, typically, which averages out at 22.5 with a reasonably tight variance.

You said you had 16 CON, I think? Or 18? So your total was 29 or 33 or something like that?

Don't take this as me being skeptical, I'm not. I believe you when you say that you almost died. You were just either very damaged already or that was a highly upcast glyph. If you were damaged, other things like higher dex, the healer feat, or other such things might have saved your bacon as well. If it was highly upcast, then you're playing in a very lethal game and I agree with your assessment of CON's importance at your table!

[Deathtongue]

It must have been!

Glyph does 5d8, typically, which averages out at 22.5 with a reasonably tight variance.

You said you had 16 CON, I think? Or 18? So your total was 29 or 33 or something like that?

Don't take this as me being skeptical, I'm not. I believe you when you say that you almost died. You were just either very damaged already or that was a highly upcast glyph. If you were damaged, other things like higher dex, the healer feat, or other such things might have saved your bacon as well. If it was highly upcast, then you're playing in a very lethal game and I agree with your assessment of CON's importance at your table!

On a 5d8, you have about a 17% chance of rolling 28 or higher and a 35% chance of rolling 25 or higher, so I'm not THAT skeptical how the extra CON made all the difference.

[strangebloke]

On a 5d8, you have about a 17% chance of rolling 28 or higher and a 35% chance of rolling 25 or higher, so I'm not THAT skeptical how the extra CON made all the difference.

In order to outright die, though, he'd have to take double his HP in damage.

[Sigreid]

In order to outright die, though, he'd have to take double his HP in damage.

Yes, I would not have done the instant death. It was very nearly the max damage that could be rolled.

Con is 18. 2 of the party, including me were down easily into death throw territory. I did not intend to mislead but didn't want to give the idea that it was just a little spill over.

[strangebloke]

Yes, I would not have done the instant death. It was very nearly the max damage that could be rolled.

Con is 18. 2 of the party, including me were down easily into death throw territory. I did not intend to mislead but didn't want to give the idea that it was just a little spill over.

Woof, that's bad luck. Makes for a good story though.

[Sigreid]

Woof, that's bad luck. Makes for a good story though.

No risk, no fun. A little math says if I had left con at 10, I would have died instantly. Fun times!

[DireSickFish]

14 Is easy enough to get with most characters and point buy. I only went with a con lower than this 1 time, and we were such a large party that my lower HP didn't make much difference.

[Tanarii]

14 Is easy enough to get with most characters and point buy. I only went with a con lower than this 1 time, and we were such a large party that my lower HP didn't make much difference.Yeah point buy is a different beast. Standard array, it's hard to spare your 14. Point buy you can do 10x2 & 8 to get a second 14 if you like. It makes it much easier to say "easy enough to get".

[Pex]

Yeah point buy is a different beast. Standard array, it's hard to spare your 14. Point buy you can do 10x2 & 8 to get a second 14 if you like. It makes it much easier to say "easy enough to get".

If you're a dwarf you can save points by only buying a 12 CO. If human you go 13. If variant human depending on what you're doing you can go 13 as well either for the second +1 not in your prime or a feat that gives +1. Maybe you buy the 14 CO and the 13 elsewhere for the +1 or feat if it makes a difference. If you choose a race that gives +2 to the Prime you want that's a 15 you need only buy a 14 instead to help pay for a 14 CO. You can play around a little bit.

[Osrogue]

It’s the only stat I won’t put an 8 in, but it’s seldom my priority. If it’s a backline class that consistently generates its own THP, I’d be fine with a 10. If not, 12. Frontline I won’t be comfortable with less than 14, but I can make exceptions for Valor bards and paladins who want 16 in Str/dex and charisma.

I think it’s overvalued a bit, because it’s a character’s last line of defense, but I’d never want a character to lose health on level up.

Before constitution matters, an enemy should have to overcome the party’s information gathering, stealth, perception, negotiations, positioning, and armor, which rely on a character’s other ability scores, and used effectively, can keep a character healthier than a 14 in constitution.

[G mayes]

It’s the only stat I won’t put an 8 in, but it’s seldom my priority. If it’s a backline class that consistently generates its own THP, I’d be fine with a 10. If not, 12. Frontline I won’t be comfortable with less than 14, but I can make exceptions for Valor bards and paladins who want 16 in Str/dex and charisma.

I think it’s overvalued a bit, because it’s a character’s last line of defense, but I’d never want a character to lose health on level up.

Before constitution matters, an enemy should have to overcome the party’s information gathering, stealth, perception, negotiations, positioning, and armor, which rely on a character’s other ability scores, and used effectively, can keep a character healthier than a 14 in constitution.

This is exactly how I few it, bye expressed sup much more eloquently than I could.

Also I will only roll for characters. But that's just me.

[Sigreid]

It’s the only stat I won’t put an 8 in, but it’s seldom my priority. If it’s a backline class that consistently generates its own THP, I’d be fine with a 10. If not, 12. Frontline I won’t be comfortable with less than 14, but I can make exceptions for Valor bards and paladins who want 16 in Str/dex and charisma.

I think it’s overvalued a bit, because it’s a character’s last line of defense, but I’d never want a character to lose health on level up.

Before constitution matters, an enemy should have to overcome the party’s information gathering, stealth, perception, negotiations, positioning, and armor, which rely on a character’s other ability scores, and used effectively, can keep a character healthier than a 14 in constitution.

Another way of putting it is it's your last hope when the dice have failed you. Dex can keep you alive through that fireball...until you roll that 1.