Should Constitution be excised from the game?

[Thunderous Mojo]

Constitution is a passive ability score. With very few exceptions, no skills are related to it, few powers use the ability to generate DCs, and the only aspect the ability directly influences are Hit Points and the occasional Saving Throw.

While I like Death Saving Throws, having an ability like Constitution that only sees limited use, is a game modality that can be eliminated completely.

I think it is time to remove the Constitution ability score, and just combine Strength and Constitution under one ability score.

[ZRN]

Constitution is a passive ability score. With very few exceptions, no skills are related to it, few powers use the ability to generate DCs, and the only aspect the ability directly influences are Hit Points and the occasional Saving Throw.

While I like Death Saving Throws, having an ability like Constitution that only sees limited use, is a game modality that can be eliminated completely.

I think it is time to remove the Constitution ability score, and just combine Strength and Constitution under one ability score.

The whole ability score system is kind of messy and not really balanced, but it's so cemented in D&D tradition it's probably not going anywhere.

It's worth noting, though, that for most classes, everything EXCEPT their primary ability score is a "passive ability score" aside from the occasional skill check. I'd almost go the other way and just make all attack rolls and spell DCs independent of ability scores, so there's less pressure to maximize your primary ability score.

[Morty]

The whole ability score system is kind of messy and not really balanced, but it's so cemented in D&D tradition it's probably not going anywhere.

It's worth noting, though, that for most classes, everything EXCEPT their primary ability score is a "passive ability score" aside from the occasional skill check. I'd almost go the other way and just make all attack rolls and spell DCs independent of ability scores, so there's less pressure to maximize your primary ability score.

That more or less sums it up. Constitution stands out because no class uses it as its primary score. You don't want to dump it like you can dump intelligence or charisma if you're not using them, but you won't focus on it either... so it's everyone's second or third choice forever.

It's also true that you can't really cut out any one attribute without doing something to the rest of them, though. It's an interconnected system. I'm in favor of just doing away with them entirely, since it's the simplest way.

[MoiMagnus]

Constitution is currently a Trade-Off.
Any point you put in it is a point that you don't have in your active ability scores. But on the other hand, if you are too greedy by trying to be good at everything, then you will lack HP.

Merging constitution with Strength works reasonably well, but you can say the same for most ability scores. I've played games where Strength, Constitution and Dexterity were merged into "Body" while Charisma was split into "Social" and "Influence" and it worked well enough for a game where combat was not a major concern. The set of ability scores is pretty arbitrary, and anything can work if you build the remaining of the system around well enough.

The absence of Constitution skills is something that can be changed. I've played homebrews with Endurance and Instinct as Constitution skills, and it worked quite well.

[KorvinStarmast]

Constitution is a passive ability score. And is a common save versus things like poison. Taking it out fractures a variety of effects, and, it is a choice since ASIs are a thing.

Do you want to be hardier and more resistant to (stuff) or are you trying to improve your ability to (something).

So no, it should not be excised from the game unless you want to rebuild the whole thing from the bottom up. Head to WoTC and offer to start in 6e for them. Maybe they'll agree, and there's your next job. :smallbiggrin:

[Dienekes]

Constitution is a passive ability score. With very few exceptions, no skills are related to it, few powers use the ability to generate DCs, and the only aspect the ability directly influences are Hit Points and the occasional Saving Throw.

While I like Death Saving Throws, having an ability like Constitution that only sees limited use, is a game modality that can be eliminated completely.

I think it is time to remove the Constitution ability score, and just combine Strength and Constitution under one ability score.

Eh, a part of me likes that there is a way to show a person is tough without necessarily also making them strong. Though I do admit those traits usually go together in fiction.

Other than the “remove all ability scores” crowd, which admittedly have a point. I’m generally more in favor of just separating skills from a single determining ability score (which is a variant rule). Because honestly there are a lot of things that should be rolled with Constitution that happens in an adventure that aren’t.

For example I climbed a canyon once. Was strength useful? Sure. But people that climbed and were weaker than me were making much better headway. But you endurance was really the key to that one. Were I GMing and trying to show that kind of long term exercise I’d probably ask for a Athletics (Constitution) check.

And anyone who has needed to take a crash studying all-nighter can tell you that is a *Insert Knowledge Skill* (Constitution) check. That sort of thing.

The other issue is, yes, nothing uses Con as a primary ability. And honesty I don’t think anything should use the best defensive stat as their primary offensive stat unless their offense lowered that defense. Only good example I’ve seen that managed it was a sort of blood mage homebrewed class that used their own hit points to cast spells which did the math roughly so that if they used their abilities like a Wizard they actually had slightly less hit points, but there was the option to take a more off-tank role which did not spend their hp as quickly. It was pretty neat in concept even if the formatting was a mess.

[diplomancer]

Mechanically, that'd be basically a buff to Strength; in itself not too bad, since so many people believe that dex is a better choice than str, this might make the two somewhat balanced, though my first impression is that it'd make Str too good; for martials, it would also make it simpler to maximize both Str and Dex. Barbarians would absolutely love it. Paladins too, for different reasons.

But for me the oddest interaction from that rule would be all the gym rat casters running around.

[Asmerv]

Unless we're doing away with the whole system, I don't think so. It's one of the few options that gives a meaningful, scaling tradeoff during ability score selection.

No point in it is wasted, has useful half feats, yet every point in it takes away from other meaningful choices.

Granted, it doesn't make you tangibly better at anything as you invest more in it so the choices you make regarding it might not immediately come through as easily as having a remarkably high or low score in another ability, but it will inevitably show through. And at least it's never a 'max it or dump it, or set it to 14 because medium armor'.

[Thunderous Mojo]

The whole ability score system is kind of messy and not really balanced, but it's so cemented in D&D tradition it's probably not going anywhere.
While "Tradition!" is a great opening number for Fidler on the Roof, Tradition is not always a sound reason to keep things as they are.


It's worth noting, though, that for most classes, everything EXCEPT their primary ability score is a "passive ability score" aside from the occasional skill check. I'd almost go the other way and just make all attack rolls and spell DCs independent of ability scores, so there's less pressure to maximize your primary ability score.
I disagree. A Warrior PC with 6 Intelligence is likely going to have to remember something, or figure something out at some point. Skills represent, (in part), specific training and knowledge, but 5e presumes that interaction with the world is principally governed by one's ability scores.


And is a common save versus things like poison. Taking it out fractures a variety of effects, and, it is a choice since ASIs are a thing
Instead of a Constitution Saving Throw there is instead a Strength Saving Throw, or a 'Might' Saving Throw, if one chose to rebrand the combination of the Strength and Constitution Ability Scores.

This seems a minor change, to me. Certainly it is less of a change from Saving Throws being discrete rules entities that were largely separate from Ability Scores, as in AD&D's "Save vs Poison" or "Save vs Magic", to what "Saving Throws" are today.


Eh, a part of me likes that there is a way to show a person is tough without necessarily also making them strong. Though I do admit those traits usually go together in fiction.

I'm not unsympathetic to this sentiment, in large part I share it...there is a distinction to be made between Strength and Endurance....the "Rope a Dope" strategy in boxing, attests to this....the D&D rules, however, don't meaningfully describe the distinction.

The occasional Constitution:(Athletics) check, while nice to have, is something that can be duplicated in a D&D system that has a Might Ability Score instead of Str and Con.

[KorvinStarmast]

Instead of a Constitution Saving Throw there is instead a Strength Saving Throw, or a 'Might' Saving Throw, if one chose to rebrand the combination of the Strength and Constitution Ability Scores.

No, if you are going to dispense with it, then scrap the entire 5e framework and build a new one. Look at how 3 and 5 differ with saves. Three versus six. It can be done, but you need to break it down and find all of the linkages. Do it bottom up.

You are suggesting top down, and that's a great way to create errors.

Beyond that, why do you hate barbarians? Constitution improves their armor class.

[Segev]

Beyond that, why do you hate barbarians? Constitution improves their armor class.

To be fair, I believe his proposed change would make Strength (having absorbed Constitution's functions) improve Barbarians' AC, instead. This would be a straight buff for Barbarians, all else unchanged.

[stoutstien]

Gut the mental scores and diversity the physical ones for more fine tuning of PC concepts.
Strength
Power
Dexterity
Finesse
Fortitude
Will

[MaxWilson]

Constitution is a passive ability score. With very few exceptions, no skills are related to it, few powers use the ability to generate DCs, and the only aspect the ability directly influences are Hit Points and the occasional Saving Throw.

Side note:

I follow GURPS' lead here and make Sex Appeal based off of Con, not Cha.

[Unoriginal]

I think it is time to remove the Constitution ability score, and just combine Strength and Constitution under one ability score.

I *strongly* disagree.

It's not because you're strong that you are tough, or the reverse.

If you think Constitution isn't useful for enough things, then it's better to add more things were it's useful than to excise it.

[heavyfuel]

I'd love to see HP not depend on Con, but keep it for other purposes.

Maybe give every class max HP/HD (Barbarians always gain 12 HP, Wizards always gain 6) and let Con be responsible for different stuff.

We'd still have Con saves which are the second most important save, but now a character with 8 Con isn't as good as dead. You could introduce mechanics like Pathfinder's stabilization, where you make Con checks (not Con saves nor Death saves) to stop dying, and you could even give it a skill like Constitution (Endurance), which relates to the ability to keep going despite adverse circumstances, so you'd use Endurance to stay awake during guard duty, or to keep walking in a desert without acquiring Exhaustion.

[KorvinStarmast]

I *strongly* disagree.

It's not because you're strong that you are tough, or the reverse.

If you think Constitution isn't useful for enough things, then it's better to add more things were it's useful than to excise it.
You don't need to be strong (muscular) to resist disease. (IRL, if I recall high school science class, having two X chromosomes appears to be sufficient for a variety of threats. :smalleek: )

For the OP:
If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. It fits within the system as built.

[Willie the Duck]

I am certainly sympathetic to the basic idea. As the scores have gotten more important*, actual variability has declined, and Con really has become that thing that is either a 12, 14, or 16. That same basic variability could easily be subsumed by feats. However, I tend to agree with KorvinStarmast that it probably be better that this be the kind of thing you might think about for the next edition or one's own homemade RPG or the like -- there are many downstream consequences to this -- random example: should Sorcerers get a good Brawn save, to keep them as 'the casters with an innately good concentration save' (or, for that matter, should concentration saves follow Con into this combined Brawn stat?).
*More correctly: 'As the scores have gotten more powerful and you have much more say in how they line up'. Scores were extremely powerful in AD&D and AD&D 2e, but you weren't going to have more than 2 in the 16+ range where they really did much.

Perhaps a side question -- would it actually change anything? If Con were removed, and (say) the 13 in the attribute array removed, would anyone's other stat allocations change significantly? I suppose if concentration saves did move to Brawn, then there would be a lot of 14 brawn wizards and warlocks. Does that fix, hamper, or leave unchanged any character concepts?

[Unoriginal]

and the occasional Saving Throw.

Just to go back to this as I just noticed it: what do you mean the "occasional" Saving Throw?


CON saves are the most common saves. Rolls to avoid losing Concentration are CON saves, for starter

[Segev]

If you think Constitution isn't useful for enough things, then it's better to add more things were it's useful than to excise it.

Incidentally, I am in the early stages of (very slowly) working on what I hope to be a subsystem expanding the exploration pillar and making encumbrance rules more worth tracking as part of gameplay. One of the things I'm toying with is having Constitution relate to how much you can eat without overeating to the point of harming your functionality, as part of a system of having meals do more than be a "yep, I ate today" check-off.

[Morty]

I am certainly sympathetic to the basic idea. As the scores have gotten more important*, actual variability has declined, and Con really has become that thing that is either a 12, 14, or 16. That same basic variability could easily be subsumed by feats. However, I tend to agree with KorvinStarmast that it probably be better that this be the kind of thing you might think about for the next edition or one's own homemade RPG or the like -- there are many downstream consequences to this -- random example: should Sorcerers get a good Brawn save, to keep them as 'the casters with an innately good concentration save' (or, for that matter, should concentration saves follow Con into this combined Brawn stat?).
*More correctly: 'As the scores have gotten more powerful and you have much more say in how they line up'. Scores were extremely powerful in AD&D and AD&D 2e, but you weren't going to have more than 2 in the 16+ range where they really did much.

Perhaps a side question -- would it actually change anything? If Con were removed, and (say) the 13 in the attribute array removed, would anyone's other stat allocations change significantly? I suppose if concentration saves did move to Brawn, then there would be a lot of 14 brawn wizards and warlocks. Does that fix, hamper, or leave unchanged any character concepts?

Not much would probably change, which does go to show how much of an illusion attributes are and how constitution is the most visible example.

[MaxWilson]

Not much would probably change, which does go to show how much of an illusion attributes are and how constitution is the most visible example.

Try 3d6 in order sometime.

[Morty]

Try 3d6 in order sometime.

I've rolled for attributes in order in Warhammer Fantasy RPG and Dark Heresy. Neither is an experience I would care to repeat in any system.

[Unoriginal]

I've rolled for attributes in order in Warhammer Fantasy RPG and Dark Heresy. Neither is an experience I would care to repeat in any system.

So stats aren't that much of an illusion?

[MaxWilson]

I've rolled for attributes in order in Warhammer Fantasy RPG and Dark Heresy. Neither is an experience I would care to repeat in any system.

I didn't say you'd like it, but it ought to correct your impression that attributes are "an illusion."

[Dienekes]

I didn't say you'd like it, but it ought to correct your impression that attributes are "an illusion."

We're in the 5e board. 3d6 in order isn't even mentioned as a possible rules variant in the PHB.

While I am not exactly on Morty's side here. I don't think Attributes are quite an illusion. I will say that upon picking your class a lot of the decisions of what to do with your attributes are largely made for you, unless you are trying to do something very weird or unoptimal. And if we are assuming that everyone is at least trying to build their character to function at what it's supposed to do. Having them either pick to increase the obviously best Attribute or just having it increase automatically is not all that different from each other.

[diplomancer]

Another problem, saving throws proficiency; while giving Str saves to sorcerers and artificers for free is not so bad, giving Con saves for free to Rangers and low/mid-level Monks is. A Gloomstalker would get something very close to Diamond Soul at level 7.

[Morty]

I didn't say you'd like it, but it ought to correct your impression that attributes are "an illusion."

Seems to me that if I did that, my choice of class would narrow down to whichever one is suited best by the array I happened to roll. So what happened is that the decisive factor flipped - in point-buy or roll and assign, my choice becomes locked in when I picked my class. Either way, there's not much choice.

[Unoriginal]

Seems to me that if I did that, my choice of class would narrow down to whichever one is suited best by the array I happened to roll. So what happened is that the decisive factor flipped - in point-buy or roll and assign, my choice becomes locked in when I picked my class. Either way, there's not much choice.

So attributes aren't an illusion and, in fact, crucial as a basis for character choices?

[Morty]

So attributes aren't an illusion and, in fact, crucial as a basis for character choices?

No. In 5E as it's actually played, attributes are determined (randomly or otherwise) after you pick your class - so what attributes you'll actually pick are mostly locked in the previous step of character creation.

[jas61292]

Personally, while I don't think that removing constitution from the game is necessarily a good idea, I do think separating HP from Constitution would be. Con saves are a big deal, but that alone is not why Con is considered a must have secondary or tertiary stat for every single character. HP is that reason.

If HP were just an independent thing (either with more hit dice but no static mod, or a static mod independent of your ability scores), Con would probably be treated a lot more like Wisdom is currently for classes that don't use it. A desirable stat that you don't typically want to dump, but is not so crucial that you feel bad for doing so if it fits your character concept. Furthermore, it would open things up for allowing classes to actually use Con a a primary attribute. HP is such a crucial value that I believe Con contributing to it is the sole reason why we do not have any Con based classes. Whether such a class would be a new version of an existing class (Barbarian, Ranger and Sorcerer all being potential options), or a brand new class, if Con was not contributing to HP, such a thing could exist without feeling like it inherently has a unique power boost that must be mitigated.

Now, this being said, if Con was to have its contribution to HP removed, I probably would want to see one or two other core things reference it, so that its not just the important save stat. It could be something as simple as a skill or two, or a rework of the dying process to take it into account. But it does not need to be anything huge. Rules on drowning and whatnot already give it a place, especially in a world where suddenly not everyone is having a +1 at the absolute minimum.

[JoeJ]

No. In 5E as it's actually played, attributes are determined (randomly or otherwise) after you pick your class - so what attributes you'll actually pick are mostly locked in the previous step of character creation.

That's the RAW sequence described in the PHB. You choose your race and class before you determine your ability scores.

[MoiMagnus]

So attributes aren't an illusion and, in fact, crucial as a basis for character choices?

So in other words, attribute are not an illusion when they are used to frustrate players to restrict their gameplay, and an illusion when they are used to give to the players the freedom of choosing "what do you want to be good at?".


That's the RAW sequence described in the PHB. You choose your race and class before you determine your ability scores.

I never noticed that. Quite reasonable as choosing which ability score should be low or high depends a lot on what class you are. But on the other hand race choice is before the class choice, and you could make the same argument about the race choice depending a lot on the class you chose. So I'm not sure of the logic here.

[Darth Credence]

Anyone know if someone has run the numbers for the tradeoff between dexterity and constitution, in terms of surviving damage? An increase in dexterity makes it less likely to be hit if you are wearing armor that allows for a dex bonus, so having a higher dex would reduce the number of hits for damage while a higher con would allow one to survive more damage. I would imagine that it is a matter of flipping at some point, where at low levels dexterity is more useful but as the con bonus keeps compounding, it becomes a bigger deal. I can run them, but not right now, and if someone else has I won't bother.

[Valmark]

You could most certainly remove Constitution- just need to remake D&D's to suit the new balance.


No. In 5E as it's actually played, attributes are determined (randomly or otherwise) after you pick your class - so what attributes you'll actually pick are mostly locked in the previous step of character creation.

This is honestly the first time I hear someone actually does that. Makes sense to have a concept beforehand, but usually people I've seen first roll the dice or change the class/race if they haven't got something good to work with using the rolled attributes (or re-roll if the DM accepts that).

[Selion]

Constitution is a passive ability score. With very few exceptions, no skills are related to it, few powers use the ability to generate DCs, and the only aspect the ability directly influences are Hit Points and the occasional Saving Throw.

While I like Death Saving Throws, having an ability like Constitution that only sees limited use, is a game modality that can be eliminated completely.

I think it is time to remove the Constitution ability score, and just combine Strength and Constitution under one ability score.

It helps shaping your character the same way other physical abilities works.
For example for my character I have a multiclass 2 fighter - x wizard, cos is one of my highest scores, because i need it to compensate for the wizard low hp per level and to help me with concentration checks. For a character using a lot of defensive buffs it may be more important than a +1 to spell DC, and you can roleplay the harsh crude guy the same way you can roleplay a nimble character with high dexterity.
I don't see that much of a difference.

[MaxWilson]

Seems to me that if I did that, my choice of class would narrow down to whichever one is suited best by the array I happened to roll. So what happened is that the decisive factor flipped - in point-buy or roll and assign, my choice becomes locked in when I picked my class. Either way, there's not much choice.

When you said attributes are "an illusion", were you trying to say that choice is an illusion for a powergamer? At least then I'd understand the point you're making, although even then I don't agree (there's more than one way to skin a cat and skinning it the same way every time gets boring, even for a powergamer).


No. In 5E (A) as it's actually played, attributes are determined (randomly or otherwise) after you pick your class - so what attributes you'll actually pick are mostly locked in the previous step of character creation.

(A) Despite how the PHB is written, as 5E is actually played, rolling for stats is the first step in the chargen process.

[Morty]

This is honestly the first time I hear someone actually does that. Makes sense to have a concept beforehand, but usually people I've seen first roll the dice or change the class/race if they haven't got something good to work with using the rolled attributes (or re-roll if the DM accepts that).

Whereas I've never known anyone actually roll for stats in 5E, or indeed do anything other than pick a concept, pick a class to match and then arrange attributes accordingly. We can swap anecdotes all day long, but the PHB gives a specific order for character creation. Unless we have access to some kind of statistics that suggest players deviate from it more often than not.

If I did want to let dice determine my character, I'd much rather somehow roll for background, race and class. Then I could end up with, say, a dwarf warlock folk hero and figure out what to do with it. Attributes aren't the interesting part of any character - just a layer of math I deal with to get there.

[Ogre Mage]

I'm okay with Constitution. Though I have found that assuming 27 PB, party members Constitution scores tend to fall in a fairly narrow range (12-15, with dwarves pushing to a 16). Whereas Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma scores can vary widely among party members.

Because it is not a prime stat for any class it rarely gets maxed out. But it is also the stat which is most widely regarded as foolish to dump (and I would agree). So almost everyone winds up with above-average but not outstanding Constitution score.

[Thunderous Mojo]

If you think Constitution isn't useful for enough things, then it's better to add more things were it's useful than to excise it.
The main issue is the aspects of the game that fall under Constitution are becoming smaller in number over time, not greater. Allowing a player to use Constitution for AC instead of Dexterity for Medium Armor, is the only easy to implement option that immediately comes to mind.

Systemically, Constitution as an ability score is like an appendix, mostly vestigial.

Just to go back to this as I just noticed it: what do you mean the "occasional" Saving Throw?
Understatement is often a key ingredient for humor.🃏

CON saves are the most common saves. Rolls to avoid losing Concentration are CON saves, for starter
Then it would become Might saves that are the most common...a change of this sort in the Saving Throw 'Leaderboard' isn't a paradigmatic shift of gigantic proportions.

The number of potential Dexterity Saving Throws does not lag too far behind Constitution Saving Throws,(if my memory serves), and the consequences for failing Constitution and Dexterity Saving Throws tend to be limited to the PC.

Fail a Constitution Saving Throw and you die from damage, or have the Poisoned Condition, or turn to stone....all events that surely can leave a player non-plussed.

Fail a Wisdom Saving Throw and you now are a T-Rex eating your party, or Dominated, or paralyzed....all conditions that may leave your party, somewhat, non-plussed.

The digression in the conversation regarding Character Generation is interesting. There certainly seems to be some divide based off age, regarding aspects of a character being generated randomly.

Original Traveller and Warhammer FRPG were both systems where no player 'plan' for their character survived the dice intact. Personally, I found those type of game systems helped develop my Roleplaying and roll 🎲 playing skills...
......even when your stats were horrible in AD&D; some caltrops, Molotov Cocktails, and a war dog or three, and luck could be sufficient to keep you alive, (sometimes).

(Except for Traveller, no amount of luck helps against TL15 Missles)☠️

[quinron]

(A) Despite how the PHB is written, as 5E is actually played, rolling for stats is the first step in the chargen process.

"Rolling for stats" doesn't necessarily or even usually mean rolling stats in order. One of the standardized formats for rolling stats is basically "pick a class, roll 6 scores, assign those scores to the abilities that best suit that class." That's actually how the PHB presents it.

[JoeJ]

Original Traveller and Warhammer FRPG were both systems were no player 'plan' for their character survived the dice intact.

In original Traveller, the character didn't even always survive character generation.

[sithlordnergal]

Anyone know if someone has run the numbers for the tradeoff between dexterity and constitution, in terms of surviving damage? An increase in dexterity makes it less likely to be hit if you are wearing armor that allows for a dex bonus, so having a higher dex would reduce the number of hits for damage while a higher con would allow one to survive more damage. I would imagine that it is a matter of flipping at some point, where at low levels dexterity is more useful but as the con bonus keeps compounding, it becomes a bigger deal. I can run them, but not right now, and if someone else has I won't bother.

I don't have the exact numbers, but I do have plenty experience with high tiers of play. I find HP becomes more important then AC once you reach Tier 3 and higher, especially with Light Armor. Creatures start having a +9 to +10 to hit at around CR 11, meaning they start having a really, really good chance of hitting a 20 AC character. Since Dex mods cap out at +5, or +6 with a book, and Studded Leather is only 12+Dex Mod, you're looking at a 17 AC if you lack magic items. Even if you have +3 Studded Leather you're still only at an AC of 20.

At that point HP is gonna matter the most because you're going to be hit no matter what, unless you've somehow managed to break that 25 AC threshold. And even then, 25 AC will lose its charm once things have a +14 to +16 to hit. By that point you'd need to go full tank mode and get aan AC in the 30's for it to really let you tank.

[aadder]

I'm in a weird position where i think CON is both under- and over-relevant, simply because how it relates to Hit Point generation.

On the one hand i feel like it's in many ways irrelevant, because most players kind of have the same CON score. Nobody dump-stats it, and nobody is really shooting for 20 in it. Yeah there are some weird exceptions, but more 99% of players, you've got a +1 or +2 mod at your outset, and you might bump it up to a +3.
With this, classes moderate your Hit Points as well. A barbarian is generating twice as much class-related Hit Points as a wizard, for example. Even if your wizard has a high CON, that Barbarian is still gonna have way more HP, and vice-versa.
So between these two things, it feels like CON is kind of an irrelevant stat if your class matters for your Hit Points too, and everyone is pretty much taking the same modifiers on it.


On the other hand, that's kind of why I wish CON did a lot more stuff. If your CON modifier affected your Hit Points a lot more, it might make people care a lot more about taking more. And if it scaled exponentially, you might get people dump-stating it. If having a -1 CON modifier wasn't wildly different then having a +1, and having a +4 was way, WAY more powerful, you might have more diversity in stats instead of everyone starting with and ending with kind of the same modifiers.

[aadder]

(A) Despite how the PHB is written, as 5E is actually played, rolling for stats is the first step in the chargen process.

I mean does anyone actually play like that, though? In every group i've been in, people plan their characters out beforehand and confer with others before the game begins to ensure people aren't stepping on eachothers' roles, so class and stats are determined simultaneously. I know the book says that, but i don't think a lot of players like the idea of having to be at a table with the DM in order to do character planning.

[diplomancer]

Though I rarely raise my Con directly, if I'm playing a caster I always try to start with an odd score in it so I can raise it with Res (con) later.
I suppose the only class that's somewhat encouraged to spend ASIs just in Con is the Barbarian, both because it can increase their AC but also because, though extra hit points from Con are a smaller percentage of their total hit points, these extra hit points "work more" because of Rage resistance.


I mean does anyone actually play like that, though? In every group i've been in, people plan their characters out beforehand and confer with others before the game begins to ensure people aren't stepping on eachothers' roles, so class and stats are determined simultaneously. I know the book says that, but i don't think a lot of players like the idea of having to be at a table with the DM in order to do character planning.

That's been my experience as well, even in a group of total strangers; I usually have 3 or 4 ideas I'd like to explore, so I usually let other people choose first, but still deciding on general party composition before even meeting to play has been what I've most seen.

[heavyfuel]

Anyone know if someone has run the numbers for the tradeoff between dexterity and constitution, in terms of surviving damage? An increase in dexterity makes it less likely to be hit if you are wearing armor that allows for a dex bonus, so having a higher dex would reduce the number of hits for damage while a higher con would allow one to survive more damage. I would imagine that it is a matter of flipping at some point, where at low levels dexterity is more useful but as the con bonus keeps compounding, it becomes a bigger deal. I can run them, but not right now, and if someone else has I won't bother.

I don't think this is a great measure... If you are pumping Dex, it's probably because it affects your atk and dmg on top of your AC. The only case I think this is valuable is for light/no armor characters that don't have Dex as their main stat (a standard Rogue always wants Dex over Con) which means casters.

So let's see. A light/no armor caster with 14 in both Dex and Con. Say this character has 4.5+Con HP per level (Wiz and Sorcs gain 4, Bards and Warlocks gain 5). Before level 8, they're probably focused on their casting score, so I'm only going to analyze Tier 3 and Tier 4.

Through Tiers 3 and 4, this char averages 113 HP and AC 15 (either a +1 studded leather or mage armor), so, should they improve Con or Dex?

According to this reddit post (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTheScreen/comments/7wp4y1/i_spent_all_day_averaging_creature_stats_from_the/), the average CR 11~20 monster has +12.09 attack bonus, and 90.63 average damage with their attacks. Using Ludic's DPR calculator, we have:

Dex 14, Con 14: Our caster takes 86.07 DPR, so they can survive 1.132 rounds.
Dex 14, Con 16: Our caster takes 86.07 DPR, but averages 129 HP, so they can survive 1.498 rounds.
Dex 16, Con 14: Our caster takes 81.31 DPR, so they can survive 1.389 rounds.

It seems increasing Con is better than increasing Dex.

[Pex]

I don't have the exact numbers, but I do have plenty experience with high tiers of play. I find HP becomes more important then AC once you reach Tier 3 and higher, especially with Light Armor. Creatures start having a +9 to +10 to hit at around CR 11, meaning they start having a really, really good chance of hitting a 20 AC character. Since Dex mods cap out at +5, or +6 with a book, and Studded Leather is only 12+Dex Mod, you're looking at a 17 AC if you lack magic items. Even if you have +3 Studded Leather you're still only at an AC of 20.

At that point HP is gonna matter the most because you're going to be hit no matter what, unless you've somehow managed to break that 25 AC threshold. And even then, 25 AC will lose its charm once things have a +14 to +16 to hit. By that point you'd need to go full tank mode and get aan AC in the 30's for it to really let you tank.

I concur. I have a character with a cloak of displacement. It was wonderful for a long time, but eventually I noticed the monsters were hitting me anyway. Any misses because of it were too few to matter. I replaced it in attunement.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I mean does anyone actually play like that, though? In every group i've been in, people plan their characters out beforehand and confer with others before the game begins to ensure people aren't stepping on eachothers' roles, so class and stats are determined simultaneously.
Evidently some people do, indeed, roll their Ability Scores first 😄.

I do not want to be rudely, overly inquisitive, but for those that have only played D&D with planned characters...what edition did you start D&D with?

7 years into 5e, and I will admit I never read the PHB character creation section as a literal instruction guide, to be slavishly adhered to . I read enough to get the gist of the verbiage and let my prior assumptions do the rest.

I suspect that how one learned to play the game, either by rolling stats or point buy, influences one's preference in the future. Once you walk the dark path of Point Buy, forever will it dominate your destiny./Yoda/😉🃏

[diplomancer]

Evidently some people do, indeed, roll their Ability Scores first 😄.

I do not want to be rudely, overly inquisitive, but for those that have only played D&D with planned characters...what edition did you start D&D with?

7 years into 5e, and I will admit I never read the PHB character creation section as a literal instruction guide, to be slavishly adhered to . I read enough to get the gist of the verbiage and let my prior assumptions do the rest.

I suspect that how one learned to play the game, either by rolling stats or point buy, influences one's preference in the future. Once you walk the dark path of Point Buy, forever will it dominate your destiny./Yoda/😉🃏

I started with BECMI (though only very recently I realized what makes Halflings so good in that edition, specially when you roll reasonably well); but ever since 2nd Edition and 4d6b3 choose the order, I've been used to at least have an idea of what class I want to play before character creation begins.

[MaxWilson]

I mean does anyone actually play like that, though? In every group i've been in, people plan their characters out beforehand and confer with others before the game begins to ensure people aren't stepping on eachothers' roles, so class and stats are determined simultaneously. I know the book says that, but i don't think a lot of players like the idea of having to be at a table with the DM in order to do character planning.

What I've seen and encouraged is that you roll your stats and post them (or have the DM roll them for you and IM you, if you're concerned about credibility), and any group planning/discussion takes place in the context of knowing what the stat arrays are. Forum discussions indicate that this is common, despite the PHB encouraging the opposite order, perhaps because roll-then-decide-race-and-class has been the norm in D&D since TSR days.

[Luccan]

I've always found that if I'm rolling, I prefer to see what I'm working with for stats before I choose a class.

I don't think Constitution needs to go, but you probably could remove it with enough work. As far as giving Strength the benefits of Constitution, I don't personally like it, because I think the result would be most characters having 12+ Strength scores, which is much more homogenous. I'd probably move the benefits of Con to be determined by class instead. That might require reworking hit dice, but given you can already pick a static number to improve your HP on level up, hit dice could probably also be dropped.

[Morty]

Evidently some people do, indeed, roll their Ability Scores first 😄.

I do not want to be rudely, overly inquisitive, but for those that have only played D&D with planned characters...what edition did you start D&D with?

7 years into 5e, and I will admit I never read the PHB character creation section as a literal instruction guide, to be slavishly adhered to . I read enough to get the gist of the verbiage and let my prior assumptions do the rest.

I suspect that how one learned to play the game, either by rolling stats or point buy, influences one's preference in the future. Once you walk the dark path of Point Buy, forever will it dominate your destiny./Yoda/😉🃏

I started out in 3.5, where I picked a class, then rolled using the "4d6, keep 3" method and assigned them. Since then I've moved on from D&D (I play 5E occasionally) and I don't see the point of rolling for attributes, regardless of edition or system. As I've said, if I actually wanted to decide my character randomly, I'd rather roll for race, class and background (or whatever equivalent thereof exists). D&D attributes, in particular, are largely superfluous and there's no reason to spend any significant time determining them.

[heavyfuel]

A point that's just occurred to me: It makes perfect sense, from an in-game perspective, for adventurers in general to have above average Con.

Think about it. They are constantly exercising, be that travelling, fighting, or training; they are rich, which means they are well nourished; and they get a good nights rest most nights, a good enough sleep that the next morning all their wounds are no longer affecting their perfomance.

I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty sure regular exercise, nutrition, and sleep are the pillars of being healthy.

[Witty Username]

Do we really need ability scores? They don't mean nearly as much as they used to. Dex does what strength does in most games, int, wis, and cha are poorly set up in what saving throws mean what. We could probably remove them and have proficiency scale faster and have the same effect in most games.

[Naanomi]

If I were designing a game from the bottom up, and not trying to link it to 'feeling' like D&D; but on the same broad development trends of 5e D&D taken to 'their next steps'... I would probably abandon 'stats' all together. But I wouldn't touch it for an actual edition of D&D, and would instead work to making it more relevant (more explicitly disentangling skill rolls from specific stats, for example)

[MaxWilson]

Do we really need ability scores? They don't mean nearly as much as they used to. Dex does what strength does in most games, int, wis, and cha are poorly set up in what saving throws mean what. We could probably remove them and have proficiency scale faster and have the same effect in most games.

I don't know about you but I roleplay Int 8 very differently from Int 15 (more cunning and quick to perceive), Wis 6 very differently from Wis 14 (more self-disciplined and often kinder and more patient), and Cha 7 as differently as I can from Cha 14 (more self-confident, more comfortable with groups, although I struggle portraying some aspects of how I imagine high Charisma like being a "people person").

[MoiMagnus]

Do we really need ability scores? They don't mean nearly as much as they used to. Dex does what strength does in most games, int, wis, and cha are poorly set up in what saving throws mean what. We could probably remove them and have proficiency scale faster and have the same effect in most games.

The main points of ability scores:
(1) Character generation minigame. Some peoples like the "minigame" of creating a character, and dealing with ability score is one of the multiple (simple) puzzles part of the character creation.
(2) Bundles. Ability scores ensures that if you're very good at X (ability+prof), then you will necessarily be somewhat good at Y (which uses the same ability). Having the different skills correlated with one another reinforce archetypes and a feeling of understanding of how the world works.
(3) Unexpected checks are not just a coin flip. When you are making a skill check your character is the specialist of, the bonus you have is mostly determined by the balance of the game, especially at a table where everyone max out their specialities. But what about a skill check about an unexpected skill check, totally out of the domain of speciality of the character? Having ability scores allows for a nice moment where you "rediscover" that you have -1, 0 or +1 to this check, which gives you the feeling that you had some level of control when building your character about this check.
(4) Class characterisation. Int/Cha/Sag have definitions in the PHB. But one of their main goal is to characterise the archetypes of "Clever Wizard", "Charismatic Bard" and "Wise Cleric" which are some of the core archetype of D&D.

But no, we don't need ability scores.


I don't know about you but I roleplay Int 8 very differently from Int 15 (more cunning and quick to perceive), Wis 6 very differently from Wis 14 (more self-disciplined and often kinder and more patient), and Cha 7 as differently as I can from Cha 14 (more self-confident, more comfortable with groups, although I struggle portraying some aspects of how I imagine high Charisma like being a "people person").

That does not require ability scores.
Without ability scores, you RP "low Int" when you don't have any skill proficiencies that are what someone clever would reasonably have (unless you want to RP a stupid but educated person). You RP "high Int" when you have a lot of them. You look at your skill set and you interpolate your personality from it.

[MaxWilson]

That does not require ability scores.
Without ability scores, you RP "low Int" when you don't have any skill proficiencies that are what someone clever would reasonably have (unless you want to RP a stupid but educated person). You RP "high Int" when you have a lot of them. You look at your skill set and you interpolate your personality from it.

Skills are not what I'm talking about. The ability to perceive tactical abstractions, for example, means that I'd be comfortable roleplaying an Int 15 PC as realizing that decoying away one giant with one PC (so that a 4 on 3 fight becomes a 3 on 2 fight) is in the party's favor (especially given how concentration bottlenecks application of force), and suggesting to the monk that they attempt said decoying. For an Int 7 PC I would just decide that I can't see the advantage of that tactic--Lanchester's Laws just confuse that PC, and he'd think splitting the party was "too risky" to even think hard about how things would play out.

[Valmark]

Skills are not what I'm talking about. The ability to perceive tactical abstractions, for example, means that I'd be comfortable roleplaying an Int 15 PC as realizing that decoying away one giant with one PC (so that a 4 on 3 fight becomes a 3 on 2 fight) is in the party's favor (especially given how concentration bottlenecks application of force), and suggesting to the monk that they attempt said decoying. For an Int 7 PC I would just decide that I can't see the advantage of that tactic--Lanchester's Laws just confuse that PC, and he'd think splitting the party was "too risky" to even think hard about how things would play out.
I think the point they were making is that you don't need an attribute score (or stuff like that) to roleplay a character as smarter then the other- if you didn't have, for example, intelligence you could still make a character good with tactics and one who isn't. If anything you got more freedom without scores.

That said, I like them. A game without attribute scores would probably feel weird- doesn't help that I've never even seen a rpg without them (be it a videogame, a tabletop game, etc.)

Besides the ones that are purely narrative, at least.

[Witty Username]

I don't know about you but I roleplay Int 8 very differently from Int 15 (more cunning and quick to perceive), Wis 6 very differently from Wis 14 (more self-disciplined and often kinder and more patient), and Cha 7 as differently as I can from Cha 14 (more self-confident, more comfortable with groups, although I struggle portraying some aspects of how I imagine high Charisma like being a "people person").

I do so as well, however, the mechanical difference between the scores is limited and somewhat inconsistent. Role playing your scores doesn't actually require them. Kinda like how you can role play good or evil without actually using alignment.
I want to be clear, I am not advocating getting rid of them so much as wanting them to be better defined. Divide strength and dex more cleanly (and actually enforce the differences between athletics and acrobatics), And actually using the mental scores for saving throws the way the DMG recommends as opposed to wis saves primarily would be a start.

But some of this is in practice as opposed to theoretical. For example, in theory any character can attempt any skill making their non-required ability scores meaningful but in practice players tend to only use what they are proficient with and the secondary scores go to waste especially because most of the time other party members are better at it as a matter of design and composition. I am not sure how to solve this problem but I feel some reward for players using skills they aren't proficient in could help.
A patch the game uses for particular things are so important for a class/subclass/concept function that a primary score is applied to it to avoid madness, usually for attack and damage but their are some abilities like otherworldly guise which allows rangers to add their wisdom to their charisma checks. This makes for the ability scores to feel less like they have actual meaning to actions the character takes so much as a generic power source for class features.

What I am more annoyed by is all this is along with classes not being particularly good at defining what a character does in comparison to ability scores.But that is a whole other thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?610416-Are-ability-scores-too-impactful)

[aadder]

What I've seen and encouraged is that you roll your stats and post them (or have the DM roll them for you and IM you, if you're concerned about credibility), and any group planning/discussion takes place in the context of knowing what the stat arrays are. Forum discussions indicate that this is common, despite the PHB encouraging the opposite order, perhaps because roll-then-decide-race-and-class has been the norm in D&D since TSR days.

I suppose that makes sense, but i'm the kind of person that wants total control over what i'm playing, so even within that context I feel opposed to that. Because doing that locks you into only a few options for what you can play; if you determine stats first, you could get locked out of the class and race you wanted. Maybe it's the culture of the groups i've been in. That does make sense though, kind of a middle ground.

[JoeJ]

I do think it's interesting that even though the RAW sequence is race, then class, then abilty scores, the PHB tells you how to generate ability scores first, before discussing race and class.

[MaxWilson]

I suppose that makes sense, but i'm the kind of person that wants total control over what i'm playing, so even within that context I feel opposed to that. Because doing that locks you into only a few options for what you can play; if you determine stats first, you could get locked out of the class and race you wanted. Maybe it's the culture of the groups i've been in. That does make sense though, kind of a middle ground.

From what I've seen and observed in forum discussions, the way it tends to work is that in groups where you play the same PC session after session for months or years on end, point buy is typically preferred for its predictability. In groups where each player has a character tree of different PCs and may bring a different PC to each week's game session, predictability is less valued compared to novelty--you may have three or four ideas that you want to try out and you just go with whichever one fits the stats you happen to roll, or else a separate concept that you've never done before, inspired entirely by the stats you happen to roll.


E.g. when I have a basic SAD concept in mind like "Lyrandar Hexblade summoner" and I happen to roll stats that are extremely good for MADness (e.g. 18, 14, 16, 14, 6, 13), playing the original concept feels bad, like a waste. It's better when I have an alternate idea like an undersized Changeling Shepherdlock who speaks sign language and spends a lot of time wildshaped into an ape-shapechanged-back-into-a-mute-person (Str 6, Dex 14, Con 15 (14), Int 13, Wis 16, Cha 20 (18)) or an obnoxiously-wise Kensei Sharpshooter and grappler (Str 14, Dex 19 (18), Con 14, Int 13, Wis 17 (16), Cha 6) who tells obnoxiously self-centered shaggy dog stories about his training; something rare that actually takes advantage of the MAD stats even if it's not actually "better" per se than the SAD concept.
Every rolled array locks you out of some concepts and opens up others, but don't forget that point buy locks you completely out of many concepts too, especially MAD ones, but also Everyman stuff like Bilbo Baggins who's caught up in unexpected adventures without being particularly remarkable or heroic beforehand. It's just that point buy always locks you out of the same concepts every time, so you may be less aware of them.

Anyway, rolling vs. point buy is very much a matter of taste and preferred playstyle.

[Thunderous Mojo]

For an Int 7 PC I would just decide that I can't see the advantage of that tactic--Lanchester's Laws just confuse that PC, and he'd think splitting the party was "too risky" to even think hard about how things would play out.
This is purely an aside, but Chimpanzees actually follow Lanchester's Law when attacking. Male Chimpanzees rarely attack another group of male chimps unless they have a 1.5 numerical advantage. Being a lone chimp is a brief and brutal existence.

Since 5e D&D "Apes" have 6 Intelligence...the 7 INT PC of said example should probably also grasp, on an instinctual level, Lanchester's Laws.🥸😁

All joking aside, if ability scores were removed, then some sort of descriptor mechanism is required to provide some measure of distinction between characters.
This way someone could be described as "Keen" and "Agile" and those descriptors should have some in game meaning.

Flawed characters can be fun to play. I once had a 7 INT and 3 WIS character. I absolutely wanted to abandon the character, and reroll without ever playing the PC.
I'm glad I did play that character....it was a rewarding challenge....there is a reason good actors like to portray flawed characters.

[Witty Username]

I suppose that makes sense, but i'm the kind of person that wants total control over what i'm playing, so even within that context I feel opposed to that. Because doing that locks you into only a few options for what you can play; if you determine stats first, you could get locked out of the class and race you wanted. Maybe it's the culture of the groups i've been in. That does make sense though, kind of a middle ground.

From what I've seen and observed in forum discussions, the way it tends to work is that in groups where you play the same PC session after session for months or years on end, point buy is typically preferred for its predictability. In groups where each player has a character tree of different PCs and may bring a different PC to each week's game session, predictability is less valued compared to novelty--you may have three or four ideas that you want to try out and you just go with whichever one fits the stats you happen to roll, or else a separate concept that you've never done before, inspired entirely by the stats you happen to roll.

E.g. when I have a basic SAD concept in mind like "Lyrandar Hexblade summoner" and I happen to roll stats that are extremely good for MADness (e.g. 18, 14, 16, 14, 6, 13), playing the original concept feels bad, like a waste. It's better when I have an alternate idea like an undersized Changeling Shepherdlock who speaks sign language and spends a lot of time wildshaped into an ape-shapechanged-back-into-a-mute-person (Str 6, Dex 14, Con 15 (14), Int 13, Wis 16, Cha 20 (18)) or an obnoxiously-wise Kensei Sharpshooter and grappler (Str 14, Dex 19 (18), Con 14, Int 13, Wis 17 (16), Cha 6) who tells obnoxiously self-centered shaggy dog stories about his training; something rare that actually takes advantage of the MAD stats even if it's not actually "better" per se than the SAD concept.

Anyway, rolling vs. point buy is very much a matter of taste and preferred playstyle.

Adding to this, rolled stats can work nicely if you are someone with trouble getting down to a single concept. I personally have trouble making decisions between multiple things that are all interesting, rolled stats allows for pairing down the number of options to something more manageable. If your the kind of person that has spent more time on a game's character creation screen than playing the game you know what I am talking about.
Also, if death is a factor point buy has the "Shiro the paladin's twin brother Shiro the paladin" problem. Where the second character is just the first character with minor to no changes in execution, which can rip the immersion to pieces.

[MaxWilson]

Flawed characters can be fun to play. I once had a 7 INT and 3 WIS character. I absolutely wanted to abandon the character, and reroll without ever playing the PC.
I'm glad I did play that character....it was a rewarding challenge....there is a reason good actors like to portray flawed characters.

Oof! That is a hard challenge. How did you conceptualize it? For me the only thing that comes to mind is "like a giant toddler, with no sophistication and even less self-awareness." I think I'd have to make that PC a Barbarian in order to play it (Zealot is ideal), and I'd have to basically adopt another PC as a surrogate parent/authority figure in order to even have a chance at keeping my PC alive.

[Pex]

Anyway, rolling vs. point buy is very much a matter of taste and preferred playstyle.

For me what also matters is the implementation of it. For rolling 4d6b3 rearrange is ok. 3d6 in order is garbage. For point puy, Pathfinder 1E is ok. 5E is garbage. Obligatory: "ok" and "garbage" are personal opinion, not objective fact. I do have a preference for point buy now when it used to be rolling, but how either is done is what's really important to me.

[MaxWilson]

For me what also matters is the implementation of it. For rolling 4d6b3 rearrange is ok. 3d6 in order is garbage. For point puy, Pathfinder 1E is ok. 5E is garbage. Obligatory: "ok" and "garbage" are personal opinion, not objective fact. I do have a preference for point buy now when it used to be rolling, but how either is done is what's really important to me.

Aside from the rolling method itself there are also factors like "will the DM let you retire a PC you're unhappy with". My rule: you can donate your PC to me for use as an NPC, and roll up five NPCs using 3d6-in-order and donate them to me too, and then make a new PC.

Having you roll up NPCs on 3d6-in-order helps combat stat inflation by reminding you that e.g. Str 14 is not crummy, it actually does make you one of the strongest guys around! Str 14 is a big, tough-looking guy, like a bouncer in a bar, although not as big as Arnold Schwarzenegger (I'd call that closer to Str 16), strong enough to not even be slowed by chain mail and one feat away (e.g. HAM) from being not even slowed by plate armor.

3d6-in-order definitely does change how the game is played though. Stuff like Sharpshooter is less prevalent, Dueling style is more significant, blasting spells like Fireball are worth more, teamwork in some ways is more important, and multiclassing is rarer. It's somewhat grittier and lower-powered, a little more like cops-and-robbers and a little less like superhero Avengers vs. Thanos.

[Kane0]

Swapping out Con mod for something like Prof bonus when calculating HP is the easy part.

Attacks and ability checks dont really use Con so that bit can be skipped.

Saves are going to be tougher. You could move them over to Str but you may have to rename Str to counter any player dissonance, and you likely wont want to make concentration saves tied to casting stat.

So yeah, totally achievable. Would be interesting to see what the mages pick as a secondary stat between ‘Might’ or ‘Physique’ and Dex if you did it this way.

[strangebloke]

No.

Sorry, actually, I should be more clear.

It depends on the purpose of this discussion.

Is the goal to discuss Homebrew? Then No, don't get rid of CON. Homebrew is extra work. Its an extra note on a page when explaining things to your players. Its a point you're going to have to re-explain every time it comes up because your players probably play at other tables sometimes or at least discuss 5e with people who don't use your silly home-rule. Constitution may not add much to the game, but removing constitution literally adds nothing, either in simplicity or in perspicuity. Leave it as-is, its fine.

Is the goal to discuss "What should WotC do"? Then No, they shouldn't get rid of it. Its part of the legacy of the game that ties generations of players together. Call this a 'sacred cow' if you like, but the fact is that there are many cows with varying degrees of sanctity and you have to choose your battles. Getting rid of any aspect of the ability system is a very high cost for, uh.... very little reward? Once again, "CON" adds little to the game, but removing it adds almost nothing. Leave it as-is, its fine.

Is the goal to discuss "do ability scores make sense in an entirely hypothetical version of dnd that sprang out of the aether five minutes ago?" Then, uh.... still no? Con should be in the game. As it stands, CON *is* a tradeoff, and *does* act as a point of customization for a character. Its what allows you to make a warlock that's thick and meaty, or to make a fighter who's got five layers of defenses and great damage output but relatively slim HP and resistance to poison. Character optimization is not the holy grail of DND, character customization is. Being able to represent a greater breadth of designs is almost always a good thing. I often see people claim, in these discussions that

"because CON is always a third priority its always either 12 or 14 and always progresses at later levels when the main stat is maxed, so you can just scale HP to this formula and blah blah..."

And I have to ask.... do you realize that people choose not to build their characters this way? Sometimes you're playing a Fighter and you have a d10 hit die and a longbow with 300 foot range and the shield spell and you can safely dump CON to 8. Sometimes you're a melee Warlock and you really want to pump HP so you make it your secondary or primary stat. Sometimes you're big fat Goliath Barbarian and you just want as much fricking HP as you can possibly get your greasy mitts on because its hilarious. Sometimes you roll for stats and start with an 18 in con and other times you roll and have to make do with a 10. Replacing this feature with auto-scaling reduces the ability of players to choose how they want to play.

[Morty]

I think the point they were making is that you don't need an attribute score (or stuff like that) to roleplay a character as smarter then the other- if you didn't have, for example, intelligence you could still make a character good with tactics and one who isn't. If anything you got more freedom without scores.

Personally, I don't hold to using ability scores to dictate roleplay at all. They're mechanical abstractions and should be treated accordingly. Intelligence is the only one with any kind of real-world equivalent, and even then it's sketchy - there's no such thing as a single measure of "intelligence". Wisdom is a mess and charisma is a very generic "good with people" number.


That said, I like them. A game without attribute scores would probably feel weird- doesn't help that I've never even seen a rpg without them (be it a videogame, a tabletop game, etc.)

The A Song of Ice and Fire RPG doesn't use ability scores, just skills. FATE likewise doesn't use ability scores, just various aspects. Blades in the Dark does, but they're derived from skills and only serve a very specific purpose. On the video game front, Skyrim gets rid of the ability scores from previous games. Mass Effect has never used attributes and Dragon Age drops them in Inquisition. Each of them works perfectly fine. Ability scores are far less necessary than they appear to be.

[MoiMagnus]

Skills are not what I'm talking about. The ability to perceive tactical abstractions, for example, means that I'd be comfortable roleplaying an Int 15 PC as realizing that decoying away one giant with one PC (so that a 4 on 3 fight becomes a 3 on 2 fight) is in the party's favor (especially given how concentration bottlenecks application of force), and suggesting to the monk that they attempt said decoying. For an Int 7 PC I would just decide that I can't see the advantage of that tactic--Lanchester's Laws just confuse that PC, and he'd think splitting the party was "too risky" to even think hard about how things would play out.

If you remove ability scores, then skills take the role of ability scores. Everything "innate" is also expressed by skills, not just learn abilities. One or more of the skills will take the role of being able to perceive tactical abstractions. If you don't change the skill list, which is probably a bad idea since the skill list was designed assuming there was ability scores to default too when there is no adequate skill, then that's probably be the Investigation skill.

And if we're just talking about RP, just because the system doesn't use ability scores doesn't mean you cannot put in the description of your character's personality (with flaw/bonds/etc) things like "Int: low, Cha: high, Dex: low, Str: medium, etc" while other players choose to characterise their character using different axis than the traditional 6 ability scores.

If you only need ability scores for RP, then there is an argument very similar to alignment for those ability scores to be descriptive rather than prescriptive.

[Valmark]

The A Song of Ice and Fire RPG doesn't use ability scores, just skills. FATE likewise doesn't use ability scores, just various aspects. Blades in the Dark does, but they're derived from skills and only serve a very specific purpose. On the video game front, Skyrim gets rid of the ability scores from previous games. Mass Effect has never used attributes and Dragon Age drops them in Inquisition. Each of them works perfectly fine. Ability scores are far less necessary than they appear to be.

Can't speak for those I don't know, but DA:I and ME do use attributes (though ME only has one that doubled up as your personality, which is an horrible issue) while Skyrim... I guess not? It also has stuff like almost everybody punching equally regardless of their training, size and whatever so it's a better example for how not having attributes is worst.

[Dienekes]

Can't speak for those I don't know, but DA:I and ME do use attributes (though ME only has one that doubled up as your personality, which is an horrible issue) while Skyrim... I guess not? It also has stuff like almost everybody punching equally regardless of their training, size and whatever so it's a better example for how not having attributes is worst.

Eh, I’d not really call what ME has as an attribute. At least not in the context of what we’re discussing as the base statistics of a person, a measure of how strong, willful, intelligent, etc. someone is.

DA:I did though. But it was abstracted to the point of near meaninglessness. Strength did not indicate if you could break down the breakable walls, how much you could carry, or anything. It was only available to you from item pick up or from certain Warrior abilities from leveling up.

It was a weird system, but mostly all attributes did was give a quick place to look to see how far along your primary damage method was in a way that felt more flavorful than just saying “damage boost.”

Compare and contrast with a game like Divinity Original Sin where every attribute is available to every character and all of them have checks involved over the course of the game. If your character has low Int certain academic dialogue options become unavailable, because you’re dumb. If your Strength is low you can’t lift things because you’re weak. While in DA:I you could have a mage that somehow maxed out their Strength through getting a bunch of terribly unoptimal equipment buffs and they still couldn’t break down the barriers that require a warrior to break down.

[Morty]

Can't speak for those I don't know, but DA:I and ME do use attributes (though ME only has one that doubled up as your personality, which is an horrible issue) while Skyrim... I guess not? It also has stuff like almost everybody punching equally regardless of their training, size and whatever so it's a better example for how not having attributes is worst.

Paragon/Renegade isn't an attribute, it's alignment and reputation. DA:I does have attributes through skills and gear, but they're mercifully not very relevant. And while I'm not going to defend Skyrim very fervently, I'm not sure why unarmed combat of all things is a flaw. It's not like it's ever been particularly relevant in the series.

[Sneak Dog]

Disregarding combat, ability scores are useful for resolving actions. If your player performs an action, you figure out which ability score it links to and ask for that check. Your player then asks if their skill lets them add their proficiency modifier. This means skills don't have to cover everything, and there is some optimisation of approach more than 'which skill would I like to use'.

However, two ability scores stand out:
Constitution is very hard to actively roll. It's hard to actively constitutionise your way through problems, the GM will occassionally call upon it for test of endurance.
Charisma constitutes the majority of the social pillar, a pillar which is supposedly roughly as important as the exploration pillar. It is weird that one ability score dominates a whole pillar of play.

So looking at the exploration pillar, I'd say constitution can go. Then just test whatever activity you're doing as endurance test. Studying long? Intelligence. Climbing long? Strength.

[Segev]

Do we really need ability scores? They don't mean nearly as much as they used to. Dex does what strength does in most games, int, wis, and cha are poorly set up in what saving throws mean what. We could probably remove them and have proficiency scale faster and have the same effect in most games.

One thing 5e did well was re-emphasize ability checks. They are the catch-all for figuring out if you can do something. They let you have different strengths and weaknesses, even with a simplified, unified profidency bonus.

[Pex]

Personally, I don't hold to using ability scores to dictate roleplay at all. They're mechanical abstractions and should be treated accordingly. Intelligence is the only one with any kind of real-world equivalent, and even then it's sketchy - there's no such thing as a single measure of "intelligence". Wisdom is a mess and charisma is a very generic "good with people" number.



The A Song of Ice and Fire RPG doesn't use ability scores, just skills. FATE likewise doesn't use ability scores, just various aspects. Blades in the Dark does, but they're derived from skills and only serve a very specific purpose. On the video game front, Skyrim gets rid of the ability scores from previous games. Mass Effect has never used attributes and Dragon Age drops them in Inquisition. Each of them works perfectly fine. Ability scores are far less necessary than they appear to be.

You can call it anything you want, but ability scores do matter. If I want to play a strong healthy tough guy with bulging muscles then that needs to be accounted for somewhere even if the literal words "strength" and "constitution" appear absolutely nowhere in the game system. Call it "might", "perseverance", "athletics", it's somewhere. Game math matters.

[MaxWilson]

I think the point they were making is that you don't need an attribute score (or stuff like that) to roleplay a character as smarter then the other

Then they were changing the subject, because I was responding to a claim that "[ability scores] don't mean nearly as much as they used to. Dex does what strength does in most games, int, wis, and cha are poorly set up in what saving throws mean what" and illustrating what they still mean to me. Could you make something else up if you didn't have them? Sure, I guess, but why reinvent the wheel?


If you remove ability scores, then skills take the role of ability scores. Everything "innate" is also expressed by skills, not just learn abilities. One or more of the skills will take the role of being able to perceive tactical abstractions. If you don't change the skill list, which is probably a bad idea since the skill list was designed assuming there was ability scores to default too when there is no adequate skill, then that's probably be the Investigation skill.

So because you got rid of ability scores but still need them, you have to reverse engineer them from skills? Now there's no such thing as a highly intelligent school janitor, only highly intelligent PhDs? That sounds like a lossy metric. No thanks, not for me.

[Morty]

You can call it anything you want, but ability scores do matter. If I want to play a strong healthy tough guy with bulging muscles then that needs to be accounted for somewhere even if the literal words "strength" and "constitution" appear absolutely nowhere in the game system. Call it "might", "perseverance", "athletics", it's somewhere. Game math matters.

If your argument is that being able to express character traits through mechanics is important, no one has claimed otherwise at any point. But those traits might or might not be ability scores. They're not special or indispensable.

[MaxWilson]

Disregarding combat, ability scores are useful for resolving actions. If your player performs an action, you figure out which ability score it links to and ask for that check. Your player then asks if their skill lets them add their proficiency modifier. This means skills don't have to cover everything, and there is some optimisation of approach more than 'which skill would I like to use'.

However, two ability scores stand out:
Constitution is very hard to actively roll. It's hard to actively constitutionise your way through problems, the GM will occassionally call upon it for test of endurance.
Charisma constitutes the majority of the social pillar, a pillar which is supposedly roughly as important as the exploration pillar. It is weird that one ability score dominates a whole pillar of play.

So looking at the exploration pillar, I'd say constitution can go. Then just test whatever activity you're doing as endurance test. Studying long? Intelligence. Climbing long? Strength.

At minimum, Constitution is worth keeping around so people have an interesting choice between optimizing for combat (prioritizing Con) vs. optimizing for social leverage (prioritizing Cha and Wis).

See https://youtu.be/Tdz_lMt-nLw for more from the 5e designers on what the three pillars are supposed to mean. It's not what you seem to think, and the social pillar is not something that having Cha 10 makes you incapable of doing. The pillars are about "what sorts of activities will D&D players expect to be able to do?" (notice how vehicle design is not one of 5E's pillars even though in Autoduel it would be), and meeting/interacting with NPCs is one of those things.

Making them do stuff for you per se isn't a requirement of that pillar. They might just be begging you for help, or passing along rumors, or selling you equipment, or threatening you. These are all activities in the social pillar.

[Thunderous Mojo]

You can call it anything you want, but ability scores do matter. If I want to play a strong healthy tough guy with bulging muscles then that needs to be accounted for somewhere even if the literal words "strength" and "constitution" appear absolutely nowhere in the game system. Call it "might", "perseverance", "athletics", it's somewhere. Game math matters.
"Accounted" for in RPG terms doesn't necessarily limit a system to having ability scores. Pex, I'm uncertain of exactly what you mean by "Game math matters".

If you are stating that an RPG system should express a character's attributes through play options, then I agree with that sentiment.

Constitution...(the ability score), has an identity in 5e, that largely boils down to providing extra HPs.

This of course means, that a high Constitution score on a Wizard is more noticeable than on a Fighter. A Wizard having 82 Hit Points at 8th level raises more eyebrows than an 8th level Fighter having 102 Hit Points. Most of the Fighters 'toughness' is coming from their class, while the Wizard's Constitution modifier may be doubling their Hit Points from their class.

In my opinion features such as :Temp Hit Points, Divine Health, or Uncanny Dodge,(to name a few), do a better job of modeling 'toughness'.

A Paladin's body could be ravaged by a disease, yet their preternatural force of will keeps them safe, from the effects of disease, forever. It also negates the need for many Constitution Saving Throws.

A Rogue can be at ground zero for a fiery blast and take no damage, and then suffer a critical hit from a Fire Giant and take half of that damage. Evasion plus Uncanny Dodge makes every Rogue feel "Tough".

There are many Constitution Saving Throws in the game due to Poison, the Poisoned Condition, and Disease. What feels 'tougher' the character that has a high Constitution ability score, and is more likely to make saving throws...and often suffer some lesser consequences from poison and disease as a result of that success on a saving throw, or a monk that finds this all beneath them.

Fantasy, as a genre, often doesn't do 'sickly' well..see Elric and Raistlin.
Neither is actually "sickly", in practice, in their stories.

[KorvinStarmast]

So looking at the exploration pillar, I'd say constitution can go. Check the 'holding your breath' and 'drowning' and 'suffocating' rules in the PHB. CON based. :smallwink: Exploring and you have to go underwater to find out if you can get to what you are looking for ... well lookie there, CON based ability check, right?
Suffocating

A creature can hold its breath for a number of minutes equal to 1 + its Constitution modifier (minimum of 30 seconds). When a creature runs out of breath or is choking, it can survive for a number of rounds equal to its Constitution modifier (minimum of 1 round). At the start of its next turn, it drops to 0 hit points and is dying, and it can’t regain hit points or be stabilized until it can breathe again. For example, a creature with a Constitution of 14 can hold its breath for 3 minutes. If it starts suffocating, it has 2 rounds to reach air before it drops to 0 hit points.

I do think it's interesting that even though the RAW sequence is race, then class, then abilty scores, the PHB tells you how to generate ability scores first, before discussing race and class. Rolling the dice is a fun way to start playing, don't you think? :smallcool:

3d6 in order is garbage. For this edition, yes, given how much more important stats are mechanically since BX. Point buy in this edition is better than standard array, but I think it ought to be 28 or 29 points ... but we are going off topic.
Aside from the rolling method itself there are also factors like "will the DM let you retire a PC you're unhappy with". My rule: you can donate your PC to me for use as an NPC, and roll up five NPCs using 3d6-in-order and donate them to me too, and then make a new PC. :smallcool: That's a very old school approach. Seem that done at a lot of tables. Our tables have a convention: if you roll 4d6b3 and you don't even get 1 score to be 16 or higher, you can if you'd like roll the whole thing over again. My nephew had a nead approach, the aggregate +3 to +9 after rolling up .. but it's a bit more complicated.

Having you roll up NPCs on 3d6-in-order helps combat stat inflation But it isn't the numerical model the game was built on.

3d6-in-order definitely does change how the game is played though. Yes indeed. PC's will be warier if they want to live, and CON 5 PCs can wander off into the sunset before they leave the tavern. :smallcool:


No.

And I have to ask.... do you realize that people choose not to build their characters this way? Apparently not. ON a board full of optimizers, or at least where optimization is the most common basis for discussion, decisions like the kind you refer to are assumed away with some frequency. Observation of over 5 years of reading here.

Personally, I don't hold to using ability scores to dictate roleplay at all. They're mechanical abstractions .. that help to inform, and modify, the RNG used for "what happens when I try to do this" and a roll is called for. I also agree that using ability scores to dictate role play isn't the way to go. It can inform how one views the character. My Charisma 9 Cleric would now and again be the party face, because some things got her attention and she had goals and aims. Was she as successful at it as the bard? Sometimes yes, more often times no, and it really helped if when she tried that she got 'help' from the bard or another character also engaging ... and sometimes no roll was needed.

[strangebloke]

Apparently not. ON a board full of optimizers, or at least where optimization is the most common basis for discussion, decisions like the kind you refer to are assumed away with some frequency. Observation of over 5 years of reading here.

I've been here even longer and let me tell you, nothing has changed.

It's particularly humorous with respect to CON/HP specifically because whenever the topic comes up everyone always says that "the same statline gets used for CON every time" but if you actually ask people what they put in CON you'll get answers ranging from 10 to 16!


.. that help to inform, and modify, the RNG used for "what happens when I try to do this" and a roll is called for. I also agree that using ability scores to dictate role play isn't the way to go. It can inform how one views the character. My Charisma 9 Cleric would now and again be the party face, because some things got her attention and she had goals and aims. Was she as successful at it as the bard? Sometimes yes, more often times no, and it really helped if when she tried that she got 'help' from the bard or another character also engaging ... and sometimes no roll was needed.

Yup. At the end of the day, the question is "what do you want your character to be effective at?" Most people want their PC to be universally omnicompetent, and the rules exist to force people to play nice.

[Pex]

"Accounted" for in RPG terms doesn't necessarily limit a system to having ability scores. Pex, I'm uncertain of exactly what you mean by "Game math matters".

If you are stating that an RPG system should express a character's attributes through play options, then I agree with that sentiment.

Constitution...(the ability score), has an identity in 5e, that largely boils down to providing extra HPs.

This of course means, that a high Constitution score on a Wizard is more noticeable than on a Fighter. A Wizard having 82 Hit Points at 8th level raises more eyebrows than an 8th level Fighter having 102 Hit Points. Most of the Fighters 'toughness' is coming from their class, while the Wizard's Constitution modifier may be doubling their Hit Points from their class.

In my opinion features such as :Temp Hit Points, Divine Health, or Uncanny Dodge,(to name a few), do a better job of modeling 'toughness'.

A Paladin's body could be ravaged by a disease, yet their preternatural force of will keeps them safe, from the effects of disease, forever. It also negates the need for many Constitution Saving Throws.

A Rogue can be at ground zero for a fiery blast and take no damage, and then suffer a critical hit from a Fire Giant and take half of that damage. Evasion plus Uncanny Dodge makes every Rogue feel "Tough".

There are many Constitution Saving Throws in the game due to Poison, the Poisoned Condition, and Disease. What feels 'tougher' the character that has a high Constitution ability score, and is more likely to make saving throws...and often suffer some lesser consequences from poison and disease as a result of that success on a saving throw, or a monk that finds this all beneath them.

Fantasy, as a genre, often doesn't do 'sickly' well..see Elric and Raistlin.
Neither is actually "sickly", in practice, in their stories.

The point is you can't separate the game math from roleplaying concerns. D&D does separate some of it, such as personality though it used to matter more vis-a-vis alignment and magic affecting such. Point Buy games like GURPS quantify everything including personality where having particular traits costs build points or give you bonus build points and then you must roleplay those choices. There are no D&D police to stop me saying my spellcaster is built like John Cena, but if I don't have physical attributes to back it up it's meaningless. "Strength" and "Constitution" are labels. You can change what they're called, but they still need to exist. The skills of 5E are specializations of the general ability scores to help determine whether you roll with the proficiency bonus or not for specific cases.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yup. At the end of the day, the question is "what do you want your character to be effective at?" I prefer to couch that question as "What contribution to the team do you want to be your PCs primary and secondary role?" but that's just me. Your point is a good one. But I also take it back to what they meant by "role play" and more specifically "roles" in the game: it wasn't acting or making a funny voice.

Before they begin, players must decide what role they will play in the campaign, human or otherwise, fighter, cleric, or magic-user. Thereafter they will work upwards — if they survive — as they gain "experience". First, however, it is necessary to describe fully the roles possible. That's the first mention of 'roles' in D&D published material, though I am sure that in notes and various correspondence it had cropped up before.

Someone pointed out to me elsewhere that the term 'role playing' game was appended to D&D in a published book only with the issuance of Greyhawk. (Near the end).

DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Collector's Edition — The original game of swords and sorcery role-playing with
paper and pencil, in its original formal. This is the game that started it all! Three booklets, boxed Not sure if that was in first printing Greyhawk, I think my book might be a second printing...

It was more 'role fulfillment' in the same way as a Spec Ops A Team is built. I need this expertise here, and that skill there, etc. In that sense, 'role' = 'class' originally.

Over time, what we all mean by the term roleplaying has changed considerably, to the point where D&D 4e codified it into Controller, Striker, etc.

There are no D&D police to stop me saying my spellcaster is built like John Cena, but if I don't have physical attributes to back it up it's meaningless. "Strength" and "Constitution" are labels. You can change what they're called, but they still need to exist. The skills of 5E are specializations of the general ability scores to help determine whether you roll with the proficiency bonus or not for specific cases. Good points, and yes to your whole post.

[DwarfFighter]

I think it is time to remove the Constitution ability score, and just combine Strength and Constitution under one ability score.

You can do that.

-DF

[BoringInfoGuy]

I think it is time to remove the Constitution ability score, and just combine Strength and Constitution under one ability score.

We all know that in real life, the best marathon runners are also the best weight lifters. :p

[MoiMagnus]

We all know that in real life, the best marathon runners are also the best weight lifters. :p

Sleight of hand doesn't have a lot in common with Acrobatics, and some games even split Dexterity into Dexterity and Agility. It would not be the first ability score to contain things that are not correlated IRL.

If you merge Strength and Constitution, you just need to add the Endurance (Strength) skill, and now you are able to differentiate weight lifters from marathon runners depending on which one has expertise in Athletics and which one has expertise in Endurance.

[Willie the Duck]

We all know that in real life, the best marathon runners are also the best weight lifters. :p

Sure, but what about the D&D constitution score makes it good at representing marathon runners (also: 5e very deliberately does not do well at representing weight lifters)? For that matter, are marathon runners enough of an established fantasy motif that an attribute needs to be preserve an (arguably, but that's the point of the thread) vestigial attribute in order to be able to keep said motif distinct from the weightlifters.

That last part is an honest question. I'm wondering if (assuming we keep concentration checks tied to Con as it is subsumed into this theoretical Brawn attribute) having all the spellcasters put Brawn as their new 2nd highest stat is going to disrupt anyone's verisimilitude.

[Dienekes]

We all know that in real life, the best marathon runners are also the best weight lifters. :p

In fairness here, being the strongest weight lifter also isn’t the best swordsman. Neither is the best acrobat the best archer. Schwarzenegger had to lose strength and muscle mass in order to even do some of the sword movements required of him in Conan. And a lot of great archers are squat kinda chubby people.

D&D is incredibly bad at modeling life. Really what matters is if the change better represents the fantasy the game is trying to create. Which I’m on the fence about whether combining Strength and Constitution is.

[diplomancer]

That last part is an honest question. I'm wondering if (assuming we keep concentration checks tied to Con as it is subsumed into this theoretical Brawn attribute) having all the spellcasters put Brawn as their new 2nd highest stat is going to disrupt anyone's verisimilitude.

Yeah, this is the main problem I have with this suggestion; move Con to Str, while keeping concentration saves there, and now all casters are beefy guys. It also disproportionaly increases the value of a 1 level dip for heavy armor.

[KorvinStarmast]

For the OP:

Deming has a term for what you are proposing.
It is called tampering. The connotation is that it is not constructive.

If what you envision is a game system without Constitution, then it needs to be in the next version. Its existence is baked into this version.
Once you do remove it, you need to overhaul the other abilities and/or descriptives so that there is an accomodation of what Constitution does do. Don't leave holes behind you.

What you are proposing is "Hey, that winglet on the Airbus 320 looks funny. It's not really providing the major lift from the wing, so go ahead and remove it ... because I think it doesn't look right"

@diplomancer: the OP's dismissal of ripple effects is a part of what makes this unproductive.

[Thunderous Mojo]

For the OP:
Deming has a term for what you are proposing.
It is called tampering. The connotation is that it is not constructive.
The difference between labeling something as "modifying" versus "tampering" depends upon the position of the viewer.

Korvin, you seem to be reacting to the original question, and subsequent discussion as if it is a threatening creature. Of all the ability scores, Constitution handles game features that can be characterized as "backstage details"...a Constitution check to not receive a level of Exhaustion during a foot Chase, or during a forced march, a System Shock test in AD&D, etc, etc.

Thematically, I'm not sure why Concentration checks for spellcasters fall under a Constitution Saving Throw to begin with. Yes, it is a nod to the Concentration Skill of 3e, but does such a nod make 5e better?


@diplomancer: the OP's dismissal of ripple effects is a part of what makes this unproductive.
Firstly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c 😉
Secondly: I've spent most of this thread offering ideas about how to add things to Constitution. I posed a question. A question, I might add, that I myself have reached no final conclusion.

I've found the debate and viewpoints offered stimulating and thought provoking, I'm sorry you have not...hopefully the next thread you read will feel 'productive'🍻

[Dienekes]

Don't worry about it, Thunderous Mojo, there are certain people on the board who have a knee jerk reaction to changing just about anything, except the things they think are a problem. You get used to it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Of all the ability scores, Constitution handles game features that can be characterized as "backstage details"...a Constitution check to not receive a level of Exhaustion during a foot Chase, or during a forced march, a System Shock test in AD&D, etc, etc.

Thematically, I'm not sure why Concentration checks for spellcasters fall under a Constitution Saving Throw to begin with. You don't understand why (either you didn't get a memo, the devs never bothered to explain it, you missed the play test) and therefore there's something wrong, and "get rid of constitution" is the proposed solution?
No, it isn't.
(Yes I get it, you are inviting a brain storming session).

Here's an idea: its implementation was a move towards simplicity. CON was there, they were not going to change the ability score line up because they were attempting to unify the player base (there is a financial reason to do that, yes?) and to make a universal, easy to grasp tool that was already right there, that ability Score was chosen.
(If you look at how over subscribed Charisma and Dexterity are, and Wisdom, spreading the demands to other ability scores makes a certain sort of sense if you are also changing saving throws to be tagged to each ability score. 3.x only had three: Reflex, Fortitude, Wil).
Why'd they do that, then? I think I see a scheme here: so that each ability score 'participates'.

If you go back to core, though, INT saves were an uneven participant while INT Skill Checks were in abundance. CON saves are common, and CON based checks are not that common (I mentioned a few further up).

I am very familiar with the system shock and resurrection chance to survive - the majority of my playing time, and DMing time, was in AD&D 1e. Still, with the nice amount of 5e I have gotten to play.

They were fine for those editions. Why WoTC chose not to keep them is water under the bridge - my guess is that it was one of those fiddly bits that they were trying to remove, to make the game simpler. (with mixed success, and we in the gaming community can overcomplicate things with great aplomb).

"Simpler" is in the eye of the beholder.

And as an aside, I really like what 13th Age did with the three different kinds of defenses that combined various ability scores - different from 3.x but it makes intuitive sense to me.

Should Constitution be excised from the game?
No, not in this edition.
In 6th?
I don't see why not. Just build it from the bottom up not to be there.

Dienekes: in response to your snarky comment, bad home brew comes from bad ideas that are not fully thought through. (Like the OP's "question").
I've experienced, and implemented, bad home brew in each edition I've played.

[KorvinStarmast]

Whereas I've never known anyone actually roll for stats in 5E What a curious experience base you have.

Let me describe to you how I got back into the RPG hobby, and specifically D&D 5e, after a decade off.

Brother calls me on the phone, and during the conversation tells me 'Hey, a few of us who played {some on line game} together are going to try out the new D&D version. I know you sold your 3.5 books a while back and didn't try 4e with me and {nephew}; you won't have to be the DM."

Note that without that last sentence you'd never have met KorvinStarmast.
I had many years of "K is the DM" and I wasn't interested in having to learn a whole new edition to do that.

So I said "OK, has the party already formed?" and he said "Yes" and I asked: "What does the party need?" I rememberd a lot of parties where nobody wanted to play the cleric, and sure enough, here we go again. No cleric. So I volunteered to play the cleric.

Got the invite to the roll20 game (we are scattered all over the country, both coasts, Chicago, Texas, etc) and I roll up 4d6d1. I realize that I can place the attributes wherever I want to so I put the highest score in Wisdom, and so on. DM did not allow feats, and no vHuman. I decided that for me, simple was better.

Normal Human, Life Cleric, and off we go. He died a horrible death, I rolled up a new character (Tempest Cleric this time) and off we went ... until the campaign died due to DM RL scheduling issues.

About half of the groups I have played with roll for scores and about half use point buy.
(I detest the standard array, separate issue).

In the one shots I've played - and in play tests - it's always been point buy.

[Darth Credence]

For the OP:

Deming has a term for what you are proposing.
It is called tampering. The connotation is that it is not constructive.

Correct that tampering is not constructive, but I'm not sure that tampering fits here. I'm not sure that Deming has a term that fits this well.
I can see what you mean by the term, and I'm with you on the general gist of it. I just can't quite reconcile wanting to remove an ability type as an incident of changing in reaction to something that statistically shouldn't be changed. The likelihood of unintended consequences from making the change fits, though.


The difference between labeling something as "modifying" versus "tampering" depends upon the position of the viewer.


This is absolutely wrong. Tampering is making a change as though something were special cause variation when it is actually common cause variation. It can be objectively determined if someone is tampering or reacting correctly.

[KorvinStarmast]

The likelihood of unintended consequences from making the change fits, though. The ripple effect is most of what I had in mind, nice job of pointing me to a cleaner way of expressing that. :smallsmile:

[strangebloke]

The difference between labeling something as "modifying" versus "tampering" depends upon the position of the viewer.

Korvin, you seem to be reacting to the original question, and subsequent discussion as if it is a threatening creature. Of all the ability scores, Constitution handles game features that can be characterized as "backstage details"...a Constitution check to not receive a level of Exhaustion during a foot Chase, or during a forced march, a System Shock test in AD&D, etc, etc.

Thematically, I'm not sure why Concentration checks for spellcasters fall under a Constitution Saving Throw to begin with. Yes, it is a nod to the Concentration Skill of 3e, but does such a nod make 5e better?

Bluntly, you are not engaging with his point.

Lets go over what needs to be changed if you get rid of CON in 5e:

Point buy
HP progression
Concentration saves
Every spell that references CON (being one of the most common saves)
Every class that has CON saving throw proficiency
The manner in which spells are balanced based around which saves are considered 'common' and which are not.
Every ability that references CON
CON ability checks, which do exist no matter how much people pretend that they don't.


To change all the above you would need a long google doc to spell out every single one of these changes. Your players won't read the google doc, however, and won't remember it even if they do, so be prepared for lots of repeat questions along the lines of "What is Heat Metal's saving throw again????" Your players are not as invested in your homebrew as you are.

All this work.... for what?

Simplicity?

Do you not see that the above solution is far more complex? 5e is not the best roleplaying system on the market, almost ever, but it has the singular virtue of being a VERY widely accepted system where you can easily find players already familiar with the rules. Choosing to teach them NEW rules you made up is the opposite of simplicity.

And when all is said and done, not only is nothing gained, but something would be lost. Character Customization. The ability to prioritize hardiness over DPR, and the ability to prioritize versatility over hardiness. My 18 CON, 14 WIS Goliath Cleric wouldn't be able to exist here. You might say that I'm silly for playing such a character, but if I had a fun time and a memorable experience, am I really wrong? Should that not be in the game?

[quinron]

Sure, but what about the D&D constitution score makes it good at representing marathon runners (also: 5e very deliberately does not do well at representing weight lifters)? For that matter, are marathon runners enough of an established fantasy motif that an attribute needs to be preserve an (arguably, but that's the point of the thread) vestigial attribute in order to be able to keep said motif distinct from the weightlifters.

That last part is an honest question. I'm wondering if (assuming we keep concentration checks tied to Con as it is subsumed into this theoretical Brawn attribute) having all the spellcasters put Brawn as their new 2nd highest stat is going to disrupt anyone's verisimilitude.


Yeah, this is the main problem I have with this suggestion; move Con to Str, while keeping concentration saves there, and now all casters are beefy guys. It also disproportionaly increases the value of a 1 level dip for heavy armor.

My immersion's already pretty damaged with Constitution. The wizard who's supposed to have sacrificed his physical fitness for the sake of knowledge is as capable or moreso than the fighter of surviving a poisoning or staving off physical exhaustion.

[strangebloke]

My immersion's already pretty damaged with Constitution. The wizard who's supposed to have sacrificed his physical fitness for the sake of knowledge is as capable or moreso than the fighter of surviving a poisoning or staving off physical exhaustion.

That never happens because Fighters have default CON saves and d10 hit die instead of d6. If a wizard has 18 CON and a fighter has 14, the fighter will still have more HP on average throughout his whole career, and will have better CON saves after level five.

And, you know, if the wizard does invest 4-6 more points in CON, I'm okay with him equaling the fighter in that area?

Besides which your argument makes no sense. This problem only gets worse if you integrate CON saves into STR.

[JoeJ]

My immersion's already pretty damaged with Constitution. The wizard who's supposed to have sacrificed his physical fitness for the sake of knowledge is as capable or moreso than the fighter of surviving a poisoning or staving off physical exhaustion.

You're seriously running into characters with high CON and that backstory?

[YoungestGruff]

I'd almost go the other way and just make all attack rolls and spell DCs independent of ability scores, so there's less pressure to maximize your primary ability score.

Apropos of not the conversation, but this is a great idea for cutting the RP/Powergamer divide in half.

[Segev]

What does Constitution hurt by being in the game? Alternately, by being what it is? Is the goal to reduce the number of stats? To make room for more without increasing the number? To have all stats be "active?"

Depending on the goal, removing Constitution is a great idea or counterproductive.

[Jerrykhor]

Constitution has done nothing wrong, it is innocent!

Seriously though, it is here to stay. Replace it with Strength, and the next thread will be 'Why is every wizard a muscle wizard?'

And i dont agree that Constitution has no skills tied to it. DMs can call for alternate skill checks, which can be Athletics (Constitution).

[Morty]

The "muscle wizard" problem, be it with constitution as it is or a merged strength/constitution stat, would be to give wizards more incentive to invest in other attributes. Since as it is, they only really need intelligence and are free to use constitution to make up for their d6 hit die and no armor. But something tells me that wouldn't go over any better than any changes to constitution.

[Segev]

The "muscle wizard" problem, be it with constitution as it is or a merged strength/constitution stat, would be to give wizards more incentive to invest in other attributes. Since as it is, they only really need intelligence and are free to use constitution to make up for their d6 hit die and no armor. But something tells me that wouldn't go over any better than any changes to constitution.

Not saying the goal here is good, bad, or (un)desirable, but simply taking it as the optimization goal, this approach won't encourage more investment in anything. Let me paraphrase your own statement to illustrate what somebody from the hypothetical world where Con has been merged with Strength would be saying: "Since wizards only really need intelligence, they are free to use strength to make up for their d6 hit die and no armor." The only attribute this change incentivizes them to invest in is the Constitution-replacement. As Jerrykhor noted, it would just make people ask, "Why are wizards so buff?"

[Willie the Duck]

The 'muscle wizard' problem goes away by not tying concentration to Con or its replacement. If concentration was based on casting stat (or maybe free-floating, like death saves, or not using the save mechanic at all), then a wizard's second highest stat would probably default to Dex (or Wis, if Perception and Wis saves are super-important). Which again is a reasonable argument for potentially removing Con in the next edition, but is part of that long list of house rules and changes that this change would make for this edition.

[Segev]

The 'muscle wizard' problem goes away by not tying concentration to Con or its replacement. If concentration was based on casting stat (or maybe free-floating, like death saves, or not using the save mechanic at all), then a wizard's second highest stat would probably default to Dex (or Wis, if Perception and Wis saves are super-important). Which again is a reasonable argument for potentially removing Con in the next edition, but is part of that long list of house rules and changes that this change would make for this edition.

Which, again, doesn't seem to promote "branching out" to other stats. Just changing the default secondary one. All I'm saying is that removing Constitution doesn't achieve the goal of encouraging wizards to branch out in their stat selections. It only encourages them to focus on a different - but still the same across the board - secondary stat.

[MoiMagnus]

Since it doesn't seems to have been said before, if you remove constitution, you also remove a 12 or 13 from the standard array (or 4 to 5 points in point-buy). You still have an 8 and a 10 you have to put somewhere (similar problem arise with point-buy, you can't be good at everything).

Ignoring multiclassing (because dipping into another class to get heavy armour would allow for the Wizard to dump Dex without too many drawbacks), this mean that the Wizard have no longer an easy choice for their two dump stats.

While I'm not sure removing merging constitution with strength is the way to go, I do appreciate the side effect of strength being actually useful to a spellcaster (outside of carrying loot or running fast), as I don't like when an ability score is an "obvious dump".

[Cikomyr2]

It's an interesting thing to think about; removing constitution from the game.

Any argument that "oh it's the legacy of.." is kind of silly, in my opinion. the way constitution is used nowaday is so different than it was used pre-3e.

At the time, only extremely high constitution gave you any tangible bonus to anything, like regeneration or more hit points. when you had "normal-ass" constitution, Con would basically change the % chance of you would fail a resurrection, and your con score would determine how many times your character would be allowed to be brought back from the death (any time you are resurrected you'd lose 1 Con). I can't remember if your saving throw against poison would get bonuses because of high constitution, but I know the number you usually had to reach was a flat number.

Starting in 3e, you had this idea of "bonus hit point per level based on your con modifier", and the "fortitude" save being catch-all term for physical resistance against effects that just impact you.

I don't think there would be *much* loss if con was removed from the game. Here's how I would do it:

- Remove all bonus hp/level for all characters. That means your class selection is a lot more important. That means the Hill Dwarf +1hp/level is a lot more powerful.
- Because everyone (even monsters) are a lot frailer, remove all stat-based damage boost to weapon attacks and damage. The consequence is that anything that boost damage in a flat way (magic ability, fighting style, etc..) suddenly are a lot more powerful.

I am unsure if we should also negate the abilities of spellcaster class features to add their casting modifier to damage when they earn it (like Warlock's Agonizing blast, or the Cleric's empowered cantrips). In one way, it makes these character a lot more powerful. But do we really need casters to be more powerful?

Finally, move all Constitution saving throws to now be Strenght saving throw. I currently dislike how Dex is THE physical Stat that gives you bonus to AC, initiative, the best saving throw. If you make Strenght the saving throw against poison, I feel it's still thematic, and make Str-based fighter a bit less gimped by comparison.

You may end up with a group of frailer heroes, in a world that is overall also more frail, but big buff fighters also happen to be tougher against poisons and Con-based challenges.

[Dienekes]

Which, again, doesn't seem to promote "branching out" to other stats. Just changing the default secondary one. All I'm saying is that removing Constitution doesn't achieve the goal of encouraging wizards to branch out in their stat selections. It only encourages them to focus on a different - but still the same across the board - secondary stat.

I think this is pretty much the natural result of having a single primary stat then only really having to worry about defenses. Unless all the defenses are equally useful then one will float to the top and that becomes the main secondary stat.

But really dealing with it requires less removing or combining stats and more taking the effort to make the classes all have different builds that focus on different secondary stats.

Let's say, for example, Offensive Touch spells required actually grabbing on to your target. Then suddenly the Touch Spell Focused Wizard wants Strength. If higher Wisdom allowed them to concentrate on spells a little better then Concentration builds would want Wisdom. Or Bladesinger requiring Dex to fuel some of their abilities would make Bladesinger Wizards focus Dex as a secondary.

But this does require a rewrite of -at minimum- the Subclass system. Which is not necessarily a bad thing since a lot of subclasses are honestly pretty simplistic and kinda dull. But it would be a bit of work.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Note: posts edited..used snippets..just an FYI..Thanks!


Lets go over what needs to be changed if you get rid of CON in 5e:

Point buy
HP progression
Concentration saves
Every spell that references CON (being one of the most common saves)
Every class that has CON saving throw proficiency
The manner in which spells are balanced based around which saves are considered 'common' and which are not.
Every ability that references CON
CON ability checks, which do exist no matter how much people pretend that they don't.

All of this is surmountable, just see this:


- Remove all bonus hp/level for all characters. That means your class selection is a lot more important. That means the Hill Dwarf +1hp/level is a lot more powerful.
- Because everyone (even monsters) are a lot frailer, ...... The consequence is that anything that boost damage in a flat way (magic ability, fighting style, etc..) suddenly are a lot more powerful.
And also this:

Finally, move all Constitution saving throws to now be Strenght saving throw. I currently dislike how Dex is THE physical Stat that gives you bonus to AC, initiative, the best saving throw. If you make Strenght the saving throw against poison, I feel it's still thematic, and make Str-based fighter a bit less gimped by comparison.

You may end up with a group of frailer heroes, in a world that is overall also more frail, but big buff fighters also happen to be tougher against poisons and Con-based challenges.


And i dont agree that Constitution has no skills tied to it. DMs can call for alternate skill checks, which can be Athletics (Constitution).
I myself, (as a DM), am a prodigious user of alternate skill checks. Disregarding contrived scenarios, how many times has a Constitution: Performance been necessary? Is it really much more than a handful? Endurance as a D&D concept has limited application in regards to some skills.

You're seriously running into characters with high CON and that backstory?
The ability scores of D&D do not just represent inborn talent, but also represent ongoing training. An 18 Constitution is a result of training. Effort and time are required to build Physical Endurance, (if we are being realistic).

An 18 Intelligence and 18 Constitution lifestyle would be a very regimented lifestyle, indeed!😀

In a rolled stats/hit points game that I am the DM for, the Wizard rolled two 18's and placed them in Int and Con. That same player then proceeded to roll near Maximum Hit Points until level 8. Based off my notes, the character had 81 Hit Points, at 8th level.

It's cool, but having a bunch o' Hit Points, is not a substitution for personality,(wether the creature be monster or PC).

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd almost go the other way and just make all attack rolls and spell DCs independent of ability scores, so there's less pressure to maximize your primary ability score. Welcome to the year 1974, Dungeons and Dragons, Original three books, Men and Magic.

(But you did get a +1 to missile attacks if your dexterity was above 12; that stat was not a prime stat for any of the original three classes which were Magic User, Wizard, Cleric

What does Constitution hurt by being in the game? Alternately, by being what it is? Is the goal to reduce the number of stats? To make room for more without increasing the number? To have all stats be "active?" It looks a lot like the CRPG character building mindset.

[quinron]

You're seriously running into characters with high CON and that backstory?

Not that backstory specifically, but I've had multiple players go with the standard "cloistered scholar" backstory played as stereotypical wizards, but with 14-15 Con. The book tells you to make a wizard that way.


That never happens because Fighters have default CON saves and d10 hit die instead of d6. If a wizard has 18 CON and a fighter has 14, the fighter will still have more HP on average throughout his whole career, and will have better CON saves after level five.

And, you know, if the wizard does invest 4-6 more points in CON, I'm okay with him equaling the fighter in that area?

Besides which your argument makes no sense. This problem only gets worse if you integrate CON saves into STR.

It's not about the HP or even necessarily the saves, it's about the checks. Con is the score most likely to use an unskilled check because it doesn't have any associated skills. And I'm not advocating for blending of Con and Str, I'm saying that the fact that all spellcasters (save bards) are incentivized to make Con their second priority and there's basically no downside to doing so doesn't jibe with the idea of a frail, "squishy" caster.

A fight who makes Con their secondary stat is sacrificing either Str or Dex, either of which is probably going to be an important stat for them. A paladin who does so sacrifices Charisma, a ranger sacrifices Str/Dex AND Wis. A wizard, sorcerer, warlock, or druid isn't giving up any ability related to their class features. So a spellcaster being the toughest guy on the team makes as much or more sense than a non-barbarian warrior class.

I don't even know that I agree with any of the OP's ideas, at least for D&D, but they've gotten me thinking about game design and weird incentives.

[strangebloke]

It's not about the HP or even necessarily the saves, it's about the checks. Con is the score most likely to use an unskilled check because it doesn't have any associated skills. And I'm not advocating for blending of Con and Str, I'm saying that the fact that all spellcasters (save bards) are incentivized to make Con their second priority and there's basically no downside to doing so doesn't jibe with the idea of a frail, "squishy" caster.

A fight who makes Con their secondary stat is sacrificing either Str or Dex, either of which is probably going to be an important stat for them. A paladin who does so sacrifices Charisma, a ranger sacrifices Str/Dex AND Wis. A wizard, sorcerer, warlock, or druid isn't giving up any ability related to their class features. So a spellcaster being the toughest guy on the team makes as much or more sense than a non-barbarian warrior class.

I don't even know that I agree with any of the OP's ideas, at least for D&D, but they've gotten me thinking about game design and weird incentives.

Con checks are far rarer than HP or Con saves so I don't really see the issue.

And Joe's point is correct, you realize. If someone is saying they're a frail cloistered scholar and has 16 CON and 16 DEX, that's kind of a flaw of their roleplaying.

But this is all a discussion that is IMO only tangentially related to CON. The bigger issue IMO is how useless mental stats are if you don't have class features that are based off them.

[KorvinStarmast]

But this does require a rewrite of -at minimum- the Subclass system. Which is not necessarily a bad thing since a lot of subclasses are honestly pretty simplistic and kinda dull. But it would be a bit of work. Which takes me back to page 1, and my first responses, which is "an idea for the next edition"
That, one can reasonably forecast, will keep some bits of this edition, discard others (and your subclass point may be one such element in need of revision, or, just 'Do It Better!') but it also allows for this idea that has been embraced by a number of other game systems.

Fewer ability scores, not more.
The DW games I played had fewer attributes.
No few of the CRPGs distilled the number of attributes down to 4.
Heck, Empire of the Petal Throne had a different but related system (1975 ish, a D&D off shoot) whose ability scores included one call Psychic Power (it was a spell casting stat) and IIRC we didn't have Wisdom (I need to go and dig that up, been years, book's in a box somewhere).

As an example for what the OP may want to see :

Combine Wis and Int into one mental, or spell casting, stat.
Combine Str and Con into another stat
Dex we can probably leave alone.
Something for personality and persuasive, deceptive power / people skills since that aspect of the game needs to remain. (What Charisma currently represents).

Four stats, call them names that fit, and Bob's your uncle.
But build it that way from the bottom up. Don't mess with the winglet.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Welcome to the year 1974, Dungeons and Dragons, Original three books, Men and Magic.
This is why you are the Grandfather of Grognards, with over 3 million XP on your character sheet! 😁

A true Grognard is someone that was gaming..(war gaming), before the 1980's. The Original OG D&D!

Out of curiosity, where you in the Midwest in the Seventies?


(Also Alternatively, you can be the Grand Master of Flowers)

[KorvinStarmast]

This is why you are the Grandfather of Grognards, with over 3 million XP on your character sheet! 😁

A true Grognard is someone that was gaming..(war gaming), before the 1980's. Out of curiosity, where you in the Midwest in the Seventies? No, I didn't start until 1975 in Virginia. A friend from Wisconsin (originally) was my first dungeon master.
We had no idea that Strategic Review existed (I didn't see that until college), since the hobby store where we bought D&D stuff (there was only one anywhere near to where I lived) didn't have it.

We were juniors and seniors in high school. Unlike some people who played the game early, we were not associated with any society or gaming group in the region. All of us did, however, play chess, diplomacy, and board games from Avalon Hill and SPI. And most of us were on the soccer team. I played in a very few games without the Greyhawk supplement; that was run by the first DM in our group who got the game before Greyhawk was available locally. All weapons did 1d6 damage. I recall my Fighting Man dying thanks to an ocre jelly being in or near one of the treasure chests we had found.
(Also Alternatively, you can be the Grand Master of Flowers) Yeah, but I'd have to beat someone up to do that. :smallcool: The current Grand Master of Flowers.
If he lays that quivering palm on me I might be toast!!!!!!

[quinron]

But this is all a discussion that is IMO only tangentially related to CON. The bigger issue IMO is how useless mental stats are if you don't have class features that are based off them.

Agreed - my issue is less that supposedly frailer caster classes are incentivized toward Con and more that none of them (except maybe melee clerics) have any compelling reason to put their 2nd-highest score in a different ability. Con feels like it's supposed to be a real tradeoff ability, but these classes aren't trading anything away for it, or at least not anything of equal value.

[JoeJ]

Not that backstory specifically, but I've had multiple players go with the standard "cloistered scholar" backstory played as stereotypical wizards, but with 14-15 Con. The book tells you to make a wizard that way.

The book doesn't tell you to describe your wizard as having "sacrificed his physical fitness for the sake of knowledge," it just recommends the sage background for the quick build, and there's nothing that says a sage can't also be a health nut.

As a DM, when I see a character like that I'll make some comment like "Wow. Your character must have been on the track team at wizard school," just so I know the player is thinking about making their description and backstory fit their ability scores.

[quinron]

The book doesn't tell you to describe your wizard as having "sacrificed his physical fitness for the sake of knowledge," it just recommends the sage background for the quick build, and there's nothing that says a sage can't also be a health nut.

As a DM, when I see a character like that I'll make some comment like "Wow. Your character must have been on the track team at wizard school," just so I know the player is thinking about making their description and backstory fit their ability scores.

Fair enough. I'm just extrapolating that implication from the lower hit dice. My complaint in that regard is that the book basically penalizes the wizard in terms of HP (which feels alright to me), but it also suggests that you array your scores to mitigate that penalty. Just feels like weird design to me.

Frankly, a lot of my more esoteric complaints about designer intent would go away if they didn't have ability score suggestions in those Quick Build paragraphs.

[KorvinStarmast]

FFrankly, a lot of my more esoteric complaints about designer intent would go away if they didn't have ability score suggestions in those Quick Build paragraphs. Those quick builds are for new players. A key design aim of this edition was to be newbie friendly. Those Quick Builds are very newbie friendly. I am glad they stuck them in there, it makes chargen for new players go A Lot Faster; and as a DM, it provides me with a point of departure as they bring questions to me during Chargen ...

[Amdy_vill]

Constitution is a passive ability score. With very few exceptions, no skills are related to it, few powers use the ability to generate DCs, and the only aspect the ability directly influences are Hit Points and the occasional Saving Throw.

While I like Death Saving Throws, having an ability like Constitution that only sees limited use, is a game modality that can be eliminated completely.

I think it is time to remove the Constitution ability score, and just combine Strength and Constitution under one ability score.


most of cons uselessness was caused by the removal skills and systems from earlier editions I feel con should just have some of its systems and idea returned as well as having some new system made for it

[Cikomyr2]

most of cons uselessness was caused by the removal skills and systems from earlier editions I feel con should just have some of its systems and idea returned as well as having some new system made for it

Let's be honest. There wasn't much skills with Con in previous editions earlier. I just checked 3e, 3.5e, Pathfinder and Pathfinder 2e, and I think I saw about 3 skills based on constitution in all 4 editions.

And one of them is Concentration, which had been repurposed as saving throws in 5e.

[Dienekes]

Which takes me back to page 1, and my first responses, which is "an idea for the next edition"
That, one can reasonably forecast, will keep some bits of this edition, discard others (and your subclass point may be one such element in need of revision, or, just 'Do It Better!') but it also allows for this idea that has been embraced by a number of other game systems.

Fewer ability scores, not more.
The DW games I played had fewer attributes.
No few of the CRPGs distilled the number of attributes down to 4.
Heck, Empire of the Petal Throne had a different but related system (1975 ish, a D&D off shoot) whose ability scores included one call Psychic Power (it was a spell casting stat) and IIRC we didn't have Wisdom (I need to go and dig that up, been years, book's in a box somewhere).

As an example for what the OP may want to see :

Combine Wis and Int into one mental, or spell casting, stat.
Combine Str and Con into another stat
Dex we can probably leave alone.
Something for personality and persuasive, deceptive power / people skills since that aspect of the game needs to remain. (What Charisma currently represents).

Four stats, call them names that fit, and Bob's your uncle.
But build it that way from the bottom up. Don't mess with the winglet.

Here's where our disagreement comes. I value "messing with the winglet." Picking it apart, seeing where it breaks, discussing where it goes wrong, meddling, rebuilding it and messing with it again. All of that I find greatly useful. And if someone makes it work in a 5e variant rules that isn't quite a whole new edition. That's great. That should be encouraged. And if it doesn't, well it's neat that things were tried. And now we learn how it won't work.

But shutting it down with "you're tampering in what should not be tampered" isn't constructive, it's dismissive.

[JoeJ]

But shutting it down with "you're tampering in what should not be tampered" isn't constructive, it's dismissive.

And just as soon as I've completed my masterwork, I'll show those fools who dared call me mad. I'll show them all! BWAAHAAHAAHHAA!!!!!

[Xervous]

More classes need to be mad so there’s actual tradeoffs considered and stuff or something. Yeah. But that’s complexity and there’s a sacred cow in the way.

[strangebloke]

Here's where our disagreement comes. I value "messing with the winglet." Picking it apart, seeing where it breaks, discussing where it goes wrong, meddling, picking apart. All of that I find greatly useful. And if someone makes it work in a 5e variant rules that isn't quite a whole new edition. That's great. That should be encouraged. And if it doesn't, well it's neat that things were tried. And now we learn how it won't work.

But shutting it down with "you're tampering in what should not be tampered" isn't constructive, it's dismissive.

Lol we're being 'dismissive?' I don't think that's an accurate way of characterizing the argument against getting rid of CON.

Rather, I'd say that nobody is actually dealing with ANY of the many ripple effects caused by this change. Nobody is actually 'picking things apart'. People aren't doing that. We're getting repeated, superficial takes about something that a certain DM/player doesn't subjectively "like" without considering the details.

[Dienekes]

Lol we're being 'dismissive?' I don't think that's an accurate way of characterizing the argument against getting rid of CON.

Rather, I'd say that nobody is actually dealing with ANY of the many ripple effects caused by this change. Nobody is actually 'picking things apart'. People aren't doing that. We're getting repeated, superficial takes about something that a certain DM/player doesn't subjectively "like" without considering the details.

I was referring specifically to a prior post by the individual I was quoting. Since, you know, I was quoting them and not making a blanket comment on everyone in the thread simultaneously.

For the record my initial post back on page 1 was that Con should be kept and the issues put forth by OP would be more easily handled by making Con a more active attribute. I'm in the keep Con camp, but I have been reading what has been provided and have seen some of where Con is tucked in the system.

But as threads continue on the time of useful discussion within a thread drops pretty low. As this whole side conversation pretty perfectly indicates. But I did find it interesting in the beginning.

[KorvinStarmast]

Here's where our disagreement comes. I value "messing with the winglet." For play test, sure. UA has all kind of stuff like that, much of it lousy, some of it good. I have previously pointed to my experience with home brew good, bad, and ugly.

But shutting it down with "you're tampering in what should not be tampered" isn't constructive, it's dismissive. As that part of your post is also not constructive, thanks for your reply but I think we are about done with this strand of the discussion.

For the record my initial post back on page 1 was that Con should be kept and the issues put forth by OP would be more easily handled by making Con a more active attribute. I'm in the keep Con camp, but I have been reading what has been provided and have seen some of where Con is tucked in the system.
In short, we agree. :smallwink:

(It wasn't until page 3 that I made the stronger point about tampering. )

[quinron]

Those quick builds are for new players. A key design aim of this edition was to be newbie friendly. Those Quick Builds are very newbie friendly. I am glad they stuck them in there, it makes chargen for new players go A Lot Faster; and as a DM, it provides me with a point of departure as they bring questions to me during Chargen ...

I mean, yeah, if they didn't have those in there, I'd probably be complaining about character creation for newbies being too complicated and misleading. There are opportunity costs to everything. I'd say, on balance, I'm with you - I'm much happier with wizards being tougher on average than with wizards taking 3 hours to put together.

[KorvinStarmast]

I mean, yeah, if they didn't have those in there, I'd probably be complaining about character creation for newbies being too complicated and misleading. There are opportunity costs to everything. I'd say, on balance, I'm with you - I'm much happier with wizards being tougher on average than with wizards taking 3 hours to put together. We'd better watch out, you and I. I heard somewhere that agreeing on the internet forum was illegal! :smallbiggrin:

Let's stealth it outta here before anyone notices ...

[Luccan]

Oh, also, I don't like just bumping off Con because then we have two physical stats and three mental ones. It's not necessary to the game, but I do appreciate the symmetry. No version of DnD has really successfully added an attribute to the standard roster: they're either optional add-ons for themed games (sanity, honor) or just really unnecessary (comeliness). But I think dropping Con or absorbing it into Str could actually open up the space for a new 6th stat. Just not sure what it would be. I suppose you could split off some stuff from Wis and Dex for Perception as your new independent physical stat. But I suppose if the goal is reducing complexity, you could also drop/combine a mental state, leaving a 2-2 balance.

[Morty]

Oh, also, I don't like just bumping off Con because then we have two physical stats and three mental ones. It's not necessary to the game, but I do appreciate the symmetry. No version of DnD has really successfully added an attribute to the standard roster: they're either optional add-ons for themed games (sanity, honor) or just really unnecessary (comeliness). But I think dropping Con or absorbing it into Str could actually open up the space for a new 6th stat. Just not sure what it would be. I suppose you could split off some stuff from Wis and Dex for Perception as your new independent physical stat. But I suppose if the goal is reducing complexity, you could also drop/combine a mental state, leaving a 2-2 balance.

I don't think any edition of D&D has tried to add or remove an attribute. Since they've become an inviolate tradition for reasons I don't really understand. The most unusual thing I can remember was probably 4E letting some classes use constitution as an attack/casting attribute - that meant there were actually some characters for whom it was the highest one.

[Asmotherion]

You have to understand that, some things D&D are established out of tradition, for the game to still feel like D&D.

If I were to make a new game, yeah, I'd design 4 Ability Scores: Body (Combination of Str and Con), Agility, Intelect, Presence (Combination of Wisdom and Charisma). But for D&D, you need the 6 scores, else players from older editions would feel something off with the "new system" and not touch it. I am part of the problem, as I know that what really sold me on 5e is that it still feels like I'm playing D&D and not some other game.

[Pex]

You have to understand that, some things D&D are established out of tradition, for the game to still feel like D&D.

If I were to make a new game, yeah, I'd design 4 Ability Scores: Body (Combination of Str and Con), Agility, Intelect, Presence (Combination of Wisdom and Charisma). But for D&D, you need the 6 scores, else players from older editions would feel something off with the "new system" and not touch it. I am part of the problem, as I know that what really sold me on 5e is that it still feels like I'm playing D&D and not some other game.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Particular things are iconic to D&D. During 5E playtest people complained clerics didn't have Turn Undead. Change is fine. Lots of things of D&D have changed over the years, but go too far it's not D&D anymore. They learned that lesson with 4E. You don't have to like everything of D&D, but you need to pick your battles. When people metaphorically scream profanities* to keep something, you should think twice, thrice before you get rid of it. They're not autoright, but they're not autowrong either.

*I'm speaking generally, not anyone in this thread particularly.

[Morty]

You have to understand that, some things D&D are established out of tradition, for the game to still feel like D&D.

If I were to make a new game, yeah, I'd design 4 Ability Scores: Body (Combination of Str and Con), Agility, Intelect, Presence (Combination of Wisdom and Charisma). But for D&D, you need the 6 scores, else players from older editions would feel something off with the "new system" and not touch it. I am part of the problem, as I know that what really sold me on 5e is that it still feels like I'm playing D&D and not some other game.

But why is the exact spread and function of attributes so important? It's not like we're (hypothetically) getting rid of classes and levels. Or replacing wizards and clerics with psions and witches. Or letting people use laser guns from level one. Attributes are just numbers.

[MoiMagnus]

But why is the exact spread and function of attributes so important? It's not like we're (hypothetically) getting rid of classes and levels. Or replacing wizards and clerics with psions and witches. Or letting people use laser guns from level one. Attributes are just numbers.

They're more than numbers. They are also descriptors. They have a role quite similar to the 9 alignments in the way they categorise the different kinds of characters. In fact, I'd say the 6 ability scores are as iconic to D&D as the 9 alignments. That doesn't mean they are positive to the game (same for alignments), but as long as the game is still called D&D you will have peoples wanting to protect this sacred cow.
(If you don't claim that your game is a new edition of D&D, you are much more free to do whatever you want)

[Asmotherion]

But why is the exact spread and function of attributes so important? It's not like we're (hypothetically) getting rid of classes and levels. Or replacing wizards and clerics with psions and witches. Or letting people use laser guns from level one. Attributes are just numbers.

I'm not sure I can properly explain it. It's how it feels on your character sheet. Or when talking about it. If I speak of my Str or Con score I feel like I'm refearing to D&D. If I was to refear to it as my "Body Score" I'd feel like I might as well be playing an other game system, it's not D&D. Which is also fine, but trying to make it D&D results in the Disaster that was 4e. As I've said before, 4e is not a bad system; It's main failure is that it was marketed as D&D instead of an idependent Game.

A big part of what sells D&D over other game systems is the nostalgia factor, and feeling your "new system" is just improving on the existing one, not a completelly new Game. The only way I can describe it is, how would you feel if in a game you're playing, the next update completelly remodeled it's Character sheet and oversimplified it's mechanics to the point of making you feel "that's not the same game"? Same thing.

[Morty]

They're more than numbers. They are also descriptors. They have a role quite similar to the 9 alignments in the way they categorise the different kinds of characters. In fact, I'd say the 6 ability scores are as iconic to D&D as the 9 alignments. That doesn't mean they are positive to the game (same for alignments), but as long as the game is still called D&D you will have peoples wanting to protect this sacred cow.
(If you don't claim that your game is a new edition of D&D, you are much more free to do whatever you want)

I figure it's something like this, I just really do not understand it. Neither alignments nor attributes do a good job describing anything. I'd compare attributes to Thac0, more than anything descriptive.


I'm not sure I can properly explain it. It's how it feels on your character sheet. Or when talking about it. If I speak of my Str or Con score I feel like I'm refearing to D&D. If I was to refear to it as my "Body Score" I'd feel like I might as well be playing an other game system, it's not D&D. Which is also fine, but trying to make it D&D results in the Disaster that was 4e. As I've said before, 4e is not a bad system; It's main failure is that it was marketed as D&D instead of an idependent Game.

The specific changes 4E made and the way in which it made them proved unpopular. That doesn't mean any change ever is going to somehow turn the game into "not D&D anymore" (not that 4E's changes did that to begin with) or ruin it. Several 4E concepts even made it into 5E despite best efforts to weed them out, such as the concept of "short" and "long" rests, with the latter restoring all HP. Finally, 4E didn't even do anything to attributes, so it's just not relevant in general.


A big part of what sells D&D over other game systems is the nostalgia factor, and feeling your "new system" is just improving on the existing one, not a completelly new Game. The only way I can describe it is, how would you feel if in a game you're playing, the next update completelly remodeled it's Character sheet and oversimplified it's mechanics to the point of making you feel "that's not the same game"? Same thing.

I'll let you know if it ever happens, but we're not talking about completely remodeling or oversimplifying things. We're talking about making any changes at all to the attributes.

[Asmotherion]

I figure it's something like this, I just really do not understand it. Neither alignments nor attributes do a good job describing anything. I'd compare attributes to Thac0, more than anything descriptive.



The specific changes 4E made and the way in which it made them proved unpopular. That doesn't mean any change ever is going to somehow turn the game into "not D&D anymore" (not that 4E's changes did that to begin with) or ruin it. Several 4E concepts even made it into 5E despite best efforts to weed them out, such as the concept of "short" and "long" rests, with the latter restoring all HP. Finally, 4E didn't even do anything to attributes, so it's just not relevant in general.



I'll let you know if it ever happens, but we're not talking about completely remodeling or oversimplifying things. We're talking about making any changes at all to the attributes.

It's relevant in that it changes core mechanics that make D&D what it is. The core 6 stats are one of the fundamental mechanics that make D&D be D&D. Change it, and it's no longer D&D, it's something different.

As I said previously, I do agree that, mechanically, it's not optimal. But some things go beyond mechanics, into the sphere of "Feeling right" or "Feeling wrong". And D&D without 6 core stats or Pseudo-Vancian Magic "feels" wrong in my, and many other player's oppinion. I'd argue the majority, but there's no survey I can refear to.

[Nagog]

I strongly disagree. Having built for and against Constitution in different builds, Constitution makes a HUGE difference in each build and playstyle. While it is for the most part a passive stat, that passive stat effects a lot of gameplay. Concentration checks are the most common, but saving throws are also huge: Constitution Saving Throws are a very powerful one to target, but that allows it to be tied to very powerful abilities like Stunning Strike and Flesh to Stone.

[MoiMagnus]

It's relevant in that it changes core mechanics that make D&D what it is. The core 6 stats are one of the fundamental mechanics that make D&D be D&D. Change it, and it's no longer D&D, it's something different.

Only if you change it brutally. While the ability score kept the same name, their role and associated mechanics changed a lot from edition through edition.

If 4th edition, the scores were paired (Str/Con for Fortitude, Dex/Int for Reflexes and AC, Cha/Wis for Will).

After that, I would not have been surprised in an edition dropping the 6 ability score to only keep For/Ref/Will (or at least moved in that direction by increasing the number of things that rely on For/Ref/Will instead of the ability scores). But 5e decided to go the other way around and drop For/Ref/Will in favour of having one save per ability score.

[deljzc]

The physical characteristics described by STR - DEX - CON are much easier to understand and apply and use in D&D then the mental/personality characteristics: INT - WIS - CHA.

I mean, since the dawn of the game, the debate of explaining Wisdom and Intelligence has been going on. And that will go on forever. Same with the kind of "catch all" use of Charisma over the years to define anything from acting/performance to political savvy to musical talent to interrogation ability to physical beauty (and honestly, NONE of those are related at all).

Why is the solution to remove Constitution? I wouldn't bother. If anything it is one of the least problematic of all the ability scores.

[Segev]

I feel like we've got people - not everyone, but some on both sides - here trying to say "you only won't change it because it's tradition!" or "you only want to change it for bad reasons/the sake of change!"

Both are valid reasons to reject somebody's argument, but I think we're failing to do the due dilligence, in a lot of cases, of examining the whys of the positions and being thus too quick to ascribe fallacious motivation.

Any change should have a motivation. That motivation should be thoroughly understood, so that you know what it is you want the end result to be, and what ancillary consequences you are and are not willing to accept for the change. "Too many children are drowning in this pool; I want to fill it in with dirt and woodchips and put a playground on top of it." This is a solution that would, in fact, achieve the stated goal of reducing the number of children who drown in that pool. If the consequence of not allowing anybody to swim anymore is acceptable, then it works. But if somebody objects, "But swimming is fun and it's a very popular pool!" a proper response is not, "You only want to keep the pool because it's a sacred cow. We don't need it!" The point of whether the pool serves a purpose that is worth preserving is a valid one to debate. And to examine to see if a different solution - either to the pool's lost use or to the problem of children drowning in the pool - can be come up with.

So far, the only arguments I've heard for eliminating Constitution are:
It's a passive stat; active stats are fun while passive ones are not.
Every wizard is a marathon runner; make this stat go away and they'll put their stats elsewhere.

I may have missed a number of them.

The counter-arguments for these have been, "We can add more active uses to Constitution," and "You'll either make Wizards even more SAD, or you'll just change what "every wizard" is to the new best secondary stat." Combined with the always-valid "you'll cause all sorts of cascading effects; this change will have to propagate a lot throughout the system."

I have seen each of these rejected as "bah, you just think Constitution is a sacred cow and are dismissing my proposal." I do not think that a valid rebuttal, as it is not accurate. These are substantive issues with all the proposed means of getting rid of Constitution, not the least of their problems being that they don't necessarily solve the actual complaints about it.


First things first: identify what it is you're trying to bring about, and make sure your proposed changes actually result in that!

[Morty]

It's relevant in that it changes core mechanics that make D&D what it is. The core 6 stats are one of the fundamental mechanics that make D&D be D&D. Change it, and it's no longer D&D, it's something different.

As I said previously, I do agree that, mechanically, it's not optimal. But some things go beyond mechanics, into the sphere of "Feeling right" or "Feeling wrong". And D&D without 6 core stats or Pseudo-Vancian Magic "feels" wrong in my, and many other player's oppinion. I'd argue the majority, but there's no survey I can refear to.


Only if you change it brutally. While the ability score kept the same name, their role and associated mechanics changed a lot from edition through edition.

If 4th edition, the scores were paired (Str/Con for Fortitude, Dex/Int for Reflexes and AC, Cha/Wis for Will).

After that, I would not have been surprised in an edition dropping the 6 ability score to only keep For/Ref/Will (or at least moved in that direction by increasing the number of things that rely on For/Ref/Will instead of the ability scores). But 5e decided to go the other way around and drop For/Ref/Will in favour of having one save per ability score.

Yeah, I really can't see those two as comparable. If 4E had ditched or significantly altered attributes but kept the stark divide between casters and non-casters, it would have been much closer to earlier editions than it was. Likewise, it wouldn't be that much effort to remove ability scores from 5E altogether (I've seen it done), while trying to give it a power structure even somewhat similar to 4E's would require a major overhaul.

[Pex]

The physical characteristics described by STR - DEX - CON are much easier to understand and apply and use in D&D then the mental/personality characteristics: INT - WIS - CHA.

I mean, since the dawn of the game, the debate of explaining Wisdom and Intelligence has been going on. And that will go on forever. Same with the kind of "catch all" use of Charisma over the years to define anything from acting/performance to political savvy to musical talent to interrogation ability to physical beauty (and honestly, NONE of those are related at all).

Why is the solution to remove Constitution? I wouldn't bother. If anything it is one of the least problematic of all the ability scores.

If I remember correctly . . .

Strength is picking up the tomato.
Dexterity is throwing the tomato.
Constitution is eating the tomato.
Intelligence is knowing the tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom is realizing not to put the tomato in a fruit salad.
Charisma is making a fruit salad from the tomato and call it salsa.

[Snails]

The physical characteristics described by STR - DEX - CON are much easier to understand and apply and use in D&D then the mental/personality characteristics: INT - WIS - CHA.

I mean, since the dawn of the game, the debate of explaining Wisdom and Intelligence has been going on. And that will go on forever. Same with the kind of "catch all" use of Charisma over the years to define anything from acting/performance to political savvy to musical talent to interrogation ability to physical beauty (and honestly, NONE of those are related at all).

Why is the solution to remove Constitution? I wouldn't bother. If anything it is one of the least problematic of all the ability scores.

I agree with this point of view.

D&D mechanically is built on a wargame chassis with a spell system and skill system stitched to it. How and why Str, Dex, Con are used the way they are is in no way a mystery. The wiggle room and ambiguity exists around the mental stats that could very easily be collapsed into 2. The mystery is why spell saves are not Cha-driven across the board. The mystery is why Wis instead of Int affects perception. In context, the exact boundaries of the mental stats are purely arbitrary (in comparison with the physical stats).

It would not actually be terrible to fold Con into Str. That would make Str a superstat, and the default hero build would be a the superSAD knight in shining armor.

But "Con does not show up in active skill checks" is not really a good reason to get rid of Con. It is perfectly logical and appropriate for feats of endurance demanding Con checks show up regularly in a game where the Exploratory phase is robust and important. DMs just do not do that much because players whine about being fatigued, hate tracking encumbrance, etc. and want to handwave onwards to the flashy bloodletting like this is a video game, rather than a broad RPG with three real pillars.

Con is not a flaw in the game system, but just something some tables do not think about because everyone is just handles this stuff in some standard way (e.g. we all have a Con 14) and they do not bother to game exploratory stuff that makes it relevant. This is much like Cha, where at some tables the DMs hate to be guided by the results of social skill rolls. These are not wrong ways to play. This system is not flawed for not being precisely tuned to a certain style of play.

[heavyfuel]

Seriously though, it is here to stay. Replace it with Strength, and the next thread will be 'Why is every wizard a muscle wizard?'

If anyone here has ever played Pillars of Eternity, this is a pretty big "issue" there. I love it to death, but it is kinda weird. They use the "Might" stat to represent physical strength, but it also increases all damage and healing, so you end up with a lot of buff priests, rogues, and wizards, and a lot of scrawny tank-Fighters (because tanks don't need to deal damage)

[Snails]

And i dont agree that Constitution has no skills tied to it. DMs can call for alternate skill checks, which can be Athletics (Constitution).

That is a very good point.

If a character is doing something that is not exactly hard, but grueling due to the requirement for persistence, then substituting Con is appropriate. Like climbing along ledges on a very steep canyon wall might be Athletics(Con) or Acrobatics(Con).

Likewise, Survival(Wis) makes sense for noticing something non-obvious, like seeing a likely hazard before stumbling into it, but if you pushing your team across the dessert to reach the oasis before sunrise then I would say Survival(Con) makes more sense.

[quinron]

That is a very good point.

If a character is doing something that is not exactly hard, but grueling due to the requirement for persistence, then substituting Con is appropriate. Like climbing along ledges on a very steep canyon wall might be Athletics(Con) or Acrobatics(Con).

Likewise, Survival(Wis) makes sense for noticing something non-obvious, like seeing a likely hazard before stumbling into it, but if you pushing your team across the dessert to reach the oasis before sunrise then I would say Survival(Con) makes more sense.

I'm amenable to this solution, but I'd be a lot more open to ability/skill separation if a) every skill weren't grouped with a specific ability in the book, with, e.g., non-Charisma Intimidation checks being explicitly pointed out as outside the norm; and b) the vast majority of class features didn't refer to specific ability-skill checks (e.g., Favored Enemy specifically referring to "Wisdom (Survival)" checks).

One very simple change that I'd love to see in the next edition is skills being totally dissociated from abilities, with maybe the DMG suggesting typical associations. But that'd do a lot to get rid of the eternal "why does my barbarian need Charisma to intimidate someone" argument, and would also give Con some more practical use.

[KorvinStarmast]

If I remember correctly . . .

Strength is picking up the tomato.
Dexterity is throwing the tomato.
Constitution is eating the tomato.
Intelligence is knowing the tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom is realizing not to put the tomato in a fruit salad.
Charisma is making a fruit salad from the tomato and call it salsa. Constitution is how many tomatoes you can eat before you puke. :smallcool:

(My boy Luke here can eat 50 tomatoes!)

[MaxWilson]

Fair enough. I'm just extrapolating that implication from the lower hit dice. My complaint in that regard is that the book basically penalizes the wizard in terms of HP (which feels alright to me), but it also suggests that you array your scores to mitigate that penalty. Just feels like weird design to me.

Frankly, a lot of my more esoteric complaints about designer intent would go away if they didn't have ability score suggestions in those Quick Build paragraphs.

The book suggests that you invest in Int, plus either Dex or Con, plus Cha if you're an Enchanter. Nothing in the Quick Build section guarantees that you won't wind up with a Cha 12 Con 8 wizard.


I don't think any edition of D&D has tried to add or remove an attribute. Since they've become an inviolate tradition for reasons I don't really understand. The most unusual thing I can remember was probably 4E letting some classes use constitution as an attack/casting attribute - that meant there were actually some characters for whom it was the highest one.

Unearthed Arcana tried to add Comeliness to measure physical attractiveness, separate from Charisma, and Skills and Powers experimented with breaking each attribute in two for a total of twelve attributes. Unearthed Arcana was before my time so I can't speak to its implementation, but the Skills and Powers approach was... okay, in some ways more realistic, but also invited powergaming abuse (pumping Might for damage bonuses while neglecting lifting capacity), and ultimately just didn't seem worth the extra complexity.

But, I was also biased against S&P for other reasons like the class customization options (magic resistance for your fighter just because), which don't fit well into the spirit of AD&D (archetype-driven, a la Conan and Aragorn). 5E embraces that kind of thing from the get-go (no true archetypes, only class templates with customization hardpoints a la Diablo II) and perhaps the S&P approach would work better there.

[Pex]

Constitution is how many tomatoes you can eat before you puke. :smallcool:

(My boy Luke here can eat 50 tomatoes!)

Correction accepted. :smalltongue:


The book suggests that you invest in Int, plus either Dex or Con, plus Cha if you're an Enchanter. Nothing in the Quick Build section guarantees that you won't wind up with a Cha 12 Con 8 wizard.



Unearthed Arcana tried to add Comeliness to measure physical attractiveness, separate from Charisma, and Skills and Powers experimented with breaking each attribute in two for a total of twelve attributes. Unearthed Arcana was before my time so I can't speak to its implementation, but the Skills and Powers approach was... okay, in some ways more realistic, but also invited powergaming abuse (pumping Might for damage bonuses while neglecting lifting capacity), and ultimately just didn't seem worth the extra complexity.

But, I was also biased against S&P for other reasons like the class customization options (magic resistance for your fighter just because), which don't fit well into the spirit of AD&D (archetype-driven, a la Conan and Aragorn). 5E embraces that kind of thing from the get-go (no true archetypes, only class templates with customization hardpoints a la Diablo II) and perhaps the S&P approach would work better there.

I remember Skills & Powers. I'm so guilty of min/maxing the split attributes. It made mediocre rolled arrays into powerful enough. Particular things attributes did rarely if ever came up, and how convenient they got separated from the things that happen a lot. A 12 could split into 14/10. 16s became 18/14. I liked the class customization, but I agree it can go too far. I once manipulated a cleric into being a superior paladin. It had everything a 2E paladin did except the mount which I didn't want plus more stuff paladins didn't have just for being a cleric like spell access. It was a munchkin game. Other players chose to be githzerai so they could have magic resistance. I didn't need everything, but there were metagame issues that's not important now and won't get into. However, it was possible to create that superior paladin from a cleric. Despite the munchkinning that was easily possible I do think it added fun to the system.

[meta-dnd]

An interesting question. I enjoy these kinds of explorations, so thanks for posing it.


Constitution is a passive ability score. With very few exceptions, no skills are related to it, few powers use the ability to generate DCs, and the only aspect the ability directly influences are Hit Points and the occasional Saving Throw.


Adding some stats to the discussion. Of the 6 kinds of saving throws available, 31.1% of all references to savings throws are Constitution based (which runs counter to the adjective "occasional" in your OP). This supports the observation made by various people that removing Constitution from 5e would be non-trivial and prone to error ... best to consider in 6e.

The following table comes from analyzing all of the core rule books (PHB, DMG, MM, XGTE, SCAG, MTOF, VGTM, TCOE) plus a few others (GDOF, various UAs, etc.). Across all sources, there are 1,442 references to saving throws, with the following breakdown.



/--------------+-------+------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+---------\
| Ability | Count | % | Racial | Racial | Class | Spell | Magic | General |
| | | | Action | Trait | Feature | | Item | |
|--------------+-------+------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+---------|
| Constitution | 448 | 31.1 | 46.9 | 9.6 | 9.2 | 17.2 | 6.5 | 10.7 |
| Dexterity | 385 | 26.7 | 44.7 | 7.3 | 6.8 | 24.2 | 5.2 | 11.9 |
| Wisdom | 309 | 21.4 | 37.2 | 11.3 | 12.9 | 25.6 | 4.5 | 8.4 |
| Strength | 185 | 12.8 | 35.7 | 18.9 | 19.5 | 20.0 | 2.7 | 3.2 |
| Charisma | 78 | 5.4 | 20.5 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 24.4 | 15.4 | 19.2 |
| Intelligence | 37 | 2.6 | 32.4 | 8.1 | 5.4 | 43.2 | 2.7 | 8.1 |
\--------------+-------+------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+---------/


The columns refer to what the saving throw applies to. For example, 'Racial Trait' means a reference to a saving throw within a racial trait, and 'Spell' means a reference to a saving throw within the description of a spell. The '%' column refers to the percentage (across all references) that involve each ability score. The columns to the right of '%' refer to the percentage of that row associated with a particular topic (should sum to 100% modulo rounding precision)

[quinron]

So no, it should not be excised from the game unless you want to rebuild the whole thing from the bottom up. Head to WoTC and offer to start in 6e for them. Maybe they'll agree, and there's your next job. :smallbiggrin:


I am certainly sympathetic to the basic idea. As the scores have gotten more important*, actual variability has declined, and Con really has become that thing that is either a 12, 14, or 16. That same basic variability could easily be subsumed by feats. However, I tend to agree with KorvinStarmast that it probably be better that this be the kind of thing you might think about for the next edition or one's own homemade RPG or the like -- there are many downstream consequences to this -- random example: should Sorcerers get a good Brawn save, to keep them as 'the casters with an innately good concentration save' (or, for that matter, should concentration saves follow Con into this combined Brawn stat?). [/SIZE][/I]


If what you envision is a game system without Constitution, then it needs to be in the next version. Its existence is baked into this version.
Once you do remove it, you need to overhaul the other abilities and/or descriptives so that there is an accomodation of what Constitution does do. Don't leave holes behind you.


Which takes me back to page 1, and my first responses, which is "an idea for the next edition"
That, one can reasonably forecast, will keep some bits of this edition, discard others (and your subclass point may be one such element in need of revision, or, just 'Do It Better!') but it also allows for this idea that has been embraced by a number of other game systems.


Adding some stats to the discussion. Of the 6 kinds of saving throws available, 31.1% of all references to savings throws are Constitution based (which runs counter to the adjective "occasional" in your OP). This supports the observation made by various people that removing Constitution from 5e would be non-trivial and prone to error ... best to consider in 6e.

Given this argument has popped up in at least 5 posts by 3 different people, I feel the need to ask: if the OP was brainstorming on what 6e might do, using 5e specifically as their base from which to start making changes, which board exactly should they be posting in?

EDIT: For clarity, I'm only being like 20% rhetorically sarcastic. I would genuinely be interested in which board theoretical 6e discussion belongs.

[Segev]

Given this argument has popped up in at least 5 posts by 3 different people, I feel the need to ask: if the OP was brainstorming on what 6e might do, using 5e specifically as their base from which to start making changes, which board exactly should they be posting in?

EDIT: For clarity, I'm only being like 20% rhetorically sarcastic. I would genuinely be interested in which board theoretical 6e discussion belongs.

Not a moderator, so I can only guess, but I'd say possibly this one, and it wouldn't be out of place in the parent "Roleplaying Games" one.

[Kane0]

Either Fortitude/Reflex/Willpower or three pairs of body/mind/social attributes would be my picks if going for a rebuild.

Edit: Most likely homebrew, but could see an argument for nonspecific RPG forum

[Morty]

The first question to ask is "what is the attributes' job, really?". Since with strongly-defined classes, skill proficiencies and bound math (it's generally easy to predict how high a bonus a character is going to have to things on any given level), attributes are pretty redundant. Saving throws are an obvious answer, in which case fortitude/reflex/will does work well.

[Kuu Lightwing]

I am slightly confused about the purpose of such change. Yes, Constitution is a "passive" score if you define it like that, but I'm not convinced that it's a basis of removing it from the game. I don't think all the stats need to be equal to begin with (is there an argument for contrary?), so more "limited" usage of CON doesn't necessarily mean that it is a problem. As for "fun" argument - stats are pretty much numerical bonuses to different in-game parameters, I don't think they are what could be described as "fun" or "not fun", they are just the basis of the game's math.

And it's not a "tradition" argument either, it's an argument that we have a system that does work, somewhat. If you want to change it, you need to demonstrate that this change would address the existing issues, and will not create bigger ones. Sure system does have issues currently, but I'd say bigger issue is not CON, it's mental stat balance. And even then, I don't think the solution to the issues is the removal of stats. It's not like the problem that WOTC don't know what to do with CON, it has its place and it plays its role. Even if we accept that the lack of skills and such is a problem, I'm not convinced that removing the stat is the solution to said problem.

As for Airbus winglet analogy, I'd say it's inaccurate. Since stats lie in the core of the system, it's more like looking at a biplane and saying "you know, there are a lot of planes that fly with just one wing, we don't need this second one, let's cut it out!" - while it's probably possible to redesign said airframe as a monoplane, it would take much more work than that.

[Pex]

Given this argument has popped up in at least 5 posts by 3 different people, I feel the need to ask: if the OP was brainstorming on what 6e might do, using 5e specifically as their base from which to start making changes, which board exactly should they be posting in?

EDIT: For clarity, I'm only being like 20% rhetorically sarcastic. I would genuinely be interested in which board theoretical 6e discussion belongs.

It's fine to discuss it here. The question was answered. "Should Constitution be excised from the game?" "No." "Why?" "For these reasons . . ."

Just because you have an idea for something doesn't mean it will work. When you ask for an opinion you will get it, and sometimes the consensus will be against your proposition. Reconsider based on the advice or do it anyway for your game, your choice, but it's not called for to chastise those who disagree for disagreeing.

You can double down on your proposition and insist it will work for these other reasons. That's conversation.

[Snails]

I am slightly confused about the purpose of such change. Yes, Constitution is a "passive" score if you define it like that, but I'm not convinced that it's a basis of removing it from the game. I don't think all the stats need to be equal to begin with (is there an argument for contrary?), so more "limited" usage of CON doesn't necessarily mean that it is a problem.

Yes, the fact there exists asymmetries in the treatment of the stats is an argument for mechanical inelegance. Inelegance is not actual evidence of a problem.

What would be evidence for a problem with Con is if the decisions around the stat were so self-evident as to achieve the moral equivalent of a "feat tax". A facet of a game system is positive if it provides meaningful choices to the player, without undue confusion and other costs.

I recently went through the exercise of choosing between many varied race/path Sorcerers who would start at level 1 with 8 HP and might have a 16 Dex, and the simple and straightforward Hill Dwarf Dragonic Bloodline sorcerer (using Tasha's to start with a 16 Cha) who would start with 11 HP and a solid AC. I would go so far as to say it is self-evident that these are two both legitimate choices, choices that boil down to flexibility versus Con/defense. If Con was a "tax" type problem, then this should have had one obviously correct choice. I submit that it is not obvious which choice is better, thus Con is positively contributing to the game by creating a meaningful player decision.

Now someone might make an argument that Con also negatively contributes to the game in some way. But no such evidence has been presented. The simple fact of simplification might constitute an argument, if someone were to explain how the game would run so much smoother without. But no such explanation has been made.

[blackjack50]

That is a very good point.

If a character is doing something that is not exactly hard, but grueling due to the requirement for persistence, then substituting Con is appropriate. Like climbing along ledges on a very steep canyon wall might be Athletics(Con) or Acrobatics(Con).

Likewise, Survival(Wis) makes sense for noticing something non-obvious, like seeing a likely hazard before stumbling into it, but if you pushing your team across the dessert to reach the oasis before sunrise then I would say Survival(Con) makes more sense.

I think this is a cool idea. Subbing certain proficiencies based on circumstances. You already do this with intimidation.

[KorvinStarmast]

EDIT: For clarity, I'm only being like 20% rhetorically sarcastic. I would genuinely be interested in which board theoretical 6e discussion belongs. DnD Next, which 5e isn't any longer. It's D&D Now. :smallwink: (Check the sales figures if you doubt me)

It's fine to discuss it here. The question was answered. "Should Constitution be excised from the game?" "No." "Why?" "For these reasons . . ."

Just because you have an idea for something doesn't mean it will work. . See also a lot of UA and a great deal of Homebrew.
I think this is a cool idea. Subbing certain proficiencies based on circumstances. You already do this with intimidation. Con based checks for extreme weather are already a thing, aren't they?
Yeah, I thought so, in the DMG. (I had to go and rummage around in the books) Why this isn't in the adventuring section in the PHB puzzles me.

Extreme Cold
Whenever the temperature is at or below 0 degrees Fahrenheit, a creature exposed to the cold must succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw at the end of each hour or gain one level of Exhaustion. Creatures with Resistance or immunity to cold damage automatically succeed on the saving throw, as do creatures wearing cold weather gear (thick coats, gloves, and the like) and creatures naturally adapted to cold climates.

Extreme Heat
When the temperature is at or above 100 degrees Fahrenheit, a creature exposed to the heat and without access to drinkable water must succeed on a Constitution saving throw at the end of each hour or gain one level of Exhaustion. The DC is 5 for the first hour and increases by 1 for each additional hour. Creatures wearing medium or Heavy Armor, or who are clad in heavy clothing, have disadvantage on the saving throw. Creatures with Resistance or immunity to fire damage automatically succeed on the saving throw, as do creatures naturally adapted to hot climates.

[Chugger]

I think we should excise everything from the game and replace them all with Skittles - and rename the game "Taste the Rainbow." Oh, now that would be cookin' with GAS!

[Witty Username]

I think if we were stealing from AD&D we should steal the unique traits for attributes. Like how a character with a Con 20+ would gain regeneration or how low level illusions would simply fail against an int of 20+. Maybe not the 18/% for str though.

[MaxWilson]

Yes, the fact there exists asymmetries in the treatment of the stats is an argument for mechanical inelegance. Inelegance is not actual evidence of a problem.


Symmetry in game design is not necessarily more elegant than asymmetry. Procedural content generators deliberately inject interesting asymmetries to hold interest, e.g. if your game has staves for wizards, swords for warriors, and bows for rogues, and if Freezing (+d6 damage) is available on 10% of all weapons no matter what type, and so is every other property, then your treasure generation system is very asymmetrical... but also boring, because bow/staff/sword is merely a cosmetic choice at that point. Massively asymmetrical games like Starcraft (Zerg/Protoss/Terran are balanced but asymmetrically) are elegant.

Removing Con and individual spellcasting stats from 5E would add symmetry, but probably at the cost of elegance.

[Dienekes]

Symmetry in game design is not necessarily more elegant than asymmetry. Procedural content generators deliberately inject interesting asymmetries to hold interest, e.g. if your game has staves for wizards, swords for warriors, and bows for rogues, and if Freezing (+d6 damage) is available on 10% of all weapons no matter what type, and so is every other property, then your treasure generation system is very asymmetrical... but also boring, because bow/staff/sword is merely a cosmetic choice at that point. Massively asymmetrical games like Starcraft (Zerg/Protoss/Terran are balanced but asymmetrically) are elegant.

Removing Con and individual spellcasting stats from 5E would add symmetry, but probably at the cost of elegance.

I think there is a point to be made about where that asymmetry is. The asymmetry of equipment diversity should usually come about by making actual gameplay pattern changes, preferably to aid in the fantasy of the class. To make it feel more like what it is supposed to represent.

In other words, having 10% freezing on all possible equipment does not make the asymmetry good or bad. There have been plenty of games I can think of where those types of bonuses were pretty evenly distributed across all equipment that still felt diverse because the actual asymmetry was in the gameplay. A sword did not feel like a bow in its use and the tactics used nor did the wand feel like the spear. Whether they also deal freezing damage or fire damage can be (depending on the system) irrelevant.

Which is what StarCraft really honed in on. The basic building blocks of SC are remarkably consistent across all three races. You start with the same basic building and same number of workers. Your workers gather resources at the same rate. Minerals are your basic resource that you gather and spend quick. Vespene is your rare resource that is used to fund your more advanced units. Buildings are the method to unlock more advanced units. You have only certain amount of supply in which to get those units. That is all the same in the foundation.

The asymmetry comes in how the races maneuver around those pillars of the system. Protoss has bigger meatier stronger units that need to be focused on to get them to their full effect. Zerg can send wave after wave of disposable minions at the enemy. Terran are somewhere in the middle but also focus more on creating areas of engagement before a battle really starts.

In my opinion, all of the neat asymmetry that makes the game interesting isn’t really in the fundamental building blocks. To bring us back to D&D, while it is fun for some players to describe their characters as really strong, or tough, or smart. The asymmetrical fun of the game doesn’t really come from how the ability scores are different from each other, on the contrary for the most part looking back from the origins of D&D the ability scores are becoming more unified, and for the better, to create a cleaner experience. The fun part of D&D’s asymmetry comes down to how the classes use their ability scores. Using the template they create to bring about differences in play. Having the Barbarian get no reason to focus on Cha and therefore has little reason to go with the party face roll is an interesting piece of asymmetry. That Con doesn’t have any active components and therefore feels (to some) like a vestigial part of the system is not.

Personally, I do think the actual solution to this is divorcing ability scores from specific skills and spelling out how Constitution can be used more proactively in gameplay rather than axing it completely.