A fix for Constitution ?

[Trandir]

Well time and time again this DM surprises me with his houserules. (sidenote he uses the encumbrance rule)

Constitution got 2 slight buffs:

When you gain a level you can either take the average as described in the class description or roll for the hp. If you roll you can make a number of rolls up to your Con modifier (min 1 time max 3 times) and then decide what dice consider (usually the highest).

You can reduce the carried weight of armor you wear by 2.5 times your Constitution. This can never reduce the weight below 0.
Ex. Kort the dwarf has 14 Con, so if he weares a studded leather armor it will add nothing to the total carried weight (13-14×2.5= -22 so 0), if he weares a chain mail he will add 20 lb (55-14×2.5= 20) to the total carried weight.


These are relatively small changes but I find intresting that Con becomes even less dumpable with this houserules. Any opinion?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I didn't think Con particularly needed a boost? If anything, the issue is that it's too vital (while simultaneously being too dull).

[Zigludo]

I think I'm with Grod. Do you ever really want to dump Constitution? I guess it depends on your table but it seems pretty important especially for squishier characters. For instance, level 5 Wizard with 8 CON has half the hit points of a comparable Wizard with 14 CON. (17 vs 32.) And that goes for HP restored by short rests, too. (12.5 vs 27.5)

[dragoeniex]

I don't know if I'd run the changes myself, but I don't see anything wrong with them. If using encumbrance, anything to help mitigate the weight of big ticket items is going to be welcome.

As for hp, a couple of our DMs who favor tougher encounters house rule every player rolls for hp each level. If they get anything below average, they take average instead. This feels like a slightly less guaranteed way to bump hp over time. Nothing too drastic. And since everyone likes con, you're pretty likely to see most or all of the party getting a couple rolls per level.

[ThatsMyNick]

While Constitution is not an interesting stat (you rarely make Constitution *checks* and it doesn't affect RP that much), it doesn't require a buff. Just the fact that it affects the amount of HP you have, the amount of HP you recover when you roll hit dice and your Constitution saves (which might have terrible effects when you fail them) should prevent people from dumping it too much (and if someone dumps it, there is no reason to make their life even harder). No one wants to get thunderwaved out of a cliff (I assume).

The HP rolling rule sounds too strong, as you already get more HP per level based on your Con modifier anyway, and taking the highest result of several rolls sounds unbalanced and skew the distribution too much. You want players to have more HP? I think another option is to roll the hit dice and only take it if it's higher than the average result, otherwise take the average. This also makes sure no player gets upset if they roll something like a 2. Otherwise, the average result is there for a reason - it is the average result (assuming you reroll 1s)! It is not in your case. I think it's just better to decide that everyone gets the average result.

About decreasing weight - I see no reason to do that, it just allows players to dump Strength even more, and I also don't see an in-game explanation for that mechanic (if you have more constitution you can magically wear a weightless armor?). If you want to use the encumbrance rule (which I think you should because it's more realistic), use it as it is meant to be used. Otherwise, just don't use it. If the "problem" is that heavy armor users get encumbered - well, isn't that the point? That a rouge with light armor should be able to move faster than a Fighter with a huge metal armor?

Some *in-game* options to deal with this "problem" are: First, if a fight breaks, it makes perfect sense for a character to drop their backpack or equipment to increase their mobility (unless they are running away, in which case it also makes sense to drop excess weight) so they only get encumbered in combat if their weapons + armor is too heavy for them (no more bards getting encumbered because they just have to drag that sort-of-mobile piano in their backpack! I guess?). Out of combat, it still affects travel speed if they move by foot. Second option - if the party has somewhere they can leave equipment, heavy-armor users might have a medium-armor set that might allow them to move without being encumbered (and maybe also to avoid the disadvantage on stealth checks) if they need to, while leaving the heavy armor set in your HQ / on your mount or in your transportation vehicle. Some medium-armor users that might have low Strength should consider using a "lighter" medium-armor option (the same options that don't impose disadvantage on your stealth checks but give less AC).

But more importantly - talk to your DM. He shouldn't drop these rules on you by surprise, and I think that when using variant rules or homebrew all the players and DM should gather and discuss it. While the DM is basically god, the point is that everyone will have fun, so he shouldn't use variant rules if the players don't like them.

I hope you will find my view helpful. Good luck!

[Bigmouth]

I didn't think Con particularly needed a boost? If anything, the issue is that it's too vital (while simultaneously being too dull).

This. Everyone would love their constitution to be high, but it is supremely dull. It probably should be done away with, rolled into Strength or something.

[Trandir]

I didn't think Con particularly needed a boost? If anything, the issue is that it's too vital (while simultaneously being too dull).

Neither do I but I like to ask this sort of things to the DM.


I think I'm with Grod. Do you ever really want to dump Constitution? I guess it depends on your table but it seems pretty important especially for squishier characters. For instance, level 5 Wizard with 8 CON has half the hit points of a comparable Wizard with 14 CON. (17 vs 32.) And that goes for HP restored by short rests, too. (12.5 vs 27.5)

It's even better here. The 8 Con wizard would probably still have 17 HP but the 14 Con wizard gets 2 rolls to decide his HP so his total (assuming the dice roll as normal) would be above average.


I don't know if I'd run the changes myself, but I don't see anything wrong with them. If using encumbrance, anything to help mitigate the weight of big ticket items is going to be welcome.

As for hp, a couple of our DMs who favor tougher encounters house rule every player rolls for hp each level. If they get anything below average, they take average instead. This feels like a slightly less guaranteed way to bump hp over time. Nothing too drastic. And since everyone likes con, you're pretty likely to see most or all of the party getting a couple rolls per level.

Yep the canges aren't anything incredible but feels unecessary (tho as a heavy Str fighter I am happy to move around withoud being slowed down)


While Constitution is not an interesting stat (you rarely make Constitution *checks* and it doesn't affect RP that much), it doesn't require a buff. Just the fact that it affects the amount of HP you have, the amount of HP you recover when you roll hit dice and your Constitution saves (which might have terrible effects when you fail them) should prevent people from dumping it too much (and if someone dumps it, there is no reason to make their life even harder). No one wants to get thunderwaved out of a cliff (I assume).

The HP rolling rule sounds too strong, as you already get more HP per level based on your Con modifier anyway, and taking the highest result of several rolls sounds unbalanced and skew the distribution too much. You want players to have more HP? I think another option is to roll the hit dice and only take it if it's higher than the average result, otherwise take the average. This also makes sure no player gets upset if they roll something like a 2. Otherwise, the average result is there for a reason - it is the average result (assuming you reroll 1s)! It is not in your case. I think it's just better to decide that everyone gets the average result.

About decreasing weight - I see no reason to do that, it just allows players to dump Strength even more, and I also don't see an in-game explanation for that mechanic (if you have more constitution you can magically wear a weightless armor?). If you want to use the encumbrance rule (which I think you should because it's more realistic), use it as it is meant to be used. Otherwise, just don't use it. If the "problem" is that heavy armor users get encumbered - well, isn't that the point? That a rouge with light armor should be able to move faster than a Fighter with a huge metal armor?

Some *in-game* options to deal with this "problem" are: First, if a fight breaks, it makes perfect sense for a character to drop their backpack or equipment to increase their mobility (unless they are running away, in which case it also makes sense to drop excess weight) so they only get encumbered in combat if their weapons + armor is too heavy for them (no more bards getting encumbered because they just have to drag that sort-of-mobile piano in their backpack! I guess?). Out of combat, it still affects travel speed if they move by foot. Second option - if the party has somewhere they can leave equipment, heavy-armor users might have a medium-armor set that might allow them to move without being encumbered (and maybe also to avoid the disadvantage on stealth checks) if they need to, while leaving the heavy armor set in your HQ / on your mount or in your transportation vehicle. Some medium-armor users that might have low Strength should consider using a "lighter" medium-armor option (the same options that don't impose disadvantage on your stealth checks but give less AC).

But more importantly - talk to your DM. He shouldn't drop these rules on you by surprise, and I think that when using variant rules or homebrew all the players and DM should gather and discuss it. While the DM is basically god, the point is that everyone will have fun, so he shouldn't use variant rules if the players don't like them.


I hope you will find my view helpful. Good luck!

Lot of stuff here. First thank you for the time and effort to write this it is appreciated.

Second here are some comments on your points:

Yes Con is one of the best stat to have high but is boring.

The average resoult is there if you don't want to risk it and you have anything from 8 to 12 Con. That sayed I love randomness in a game rather than fixed upgrades. Not everyone likes it that's true. I will play a fighters so I have 16 Con from lv 1 and we start at lv 2 and guess what I did? I rolled 3d10 and gor a second 10 so this fighter has 26 HP, (the ranger has a good 23). We will be quite hard to bring down in a couple of levels. Usually it's more fun to have something above average when you play, but the equal treatment is a valid option too.

Well that is true the encumbrance rule gets a lot less arsh with this change. This variant rule matters only for long travels since you have to take your backpack with you or with heavy armor. You can use the rope that nearly every PC has as a handle and drop the backpack as a free action if needed. Now the heavy armored PC is the only one that could get slowed down by the rule, an average PC that uses heavy armor also has the Str to wear it so without the backpack you shoukd be able to move at full speed (16 Str= 80 lb allows for 65 lb plate armor, 3 lb longsword, 6 lb shield and 6 lb worth of side weapons potions an other consumables). All in all you can fight with no problem even with the encumbrance rule. About the why I do not know but when a houserule favors the player you tend to not ask many questions.

This DM doesn't throw houserules around. I posted almost all of the houserules in the Homebrew section of the forum, go check if if you want to see all the houserules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?600213-Heavily-homebrewed-D-amp-D-5e) . This last ones came up last sice usually the inventory and HP are some of the last things you write when making a character sheet.



This. Everyone would love their constitution to be high, but it is supremely dull. It probably should be done away with, rolled into Strength or something.

True and unfortunatly this DM isn't doing it.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Just to chime in and agree and also say that Con gets a more more interesting if you consider HP a sub-stat, which in many ways they are :smallamused:.

[deljzc]

There are a LOT of DM's and table rules and allow for re-rolls on initial player stats and then HP gains per level.

Many campaigns are based around the PC's having better statistics than the "averages" RAW. Creates the hero myth that many players want in their characters. Increases survivability when running published campaigns. Allows for PC's to make stupid mistakes and live. More successful ability checks to keep plot lines moving in the "story". Stuff like that.

[fbelanger]

Int and Str are commonly dump.
Cha also dump, more often than we can think.
But Con?
No it is not dumped. Rarely below 12. Often 14.

[JNAProductions]

I thought it was gonna be something like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?531769-5-Stats-For-5E), but no, turns out it's buffs for Constitution.

Since when does Con need to be buffed? It certainly could be made more INTERESTING, but not more POWERFUL.

[ThatsMyNick]

Lot of stuff here. First thank you for the time and effort to write this it is appreciated.

Second here are some comments on your points:

Yes Con is one of the best stat to have high but is boring.

The average resoult is there if you don't want to risk it and you have anything from 8 to 12 Con. That sayed I love randomness in a game rather than fixed upgrades. Not everyone likes it that's true. I will play a fighters so I have 16 Con from lv 1 and we start at lv 2 and guess what I did? I rolled 3d10 and gor a second 10 so this fighter has 26 HP, (the ranger has a good 23). We will be quite hard to bring down in a couple of levels. Usually it's more fun to have something above average when you play, but the equal treatment is a valid option too.

Well that is true the encumbrance rule gets a lot less arsh with this change. This variant rule matters only for long travels since you have to take your backpack with you or with heavy armor. You can use the rope that nearly every PC has as a handle and drop the backpack as a free action if needed. Now the heavy armored PC is the only one that could get slowed down by the rule, an average PC that uses heavy armor also has the Str to wear it so without the backpack you shoukd be able to move at full speed (16 Str= 80 lb allows for 65 lb plate armor, 3 lb longsword, 6 lb shield and 6 lb worth of side weapons potions an other consumables). All in all you can fight with no problem even with the encumbrance rule. About the why I do not know but when a houserule favors the player you tend to not ask many questions.



Yes, it is fun to feel that you have something above average, but if you change the way you roll for HP then you also change the average result. If the point of taking the average is avoiding the risk without losing HP on average, then, in my opinion, the average should be adjusted accordingly. Using your example with D10 and CON=+3, instead of the average being 9 extra HP per level, the new average is about 11.

But your goal is different, your DM wants to make Con a better stat. You could have just as easily decided that the Con bonus is added twice to the max HP, same overall effect, and you can decide to take the average result without losing anything. I think another important factor is how this affects a character that increases its Con along the way. If you started with +2 to your Con and later increased it to +3, you wouldn't have gotten the HP you "lost" retroactively. It means that if a player wants to have high Con eventually, they almost have to start the game with at least 16 Con so they won't feel they lost something.

The encumbrance rule is important when:
1. You need to take extra equipment with you that you cannot leave behind.
2. A player wants to dump Strength (a far more common problem than dumping Constitution). This is important, for example, for a character with medium armor and low Strength (as you said, a character with heavy armor should be fine as long as it doesn't take too much equipment with it).
3. There are more cases where it matters RAW, like when using a heavy crossbow, but maybe this is not a good place to implement this rule. I think the point of this rule is to restrict situations where the character (or players) want to take an excessive amount of items or someone wants to dump strength and take one of the "better" medium armors.

But if this is not a problem for you, why even make that house rule that Con affects weight? I think that the problem I'd have with that rule is that it changes an in-game mechanic without a clear in-game explanation.

[Trandir]

But if this is not a problem for you, why even make that house rule that Con affects weight? I think that the problem I'd have with that rule is that it changes an in-game mechanic without a clear in-game explanation.

I don't make the rules that's the DM's job (I am just a player that loves rules and in particular houserules and how they interact with the game).


Bonus: this DM expanded the adventuring gears with some intresting items one of those is:
Adventurer's Backpack
Price: 50 gp
Weight: 4 lb.
This backpack has padded straps that distribute the weight more evenly on the torso allowing to transport heavier loads with no extra efforts, your Strength score is considered 1 higher when determining your carrying capacity. Even tought this backpack has the same capacity of a regular one an Adventurer's Backpack comes with side straps, pockets, loops to carry bedroll, water bottle and even other bags.

[KorvinStarmast]

Any opinion
Opinion: don't try to fix what isn't broken. Con is fine as is.
(I agree with JNAProductions: Since when does Con need to be buffed?)
Advice: enjoy the game, and let us know how this one goes. :smallsmile:

[Tetrasodium]

That's an odd one since con is already a pretty important stat. I'm a bit bewildered what he or she is trying to address with those house rules, have they explained why?

Personally I allow:

level 1 is your hit die max+con
You may not take the average hp, roll the hit die+con from level 2 onward. Your strength mod+con is the minimum no matter what you roll. I.e. If you roll less than your strength mod you can take the strength mod instead.
Use int rather than dex for initiative
Players make defense rolls when attacked (ac+d20 vrs 22+ability mod+prof bonus+misc mods)
Players who cast a spell that requires a savemake a saving attack (d20+casting mod vrs ability+if relevant prof mod+22), this can crit or crit fail, The results of a saving attack applies to every baddy it hits in the event of an burst/cone/etc
I shouldn't need to say this, but if I ask for a wis arcana & you are proficient in arcana you roll a d20 they add wis mod+prof bonus not d20+wis+int. I don't know why this causes so much confusion & blame both wotc & ddb. Wotc for listing the skills [X]__ (ability) on the character sheet & ddb for making it difficult for players using a hamstrung & barely functional resource I've spent an utterly unacceptable amount of time fighting over at the table to manage their character sheets. This is not a houserule & is spelled out with no question on phb174


Ability Checks
An ability check tests a character’s or m onster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcom e a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. W hen the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.

For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class. The more difficult a task, the higher its DC. The Typical Difficulty Classes table show s the most common DCs.

Characters start at level zero & gain some additional benefits based on their background such a catrips, weapon/armor proficiencies, a save, a hit die/etc, some of which can be kept once reaching level 1+

[Trandir]

Opinion: don't try to fix what isn't broken. Con is fine as is.
(I agree with JNAProductions: Since when does Con need to be buffed?)
Advice: enjoy the game, and let us know how this one goes. :smallsmile:

In order:
Fair enough
It doesn't but not all things in this world have do make sense do they?
Yes I intend to do it, and one of the things that I love to do after/before the session is to think of how to build a character and discuss about houserules and how they interact with the core rules.

[GlenSmash!]

I don't think Con needs a buff, however. I do think more classes can do something interesting with Con.

The Stone Sorcerer and Giant Soul Sorcerer both had neat Con based abilities.

[MaxWilson]

Well time and time again this DM surprises me with his houserules. (sidenote he uses the encumbrance rule)

Constitution got 2 slight buffs:

When you gain a level you can either take the average as described in the class description or roll for the hp. If you roll you can make a number of rolls up to your Con modifier (min 1 time max 3 times) and then decide what dice consider (usually the highest).

You can reduce the carried weight of armor you wear by 2.5 times your Constitution. This can never reduce the weight below 0.
Ex. Kort the dwarf has 14 Con, so if he weares a studded leather armor it will add nothing to the total carried weight (13-14×2.5= -22 so 0), if he weares a chain mail he will add 20 lb (55-14×2.5= 20) to the total carried weight.

These are relatively small changes but I find intresting that Con becomes even less dumpable with this houserules. Any opinion?

Those are pretty elegant rules, in conjunction with variant endurance. I like them both. Nice incentives.

[Kane0]

When you gain a level you can either take the average as described in the class description or roll for the hp. If you roll you can make a number of rolls up to your Con modifier (min 1 time max 3 times) and then decide what dice consider (usually the highest).

Why max three? That seems pretty arbitrary. Also, does it work retroactively if you increase your CON with an ASI?

[Tanarii]

Quickest fix for Con would be to change all HD to d8, eliminate Con, and use Str any time you would use Con.

Except concentration checks. Make them based on casting stat, and raise the DC by 2.

[Trandir]

Why max three? That seems pretty arbitrary. Also, does it work retroactively if you increase your CON with an ASI?

It is arbitrary indeed. My guess is that he wanted to make the highest possible bonus aviable to everyone as early as lv 2 (Another houserule says that ASI are awarded every even level so you can pump a 15 to 16 just in time for the first hp roll since the 1st level hit dice is maximized, I have put all the houserules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?600213-Heavily-homebrewed-D-amp-D-5e) in the Homebrew section of the forum if you want to check them out)

No once you rolled you keep that number, if a dwarf cleric has Con 15 and at lv 4 increases it to 16 he gets the bonus HP retroactively but he will keep the HP he gained from rolling twice at 2nd and 3rd level while he can roll three times now.



Quickest fix for Con would be to change all HD to d8, eliminate Con, and use Str any time you would use Con.

Except concentration checks. Make them based on casting stat, and raise the DC by 2.

This is not ok. At all. It need to be articulated better and this also isn't the point of the thread.

Why a human wizard and a human barbarian should have the same HP at all levels?

This makes also all PCs strong, no one dumps Con if it can be avoided and you put in the mix all the combat utility and keep also the survivability utility?

Races and classes that grants bonus to Con/Str and with proficiency in one or both the saves get something in return?

Some classes and buids become SAD like the melee cleric or "SADder" like paladin that now needs just 2 stats or the fighter that works with a single high stat.

Also why raise the DC by 2? This seems arbitrary and 2 is a looooooot in 5e when to get that bonus you need 4 levels or 2 magi items most of the times.




A more intresting take would be that neither Con or Str can be higher than 2 respect the other.

[Tanarii]

This is not ok. At all. It need to be articulated better and this also isn't the point of the thread. Apparently and the point of this thread appears to be to discuss a terrible house rule. So I proposed one that works instead.


Why a human wizard and a human barbarian should have the same HP at all levels?They wouldn't. HD size should be equalized because that means Str Max classes (Barb, Fighter, Pally, Melee Rangers. VBards, BLocks, etc) would have more hit points, most other classes would balance because they don't dump Str, and full casters that inevitably dump Str (wizards, sorcs, non blade-locks) would have low hit point. If you want to give Str-based classes a minor edge on top of effectively doubling the value of the Str and freeing up points for other stats, you could go d6 for particularly fragile classes.

(Edit: There are various RPGs where the Str equivalent is used as Hit Points directly, ie it goes down as you take damage and is your offensive melee ability. This still doesn't result in players who aren't making melee characters having 'the same HP at all levels', because they don't prioritize Str.)


This makes also all PCs strong, no one dumps Con if it can be avoided and you put in the mix all the combat utility and keep also the survivability utility? No, it gives Str based classes a bit of an edge. And everyone seems to think Con is very necessary to make as high as possible. And everyone seems to think Str dumping is very common and a real problem. This kills all those birds with one stone.


Also why raise the DC by 2? This seems arbitrary and 2 is a looooooot in 5e when to get that bonus you need 4 levels or 2 magi items most of the times.Because casters typically have a casting stat mod 2 higher than Con mod when they start. And it gets worse from there. 2 is the minimum you'd need to raise it if you switched concentration to work off of casting stat.

[stoutstien]

Quickest fix for Con would be to change all HD to d8, eliminate Con, and use Str any time you would use Con.

Except concentration checks. Make them based on casting stat, and raise the DC by 2.

I went the other way and started to remove mental stats and make con the casting stat. HP gained on level up is a factor of class and subclass/archetype.

[Trandir]

Apparently and the point of this thread appears to be to discuss a terrible house rule. So I proposed one that works instead.


Exactly, but everyone is free to derail a thread as much as they want so I can't really tell anyone what to post. And the fact that your rule woks is debatable.




They wouldn't. HD size should be equalized because that means Str Max classes (Barb, Fighter, Pally, Melee Rangers. VBards, BLocks, etc) would have more hit points, most other classes would balance because they don't dump Str, and full casters that inevitably dump Str (wizards, sorcs, non blade-locks) would have low hit point. If you want to give Str-based classes a minor edge on top of effectively doubling the value of the Str and freeing up points for other stats, you could go d6 for particularly fragile classes.


PC 1: Cleric with "Strength" 16, Wisdom 18 at lv 5 has 43 HP

PC 2: Barbarian with "Strength" 18, Dexterity 16 at lv 5 has 48 HP

PC 3: Druid with "Strength" 16, Wisdom 18 at lv 5 has 43 HP

PC 4: Wizard with "Strength" 16, Intelligence 18 at lv 5 has 43 HP

The point that you are missing is that nearly no one would ever dump Con unless it is for RP reasons but they dump Str. If you put both in the same bag they would still never dump Con but now everyone is buff and can switch to weapons if needed.
With your method you would see almost all PCs with "Strength" below 1.



(Edit: There are various RPGs where the Str equivalent is used as Hit Points directly, ie it goes down as you take damage and is your offensive melee ability. This still doesn't result in players who aren't making melee characters having 'the same HP at all levels', because they don't prioritize Str.)


This is intresting, could you add the names of a couple sistems that use this method?



No, it gives Str based classes a bit of an edge. And everyone seems to think Con is very necessary to make as high as possible. And everyone seems to think Str dumping is very common and a real problem. This kills all those birds with one stone.


Str is dumped and Con is almost never dumped so you put both in the same bag.
I do not hunderstand this point. I really don't.




Because casters typically have a casting stat mod 2 higher than Con mod when they start. And it gets worse from there. 2 is the minimum you'd need to raise it if you switched concentration to work off of casting stat.

Now that I think about it I took this in the wron direction. This actually is terrible just for a Sorcerer since now you have proficiency in the save necessary to maintain concentration so the need to invest a ASI to grab Resilien (Con) can be dealyed to lv 12 after you maxed the casting skill.
Still this is umbalanced, if a PC reaches "Strength" 20 and Casting Skill 20 by lv 16-19 they still have a DC 2 higher than usual for no reason that they can't make up in any way.




Anyway could you also add to your houserule the following:
How races with bonus to one or both of those skills change with the new ruling?
The classes with save proficiency in both get something in return?
Classes with either Con save or Str save get something taken away?
How does the point buy sistem and standard array change with your rule?
Maybe something more but I can't remember any problematic interaction with your houserule.

Your rule might be "better" but 3 phrases aren't nearly enough to cover everything it changes.

[Vogie]

Instead of "fixing" Con by altering what it already does, why not expand it? While you could do something simple, like just using the Healing Surge variant from the DMG, I'd also expand the concentration mechanic for non-spellcasters. This could include:

Replacing (or augmenting) fighting styles with fighting stances, turning those normally-ribbon abilities into active decisions
Allowing characters to concentrate to do things like generate advantage, make themselves immune to being flanked, countering disarm attempts, or gain temporary bonuses to perception, stealth or grappling.
Use the Concentration of monsters to emulate Threat/Taunt mechanics from MMORPGs

[diplomancer]

Quickest fix for Con would be to change all HD to d8, eliminate Con, and use Str any time you would use Con.

Except concentration checks. Make them based on casting stat, and raise the DC by 2.

This REALLY would make the Fighter 1 (or Heavy Armor Cleric 1 if you've got the Wis for it) Dip mandatory. It would mostly kill Dex too for anyone who is not a monk or a ranged weapon character.

[Tanarii]

PC 1: Cleric with "Strength" 16, Wisdom 18 at lv 5 has 43 HP

PC 2: Barbarian with "Strength" 18, Dexterity 16 at lv 5 has 48 HP

PC 3: Druid with "Strength" 16, Wisdom 18 at lv 5 has 43 HP

PC 4: Wizard with "Strength" 16, Intelligence 18 at lv 5 has 43 HP

The point that you are missing is that nearly no one would ever dump Con unless it is for RP reasons but they dump Str. If you put both in the same bag they would still never dump Con but now everyone is buff and can switch to weapons if needed.
With your method you would see almost all PCs with "Strength" below 1.


This REALLY would make the Fighter 1 (or Heavy Armor Cleric 1 if you've got the Wis for it) Dip mandatory. It would mostly kill Dex too for anyone who is not a monk or a ranged weapon character.Interesting. I don't think it would change prioritization that dramatically. OTOH I'd have to see what the rolling distribution of 5x 4d6b3 (and accompanying standard array) looked like to really judge that. Certainly IMX with systems where Str equivalent attribute is also the HP equivalent, rangers/caster/artillery types are generally built as at least glass cannons as old-school D&D.

[diplomancer]

Interesting. I don't think it would change prioritization that dramatically. OTOH I'd have to see what the rolling distribution of 5x 4d6b3 (and accompanying standard array) looked like to really judge that. Certainly IMX with systems where Str equivalent attribute is also the HP equivalent, rangers/caster/artillery types are generally built as at least glass cannons as old-school D&D.

In those systems, is it possible to have bad Dex without it affecting your probabilities of taking damage from being hit?

[Trandir]

Interesting. I don't think it would change prioritization that dramatically. OTOH I'd have to see what the rolling distribution of 5x 4d6b3 (and accompanying standard array) looked like to really judge that. Certainly IMX with systems where Str equivalent attribute is also the HP equivalent, rangers/caster/artillery types are generally built as at least glass cannons as old-school D&D.

Ok what are those systems?

[Morty]

Constitution isn't weak and doesn't need to be stronger. But it is more or less a formality. No one is going to dump it, because that makes you fragile, but no one is going to invest in it either, since you can't do anything with it. It's entirely passive. Most characters are going to put 12-14 there and leave it at that.

I don't think there's much that can be done to fix it, though. Merging it with strength is a good idea, but I don't know if it can be done simply in the system as it is.