Constitution Scores: Who Needs 'Em?

[Notafish]

I don't think it would interfere much with 5e to remove Constitution scores altogether, and it might even make some archetypes more viable, depending on how the statistic's current duties are distributed.



For the most part, I think that Strength could take the place of Constitution: most Constitution saves and checks are related to physical endurance, so relying on a STR bonus to save you versus poison and the like tracks from a common sense perspective. The one exception I can think of is Concentration checks, in which case Wisdom seems like the appropriate bonus to apply.

To replace Constitution save proficiencies, I think that Wisdom save proficiencies would also be the natural choice - give Fighters and Barbarians some more resistance to fear...

The reason most characters have a Con bonus is for hit points, though. As much as I dislike DEX supremacy in 5e, I don't think it would be good to make dumping Strength be non-optimal for classes that don't rely on it. Instead, I think giving the option to apply either the Dexterity or Strength bonus to hit die rolls and bonus hp gain would be a fair option that helps martial characters of all stripes, and gives some indication as to whether the character is slipping hits or tanking them.

Removing an entire ability score would allow characters to advance in power slightly faster, due to having fewer options for ability score increases. There also might be some half-feats that would need to grant a different ability score bonus. Still, I think that not having the temptation to put points into a purely defensive statistic would open up possibilities for a lot of players.

[animorte]

Well, at least it has far more uses than Intelligence.

[GalacticAxekick]

This is already one of the most popular house rules in 5e. Many people have come to the exact same conclusions as you (get rid of Con, use Strength in its place, give classes with Con saves Wisdom or Dex saves instead)

So go for it!

[Notafish]

Well, at least it has far more uses than Intelligence.

I've thought about trying to come up with a skill/proficiency system that uses Int, so that it isn't only useful for roleplaying (and the occasional caster) but it seems more trouble than it's worth for most games. Maybe something really basic like giving a bonus language, lore, or tool proficiency for each mental stat greater than 10, just to incentivize not dumping everything you don't need for the build?

[GalacticAxekick]

I've thought about trying to come up with a skill/proficiency system that uses Int, so that it isn't only useful for roleplaying (and the occasional caster) but it seems more trouble than it's worth for most games. Maybe something really basic like giving a bonus language, lore, or tool proficiency for each mental stat greater than 10, just to incentivize not dumping everything you don't need for the build?This is basically what I do. At my table:
Regardless of what your class description says, you gain a number of class skills equal to 2 + your Intelligence modifier
You can sacrifice one of your class skills to gain expertise in any other skill you possess
Rogues and Bards do not gain the Expertise feature. At any level where that would be the only feature they get, they gain an ASI instead

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is basically what I do. At my table:
Regardless of what your class description says, you gain a number of class skills equal to 2 + your Intelligence modifier
You can sacrifice one of your class skills to gain expertise in any other skill you possess
Rogues and Bards do not gain the Expertise feature. At any level where that would be the only feature they get, they gain an ASI instead


I'm a better runner because I'm smart! Nerds rule at sports! No, tying skill proficiency to int (outside of int skills) never made a lick of sense.

Edit: and as to the main topic--if STR gives bonus HP, then wizards will also be swole, because wizards are basically SAD and want HP more than just about anyone. So you'll see lots of wizards with high DEX and STR, since now they've got all those points freed up from not having to have at least 14 con.

[GalacticAxekick]

I'm a better runner because I'm smart! Nerds rule at sports! No, tying skill proficiency to int (outside of int skills) never made a lick of sense.But people ARE better runners when they're smart. People are better runners when they diet, train all the right muscle groups and functions, and practice proper running technique. You need to either be a nerd or solicit the diet/conditioning/technique advice of nerds to be good at sports.

The same goes for gymnasts (acrobatics). And stage magicians (sleight of hand). And hunters (stealth). Etc

Every skill requires a body of knowledge to master. And improving Int represents the acquisition of knowledge.

[animorte]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Tails of Equestria actually has a very good stat system. Yes, it's simpler (kinda for kids, but we have kids and it's an exceptional introduction to ttrpg). It also scares people away just because it's My Little Pony. I care not.

Anyway, there are three stats: Body (Str/Dex), Mind (Int/Wis), and Charm (Cha)how neat

Constitution, as we know it, is basically just worked into Body and Mind. You could guess, Body determines physical offense/defense/skills while Mind determines mental offense/defense/skills.

--------------------

It's never made sense to me that a caster should be built naturally in such a way that their primary ability basically forces them to have garbage defense against most other spells, y'know Wisdom saves being everywhere and we have Int/Cha casters. I think this is a bigger concern which the above addresses beautifully.

Meanwhile, everybody wants HP. In order to get rid of it entirely, a better way to access HP needs to be available, not through Str. But I see you're wanting to give the Strength stat something useful to do, which is entirely reasonable. I just feel this isn't quite the way to it.

What I'm trying to say is look into other systems if you're attempting to consolidate stats because it needs a decent amount of work. There are brilliant ideas in many places.

[Maat Mons]

I'd say there's a bit of a problem in D&D with the role of ability scores being inconsistent. You have Constitution, which is important for everyone. And then you have all the other ability scores, which you either max or dump, depending on your class. Are ability scores supposed to be broadly-applicable things, that have uses for characters of every class? Or are they supposed to be extensions of your class? "I'm a Wizard, so I'm smart." "I'm a Barbarian, so I'm strong."

Are you supposed to be able to, e.g., make a mundane combatant who dumps his physical stats and maxes his mental ones? If so, why doesn't the game make that a viable option? If not, why does the game even allow that as a possibility? Do they just give you a chance to miss-allocate your ability scores as a trap for the unwary?

Maybe ability scores exist just to limit multiclassing options? Incompatible ability score needs are only there as a sort of soft ban on certain combos?

Anyway, whatever house rules you come up with for ability scores, they should reflect what you think ability scores should be. If each ability score is supposed to be something everyone invests in or else, make everything more like Constitution. If each ability score is supposed to be strictly associated with a few classes, and rarely used elsewhere, make everything more like the other five ability scores. If ability scores are supposed to be a way to flesh out your character, and differentiate them from others, then remove all the in-combat functions, because otherwise anyone who doesn't min-max them will be punished with lower effectiveness.

[GalacticAxekick]

I'd say there's a bit of a problem in D&D with the role of ability scores being inconsistent. You have Constitution, which is important for everyone. And then you have all the other ability scores, which you either max or dump, depending on your class. Are ability scores supposed to be broadly-applicable things, that have uses for characters of every class? Or are they supposed to be extensions of your class? "I'm a Wizard, so I'm smart." "I'm a Barbarian, so I'm strong."

Are you supposed to be able to, e.g., make a mundane combatant who dumps his physical stats and maxes his mental ones? If so, why doesn't the game make that a viable option? If not, why does the game even allow that as a possibility? Do they just give you a chance to miss-allocate your ability scores as a trap for the unwary?

Maybe ability scores exist just to limit multiclassing options? Incompatible ability score needs are only there as a sort of soft ban on certain combos?I'd say ability scores exist because 5e is simulationist, and ability scores are abstractions of real world qualities.

Not every combination of class and score is meant to be viable, but every combination is POSSIBLE, because that's how the world is. Dumb people can decide to be engineers/artificers. Weaklings can decide to be boxers/fighters. They are contending against terrible odds for very little benefit, but reality isnt going to stop them or reward them.

One of my friends played a Strength-based wizard because it suited his backstory. Another played a Strength-based dark-elf fighter despite the poor race-stat combo and sunlight sensitivity, again because it suited her backstory. Another played a fighter with a missing arm. Another played a sailor who couldnt swim.

As long as D&D is a storytelling medium first and a game second, I think all of this is fine. But if you see it as a game first and storytelling medium second, then "trap options" abd handicaps become senseless.

[animorte]

-snip-
Solution for what you've said. Give the Barbarian a solid Strength stat of 16 with no modification by the player's decision, period. Give the Wizard a solid Intelligence stat of 16 with no modification by the player's decision, period. Allow race mods then everything else to be allocated as desired. That way you can choose where your story-telling/skill/defensive stats will be while being guaranteed the ONE thing your class NEEDS. If you're a MAD class, just allow them one of the abilities as free 16.


As long as D&D is a storytelling medium first and a game second, I think all of this is fine. But if you see it as a game first and storytelling medium second, then "trap options" abd handicaps become senseless.
Agreed with all of this. A lot of people see it as a Roll-Playing game, not Role-Playing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But people ARE better runners when they're smart. People are better runners when they diet, train all the right muscle groups and functions, and practice proper running technique. You need to either be a nerd or solicit the diet/conditioning/technique advice of nerds to be good at sports.

The same goes for gymnasts (acrobatics). And stage magicians (sleight of hand). And hunters (stealth). Etc

Every skill requires a body of knowledge to master. And improving Int represents the acquisition of knowledge.

Not really. Most of those who developed the essential elements of sports weren't exactly brilliant. And just being a nerd is, archetypally (which is the important point) anti correlated with sports ability. And that stereotypes exist for a reason.

Sure, being really dumb doesn't help. But being really smart trends to not help either. And int isn't all knowledge. It's book knowledge. And that only poorly, if at all, correlates with actual skill.

[Maat Mons]

I don't see how making the game-part of D&D work better as a game hurts the story-telling-part of D&D. The story-telling-part of D&D doesn't care much about mechanics at all. So tailoring the mechanics to suit the game-part improves the game-part, and leaves the story-telling part just as good as it was before. It's all up-side, with no down-side.

Remember, there's no wrong way to play the game. Roll-players can enjoy their roll-playing, and role-players can enjoy their role-playing. Honestly, I think every TTRPG should have both roll-players and role-players on the design team. You get a more well-rounded result that way. Ideally, you want to deliver a product that both roll-players and role-players can enjoy.

[animorte]

Honestly, I think every TTRPG should have both roll-players and role-players on the design team. You get a more well-rounded result that way. Ideally, you want to deliver a product that both roll-players and role-players can enjoy.

I think the designers DO have a lot of this in mind and address a lot of it. It's the players that tend to focus on DPR and covering all the bases that tends to focus the spotlight on their idea of fun. The difficulty lies in attempting to find a balanced table, people who generally seek similar goals. You can (as I do) easily love and incorporate both Roll/Role, but not everybody does.

[KittenMagician]

I've thought about trying to come up with a skill/proficiency system that uses Int, so that it isn't only useful for roleplaying (and the occasional caster) but it seems more trouble than it's worth for most games. Maybe something really basic like giving a bonus language, lore, or tool proficiency for each mental stat greater than 10, just to incentivize not dumping everything you don't need for the build?

i do implement a system for making Int more important. upon finishing character creation you have a number of points equal to your Int modifier. 1 point will get you a language, weapon, tool, or instrument proficiency (or similar). 2 points can get you a skill or armor proficiency. this way a 20 int character (rolled stats + race mods) can get max 2 skills and language or 5 weapons, or a skill, a weapon, a tool, and a language. conversely negative Int mods make you lose equally. best to just not have proficiency with a few weapons if you want to be a dumb barbarian. who needs a net or lance anyway.

as far as the main topic of the thread i think you guys are forgetting that Con also dictates your ability to not get sick. i know plenty of people that have muscles or are dexterous that get sick way worse than other people. con can cover a lot and should stick around as is.




Solution for what you've said. Give the Barbarian a solid Strength stat of 16 with no modification by the player's decision, period. Give the Wizard a solid Intelligence stat of 16 with no modification by the player's decision, period. Allow race mods then everything else to be allocated as desired. That way you can choose where your story-telling/skill/defensive stats will be while being guaranteed the ONE thing your class NEEDS. If you're a MAD class, just allow them one of the abilities as free 16.

I disagree with a forced stat value. one of the characters i really want to play is a int dump stat wizard that takes spells that don't care about Int (sleep, haste, tenser's transformation, magic missile, etc.) and if i was forced to have a 16 in int it would make the character impossible to make. the game needs to have the options to make sub-optimal builds because most people in real life are sub-optimally built.

[GalacticAxekick]

Not really. Most of those who developed the essential elements of sports weren't exactly brilliant [...] Sure, being really dumb doesn't help. But being really smart trends to not help either.And likewise, it doesnt take brilliance to gain proficiency in a skill. You can get it from your class or background regardless of your Int, or gain it on top of other skills thanks to +1 Int.

Being a fast runner doesn't take a genius. Being a fast runner, gymnast, wilderness survival pro, scout and dancer takes intelligence. Exactly +1 intelligence. (Athletics and Survival from Fighter class, Acribatics and Performance from Entertsiner background, Perception from +1 Int)


And just being a nerd is, archetypally (which is the important point) anti correlated with sports ability. And that stereotypes exist for a reason.That stereotype exists to protect the egos of weak people who think life is zero-sum, and that it must reward their deficiencies with strengths of other kinds.

In reality, the typical jock is fairly intelligent. Varsity athletes are typically good students. As a wrestler IRL, most of my peers have degrees or trade education.


And int isn't all knowledge. It's book knowledge. And that only poorly, if at all, correlates with actual skill.I disagree. Int is all knowledge. Int is the ability to remember and handle information. An illiterate wildman could have 20 int.

[GalacticAxekick]

I don't see how making the game-part of D&D work better as a game hurts the story-telling-part of D&D. The story-telling-part of D&D doesn't care much about mechanics at all.Say the story says "you're a physically weak gnome who desires to be a knight, and so you've trained as an eldritch knight and rely on spells to enhance your physical abilities". But the gameplay says "you're as strong as everyone else and the spells are icing on the cake". The mechanics have failed the story.

If you're using 5e as a storytelling medium, the job of mechanics is to represent what is happening in the story. "The storytelling part of 5e" is EVERY part.


Remember, there's no wrong way to play the game. Roll-players can enjoy their roll-playing, and role-players can enjoy their role-playing [...] Ideally, you want to deliver a product that both roll-players and role-players can enjoy.Definitely! But you're on the homebrew forum. We're trying to edit the game to suit our needs here.

I'm saying "if you're a story-first kind of guy, you need the mechanics to allow weakness. Or else you cant tell a story about weakness"

[Goobahfish]

RE: Int for Skills

I 'in theory' liked 3.5's Intelligence matters for skills rule. I 'in practice' didn't like it. It was far too restrictive and kind of had weird side-effect. If you are going to be dumb... be really dumb (Int 4-8 fighter gets 1 skill/level). The other issue is that there are skills where 'being smart' doesn't really sell the idea (Athletics/Acrobatics).

I think bonus tool proficiencies and languages are a much more interesting way to go as they are less obviously powerful but can be a bit 'fluffy'.

In my game, Intellect governs the number of techniques you know (i.e. combat manoeuvres, spells, animal forms known etc). While this isn't precisely correct, the idea was that the 'dumb' fighter was more about the 'smash smash' (think Hulk) whereas the smart fighter was more about ripostes, parries and disarms. You get plenty of techniques by default and more per level so it isn't quite as all or nothing as skill proficiencies are in D&D.

-----------------

Removing Constitution...

I would be more inclined to just reduce the number of bonus hit points it gives you to only applying at level 1. Then having CON = 8 is bad... but not catastrophic (I am currently playing a CON = 8 character - Druid so it is not as bad but still... scary).

I honestly dislike D&D's stats on principle plus the fact that the concept of a dump-stat existing is just bad design. If I think of spells, I can easily get my way to Constitution, Dexterity, Wisdom and Intelligence saves (the last for illusions etc) but Charisma saves... I feel is hairsplitting when a Wisdom save would do the same.

Removing Con to replace for Strength... is viable.

Again, citing my own system:
Strength/Fortitude, Dexterity/Agility, Fervour/Mettle, Intellect/Wit
Basically, physical power, physical speed, mental power, mental speed split into active and passive versions. I could get away with 4 in some ways but I like having 8.

So getting rid of Constitution isn't where I would start with 5e I think.

[animorte]

[So getting rid of Constitution isn't where I would start with 5e I think.
This is essentially what I was getting at, but you said it better.

[Notafish]

I like limiting the stat bonus to hp to first level, Goobahfish.

If I did take out Con and applied the Strength bonus to hp if positive, where would point buy be best located for a "standard" game?

If I took out 9 points for the missing potential (so 18 point-buy), then I think the min-max array would be (15, 15, 8, 8, 8) with the "mid" array being either (13, 13, 12, 12, 8) or (12,12,12,10,10). I think that's the right spot, plus or minus 1.

If I did build Blatto the wrestling wizard with 18 points, he might look something like: (12 Str 12 Dex, 15 Int 11 Wis 8 Cha) before adding modifiers. Essentially, I'd be trading AC for early hit points - dumping strength to bump dex might be the better play from an optimization perspective, especially if Blatto isn't an elf or a halfling.

I do think that is Str had an effect on hp, 12 St/14 Dex would be a target for a lot of characters. But I'm not sure that having a minor bonus to Strength is all that unplausible for people who are in the business of getting into fights?

[Psyche]

I have tried this before. It is awful.

[GalacticAxekick]

I have tried this before. It is awful.I'm curious. What was awful about it?

[Goobahfish]

I like limiting the stat bonus to hp to first level, Goobahfish.

Thanks, but not a new idea :smallsmile:

---

On the broader point, lets look at what happens to some classes.

Cleric (before): Max Wisdom, Constitution => Dump Int
Fighter (before): Max Strength, Constitution => Dump Int
Wizard (before): Max Int, Constitution => Dump Strength
Rogue (before): Max Dex, Constitution => Dump Strength

I feel like not much will change except some builds will move to Maxing Strength (if they have Armour proficiencies) for extra HP and AC from armour (which isn't... bad per se). Others will just substitute Constitution for Dexterity. I guess the Rogue will have free reign over their stats (or maybe Dump Int and keep strength). The Wizard is less likely to Dump Strength (will become Dump Charisma).

Constitution does feel like a 'Stat Tax' in 5e. I feel like you could fix this a bit by making it less powerful and other stats more meaningful (Int, Wis, Cha).