I have no stomach for Constitution

[Yakk]

So this is a stab at eliminating Constitution.

Step 1:

Strength and Constitution are merged. The new stat is called Brawn. Any use of either Strength or Constitution (saves, modifiers, checks, HP, carrying capacity) is replaced with a use of Brawn.

Step 2:

A new stat called "Fate" is added. Fate is a luck stat. Death saving throws are now Fate saving throws, and a start of turn roll of 20+ means you get up with 1 HP.

When you take damage, the failed death saving throw is no longer automatic. You make another Fate saving throw (DC 10), and on success you don't suffer a death save failure. A critical hit causes 1 failure and 1 saving throw check.

Step 3:

Fighters and Barbarians are proficient in Fate and Brawn saving throws.
Sorcerers are proficient in Brawn and Charisma saving throws.

Step 4:

At the start of each game session, make a Fate check against DC 10. If you succeed, you get a point of inspiration; if you fail, you lose one. The most inspiration you can have is equal to your Fate bonus plus your proficiency bonus (min 1).

You can also gain inspiration the usual way.

Step 5:

The DM can call for Fate ability checks like they can any other. When random chance would determine a result, a Fate ability check is appropriate.

For example, when playing a game of chance, a Fate(Gaming Set) is appropriate.

Step 6:

If your Fate is higher than your Brawn, you can use the average of Fate and Brawn for HP instead of just Brawn (round down).

Step 7:

Use the higher of Strength and Constitution for Brawn. Most NPCs and creatures have a Fate of 10.

---

The goal here is a few fold.

But the biggest is that Brawn and Dexterity are now balanced. Both provide great benefits to every PC.

I added Fate in order to bring ability list back up to 6. Death saves are now a saving throw like any other (mostly).

Fighter/Barbarian Fate save proficiency means they are less likely to die when down.

Monk/Rangers get Dex and Brawn, two strong saves. That helps shore them up a bit.

The ability to use the average of Fate and Brawn for HP both reflects the fact that HP is more than just meat, and it means a low Brawn won't curse someone to being doomed.

Also, I have issues with the 8 strength/14 con pattern that is very common among all but strength-weapon-using PCs. With this system, being a bit beefy is being a bit beefy.

[sandmote]

I assume you meant Monk/Ranger rather than Monk/Rogue, but would like to check.

I used the same concept (without adding anything like Fate) for a Sci FI system I started writing. I rather like it, partially because it makes meat shields SADer.

Although for 5e d&d, I'd probably prefer to add some subsystems that rely on strength, rather than combine the stats. The effect of fate could probably be rolled into Int or Cha instead, as a lot of builds tend to dump one of those if they aren't dumping strength.

Honestly, I think the issue is more that half the scores affect every character (common saves and either initiative, perception, or hit points) and the other three only come up if you really want them to (rare saves, lax carry capacity, and other PCs who use the score for something specific can often make up for PCs that dump it).

For what you've done, you should probably check the barbarian for issues with this. Rage and Unarmored Defense are probably fine (if the latter might be really strong now) but I'd buff Primal Champion a bit given its a high level feature on a martial class.

You should also probably clarify how the new ability scores interact with the Enhance Ability spell. Although in this case you can probably make it "Bull's Brawn" and Turn Bear's Endurance into "Cricket's Fate" or something similar.

[traskomancer]

Once you introduce Fate saves, I feel like they'd just become the only saving throw. On the other hand, I do see your point about the thematic issues with high Str/low Con and vice versa. If you do try introducing the Fate stat, I highly recommend stealing a mechanic from various other systems for a "dumb luck" check. You'd roll that for situations where the narrative could break either way. For instance, a PC wanting to put out a fire could make a Fate check to see if there's a jug of water in the room, or a wizard could roll Fate to see if they happened to pack a certain spell component they weren't expecting to use.

[Yakk]

Once you introduce Fate saves, I feel like they'd just become the only saving throw. On the other hand, I do see your point about the thematic issues with high Str/low Con and vice versa. If you do try introducing the Fate stat, I highly recommend stealing a mechanic from various other systems for a "dumb luck" check. You'd roll that for situations where the narrative could break either way. For instance, a PC wanting to put out a fire could make a Fate check to see if there's a jug of water in the room, or a wizard could roll Fate to see if they happened to pack a certain spell component they weren't expecting to use.
I think I said that. ;)


The DM can call for Fate ability checks like they can any other. When random chance would determine a result, a Fate ability check is appropriate.

...


For what you've done, you should probably check the barbarian for issues with this. Rage and Unarmored Defense are probably fine (if the latter might be really strong now) but I'd buff Primal Champion a bit given its a high level feature on a martial class.
Primal Champion is a good point. But, before this, getting 20 str/con to boost up to 24/24 was an extreme investment. After this, getting 20 brawn is cheap, so you end up with the equivalent of 24/24.

Although that does remind me of the "Belts of Giant Strength" and "Ogre power" problem. A 29/29 str/con is way, way more powerful than a 29 strength.

Possible solutions:
1. Leave them as-is, they are just way stronger. So don't hand them out as often.
2. Leave them as-is, they are just way stronger. Hand them out just as often. Go go beefy boys and their belts.
3. Modify them to apply to only athletics and brawn attacks.

For 3:

Gauntlets of Ogre Power: You have advantage on Brawn(athletics) checks that use your hands or arms effectively. The Gauntlets strengthen your hands and arms, making large weapons easier to use. When using a versatile melee weapon in one hand, use its two-handed weapon damage. You can wield a two-handed melee weapon in one hand, but if you do so it doesn't count as HEAVY or two-handed. When you do use a two handed or versatile weapon in both hands, you gain an additional +1 bonus to hit and damage.

Belt of Giant Strength: Your carrying capacity doubles. Each Belt of Giant strength has a Brawn bonus die. You add this Brawn bonus die to Brawn(Athletics) checks, damage on Brawn-based weapon attacks, and on Brawn saving throws against being moved, grabbed, grasped, or knocked prone.

Belt of Hill Giant Strength: The Brawn bonus die is 1d4.

Belt of Stone Giant Strength: 1d6, and as an action, can throw a stone of up to 3 pounds as a thrown weapon; these do 1d12 damage per pound and have a 50/500' range.

Belt of Frost Giant Strength: 1d6, and you are immune to cold damage and resistant to fire damage.

Belt of Fire Giant Strength: 1d8, and you are immune to fire damage and resistant to cold damage.

Belt of Cloud Giant Strength: 1d10, and you can cast Fog Cloud without expending a spell slot. As an action, or as a reaction when you suffer damage, you can cast Gaseous Form on yourself without requiring concentration or any components; it has a duration of 1 minute, and you can do this once before completing a short rest. You can end the Gaseous Form as a bonus action. Casting Gaseous Form as a reaction this way gives you resistance against the triggering damage.

Belt of Storm Giant Strength: 1d12, and you are immune to lighting damage, resistant to thunder damage and can breathe underwater. If you roll a critical hit on a weapon attack, or suffer a critical hit, as a reaction you can hurl a lightning bolt at a point you can see within 500 feet. Each creature within 10 feet must make a DC 17 dexterity saving throw, taking 54 (12d8) lightning damage on a failed save, or half as much on a successful one. You can do this once before completing a short rest.

---

I think that makes the various Belts roughly as good as they where before. You lose the accuracy bonus that the belts used to give and Battlemaster save DCs, but the bonus die lines up with most other common uses of Strength.

It also no longer makes Strength a dump-stat for people with such items, as its bonuses stack with your base Strength in every case.

I added thematic abilities for the upper-tier belts. Not because they needed it, but because it is more fun that way. Each of those additional abilities is based on the giant the belt comes from.

Instead of making Ogre guantlets "belts lite", I focused on the fact they where on your hands. A character might want both the belt and guantlets.

The ability to "monkey grip" two handed weapons is something people often want, and having ogre size and strength hands makes it work here. Stripping HEAVY from it prevents it from being dominant. It is still useful to GWF because the +1 to hit on two handed weapon attacks is of high value if you are using the -5/+10 great weapon master; I could have made it +2, but that would make it a bit too much of a must-use item.

[Intregus182]

I did this years ago in a 3.5 game. Although instead of fate i had common sense. So everytime a player would want to make a dumb decision "in the moment" whether to be funny or ro do something like try and fight another PC i could make them roll a common sense check.

It helped keep the game a role aying game where people made in character decisions.

Im also writinf a system and have smashed cin and str together and called it brawn. I think it just makes sense for all the reasons you listed!

I like this concept for 5e.

[JNAProductions]

I did something similar, a while ago. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?531769-5-Stats-For-5E)

Dropped Con for being boring, but I did not replace it with anything.

[Anonymouswizard]

I tend to roll Strength and Constitution into a physique stat wherever I'm homebrewing. Post of this is a reaction to looking settings with advanced technology and infrastructure, and if you thought Strength was useless in D&D you've never encountered characters with a very well stocked van (including multiple guns).

I'm more iffy on any kind of luck stat. I prefer the Fate Point model, where luck becomes more of a resource that is spent. Spend one to reroll, burn one to survive certain death, and those kind of situations.

[Yakk]

I tend to roll Strength and Constitution into a physique stat wherever I'm homebrewing. Post of this is a reaction to looking settings with advanced technology and infrastructure, and if you thought Strength was useless in D&D you've never encountered characters with a very well stocked van (including multiple guns).

I'm more iffy on any kind of luck stat. I prefer the Fate Point model, where luck becomes more of a resource that is spent. Spend one to reroll, burn one to survive certain death, and those kind of situations.
You'll notice that I added "at the start of each gaming session, make a DC 10 Fate check. On success, gain an Inspiration point; on failure, lose one. Max Inspiration is your proficiency modifier plus your Fate modifier (min 1)".

This in effect makes Inspiration a pseudo-fate point. Your income of points is based off of your Fate ability, your max points is based off of your Fate ability, etc.

It also ties into the existing D&D Inspiration system. By having a consistent source of Inspiration income and a kicker that it exists every session, I hope to make it harder to forget about.

Inspiration points give you rerolls, just like your Fate points do.

The ability, as a DM, to say "make a fate check" is also fun and very appropriate. Some people have all the luck... It also interacts with bard's "jack of all trades" in an interesting way.

Warlock Curses can apply to Fate. Technically Enhance Ability cannot, but I can just make that work; get advantage on Fate checks.

[Satinavian]

Making Strength more useful is certainly achieved by this. But to me it sees that Brawn would be even significantly more powerful than Constitution is now. I mean, would anyone ever play a low Brawn character with those changes ?

Furthermore, with Brawn the modifier is used for a lot of things, with Fate, the matters far more. This would result in people building high Brawn, dump Fate, get Fate proficiency somehow.

[Yakk]

Making Strength more useful is certainly achieved by this. But to me it sees that Brawn would be even significantly more powerful than Constitution is now. I mean, would anyone ever play a low Brawn character with those changes ?

Furthermore, with Brawn the modifier is used for a lot of things, with Fate, the matters far more. This would result in people building high Brawn, dump Fate, get Fate proficiency somehow.
Yes, Brawn is going to be strong. It is obviously stronger than Constitution.

The ability to use half-fate for HP is intended to soften that a bit. I considered making it "use the higher of Fate and Brawn" for HP, but I think that makes being a fragile caster too tempting. On the other hand, Con saving throws are pretty important.

Having higher of Fate and Brawn apply to HP means that spellcasters will tend to be Brawny or Fatey. Meanwhile, "strength" combatants will tend to dump Fate. That sort of sucks as well.

[clash]

I like it. I ditched constitution as well in my homebrew system and the players love the change but my stats are quite a bit different from d&d. (Strength, accuracy, magic, Evasion, defense, resistance)

[Ionathus]

This change isn't to my liking, and feels a little bit like rearranging the furniture for not much actual gain. But then, I don't see a big problem with CON and STR as played RAW in 5e.

IMO if your players are treating Strength as a dump stat, you're not hitting them with enough web attacks.

[sandmote]

IMO if your players are treating Strength as a dump stat, you're not hitting them with enough web attacks. Since webbing can often be destroyed by damage, you don't necessarily need strength for that either. And there's only so much you can do before the party is tired of dealing with webbing.

I don't like rolling the two scores together either though. I've tried to make set it up so strength can be used to minimize status effects, which I think would be more interesting, but I'm not sure about any effective fix for Strength's weakness.

Maybe turn "retching" into a condition forcing you to make a strength check at the start of your turn or lose your action instead of the usual "retching and reeling" costing you an action automatically? I consider the effect to be pretty annoying for players, so weakening it would probably be a secondary improvement.

I think this might be my biggest issue, actually:

But the biggest is that Brawn and Dexterity are now balanced. Both provide great benefits to every PC. I agree Brawn would be close in usefulness to Dexterity, but I consider this a downside. I'd rather weaken Dex a bit so it isn't necessary for everyone, instead of making another stat equally powerful.

[Yakk]

I think this might be my biggest issue, actually:
I agree Brawn would be close in usefulness to Dexterity, but I consider this a downside. I'd rather weaken Dex a bit so it isn't necessary for everyone, instead of making another stat equally powerful.
That is an interesting point.

Dex is strong because it adds to your AC if not in heavy armor; medium armor wants a 14, and light armor wants as much as it can get.

It also adds to initiative, saving throws against damaging blasts, stealth and other useful skills.

Con is strong because it adds to your HP. Everyone wants more HP, especially front-liners and people who have smaller HD (ie, almost everyone). It also is good for saving throws against a lot of crippling effects, some of which are deadly.

Even a back line spellcaster will want HP and AC and Initiative, even ignoring the saving throws.

Strength isn't that important, frankly. Mechanics like escaping a grapple or webs or the like, a common use of strength, is an action; if you aren't invested in strength, burning the action at a low chance of success is a bad plan. Neither a 12 nor an 8 strength character (even a 14) is advised to burn their action to escape a grab or tear at webs; both should find some other way to contribute.

A 14 con is just really good if your HD is 1d6 (4); at level 10, you go from 42 HP to 62 HP, a 47% increase in durability. For a front-liner with d10 HD they go from 64 to 84, 31% more HP. Still large even if not as big, but they also tend to get hit more.

...

But the main impact of my above rules is that instead of spell casters going for 8 strength 14 dex 12 con 16 casting stat, they'll go for 14 dex 12 brawn 16 casting stat 8 fate.

And a dex-focused melee PC will be 14 brawn 16 dex 8 fate instead of 16 dex 14 con 8 strength.

Assuming they don't swap Fate and Intelligence or whatever.

[Saelethil]

I’m not entirely opposed to the idea. I’ve toyed with it for a new TTRPG system a while back which only had 3 (maybe 4? Can’t remember for sure) abilities. With D&D though, I think that part of the problem is that the situations that make Strength more useful are some of the first ones to be dropped. Encumbrance and ammunition. You don’t even need to use variant encumbrance, just increase the rarity of a bag of holding and watch how quickly they start to regret dumping Strength. Similarly, if players have to track their ammunition and you require them to explain how they are stealthing through a narrow tunnel with a hundred arrows strapped to their back and how they are quickly drawing and loosing 3 from said bundle in a 6 second period. Once you’ve running low on ammunition you’re in melee and might as well be attacking with something beefier than a rapier. I am also of the opinion that bows should have a Strength prerequisite but that’s another topic for another time.

[Anonymouswizard]

I’m not entirely opposed to the idea. I’ve toyed with it for a new TTRPG system a while back which only had 3 (maybe 4? Can’t remember for sure) abilities. With D&D though, I think that part of the problem is that the situations that make Strength more useful are some of the first ones to be dropped. Encumbrance and ammunition. You don’t even need to use variant encumbrance, just increase the rarity of a bag of holding and watch how quickly they start to regret dumping Strength. Similarly, if players have to track their ammunition and you require them to explain how they are stealthing through a narrow tunnel with a hundred arrows strapped to their back and how they are quickly drawing and loosing 3 from said bundle in a 6 second period. Once you’ve running low on ammunition you’re in melee and might as well be attacking with something beefier than a rapier. I am also of the opinion that bows should have a Strength prerequisite but that’s another topic for another time.

Watch how quickly savvy players invest in donkeys and/or carts. There are ways around low carrying capacity without magic, and in the rare cases I've seen stealth matter it's always been a case of 'send the Rogue on ahead'.

Another idea, and potentially a strange one, is to base Movement Speed on Strength. It's what my homebrew systems tend to do if I'm making something with crunchy combat (although one does allow you to boost it by investing in Athletics instead Strength still determines HP*). It actually makes intuitive sense to me, if you're stronger you can put more power into your run.

* Actually I need to go back and rebalance how Hit Points and Toughness work in that system. Strength gives a ton of survivability because guns are generally better for damage.

[Saelethil]

Another idea, and potentially a strange one, is to base Movement Speed on Strength. It's what my homebrew systems tend to do if I'm making something with crunchy combat (although one does allow you to boost it by investing in Athletics instead Strength still determines HP*). It actually makes intuitive sense to me, if you're stronger you can put more power into your run.

Interesting. How do you think that should be implemented in 5e? My first couple thoughts would be something like speed = 20+Str score or Speed = (Str mod x 5) + 20

[Yakk]

An easy retrofit is making the Dash action into a Strength(Athletics) check. You move twice that many additional feet.

Now your base move speed is still 30' (or whatever), but when you try to go faster you have to roll.

[Anonymouswizard]

Interesting. How do you think that should be implemented in 5e? My first couple thoughts would be something like speed = 20+Str score or Speed = (Str mod x 5) + 20

Depends how much you want to stick to the speeds as written. The latter it's probably how I'd integrate it into D&D, with size and racial/species bonuses.

In my game I think it's Strength score n plus the better of Dexterity or Athletics in metres, IIRC I calibrated it to average jogging speed. I'll check when I'm back on my PC.

[Deepbluediver]

Depends how much you want to stick to the speeds as written. The latter it's probably how I'd integrate it into D&D, with size and racial/species bonuses.

In my game I think it's Strength score n plus the better of Dexterity or Athletics in metres, IIRC I calibrated it to average jogging speed. I'll check when I'm back on my PC.
The biggest issue I see with this is that movement is usually in fixed intervals because D&D bases it's movement, spacing, and size on distinct 5-foot squares. I'm not sure how you'd represent in-game that one character ran 12 inches further than another in a fixed amount of time. I remember once having a discussion with someone about rebuilding the game-setting to operate in 3-ft. hexes instead of 5-ft. squares, but that's a REALLY out-there kinda change that I don't think would work for most people.
Personally, in my homebrewed setting, I just made more diverse races that have a movement speed of 25, 30, or 35 ft., and added a "+5 ft. to movement speed" to a few more feats.

Plus, in real life (not that anyone should ever feel beholden to "realism" in a fantasy game, but there's something to be said for immersion and verisimilitude...) speed is not based exactly on strength, but more like on the ratio of your strength-to-weight. That's why creatures like ostriches and cheetahs are lithe and thin, and much faster than something like a rhinoceros. And also, fun fact, elephants can't run. It's true- a "charging" elephant is really doing the quadruped equivalent of a power-walk, because if they actually galloped like a horse the force from the impact upon landing would cause their leg-bones to shatter. Yay biomechanics!

If you really want to base speed on a stat, maybe do it something like this: If you Str is 9 or less, you move 5 ft. slower than normal for your race. if your Str is between 10 and 16, you move at the normal speed for your race. And if your Str is 17 or above, you move at 5 ft. faster than normal for your race.
Alternatively, do what I did and bootstrap a 5-ft. movement speed bonus onto one or more feats. Then you can also decide if it stacks or if it's capped, like stats are. Just throwing these ideas out there, feel free to take them or leave them as you wish.

[Yakk]

5' squares are an optional rule.

Often, moving less than 5' won't matter. Sometimes it will.

I'd consider swapping 5' squares for 1 yard hexes. Makes movement more round. But 5e works fine not using a grid, or just using the grid to roughly measure stuff.

[Deepbluediver]

5' squares are an optional rule.

Often, moving less than 5' won't matter. Sometimes it will.

I'd consider swapping 5' squares for 1 yard hexes. Makes movement more round. But 5e works fine not using a grid, or just using the grid to roughly measure stuff.
Just to be clear, I support swapping to hexes, but that would probably require a lot of minor tweaks to recalibrate stuff and not everyone is gonna feel comfortable with it.
Otherwise the exact spacing and positioning comes up quite frequently in my games for both melee ("I can't reach that enemy unless I dash but is it worth it to just swap to my crossbow instead....?") and spellcasters (where can I drop this AOE spell so that it hits all 3 enemies but no party members....?).

[Anonymouswizard]

The biggest issue I see with this is that movement is usually in fixed intervals because D&D bases it's movement, spacing, and size on distinct 5-foot squares. I'm not sure how you'd represent in-game that one character ran 12 inches further than another in a fixed amount of time. I remember once having a discussion with someone about rebuilding the game-setting to operate in 3-ft. hexes instead of 5-ft. squares, but that's a REALLY out-there kinda change that I don't think would work for most people.
Personally, in my homebrewed setting, I just made more diverse races that have a movement speed of 25, 30, or 35 ft., and added a "+5 ft. to movement speed" to a few more feats.

it's a good thing that I generally don't pay D&D then.


Plus, in real life (not that anyone should ever feel beholden to "realism" in a fantasy game, but there's something to be said for immersion and verisimilitude...) speed is not based exactly on strength, but more like on the ratio of your strength-to-weight. That's why creatures like ostriches and cheetahs are lithe and thin, and much faster than something like a rhinoceros. And also, fun fact, elephants can't run. It's true- a "charging" elephant is really doing the quadruped equivalent of a power-walk, because if they actually galloped like a horse the force from the impact upon landing would cause their leg-bones to shatter. Yay biomechanics!

There's a point where your going into too much detail, but I suppose I could add in optional roles for weight classes making beefy characters tougher but slower. But it feels like for human charges e it works well enough, if I get around to statting cheetahs and elephants I'll give them species modifiers and abilities.

Plus it has the desired side effect of making melee characters faster that in sorry ranged combats fun uses can't keep them away.


If you really want to base speed on a stat, maybe do it something like this: If you Str is 9 or less, you move 5 ft. slower than normal for your race. if your Str is between 10 and 16, you move at the normal speed for your race. And if your Str is 17 or above, you move at 5 ft. faster than normal for your race.
Alternatively, do what I did and bootstrap a 5-ft. movement speed bonus onto one or more feats. Then you can also decide if it stacks or if it's capped, like stats are. Just throwing these ideas out there, feel free to take them or leave them as you wish.

I'll bare that in mind when I next run D&D. Which will probably be Rules Cyclopaedia (or more likely Basic Fantasy or LotFP) rather than 5e.

[Yakk]

There's a point where your going into too much detail, but I suppose I could add in optional roles for weight classes making beefy characters tougher but slower. But it feels like for human charges e it works well enough, if I get around to statting cheetahs and elephants I'll give them species modifiers and abilities.

Plus it has the desired side effect of making melee characters faster that in sorry ranged combats fun uses can't keep them away.

One thing I thought about when killing Constitution was doing Brawn+Size instead of Brawn+Fate.

Melee damage would be Brawn+Size based, HP would be Size based, melee attack accuracy would be Dex+Brawn based, etc.

I never got it well polished. But with that refactoring Brawn clearly gives you your speed, as it is strength per unit size.

[Rilmani]

Here’s a possible flaw with Brawn as a stat. Spellcasters who would pump ability score modifiers into Constitution for their Concentration saving throws can now put points into Brawn to help with Athletics, non-Finesse attacks, Brawn saving throws which were *strength saving throws* (Ensnaring Strike) and so-on.

I admit that spellcasters (aside from heavy armor wearing clerics) usually pump points into Dexterity for their AC and Dexterity saving throws. Now with Brawn we’ll see spellcasters who are a point or two weaker (in terms of strength stuff) than the high-Brawn Martials *just because* they wanted to make Concentration saving throws (and get hit points).

I need to think about Fate a bit more. Giving people more Inspiration points feels good, but Advantage already feels common. A Fate-spellcaster could be neat though. I wonder if combining Fate with the suggested Sanity and/or Honor stats in the official 5e books would make it feel more palatable. More-so Honor since Wisdom and Charisma can cover Sanity for a lot of campaigns.

[Nuptup]

I mean, one resolution to this issue would be to move concentration checks to fate instead of brawn, and it's just a matter of whether it's destined for you to lose that spell or not. Then if destiny says yes, you could roll the extra inspiration to deny fate. Just a cool idea IMHO.

[Anonymouswizard]

Now with Brawn we’ll see spellcasters who are a point or two weaker (in terms of strength stuff) than the high-Brawn Martials *just because* they wanted to make Concentration saving throws (and get hit points).

And that would be bad because?

Also, it's mainly true at low levels. At high levels both Fighters and Barbarians will have pumped Brawn and picked up combat fears, while Paladins likely have bumped it as well, so they'll have 20s. A full caster has pumped their casting stat (2/3 ASIs), probably picked up Resilient (Con) and Warcaster, and then can maybe use their final ASI to bump it to a 16 (assuming they don't want more AC or Initiative instead). They can afford to carry a bit more, but all that means is that they can loot a bit more before buying pack animals. Or, you know, Tenser's Floating Ritual.

[Rilmani]

And that would be bad because?

Also, it's mainly true at low levels. At high levels both Fighters and Barbarians will have pumped Brawn and picked up combat fears, while Paladins likely have bumped it as well, so they'll have 20s. A full caster has pumped their casting stat (2/3 ASIs), probably picked up Resilient (Con) and Warcaster, and then can maybe use their final ASI to bump it to a 16 (assuming they don't want more AC or Initiative instead). They can afford to carry a bit more, but all that means is that they can loot a bit more before buying pack animals. Or, you know, Tenser's Floating Ritual.

It is a problem (severity to be determined) because you are patching a set of common weaknesses for casters. I’m happy for rogues and monks that benefit from the creation of Brawn, but the dynamic of “Martials are afraid of Wisdom and Intelligence saving throws” while “squishy Casters worry about Strength and Dexterity saving throws” was a form of balance people expected. Failing a strength save as a wizard wasn’t heartbreaking.

Now that casters get more bang for their buck (limited ability score points at lv1 and at ASI milestones) with Brawn, Martials will only be 5% or 10% more likely to pass STR and CON saving throw effects. Those percentages coming from 2 points or more 4 points in Brawn than a caster (14 vs 16, 14 vs 18).

Your explanation of feats for casters versus Martials is solid, though it makes me terrified of Rogues that pump Brawn for the HP/Con Save benefits AND get to use their extra ASIs on feats.

[Yakk]

It is a problem (severity to be determined) because you are patching a set of common weaknesses for casters. I’m happy for rogues and monks that benefit from the creation of Brawn, but the dynamic of “Martials are afraid of Wisdom and Intelligence saving throws” while “squishy Casters worry about Strength and Dexterity saving throws” was a form of balance people expected. Failing a strength save as a wizard wasn’t heartbreaking.

Now that casters get more bang for their buck (limited ability score points at lv1 and at ASI milestones) with Brawn, Martials will only be 5% or 10% more likely to pass STR and CON saving throw effects. Those percentages coming from 2 points or more 4 points in Brawn than a caster (14 vs 16, 14 vs 18).

Your explanation of feats for casters versus Martials is solid, though it makes me terrified of Rogues that pump Brawn for the HP/Con Save benefits AND get to use their extra ASIs on feats.
We could move concentration. I mean, constitution is already important for a spellcaster; with HP on low HD and concentration, it is too important a stat for them honestly.

1. Move it to your spellcasting stat.
2. Move it to Fate.
3. Move it to Wisdom (willpower).
4. Move it to Charisma (sense of self).

4 is interesting in that it gives Paladins, Bards, Sorcerers and Warlocks a good concentration saving throw, while leaves EK/AT, Artificers, Wizards, Clerics, Druids and Rangers in the cold.

3 leaves AT, EK, Bards, Paladins and Sorcerers in the cold.

2 costs Sorcerers good concentration saving throws. EK keep their good concentration saving throws. 2 also means that spellcasters end up investing in Fate for concentration, which gives them more inspiration and chance-to-get-up when taking out than melee types, which I am not sure is desired.

1 gives every full caster good concentration saving throws, and every partial caster except Rangers, EKs and ATs.

1 is sort of the most obvious solution.

[Dienekes]

We could move concentration. I mean, constitution is already important for a spellcaster; with HP on low HD and concentration, it is too important a stat for them honestly.

1. Move it to your spellcasting stat.
2. Move it to Fate.
3. Move it to Wisdom (willpower).
4. Move it to Charisma (sense of self).

4 is interesting in that it gives Paladins, Bards, Sorcerers and Warlocks a good concentration saving throw, while leaves EK/AT, Artificers, Wizards, Clerics, Druids and Rangers in the cold.

3 leaves AT, EK, Bards, Paladins and Sorcerers in the cold.

2 costs Sorcerers good concentration saving throws. EK keep their good concentration saving throws. 2 also means that spellcasters end up investing in Fate for concentration, which gives them more inspiration and chance-to-get-up when taking out than melee types, which I am not sure is desired.

1 gives every full caster good concentration saving throws, and every partial caster except Rangers, EKs and ATs.

1 is sort of the most obvious solution.

Personally, I kinda like moving it to Wisdom. But I think doing so would need to come with some changes. Clerics and Druids would have their spell list shaped to be more concentration focused and possibly close range in some way. Which they already kinda are, but would probably need to be tuned up with that in mind a bit more. Wizards would still be Int focused, but then their secondary would probably be Wis which makes them even more mental focused at the expense of physicality, which is a benefit in my mind.

Then some Warcaster feat or some class ability like it would make Concentration turn into a Brawn save, which would realign the martial type casters of the EK and Paladin.

Sorcerers would still be left out in the cold. But since other than having Constitution saving throws Sorcerers don't really have any abilities or motivation to be Concentration based casters in the first place, I don't really see it as a problem.