How high is your characters' usual Constitution?

[diplomancer]

Are you satisfied with a 14? Do you like to play it safe and aim for a 16, maybe after Res (con)? Are you a Con hog, who takes as much constitution as you can get? Are you one of the risk takers who leave it at 12? Or one of the real gamblers who put a 10, or, Celestia forbid, an 8, on it?

If I'm playing a full caster, I usually start with a 15 or, sometimes, 13, to get Res (con) later. My current Warlock has 14, but I'm planning on getting both Res (con) and Infernal Constitution.

[Eldariel]

14-16 depending on what I can afford. You can never have enough Con; I've played with 18 Con in the past (great for that Tier 3 immunity Concentration saves), but I rarely put full ASIs there given what the alternatives are. Never 12 or lower Con though, I don't think that's basically ever sensible. Hell, I've DMd for parties where one was heavy on 16+ Con characters and had Inspiring Leader and the other was in the region of 12-14 Con on average and without a temporary HP buffer; the latter party wiped in the same encounters the past party trudged through easily enough. Everyone taking 1-2 more hits is many rounds of extra actions for the party (okay, the former party was just mechanically stronger overall, but created by the same rules of course).

[swamp_slug]

I usually play front-line characters so the more Con the better, although I typically aim for a 16 to allow space for feats. If I'm not a front-liner then I'm playing a caster and usually in need a decent Con for Concentration, so I aim for at least a 14 and either grab Warcaster or Resilient (Con) early.

I did play a Rogue once, who had a 12 Con but that is the lowest I tend to go.

[diplomancer]

The lowest I had was an 11, in a character with terrible rolls. I decided to be a V. Human Forge Cleric with 19 AC and HAM to at least try to survive the early levels.

[Guy Lombard-O]

16 with Res Con if point buy, but I'll try for 18 with Res Con if I roll well. Never below 14.

[Waazraath]

14, unless rolling for stats and rolling high.

[Lokishade]

It's usually 14 unless I'm feeling risky and MAD.

If I pick an 8, it's for a specific character concept (like a Wizard or Sorceror who got caught in an accident that gave him powers) and only if I am sure I will gain access to an Amulet of Health as soon as rare magical items are on the table, preferably through crafting.

[DwarfFighter]

14 minimum.

[MoiMagnus]

14

In high optimisation games, I would get 16, but we don't really play high optimisation games, so I put 14 to try to get +1 mod in most ability scores for RP reasons.

[stoutstien]

Low as 10 and and as high as 20. ironically I think it's the one ability that has the biggest impact on how you play a PC.

[Porcupinata]

We use Standard Array for character generation, so the numbers I get are predictable. I'll normally try for a 14 Con and 14 Dex, with a 16 in my primary ability score for my class. That's usually do-able since after putting my 15 in my prime requisite I can put my 14 and 13 in those two scores and usually get a +1 to one or the other depending on which race I've gone for.

If for some reason I'm playing a race that doesn't get a Dex or Con bonus then I'll prioritise Con over Dex for the ability score that gets the 14.

[Pandamonium]

I have played a wizard with con 8 from level 3-15 (had bad rolls all around except INT, Str was worse at 6).

And boy, I tell you, I have never had that much suspense and tension in all aspects of the game.

But I don't really favor CON usually, I'm fine with everything north of 10 :)

[jas61292]

Depends on the character, but just about anything between 10 and 20 is fine. Personally, I tend to find that the higher the hit die, the more Con I want. When I have HP, I should be trying to take the hits. When I don't, I should be trying to avoid them. HP matters very little to me in a Sorc or Wiz, because if I'm taking a bunch of hits, I'm already doing something wrong.

[Valmark]

Am I doing point buy? Or am I rolling?

I generally don't put more then 12 in Con because after needing whatever's my attack stat, dexterity since I tipically dislike heavy armors because of stealth and Charisma because I don't make characters without positive Cha mod if I can I'm tipically left with little to spend on in point buy- and even then Wisdom has an higher priority due to the number of skills and the kind of save it is.

Of course that's a general rule- for example a sorcerer means I'm going to rope the attack stat together with my Charisma dependancy.

As far as rolls go it's either my third or fourth pick- still, I try not to have it negative at least. The only attribute I'm ok dumping completely is Strenght unless I'm doing a strenght-based character.

[Mastikator]

14 or 16 depending on whether my race has a +2 constitution or not. I always go point buy if I can, hate rolling for stats.

[Keravath]

12-16 depending on race/class choices and using point buy. For some casters it might be an odd number so I can pick up resilient con later though I prefer 15 for that over 13 if there are sufficient points for it.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Like most on the board, I prefer a +1 at a minimum.

But there was that one time I took the 8 there. Half elf bard modeled after Leon from Leon (The Professional). I didn't get hit because I didn't get seen. I threw bardic inspiration and buffed. Yeah it was scary having the lowest HP total, but...if you don't take damage routinely in fights, so what? Wizards need con for concentration, but otherwise are always going to be the lowest HP total.

I have a house rule that makes this less risky, though. I wouldn't try it in AL. Since I don't play/run AL, it's good. Ask if you want to know my houserule on HP.

[Greywander]

For me 14 is probably the most common, and typically I always have CON in a 12-16 range. If the character is SAD and a frontliner, I might opt to push CON up to 16. If they're MAD and not on the front line, then I may drop it to 12. A character might start with lower CON if I plan to boost it later, e.g. via half feats, but usually in such cases I'd start with a 13 or 15, not an 11. I do sometimes like to have dump stats start a bit higher, usually as a means of supporting a roleplay concept (e.g. a well-educated swordsman from a noble family might start with a higher INT), so I usually end up taking points out of CON if I want them elsewhere.

I rarely consider using an ASI to boost CON. A feat is just almost always more useful, and there are always good feats you still haven't picked. I do take half feats that boost CON, but that's usually because I wanted the feat, and evening out a CON score was just a bonus. Besides, with point buy, it doesn't really matter what stat you're evening out as long as it's a stat you wanted anyway. E.g. if I want Heavy Armor Master then I might put a 15 in STR and a 16 in CON, but if I want Resilient (CON) then I'd put the 16 in STR and the 15 in CON.

[Naanomi]

12-17, with a 14 being the most common by far

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Trying to get 16 if I am a caster.
In games I roll I am fine with 12.

[Osuniev]

12-14, although my main campaign had a Sorcerer starting with an 8 in CON. Him being a coward who would do anything to stay out of harm's way remains a trope even now that he has 20 armor, upped his con to 12 and reached lvl 17.

[Warlush]

With most of my wizard/warlock/sorcerer/bards I used to leave CON at 14 and DEX at 16. But lately I've swapped priorities. 1 extra point on AC (in light or no armor) and initiatives just doesn't seem to help as much as 1 more HP per level.

Attack rolls and Initiative seem to swing wide, making a +1 irrelevant a lot of the time. But I end up wishing I had more HP in almost every combat. Even when I have a few sources of THP I still get knocked out regularly.

[Yakmala]

14 minimum. I don’t care what the build is, I can’t bring myself to go any lower.

[strangebloke]

Depends on class and goals.

If you're in melee, you want a good CON score. If you've got a d10 or d12, you don't need a good CON score as much. If you've got CON save proficiency, you need high CON less. If you are a caster who needs to concentrate, you need CON more. If you have a d6, you need CON. If you're a skirmisher or ranged character, you want CON less. If you have a good AC you want CON less.

And however much you want high CON, you have to consider tradeoffs.

An Archery based fighter who has a d10 hit die and 17 AC? 10 is honestly fine but you're pretty much SAD so why not go up to 14?
A Monk? Oh boy, I really would prefer to have 16. I'm in melee with a d8 hit dice and my AC isn't that good at the start. But I'm MAD as hell so 12 might be all I can afford.

[Naanomi]

14 minimum. I don’t care what the build is, I can’t bring myself to go any lower.
The only builds I go 12 for are some kinds of skill based characters, bards that I want 12s in wisdom and intelligence as well to support skill use... things like that... Looking in my character binder; I have a vedalken alchemist, a shifter inquisitive, and an elf necromancer with 12 CON

[Pex]

14 is my minimum. I strongly believe in the Constitution tax, and 14 is it. I've seen players with less. It's their character, but it hurts the party. They are usually the first to drop, so we lose their actions to do stuff. Everyone needs healing resources but they take up most of them and at a higher rate. If they don't drop they take themselves out of the combat to heal up or someone else must take the time to do it. Healing in combat has its place. When the bad guys are focusing on one PC like the warrior in their faces or the spellcaster doing must have magical attacks/support, healing them so they can focus on the very important offense they're doing is fine. Having to heal the 10 CO character again because he got hit with a Fireball or else he don't do anything but keeps himself from dropping is tiresome and wasteful. My own characters do drop from time to time, as can anyone even with 16 or 18 CO, but that happens in BBEG fights which are supposed to be tough. It would be better for no one to drop at all, but barring a TPK the high CO characters who drop did their job. They soaked up those attacks.

I don't have a higher CO using Point Buy. In 5E implementation with my optimizing ways I can't afford any higher. In dice rolling for scores in fortunate arrays I can afford the 15 or 16 in it when my Prime(s) are taken care of, and I can settle with what's left. For example I like to have at least 12 WI when it's not a Prime and not even a proficiency save because it is an important save. However, having a 10 in it means a 16 CO is a trade I'm willing to make because CO saves are important too, and it would be nice to have the extra hit points than I usually do. Once in a while I'll use an ASI for CO. It is totally dependent on my mood. I must already have an 18 in my Prime, a 20 can wait, and I don't need a feat.

[Kane0]

At least 80% of the time I use the usual 14 Con

[Yakmala]

The only builds I go 12 for are some kinds of skill based characters, bards that I want 12s in wisdom and intelligence as well to support skill use... things like that... Looking in my character binder; I have a vedalken alchemist, a shifter inquisitive, and an elf necromancer with 12 CON

Now that you mention it, I did go below 14 for one character, a Tiefling Mastermind that started out (with point buy) 8, 14, 12, 14, 14, 12 and then boosted Charisma to 14 at 4, giving him 8, 14, 12, 14, 14, 14. But this was a special case where I was building a skills/knowledge expert who was there as party support.

[Ogre Mage]

14. 16 if the PC is a dwarf.

[Coidzor]

I try to at least get a 14 or 16, unless I'm leaning into squishy caster. Even then I try to at least have a 12-13 in it.

I have managed to end up getting 18+ Con for races that boosted it or on Barbarians, though.

[mangosta71]

5e is pretty good about SAD, so unless I'm doing a weird multi-class concept CON is pretty much always my secondary stat. And since you can shuffle your racial attribute bonuses since Tasha's came out, that means usually 16 but never less than 14.

[Luccan]

I've run a couple Barbarians with 16 Cons. It's a good defensive investment if you don't wear armor, since it governs both AC and HP.

[Citadel97501]

14 then again I don't play a lot of front line or tanks, usually a lot of dps or support casters.

[Eldariel]

This thread elucidates perfectly why people think casters are squishy. It's not the d6 HD, it's because players build them that way.

[Witty Username]

14 is a good number, 14 is the number I am happy with for a primary stat at level 1 and so I like higher con but 14 is good. I think it gives enough HP to work with that you are reliably two hits from death at full hp regardless of class and that is what I care about.

[LudicSavant]

16 if it's your secondary stat, 14 if it's tertiary.

[SociopathFriend]

This thread elucidates perfectly why people think casters are squishy. It's not the d6 HD, it's because players build them that way.

I was having all sorts of fun as a Necromancy Wizard with high Con and a single Level of Life Cleric (it made sense- don't look at me like that!) for the armor. I could take a hit, had several spells for mitigating damage, and could fairly easily get HP back. And to top it off I had a small group of Animated/Macabre Undead that would hit incredibly hard anyways.

Though that is likely not the 'normal' caster experience.

But to answer the OP- as high as I can get it after my main score is maxed. Unless I'm Barbarian or Paladin- in which case I actually value it as highest.

[Luccan]

This thread elucidates perfectly why people think casters are squishy. It's not the d6 HD, it's because players build them that way.

It's also the armor situation. No one thinks Clerics are squishy because they get a D8 and medium to heavy armor and shields.

[Tanarii]

This thread elucidates perfectly why people think casters are squishy. It's not the d6 HD, it's because players build them that way.
It's also doing a pretty good job of illustrating why point buy isn't balanced. Normally you can't start with Con 16 stat unless you make it your primary and specific race, or secondary and play a dwarf.

[Valmark]

It's also doing a pretty good job of illustrating why point buy isn't balanced. Normally you can't start with Con 16 stat unless you make it your primary and specific race, or secondary and play a dwarf.

'Normally' means? Because with Point Buy that's the case.

[Frogreaver]

14 though it can go up or down a bonus.

[diplomancer]

It's also doing a pretty good job of illustrating why point buy isn't balanced. Normally you can't start with Con 16 stat unless you make it your primary and specific race, or secondary and play a dwarf.

I don't quite follow you; with Standard Array, you need to align your +2,+1 to get two 16s; but there's plenty of races that give at least +1 to Con; just choose the other attribute increase according to your class and voila. It's only an issue if you are MAD (in which case you probably can't afford 16 Con anyway).

The main difference between point-buy and standard array as regards this particular issue is with the races that do give a Con bonus but no +2 for any attribute; and those are, what, humans and tritons?

[Tanarii]

I don't quite follow you; with Standard Array, you need to align your +2,+1 to get two 16s; but there's plenty of races that give at least +1 to Con; just choose the other attribute increase according to your class and voila. It's only an issue if you are MAD (in which case you probably can't afford 16 Con anyway).
That's fine if you don't mind picking a specific race after you choose you class. E.g. if you're a Fighter, you must be a Mountain Dwarf or Half Orc, Wizard requires Rock Gnome, etc.

Edit: of course, rolling dice is also a standard rule. The odds of rolling at least two 15s is relevant here as well. 42.16% is not bad odds! https://anydice.com/program/2483

[MrStabby]

Currently playing a Rune Knight that started with 20 and has Str at 15, but this is rare.

Usually I am somewhere 12 to 16. If it is a MAD character it can force it lower, if SAD then higher. Likewise if my concept needs a starting feat I am probably going v. human and will have lower stats which can hurt Con a bit.

I find at lower levels hit die size is more influential on HP so if I wait till level 4 to boost it its fine.

[diplomancer]

That's fine if you don't mind picking a specific race after you choose you class. E.g. if you're a Fighter, you must be a Mountain Dwarf or Half Orc, Wizard requires Rock Gnome, etc.

Edit: of course, rolling dice is also a standard rule. The odds of rolling at least two 15s is relevant here as well. 42.16% is not bad odds! https://anydice.com/program/2483

But isn't that so with point-buy as well? Only 3 races where the difference is relevant; Tritons, Humans, and Half-Elves (half-elves only IF your primary is not Cha, so you'd use point-buy to get 2 15s and raise them both with your moveable ASIs). And for Standard Humans in particular, I'd say this is more about Standard Array being particularly bad for them than about point-buy being unbalanced.

[Tanarii]

But isn't that so with point-buy as well? Only 3 races where the difference is relevant; Tritons, Humans, and Half-Elves (half-elves only IF your primary is not Cha, so you'd use point-buy to get 2 15s and raise them both with your moveable ASIs). And for Standard Humans in particular, I'd say this is more about Standard Array being particularly bad for them than about point-buy being unbalanced.
2 of which are the most popular races ... especially with Point Buy.

I agree Standard Array is particularly terrible for Standard humans.

[Witty Username]

It's also the armor situation. No one thinks Clerics are squishy because they get a D8 and medium to heavy armor and shields.

Exactly, Clerics are crunchy.
Or at least that is what I recall from MMO lingo.

[diplomancer]

2 of which are the most popular races ... especially with Point Buy.

I agree Standard Array is particularly terrible for Standard humans.

Fair enough; though I have yet to see a Half-Elf that does not want Cha; I could envision something like a Swashbuckler, that wants Cha as a tertiary; still, if you don't particularly want Cha, other race choices are probably better, even with point-buy.

[Valmark]

2 of which are the most popular races ... especially with Point Buy.

I agree Standard Array is particularly terrible for Standard humans.

Keep in mind that with Point Buy if you do put two 15s in Con and whatever's your primary you're forced to dump all the others to +0 or take negatives to get a +1 or more. That doesn't seem unbalanced to me.

[J-H]

I find I usually try to end up with a 14, possibly after a feat. For a Barbarian, obviously, I'd go higher.

[Eldariel]

I find I usually try to end up with a 14, possibly after a feat. For a Barbarian, obviously, I'd go higher.

Curious, why pump Con on Barbarian out of all the classes? With their HD and resistance, they have the least need for extra Con - literally every other class gets more relative durability out of extra Con (even though obviously Rage a bit over doubles the EHP gained vs. affected damage types). I'm not saying it's bad, just a bit surprised by singling out the one class that can kinda make do without.

[diplomancer]

Curious, why pump Con on Barbarian out of all the classes? With their HD and resistance, they have the least need for extra Con - literally every other class gets more relative durability out of extra Con (even though obviously Rage a bit over doubles the EHP gained vs. affected damage types). I'm not saying it's bad, just a bit surprised by singling out the one class that can kinda make do without.

For Barbarians, raising your Con:
1-Either saves you money or straight up increases your AC, without stealth penalty;
2- Oddly enough, raises your offense indirectly, since you can afford to Recklessly Attack more often.

Most classes "tank" with a mixture of different defenses; for Barbarians, their primary tanking method is their hit points.

[Eldariel]

For Barbarians, raising your Con:
1-Either saves you money or straight up increases your AC, without stealth penalty;
2- Oddly enough, raises your offense indirectly, since you can afford to Recklessly Attack more often.

Most classes "tank" with a mixture of different defenses; for Barbarians, their primary tanking method is their hit points.

Aye, but that's precisely why. Every point of non-HP defense multiplies your HP against attacks of that type. So classes with less HP and more everything else benefit more of HP increases than a class that already has a ton of HP and less everything else (though again, I acknowledge that Rage is a solid HP multiplier and works with Con too). So Barb gets less out of it than basically any other high defense character. The biggest beneficiary for high Con is of course a Wizard or a Sorcerer, since they have craploads of non-HP based defenses but fairly low base HP so every extra point of HP is comparatively more valuable to them (barring few cases like the Abjurer and Armor of Agathys/False Life builds).

[Samayu]

I surveyed the twelve PC's I've played in 5e.

Two barbarians had a +3 CON bonus.
Four characters is a +2 bonus: Sorcerer, wizard, monk, cleric.
Six characters had a +1 bonus: two paladins, monk, fighter, rogue and a cleric.

I remember the sorcerer with the +2 taking the second ASI in CON, because he kept going down. I think that was the only ASI I ever did for CON.
The cleric with the +2 was a loxodon (+2 racial).
The paladin with the +1 was a hobgoblin (+2 racial).
One of the barbarians was a half-orc, the other a half-elf.

[stoutstien]

Aye, but that's precisely why. Every point of non-HP defense multiplies your HP against attacks of that type. So classes with less HP and more everything else benefit more of HP increases than a class that already has a ton of HP and less everything else (though again, I acknowledge that Rage is a solid HP multiplier and works with Con too). So Barb gets less out of it than basically any other high defense character. The biggest beneficiary for high Con is of course a Wizard or a Sorcerer, since they have craploads of non-HP based defenses but fairly low base HP so every extra point of HP is comparatively more valuable to them (barring few cases like the Abjurer and Armor of Agathys/False Life builds).

Sort of. Barbarians Don't really have many defensive tools past rage and HP. They are fairly limited on AC options and being one of the most MaD classes their saves are mediocre. In order for someone to target a wizard's HP they have a bunch of hoops to jump through where the barbarian is usually in a position to be hit as the default target. Tanking with your face only works if you have face left after the fact.

[Waterdeep Merch]

12 is the worst I've ever played with in 5e, and it was due to playing a rolled character with extremely flat stats (10-12 for everything). 13-14 is usually what I start with, depending on if I'm planning on Resilient: Constitution later or just don't have a choice because of stat rolling. If I have great rolling, whatever I can spare after my primary and secondary stats; the best I've had in 5e was 17 thanks to some obscene luck (landed an 18 and another 17 for my primary and secondary. That character had a 13 for a dump stat).

I've also never played as a barbarian, where I might want better. Might. Due to how the other DM's have taken after me, I'd probably avoid playing a naked barbarian due to the sheer variety of magic armor I can expect, limiting Con's necessity back to tertiary or even lower. With armor, I'd even consider it below Wisdom. But I'm the paranoid sort that fears bad saving throws.

[Dork_Forge]

14 or 16, I'd take Tough before I take 18 Con.

[Naanomi]

Sort of. Barbarians Don't really have many defensive tools past rage and HP. They are fairly limited on AC options and being one of the most MaD classes their saves are mediocre. In order for someone to target a wizard's HP they have a bunch of hoops to jump through where the barbarian is usually in a position to be hit as the default target. Tanking with your face only works if you have face left after the fact.
Easy access to resistance functionally doubles those HP as well. Plus it is thematically appropriate, potential AC boosts (especially at low levels)... and for a few builds, you can pursue the 24 CON.

[stoutstien]

Easy access to resistance functionally doubles those HP as well. Plus it is thematically appropriate, potential AC boosts (especially at low levels)... and for a few builds, you can pursue the 24 CON.
I wish. Rage is a pretty limited resource most of a PC career and you can't retroactively apply it when you are caught off guard. Tracking my player's values it tends to be ~ 30% increase of EHP value over a given day and closer to ~55% for bear totem.

YMMV with a given game pacing.

[Dork_Forge]

I wish. Rage is a pretty limited resource most of a PC career and you can't retroactively apply it when you are caught off guard. Tracking my player's values it tends to be ~ 30% increase of EHP value over a given day and closer to ~55% for bear totem.

YMMV with a given game pacing.

This feels right, there's a Bear totem/Swash character in my Sunday game, when he doesn't get the chance to Rage the entire combat shifts off of only one round. Most of the time he's fine, but the heavy MC (8 Barb/5 Rogue)means that when he can't rage he really misses those extra hp.

[Droppeddead]

Of the characters I've played, 14 has been the minimum, 17 (which will be raised with Resilient Con as soon as I hit level 12) the highest. I do have plans for a Battle Smith that only has Con 12 but that character will get the Tough feat. Also, I'll only play that particular character if I know I will go to at least level 14.

[stoutstien]

This feels right, there's a Bear totem/Swash character in my Sunday game, when he doesn't get the chance to Rage the entire combat shifts off of only one round. Most of the time he's fine, but the heavy MC (8 Barb/5 Rogue)means that when he can't rage he really misses those extra hp.

Worst part is a straight barb in this case only gained a single additional rage per day and +1 rage damage. Relentless is nice but it's a failsafe you hope not to need because of rage mitigation and it's a coin toss on the power of the 10th level subclass feature. Brutal critical is a joke.

The biggest loss could have been the HP decrease lol. I would wager the rouge levels makes up for the difference in different ways. It's a popular multiclass for good reasons. Haven't seen many swashbuckler combos myself but I can see it working.

[Rev666]

I always have 14 minimum and try to have a 16 by level 12. If a caster i usually take resilient (con).

[Eldariel]

Sort of. Barbarians Don't really have many defensive tools past rage and HP. They are fairly limited on AC options and being one of the most MaD classes their saves are mediocre. In order for someone to target a wizard's HP they have a bunch of hoops to jump through where the barbarian is usually in a position to be hit as the default target. Tanking with your face only works if you have face left after the fact.

This is true. But it's still only a linear addition to a large base number, which is lesser than a multiplicatory (such as AC or resistance) addition to a base. But of course, in this case it's not like it costs you any multiplicative value, especially since you can eventually get to pretty darn good base AC if you get a Con-based AC system going.

[Dork_Forge]

Worst part is a straight barb in this case only gained a single additional rage per day and +1 rage damage. Relentless is nice but it's a failsafe you hope not to need because of rage mitigation and it's a coin toss on the power of the 10th level subclass feature. Brutal critical is a joke.

The biggest loss could have been the HP decrease lol. I would wager the rouge levels makes up for the difference in different ways. It's a popular multiclass for good reasons. Haven't seen many swashbuckler combos myself but I can see it working.

He'd be glad of the extra Rage and +1 damage (he uses TWF without the style), but the ROgue goodies definitely outweigh that. The lack of hp is the most noticeable, he's recently started encountering Psychic and it makes him drop into the red zone far faster than he's used to.

Swash was on my recommendation, it means he gets Sneak more reliably and allows him to skirmish if he wants (leveraging Fast Movement).

The Star Spawn combo encounters I'm having them go through recently are really nasty, two hulks tripling a Seer's psychic damage is... rough and a Mangler recharge attack is a guaranteed concentration fail for the Bard so far.

[Morty]

Of the three 5E characters I've made, two had 14 in constitution and I can't remember the third one. But she probably had 12. The characters with 14 were a halfling fighter and a half-elf wizard, the 12 one was a dwarf rogue (who replaced the +2 to constitution with +2 to dexterity, as we realized it was the reasonable thing to do years before Tasha's). I found it difficult to justify putting more in there, since while it'd make the character tougher, it'd come at a cost of actually getting things done, in or out of combat. The fighter did need at least 14 on account of spending a lot of time in melee and the wizard had to shore up his naturally low HP, plus it's not like there's much else for a wizard to invest in. The rogue was an archer and as such didn't need so much HP.

[stoutstien]

He'd be glad of the extra Rage and +1 damage (he uses TWF without the style), but the ROgue goodies definitely outweigh that. The lack of hp is the most noticeable, he's recently started encountering Psychic and it makes him drop into the red zone far faster than he's used to.

Swash was on my recommendation, it means he gets Sneak more reliably and allows him to skirmish if he wants (leveraging Fast Movement).

The Star Spawn combo encounters I'm having them go through recently are really nasty, two hulks tripling a Seer's psychic damage is... rough and a Mangler recharge attack is a guaranteed concentration fail for the Bard so far.

Star spawns are one of the reasons that I have hope that somebody in wotc still knows how to build interesting NPC stat blocks that also don't take nine pages of mechanics to run.

[KorvinStarmast]

I always have 14 minimum and try to have a 16 by level 12. If a caster i usually take resilient (con). My favorite caster feat.
The vast majority of my characters start with a 14 con. (A cleric started with 18, vHuman, when we rolled, and that was nice). She ended up taking warcaster at 4.

A few have started with a 12: a rogue and a monk are the only two I can think of.

[Segev]

I think we should just play 8-constutition characters with armies of identical siblings and cousins. :smallcool:

[Tanarii]

My favorite caster feat.
Yeah, that one feat throws the entire caster balance out of whack the same way GWM/SS does martials. Multiclassing 1 level dips dips for HA seal the deal.

It's a whole different ballgame when you play without feats, but just getting rid of Resilient, GWM, SS, and 1 level MA/HA dips for arcane nuke casters should fix most of the damage.

[Sception]

I usually aim for 14. Maybe 15 if I plan to take resilient constitution.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, that one feat throws the entire caster balance out of whack {snip} Multiclassing 1 level dips dips for HA seal the deal.
What do you mean by that? The feat costs an ASI.
(I agree the 'one level martial dip for Heavy Armor is cheese)

[Dork_Forge]

What do you mean by that? The feat costs an ASI.
(I agree the 'one level martial dip for Heavy Armor is cheese)

I think they mean that grabbing Con prof as a feat makes concentration checks easy enough on casters (with no other investment, since it'll scale automatically) that they can forget about losing concentration for the most part.

Depending on the level of play, I can see what they mean, but tbh this is partly down to the generous (towards the caster) formula for concentration saves. It's dicey to begin with, but as you level the DC relies on singular big hits to scale, which just isn't tennable in a lot of situations without ending up with samey, big meaty monsters vs the party.

[Tanarii]

I think they mean that grabbing Con prof as a feat makes concentration checks easy enough on casters (with no other investment, since it'll scale automatically) that they can forget about losing concentration for the most part.
Thats exactly what I mean. +3 to +7 (since its a half feat and typically evens up Con) is a huge impact for arcane nuke casters. It takes the basic DC 10 save to maintain concentration from a normally about 35-40% chance of failure to (in Tier 2) 15-20%.

It makes swarms of mooks with slings, arrows, javelins etc far less dangerous.

Ditto for HA. And when you put them together it gets out of control pretty fast.

[Segev]

This is obviously anecdotal, but I have not seen casters under threat of losing concentration very much even without those. So to me, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal, not because they still lose concentration often enough, but because the net impact is negligible in terms of how much more often they do. Going from "it's not really a big concern" to "it's not really a big concern" doesn't shift things much from the far side of the DM screen, at least from my perspective.

Maybe other DMs have more times when casters are under serious threat of losing concentration than my party was when I ran ToA. If the DM counted on concentration-breaking being a key monster tactic, that would make more of a difference.

[stoutstien]

Thats exactly what I mean. +3 to +7 (since its a half feat and typically evens up Con) is a huge impact for arcane nuke casters. It takes the basic DC 10 save to maintain concentration from a normally about 35-40% chance of failure to (in Tier 2) 15-20%.

It makes swarms of mooks with slings, arrows, javelins etc far less dangerous.

Ditto for HA. And when you put them together it gets out of control pretty fast.

Yes and no. Lots of little attacks still works against concentration just at a diminished return and the lower hp pool of most casters means that you are still applying pressure. That is an example of a good feat opportunity cost/reward. It also doesn't prevent losing concentration by proxy from other conditions. I'm more annoyed by WC and the plethora of ways casters can cast in close proximity. WC not only buffs Con checks for concentration it also shifts the impact of spells by doubling down on the action economy. Casting in the middle of combat should probably have more risk than it does now.

As far as armor goes the reduced speed can bite them suddenly and the disadvantage on stealth is a pretty big trade off for a few extra AC. Though I do agree casting spells in armor should be limited to the spells gained by the same class but its a flavor thing for me.

[Eldariel]

Thats exactly what I mean. +3 to +7 (since its a half feat and typically evens up Con) is a huge impact for arcane nuke casters. It takes the basic DC 10 save to maintain concentration from a normally about 35-40% chance of failure to (in Tier 2) 15-20%.

It makes swarms of mooks with slings, arrows, javelins etc far less dangerous.

Ditto for HA. And when you put them together it gets out of control pretty fast.

Though it's still at a very real cost. Most casters are stronger without heavy armor than with: a bit more AC just isn't worth as much as a whole level of casting for vast majority of uses since this means you can put less encounters down and spend longer putting them down and thus take more and more dangerous attacks. Even Res: Con is only so good because Con itself is an incredibly useful stat and Con-saves are both, painful and common. You only half-take it for Concentration saves: as you said, it's mostly relevant vs. mooks. Meanwhile, the actual Con-save proficiency makes you much tankier against the dangerous campaign-ending fights with Con save-or-dies flying around (starting from the lowly Banshee). And of course any poison users and such.

But this is another issue with the system at large: saving throws don't naturally scale. Meanwhile, save DCs do. And some saves are very common and completely capable of just plain taking characters out at fairly high likelihood. There's only so many times you can risk those odds on a party level before possible TPK becomes probable. Of course there's the option of not using such monsters or enemy spellcasters but that flies in the face of the feeling of the game and the world: such a game feels cheap...plastic, so to speak.


Resilient is an absolutely critical feat for high level balance for martials (Wis) and casters (Con) alike. Only Monk, Pally and some Wizard/Fighter subclasses get the big three saves innately to the point where they have a chance. It's not even about being likely to make those character altering saves, it's about not rolling at 10% odds. And of course, this says nothing of the less common, but all the more brutal Int- and Cha-saves.

Concentration as a mechanic especially for increasing mook threat works only when Con-saves don't really scale for casters. But the monster scaling breaks if saves don't scale. One of the problems with Bounded Accuracy that was never ironed out. It sucks to play a level 20 character who literally has no chance of making the saving throw against level appropriate threats but that's actually the case for the majority of the classes, especially in a featless game. Then you just have to pray your party has some immunity toggle to make the condition not that lethal/not a problem, or that the party can handle it without you.

Honestly, if you wanna accomplish both, Concentration should simply be dissociated from the save system in the first place, like in 3e. Except obviously don't put it in the skill system, it'd just be a skill tax. Pathfinder 1e had probably the best take yet in making it a casting stat check: natural scaling that's easy to control and set DCs for. Of course, it would be a bit fast for what you're looking for: making it a Con-check you don't get proficiency on of course works too. But it would make sense that you could train a skill like concentrating and Bard's JoA would apply for instance. No easy fix.

[Rihno]

14-16. I tend to stick to 14 for Paladins (because of Aura and I always max CHA by level 12) and put 16 for other casters because they are not as MAD as Paladins. But apart from Paladin I always try to pick up RES (CON) as fast as possible, though first I prefer to rise spell attribute.

For melee like Fighters or Barbarians I stick to 16, though with Sharpshooter Fighters I would go with 14 and put more into some mental attribute so I have more options to dip after level 12.

[Waterdeep Merch]

-snip-

Actually, I can think of a *reasonably* easy set up if you want casters to be decent and have a path to improve their saves without getting too silly too quick, and avoid any character tax in an elegant manner- the save is based on the ability score used to cast it, and the base DC is equal to 10 + the level of the spell. In general only multiclass casters or edge cases like eldritch knight might not have the relevant save (and I feel that's fair here), the save is tied to casting in a way that makes sense, saves become harder organically and in a manner that stays thematic, and your numbers never balloon too badly either way.

[Dork_Forge]

This is obviously anecdotal, but I have not seen casters under threat of losing concentration very much even without those. So to me, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal, not because they still lose concentration often enough, but because the net impact is negligible in terms of how much more often they do. Going from "it's not really a big concern" to "it's not really a big concern" doesn't shift things much from the far side of the DM screen, at least from my perspective.

Maybe other DMs have more times when casters are under serious threat of losing concentration than my party was when I ran ToA. If the DM counted on concentration-breaking being a key monster tactic, that would make more of a difference.

An annecdotal response, I ran my game last night and broke the Bard's concentration on Slow twice, using a Star Spawn Mangler's Flurry of Claws ability (6 attacks, one turn), I hit 4 and 5 attacks respectively.

Had the Bard had Res:Con, he would have kept concentration and Slow would have trivialised the encounters entirely, rather than being a hiccup. This is mainly a problem with proficiency bonus and the floor DC 10 check, realistically every caster is going to be more likely to succeed than fail, regardless of prof.

[Segev]

This is mainly a problem with proficiency bonus and the floor DC 10 check, realistically every caster is going to be more likely to succeed than fail, regardless of prof.

I think the caster being more likely to succeed than fail is deliberate. It's supposed to be a risk, a small problem, not a negation of the caster's capabilities. Most effects that require Concentration also offer saves every round to end them, which I have found to be far more of an effective way to get through caster debuffs.

[Dork_Forge]

I think the caster being more likely to succeed than fail is deliberate. It's supposed to be a risk, a small problem, not a negation of the caster's capabilities. Most effects that require Concentration also offer saves every round to end them, which I have found to be far more of an effective way to get through caster debuffs.

I don't know how this breaks down into percentages, but that feels wrong to base an evaluation of concentration off of:

-Defensive buffs can require concentration and the only check on them is making the con save

-Offensive buffs are the same, Shadow Blade, Spirit Shroud, Hex, Hunter's Mark

-Spells that fall inbetween: Spirit Guardians and Moon Beam may offer saves each round, but they're also doing some damage and possible other effects regardless.

-Then there's spells like Spike Growth...

As you elvel and spells get exponentially more powerful, the difficulty to maintain them... doesn't. It's not particularly common to take 22 or more damage, and the rise in DC in relation to that is pitiful. If concentration is meant to be a small problem, then spells shouldn't be so powerful, though if it was a small problem Res: Con wouldn't be so popular around here, I wouldn't think.

[Segev]

I don't know how this breaks down into percentages, but that feels wrong to base an evaluation of concentration off of:

-Defensive buffs can require concentration and the only check on them is making the con save

-Offensive buffs are the same, Shadow Blade, Spirit Shroud, Hex, Hunter's Mark

-Spells that fall inbetween: Spirit Guardians and Moon Beam may offer saves each round, but they're also doing some damage and possible other effects regardless.

-Then there's spells like Spike Growth...

As you elvel and spells get exponentially more powerful, the difficulty to maintain them... doesn't. It's not particularly common to take 22 or more damage, and the rise in DC in relation to that is pitiful. If concentration is meant to be a small problem, then spells shouldn't be so powerful, though if it was a small problem Res: Con wouldn't be so popular around here, I wouldn't think.

The real cost of concentration is...concentration. You can't have more than one up at a time.

[stoutstien]

An annecdotal response, I ran my game last night and broke the Bard's concentration on Slow twice, using a Star Spawn Mangler's Flurry of Claws ability (6 attacks, one turn), I hit 4 and 5 attacks respectively.

Had the Bard had Res:Con, he would have kept concentration and Slow would have trivialised the encounters entirely, rather than being a hiccup. This is mainly a problem with proficiency bonus and the floor DC 10 check, realistically every caster is going to be more likely to succeed than fail, regardless of prof.

It's hard to judge these circumstances post hoc. What did they pick instead of res:con? How many times did that opportunity cost benefit the bard and party compared to the former? Would have a different option provided more protection cheaper like the shield spell or moderately armored?

*I was curious so I did some napkin math. 10 Attacks is about the break even point to break anyone's concentration by damage unless they hit the +8 threshold and +9 is obviously practically immunity to low damage checks.*

[Tanarii]

If concentration is meant to be a small problem, then spells shouldn't be so powerful, though if it was a small problem Res: Con wouldn't be so popular around here, I wouldn't think.
Exactly. Like GWM & SS, its popular for a reason. It's that powerful.

Having seen the difference in play between Bards/Druids/Wizards/Warlocks in a no feat campaign vs AL, where practically every full caster has the feat, it's not an insignificant difference to shift from 40% chance of failure on each hit to 20%. Especially with enemies that are somewhat intelligent and tactical. (Clerics are relatively less impacted due to higher AC.)



As far as armor goes the reduced speed can bite them suddenly and the disadvantage on stealth is a pretty big trade off for a few extra AC. Though I do agree casting spells in armor should be limited to the spells gained by the same class but its a flavor thing for me.Str 13 is a lot cheaper than Dex 14, and Str 15 is cheaper and superior to Dex 20.

If anyone else in the party is wearing HA, stealth is pretty much a non-issue without Magic anyway, unless you're the primary scout.

[Dork_Forge]

The real cost of concentration is...concentration. You can't have more than one up at a time.

If you remove the chance of losing the spell and just treat it as a limiter, the spells start looking a lot more powerful.

Besides that, this isn't as straightforward as that, you can only cast one leveled spell a turn and most combats on average only last around 3 rounds. How often would you actually be wanting to stack concentration spells to begin with?



It's hard to judge these circumstances post hoc. What did they pick instead of res:con? How many times did that opportunity cost benefit the bard and party compared to the former? Would have a different option provided more protection cheaper like the shield spell or moderately armored?

Level 13, Bard 11, Celestial Warlock 2. ASIs: Actor, +2 Cha, free feat boon: Metamagic Adept

The Bard is a Glamour Bard and the party heavily uses the temp hp he throw out, combined with the buff to DCs and the to hit and damage attached to his Eldritch Blast, he's very effective. Metamagic Adept is relatively new, but he doesn't make use of it every long rest and imo the character would be far more powerful with Res:Con (I'm glad that he didn't take it as a DM)

Moderately Armored would be a bad choice, his Dex is even and he needs both hands to play his instruments, a +1 Dex to raise his AC would be a meh bump at this point. He has the option of a ring that increases his AC +2 for a short time (I think an hour) but prioritised his attunement differently.


*I was curious so I did some napkin math. 10 Attacks is about the break even point to break anyone's concentration by damage unless they hit the +8 threshold and +9 is obviously practically immunity to low damage checks.*

That feels about right, even getting up to +6/+7 feels like they never really fail.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Generally 12-14, for most pcs, of course the odd one will go to 16 particularly if you start getting into ASI levels. Starting con is almost always around the 12-14 mark. (of course, barbarian pcs and "tough" flavoured pcs will have higher con, with "weaker" pcs having less con.)

[Vegan Squirrel]

I usually go with 12 or 14, working from the standard array, but that's more because there's usually only one or two key stats for a given character. I think anything 8 or higher is usually fine, assuming you probably prioritized other stats for a reason.

[Witty Username]

If you remove the chance of losing the spell and just treat it as a limiter, the spells start looking a lot more powerful.

Besides that, this isn't as straightforward as that, you can only cast one leveled spell a turn and most combats on average only last around 3 rounds. How often would you actually be wanting to stack concentration spells to begin with?


Defensive buff + offensive control spell. This is why mirror image tends to see more play then blur. In fact, the prevention/mitigation of layering buffs is a lot of concentration's effect on the game. In practice, for me at least, this tends to be handled more in the spell selection step, deliberately preparing few concentration spells so the caster has options in combat that won't require dropping their bless, or hypnotic pattern, or shadow of moil depending on the character.

If I could stack concentration spells like shield of faith, protection from energy, Globe of invulnerability become the powerhouse spells they were in previous editions. All of these spells are kept in check because they significantly limit the offensive power of the caster and create a decision between defensive options. If you are fighting a lich riding a dragon, the fact you can't have two defensive spells up without substantially limiting your options is important.

[Dork_Forge]

Defensive buff + offensive control spell. This is why mirror image tends to see more play then blur. In fact, the prevention/mitigation of layering buffs is a lot of concentration's effect on the game. In practice, for me at least, this tends to be handled more in the spell selection step, deliberately preparing few concentration spells so the caster has options in combat that won't require dropping their bless, or hypnotic pattern, or shadow of moil depending on the character.

If I could stack concentration spells like shield of faith, protection from energy, Globe of invulnerability become the powerhouse spells they were in previous editions. All of these spells are kept in check because they significantly limit the offensive power of the caster and create a decision between defensive options. If you are fighting a lich riding a dragon, the fact you can't have two defensive spells up without substantially limiting your options is important.

I'm aware what kind of spells you'd want to use together, my point is that with a limit of one leveled spell a turn, by the time you've gotten multiple spells up the combat may as well be over most of the time.

This would be more of an issue if spells like you're referring to had durations that you could reasonably precast, or if you're usually fighting tougher opponents that combat is going for several rounds or more.

[Lvl45DM!]

My mates call me the DnD hipster because i regularly make characters with cons of 10 or lower.
One of my favourite characters was my Dirgesinger Bard from 3.5 with a 6 consitution. She was a delicate flower who wanted everyone else to do her fighting for her, and often got her way, after implanting them with a Mother Cyst that let her control them

[MrStabby]

This is obviously anecdotal, but I have not seen casters under threat of losing concentration very much even without those. So to me, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal, not because they still lose concentration often enough, but because the net impact is negligible in terms of how much more often they do. Going from "it's not really a big concern" to "it's not really a big concern" doesn't shift things much from the far side of the DM screen, at least from my perspective.

Maybe other DMs have more times when casters are under serious threat of losing concentration than my party was when I ran ToA. If the DM counted on concentration-breaking being a key monster tactic, that would make more of a difference.

I don't think it is as small as you make it out to be. 5 hits of 7 damage each - typical for the damage low level archers would do would result in a failed concentrations save about 82% of the time (+2 con) vs only 59% of the time with con proficiency (at +2 con, +3 proficiency). At level 9 when proficiency becomes a bigger deal the gap only widens.

If you only DM with small numbers of big monsters then sure, it isn't such a big deal but if you have big monsters supported by multiple smaller threats then it makes a massive difference.




Yes and no. Lots of little attacks still works against concentration just at a diminished return and the lower hp pool of most casters means that you are still applying pressure. That is an example of a good feat opportunity cost/reward. It also doesn't prevent losing concentration by proxy from other conditions. I'm more annoyed by WC and the plethora of ways casters can cast in close proximity. WC not only buffs Con checks for concentration it also shifts the impact of spells by doubling down on the action economy. Casting in the middle of combat should probably have more risk than it does now.

As far as armor goes the reduced speed can bite them suddenly and the disadvantage on stealth is a pretty big trade off for a few extra AC. Though I do agree casting spells in armor should be limited to the spells gained by the same class but its a flavor thing for me.

The thing that annoys me is that this is one ofthe major causes of the martial/caster disparity, or what remains of it. Casters get a multitude of different ways to stop fighters from effectively attacking, but this obviates the primary way fighters have of interacting to disrupt spellcasting. Cutting this feat and the misty step spell (so fighters can interact by grappling) would really help line up the two types of character a lot better.


Actually, I can think of a *reasonably* easy set up if you want casters to be decent and have a path to improve their saves without getting too silly too quick, and avoid any character tax in an elegant manner- the save is based on the ability score used to cast it, and the base DC is equal to 10 + the level of the spell. In general only multiclass casters or edge cases like eldritch knight might not have the relevant save (and I feel that's fair here), the save is tied to casting in a way that makes sense, saves become harder organically and in a manner that stays thematic, and your numbers never balloon too badly either way.

I am not a fan of this. One of the things that makes the sorcerer special is the Con save proficiency. If the ability to concentrate equally well were to be handed round so broadly I think it would hurt the class a lot; that said, you could just give the sorcerer the ability to add proficiency to their concentration saves anyway as a class ability.

[Segev]

I don't think it is as small as you make it out to be. 5 hits of 7 damage each - typical for the damage low level archers would do would result in a failed concentrations save about 82% of the time (+2 con) vs only 59% of the time with con proficiency (at +2 con, +3 proficiency). At level 9 when proficiency becomes a bigger deal the gap only widens.

If you only DM with small numbers of big monsters then sure, it isn't such a big deal but if you have big monsters supported by multiple smaller threats then it makes a massive difference.

I have only run ToA, which had mostly singular threats, and when it had groups of smaller monsters, those groups couldn't effectively hit the mage without overwhelming numbers (more than 2x the PCs), especially with the party swarming in to fight them.

The couple of custom battles I created with large numbers still had trouble hitting the wizard just with his mage armor up. Not "this is impossible," but definitely not 5 hits per round. My experience may be unusual, or maybe I just suck at tactics. :smallfrown:

[stoutstien]

I have only run ToA, which had mostly singular threats, and when it had groups of smaller monsters, those groups couldn't effectively hit the mage without overwhelming numbers (more than 2x the PCs), especially with the party swarming in to fight them.

The couple of custom battles I created with large numbers still had trouble hitting the wizard just with his mage armor up. Not "this is impossible," but definitely not 5 hits per round. My experience may be unusual, or maybe I just suck at tactics. :smallfrown:
Help action tends to be the one thing that swarms that don't use pack tactics can use to up their threat without cranking up the deadliness.

[elyktsorb]

currently playing a campaign as a rogue with 8 con

[Tanarii]

I have only run ToA, which had mostly singular threats, and when it had groups of smaller monsters, those groups couldn't effectively hit the mage without overwhelming numbers (more than 2x the PCs), especially with the party swarming in to fight them.
Huh. "more than 2x the PCs" is what I consider a normal fight.

Actually, I speak untruth. What I usually build for encounters is 7-12, so it's usually between 1.5-2x as many.

[Elandel]

Most times it's around 12, except when I play a barbarian for example. I prefer roleplay heavy characters and giving them 11 int and 12 wis sometimes feels more "complete" than a con of 14.
Totally depends on the groups playstyle, though (for us: 60% role play and 40% really challenging fights, cuz noone optimizes).