The Constitution stat is way too powerful...

Right now, from a Char Op point of view, every class should boost its Con to 20 endgame. Its effect on HP is just too drastic not to be maximized. I see that as a real problem. I would like to see the effect of Con on HP reduced.

I am not saying that Con should not increase HP! But, when a Con of 20 pretty much gives you a fighter's hit die as bonus HP every level, there is a serious problem. I would like to see the majority of a character's HP coming from their hit dice. At the current moment in time, the only class that will get the majority of its hit points from its hit dice is the barbarian. 

 

The 5e of D&D: its like a more balanced version of 2e, but with the character customization frills of 3e and 4e. I love it!

It depends.

it depends on how many +1 a PC gets.

At the moment, a PC gets 10 +1s for levels with a 20 ability cap. With a lot of Single Attribute Dependant class, that might be an issue.

But Mearls claims this might change. A PC is get between 6 and 12 +1s based on class. This can leave many characters with few +1s left over after their max out their prime stat.

Combine that with optional feats spending +1s, getting 20 Primary Ability and 20 Constitution might not happen often.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I think Con mod should not add to HP per level but rather allow you to reroll HD whose total is equal to your Con mod or less.


So a 10 Con means you don't reroll any HD. A 12 means you re-roll 1s. A 14 means you re-roll 1s and 2s. And so on.


This means Con will add about .5 average HP per HD. By reducing Con's contribution to total HP by 1/2 it makes the game far more balanced and reduces Con's importance while still allowing it to affect HP. It also makes it very easy to use static HP instead of rolled HP.


Ex. A d6 HD class would gain 3.5 static HP per level with a 10 Con score. With a...


12 Con they would gain 4 HP per level
14 Con they would gain 4.5 HP per level
16 Con they would gain 5 HP per level
18 Con they would gain 5.5 HP per level
20 Con they would gain 6 HP per level

My as-yet-untested fix was, at level-up, to let characters roll hit dice a number of times equal to 1 plus their CON Mod and take the highest (or lowest, if CON Mod is negative). So a CON of 20 lets you roll your HD six times and keep the highest roll (impressive!), but the maximum amount of HP you can gain per level is still restrained by the size of your HD. Even a 20 CON Barbarian will only gain a max of 12hp per level.

Wounds Module [updated for Basic]

Proficiency Module

The 1st packet had a nice system, Con score at 1st level, roll HD (no Con mod) for levelling (or take average rounded up).

It looks like characters will get a base +6 points in total, for increasing ability scores (+1 at 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, and 18th level, and that's if you ignore Feats).
My as-yet-untested fix was, at level-up, to let characters roll hit dice a number of times equal to 1 plus their CON Mod and take the highest (or lowest, if CON Mod is negative). So a CON of 20 lets you roll your HD six times and keep the highest roll (impressive!), but the maximum amount of HP you can gain per level is still restrained by the size of your HD. Even a 20 CON Barbarian will only gain a max of 12hp per level.



While nice in theory, it makes it extremely difficult to calculate Static HP per level for those who prefer not to roll.

That is why I prefer the "brutal" idea where you reroll any die that is equal to or less than your Con mod. It also has the benefit of reducing maximum HP significantly as the maximum result possible is the max on your HD.
If you do this con will become a poor stat.   Con is pretty useless except for hit points.  Very few skills depend on it.   So you will have to improve Con in some way if you neuter it.   And I'm not against the idea on the surface.

 
My as-yet-untested fix was, at level-up, to let characters roll hit dice a number of times equal to 1 plus their CON Mod and take the highest (or lowest, if CON Mod is negative). So a CON of 20 lets you roll your HD six times and keep the highest roll (impressive!), but the maximum amount of HP you can gain per level is still restrained by the size of your HD. Even a 20 CON Barbarian will only gain a max of 12hp per level.



While nice in theory, it makes it extremely difficult to calculate Static HP per level for those who prefer not to roll.

That is why I prefer the "brutal" idea where you reroll any die that is equal to or less than your Con mod. It also has the benefit of reducing maximum HP significantly as the maximum result possible is the max on your HD.



Um... I fail to see how this method is less dependent on die rolling than my proposed method. You can just as easily take the average rounded up in either method. My problem with the "brutal" method is that it rewards smaller hit dice more than larger hit dice.

Wounds Module [updated for Basic]

Proficiency Module

If you do this con will become a poor stat.   Con is pretty useless except for hit points.  Very few skills depend on it.  




It is also a very common and important saving throw.
My as-yet-untested fix was, at level-up, to let characters roll hit dice a number of times equal to 1 plus their CON Mod and take the highest (or lowest, if CON Mod is negative). So a CON of 20 lets you roll your HD six times and keep the highest roll (impressive!), but the maximum amount of HP you can gain per level is still restrained by the size of your HD. Even a 20 CON Barbarian will only gain a max of 12hp per level.



While nice in theory, it makes it extremely difficult to calculate Static HP per level for those who prefer not to roll.

That is why I prefer the "brutal" idea where you reroll any die that is equal to or less than your Con mod. It also has the benefit of reducing maximum HP significantly as the maximum result possible is the max on your HD.



Um... I fail to see how this method is less dependent on die rolling than my proposed method. You can just as easily take the average rounded up in either method. My problem with the "brutal" method is that it rewards smaller hit dice more than larger hit dice.



Perhaps I was unclear.

It is particularly tricky to do the static value for 6d12 take highest. This is why using your proposed method doesn't really work for the people who do not want to roll for HP.

As for the brutal method rewarding smaller dice more than larger dice, I don't see that as that much of a problem. A d6 or a d12 both see a .5 average HP per level by going up 2 points in Con.

Although, I would actually prefer if HP worked like this:
low HD = d6 (wizards)
med HD = d6+1 (rogues, druids, clerics)
high HD = d6+2 (fighters, paladins, barbarians)

But, I'm sure that will never happen.
Well, assuming that they're not going to fix stat bonus bloat Wink, then how about just roll your HD, take what you get, and add half of your CON bonus (rounded down, or maybe up, whatever).  Sure, it doesn't feel elegant, but you only do it once per level, and it's not that difficult.
One possible solution is the basic, 1st, or 2nd edition method of getting rid of hit dice and con bonus at a certain level.  If I recall correctly from level 10 plus you just got a fixed amount of hit points every level based on class with no con bonus.

Perhaps I was unclear.

It is particularly tricky to do the static value for 6d12 take highest. This is why using your proposed method doesn't really work for the people who do not want to roll for HP.

As for the brutal method rewarding smaller dice more than larger dice, I don't see that as that much of a problem. A d6 or a d12 both see a .5 average HP per level by going up 2 points in Con.

Although, I would actually prefer if HP worked like this:
low HD = d6 (wizards)
med HD = d6+1 (rogues, druids, clerics)
high HD = d6+2 (fighters, paladins, barbarians)

But, I'm sure that will never happen.



You were not unclear, but you are wrong. The flat benefit is not the .5 that you think it is. The math for "brutal" effects is a little more tricky than that. And, brutal does favor smaller dice (increasing the mean more when using those dice) as you are more likely to roll the lower number. Calculating the average of his method is actually no harder than your suggestion, and in both cases the calculation is a pain if it is not performed via a dice calculator (such as anydice.com). While I don’t like rolling for HP, I actually prefer his suggestion to yours. Quite frankly, the mean for his suggestion is easier to calculate, as anydice.com is already programmed to handle that sort of calculation. I would have to figure out how to accurately calculate your suggestion Lawolf...

So, so far I like these ideas: you only add 1/2 your Con bonus as a modifier; you do not add your Con bonus as a modifier at all--instead you roll your HD a number of extra times equal to your Con mod (taking the highest result). 

As for the second idea, a character can always choose to take the mean value rounded up instead of rolling. So, for example, with a Con mod of 0 you gain 7 hp per d12 (mean of 1 roll rounded up). With a Con mod of 5 you gain 11 hp per d12 (mean roll of 6 rolls take best rounded up). Meanwhile, with a Con mod of 0 you gain 4 hp per d6. With a Con mod of 5 you gain 6 hp per d6. In other words, a Con mod of 5 gets you +4 hp per level if you have a d12 hit die, but only +2 hp per level if you have a d6 hit die.

Yea, I think the second idea is the winner. Ryanryoce, that is a great idea. It is FAR more balanced than what they have now. Con will still be very important, but not so important that every character (built by someone with a head for numbers) will have a 20 Con. With those sort of returns, I could see myself building a wizard with only a Con of 12. I mean, with a Con mod of 12 I would already get 5 hp per level. I don't know that I would want to put any more points into Con due to the lack of returns on my investment. Meanwhile, a Con of 16 gives you basically the same result as a Con of 18 or 20. That means that this fix has a nice benefit: it rewards higher HD classes more for higher Con than lower HD classes. Seeing as higher HD classes are the classes that I tend to imagine having higher Cons, that seems just right to me.  

Perhaps I was unclear.

It is particularly tricky to do the static value for 6d12 take highest. This is why using your proposed method doesn't really work for the people who do not want to roll for HP.

As for the brutal method rewarding smaller dice more than larger dice, I don't see that as that much of a problem. A d6 or a d12 both see a .5 average HP per level by going up 2 points in Con.

Although, I would actually prefer if HP worked like this:
low HD = d6 (wizards)
med HD = d6+1 (rogues, druids, clerics)
high HD = d6+2 (fighters, paladins, barbarians)

But, I'm sure that will never happen.



You were not unclear, but you are wrong. The flat benefit is not the .5 that you think it is. The math for "brutal" effects is a little more tricky than that. And, brutal does favor smaller dice (increasing the mean more when using those dice) as you are more likely to roll the lower number. Calculating the average of his method is actually no harder than your suggestion, and in both cases the calculation is a pain if it is not performed via a dice calculator (such as anydice.com). While I don’t like rolling for HP, I actually prefer his suggestion to yours. Quite frankly, the mean for his suggestion is easier to calculate, as anydice.com is already programmed to handle that sort of calculation. I would have to figure out how to accurately calculate your suggestion Lawolf...




Dave...normally your math is spot on. I am sure you must be having a bad math day.

As I said before, re-roll any number less than your con mod is exactly equal to +.5 average HP per Con mod.

It is a ridiculously easy calculation to do. You just divide your Con mod in 2 and add the result to your average HP per HD. For a Con 20 (+5 mod) barbarian with a d12 HD (6.5 average) their average HP per HD is 9 (6.5 + 1/2*5). For the 14 Con (+2 mod) fighter with a d10 HD (5.5 average) their average HP per HD is 6.5 ( 5.5 + 1/2 *2).

Basically, the reroll any value less than your HD does the 1/2 Con mod suggestion, without making odd Con values worthless.

You were not unclear, but you are wrong. The flat benefit is not the .5 that you think it is. The math for "brutal" effects is a little more tricky than that.


Could you explain what you mean a little better?

If you have a 14 Con and a d6 hit die, with the brutal system you would reroll 1's and 2's. The other values, 3 through 6, would be equally likely. Thus the average would be 9/2 = 4.5, 1 hp more than a straight d6 roll.

If instead you have a d12 hit die, then values 3 through 12 would be equally likely, with an average of 7.5, again 1 hp more than a straight d12 roll.  I am pretty sure that the "brutal" technique is exactly equivalent (on average) to adding half your Con mod. (Unless, of course, your Con mod equals or exceeds your hd, but that seems impossible now.)
One possible solution is the basic, 1st, or 2nd edition method of getting rid of hit dice and con bonus at a certain level.  If I recall correctly from level 10 plus you just got a fixed amount of hit points every level based on class with no con bonus.



This would be a good idea.   Stop at 10th level.  After that you get +1 or +2 or +3 depending on your class.
You were not unclear, but you are wrong. The flat benefit is not the .5 that you think it is. The math for "brutal" effects is a little more tricky than that.


Could you explain what you mean a little better?

If you have a 14 Con and a d6 hit die, with the brutal system you would reroll 1's and 2's. The other values, 3 through 6, would be equally likely. Thus the average would be 9/2 = 4.5, 1 hp more than a straight d6 roll.

If instead you have a d12 hit die, then values 3 through 12 would be equally likely, with an average of 7.5, again 1 hp more than a straight d12 roll.  I am pretty sure that the "brutal" technique is exactly equivalent (on average) to adding half your Con mod. (Unless, of course, your Con mod equals or exceeds your hd, but that seems impossible now.)



I might, as Lawolf suggest, be having a "bad math day." I mean, the brutal system is pretty much a "roll 2 dice and take best" system, but it only comes into effect when you roll under the brutal value. But, the chance of rolling under the brutal value is higher with smaller dice. It seems to me that would increase your mean with smaller dice more than larger dice. But, I am honestly too tired to figure it out, and I have too much else that I need to do, right now. 

I might just be wrong. It does happen from time to time. Either way, after running the math on Ryan's idea, that is what I like more. 

So here is the math of the "brutal" idea per HD:

Con 10: Average HP = average of HD +0.0 (1/2 Con mod)
Con 12: Average HP = average of HD +0.5 (1/2 Con mod)
Con 14: Average HP = average of HD +1.0 (1/2 Con mod)
Con 16: Average HP = average of HD +1.5 (1/2 Con mod)
Con 18: Average HP = average of HD +2.0 (1/2 Con mod)
Con 20: Average HP = average of HD +2.5 (1/2 Con mod)

Average of HD for each die type is:

d6 (3.5)
d8 (4.5)
d10 (5.5)
d12 (6.5)

That is significantly easier to do than it would be for the players to calculate the average of rolling multiple dice at once and choosing the highest. With the brutal method you only ever deal with whole numbers or 0.5 fractions which are very easy to calculate over many levels.

I am relatively sure very few people want to calculate what 7.347 average HP per level is across 20 levels. I know I don't. Also, with rolling multiple dice, you reach a point of diminishing returns for each point of Con mod. The brutal method provides a linear increase.


I might, as Lawolf suggest, be having a "bad math day." I mean, the brutal system is pretty much a "roll 2 dice and take best" system, but it only comes into effect when you roll under the brutal value. But, the chance of rolling under the brutal value is higher with smaller dice. It seems to me that would increase your mean with smaller dice more than larger dice. But, I am honestly too tired to figure it out, and I have too much else that I need to do, right now. 

I might just be wrong. It does happen from time to time. Either way, after running the math on Ryan's idea, that is what I like more. 




In the "brutal" system, you keep rerolling until you are over the brutal number, which ultimately makes calculating averages easier.
A smaller die will trigger "brutal" more often, but gains less per trigger. For brutal 1, for example:

On 1dX, the effect triggers 1 in X times.
Each time it triggers, it adds 1 to (X-1) to the final result. These values are equally likely, resulting in an average gain of (1 + (X - 1)) / 2 = X / 2.
There is also a 1 in X chance that you'll roll a 1 again.. which just loops you back to the sentance above, since you keep rolling until you roll higher than 1.

So 1 out of X rolls, you add X / 2. So that averages to + (X / 2) / X per roll, or just +1/2.
For all practical purposes, you are replacing 1dX with 1d(X-1)+1.
A fact which helps for understanding that increasing to brutal 2, brutal 3, etc has a very similar effect.

The only thing that's problematic is brutal X or higher. Brutal X-1 on 1dX will always result in X. (You keep rerolling until you get X.) But brutal X means you keep rerolling forever and never get a valid result. If such a thing is possible within the game system, it needs a clarifying rule on how to interpret it.         
That is significantly easier to do than it would be for the players to calculate the average of rolling multiple dice at once and choosing the highest. With the brutal method you only ever deal with whole numbers or 0.5 fractions which are very easy to calculate over many levels.

I am relatively sure very few people want to calculate what 7.347 average HP per level is across 20 levels. I know I don't. Also, with rolling multiple dice, you reach a point of diminishing returns for each point of Con mod. The brutal method provides a linear increase.



I assume if the roll X dice idea was adopted, there would be a table included somewhere for each class, and it would involve rounding to whole numbers.
The 'brutal' system does absolutely nothing until 14 con, and then barely anything past that.
Except for tiny-HD classes.  A 18-con guy with d4 HP is gaining exactly 4 HP at each level.
The 'brutal' system does absolutely nothing until 14 con.



Umm...reroll 1s starts with a Con of 12.
The 'brutal' system does absolutely nothing until 14 con.



At Con 12 you reroll 1s, resulting in +.5 per roll. For rolled HD you avoid the threat of rolling a 1 on your HD, and also gain slightly more HP per level. For nonrolled HD, it depends what the precise rule is. I think I (and I'm guessing Lawolf) would prefer adding the fractions and rounding (up or down) only at the end. So 10 Con, 1d6 HD would be 3.5 per level.. 4 at level 1, +3 at level 2, +4 at level 3, etc.

It's unclear what you'd do (if anything) to punish characters with Con 8 or less. (Force rerolling the highest result on the die?)

The 'brutal' system does absolutely nothing until 14 con.



Umm...reroll 1s starts with a Con of 12.

Fine.  It does absolutely nothing until 12 con, making 1 through 11 essentially identical for the only important thing Con really does.
It's unclear what you'd do (if anything) to punish characters with Con 8 or less. (Force rerolling the highest result on the die?)

"What if...?" / "well, let's make it more convoluted then!" logic trains are a pretty good indicator of a flawed concept.

Score + HD was simple and brilliant.  I have no idea why it was abandoned.
The 'brutal' system does absolutely nothing until 14 con.



At Con 12 you reroll 1s, resulting in +.5 per roll. For rolled HD you avoid the threat of rolling a 1 on your HD, and also gain slightly more HP per level. For nonrolled HD, it depends what the precise rule is. I think I (and I'm guessing Lawolf) would prefer adding the fractions and rounding (up or down) only at the end. So 10 Con, 1d6 HD would be 3.5 per level.. 4 at level 1, +3 at level 2, +4 at level 3, etc.

It's unclear what you'd do (if anything) to punish characters with Con 8 or less. (Force rerolling the highest result on the die?)



I don't think I have ever seen a PC with less than a 14 Con in 5e. I imagine seeing PCs with 10 Con will still be exceedingly rare. As such, I don't actually have a problem wiht a 10 Con PC having the same HP as a 9 Con PC. The penalty to Con saves and the inability to ever reach truly high HP levels will be more than harsh enough.

Actually, scratch that. I want Con Score to be added to HP at level 1.
The 1st packet had a nice system, Con score at 1st level, roll HD (no Con mod) for levelling (or take average rounded up).

It looks like characters will get a base +6 points in total, for increasing ability scores (+1 at 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, and 18th level, and that's if you ignore Feats).




That makes con too weak. I would rather just remove the hp roll. Have con as initial hp then remove the roll and just give out the minimum hp per class or something close to the minimum kinda like post 9th level 2e except it starts at 1st.

I pretty much agree with Lawolf, but there are some nice things about the 'roll X, take the highest':
- It makes a large Con have more benefit for classes with bigger HD, which is sort of logical
- It nicely generalizes to negative modifiers (roll X, take the lowest), which the brutal system has some trouble with.

What would we do with a Con 8 character in the 'brutal' system?
Oh, I know: if you score your max value, you have to reroll it. Yah, like Istran said already.
For me, if you bother to put all your stat points into Con, you ought to get a sizeable HP bonus becuase of it. So I think the current Con set up is fine. In our game the PCs have Con between 12 and 16.

We also use a house rule that when rolling for HP, you keep rolling until you get in the upper half of your dice. So a fighter will always get at least 6 out of 10, wizard at least 4 out of 6, etc.

I should say i did like the 2e way of after level 10 you only get Con bonus HP, no more dice rolling. Not sure if this is better or worse than the current packet. Since PCs have more HP than 2e I would expect higher level monsters to do more damage than 2e monsters. I think this is probably good - higher monster damage = more swingy/unpredictable combat, and a larger multiplier effect when you put 2 monsters on 1 PC, or i suppose any time the monsters outnumber the PCs.... so I think i probably like this. Havent played higher level though yet.
I think people who say removing hp per level will make Con weak overlook the fact that the modifier is added to your healing when you spend hit dice.  Adding it to your base hp too effectively compounds the differential between the haves and have nots.
CON was the god stat in 3E, but not so much in the current 5E.

Something to consider is that healing is trivial now, requiring no strategy as it has no action cost.  So now the biggest concern for healing is the amount healed, and that number goes UP for characters with lower HP thanks to starting your healing from 0.  With a bigger amount of padding now in the negatives before death, yo-yoing someone is a pretty valid tactic.  As long as the healer is positioned in the initiative such that the person getting knocked down isn't losing actions, having a few less HP isn't a big deal at all.  It can often be more efficient!

@mikemearls don't quite understand the difference

I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down. - Eric Cartman

Enough chitchat!  Time is candy! - Pinky Pie

"What if...?" / "well, let's make it more convoluted then!" logic trains are a pretty good indicator of a flawed concept.



"If your Con modifier is positive, when you roll your hit die, reroll any result equal to or less than your Con modifier. Keep rerolling until the result is greater than your Con modifier.
If your Con modifier is negative, when you roll your hit die, reroll any result that is greater than your hit die size plus your Con modifier. For example, if your Con modifier is -1 and your hit die is 1d6, reroll any result that is greater than (6 + -1)."
 
Score + HD was simple and brilliant.  I have no idea why it was abandoned.



It is my personal favorite. Especially as it suggests that the meat portion (Con Score) doesn't change, but the skill/morale/fatigue portion (HD) improves substantially with experience. 
All abilities have Defenses; Con's Save roll is more common than Strength. All abilities have Skills.

Con grants +1 hp/level. Strength grants +1 to hit and damage.

1st level Fighter vs. 1st level Fighter; 16 Str/16 Con, longsword (1d8), shield (+2 AC), chainmail (16 AC)
HP 13, AC 18, Attack +4, Damage 1d8+3

An attack hits on a roll of 14 or higher, meaning a 7/20 chance, or 35% (30% hit, 5% crit); a hit deals 7.5 damage on average, and a crit deals 15.5 damage, thus an average attack deals 3.025 damage. It thus takes 4.3 rounds, on average, for the fighter to drop their doppelganger.

At level 8, lets say one Fighter boosts Str to 18 and one Fighter boosts Con to 18 (just to see which is better, mathematically speaking).

Str Fighter lvl 8; HP 76, AC 18, Attack +7, Damage 2d8+4
Con Fighter lvl 8; HP 84, AC 18, Attack +6, Damage 2d8+3

Str fighter hits 50% of the time, with 13 average damage per hit and 24.5 per crit, with 7.075 average damage per attack. It takes 11.9 rounds for the Str fighter to drop the Con fighter.

Con fighter hits 45% of the time, with 12 average damage per hit and 23.5 per crit, with 5.975 average damage per attack. It takes 12.7 rounds for the Con fighter to drop the Str fighter.

Interestingly enough, unless my simplified math was entirely wrong, the characters are fairly close at this point. It might be different at level 16.

Now, the OPs point was that every character will want to boost Con to 20; I can't argue with that. Con is just too useful to all characters. Now, if ability bumps were +2 to one stat, and not +1 to two stats, you might not see everyone toss points into Con; though I suppose people would then get their primary to 20 and then start working on Con. Ideally, all stats should be equal, or at least all classes should have multiple stats that they want to raise, including Con. 
Poe's Law is alive and well. Emerikol is right*
CON was the god stat in 3E, but not so much in the current 5E.

Something to consider is that healing is trivial now, requiring no strategy as it has no action cost.  So now the biggest concern for healing is the amount healed, and that number goes UP for characters with lower HP thanks to starting your healing from 0.  With a bigger amount of padding now in the negatives before death, yo-yoing someone is a pretty valid tactic.  As long as the healer is positioned in the initiative such that the person getting knocked down isn't losing actions, having a few less HP isn't a big deal at all.  It can often be more efficient!

Yoyoing is one of the reasons I would like a wound/injury table for 5e. If you go below zero, there should be a save or a roll or something that might result in a longer lasting injury, even if you are popped back up next round HP wise.

At least it's something I'd like to experiment with. I think it would make combats more tense and their aftermaths more substantial/meaningful.
CON was the god stat in 3E, but not so much in the current 5E.

Something to consider is that healing is trivial now, requiring no strategy as it has no action cost.  So now the biggest concern for healing is the amount healed, and that number goes UP for characters with lower HP thanks to starting your healing from 0.  With a bigger amount of padding now in the negatives before death, yo-yoing someone is a pretty valid tactic.  As long as the healer is positioned in the initiative such that the person getting knocked down isn't losing actions, having a few less HP isn't a big deal at all.  It can often be more efficient!



I don't get why clerical healing doesn't just restore hit dice (maybe plus the wisdom or charisma of the caster or con of the receiver, whichever is greater).  It certainly needs to be touch only as a swift action and an action if used at a distance.

I would not say it's trivial, since it uses up spell slots but I think clerical healing should use up hit dice so that its only advantage is usage in battle (and possibly the stat bonus of the caster)
My as-yet-untested fix was, at level-up, to let characters roll hit dice a number of times equal to 1 plus their CON Mod and take the highest (or lowest, if CON Mod is negative). So a CON of 20 lets you roll your HD six times and keep the highest roll (impressive!), but the maximum amount of HP you can gain per level is still restrained by the size of your HD. Even a 20 CON Barbarian will only gain a max of 12hp per level.



While nice in theory, it makes it extremely difficult to calculate Static HP per level for those who prefer not to roll.

That is why I prefer the "brutal" idea where you reroll any die that is equal to or less than your Con mod. It also has the benefit of reducing maximum HP significantly as the maximum result possible is the max on your HD.



Um... I fail to see how this method is less dependent on die rolling than my proposed method. You can just as easily take the average rounded up in either method. My problem with the "brutal" method is that it rewards smaller hit dice more than larger hit dice.



Perhaps I was unclear.

It is particularly tricky to do the static value for 6d12 take highest. This is why using your proposed method doesn't really work for the people who do not want to roll for HP.

As for the brutal method rewarding smaller dice more than larger dice, I don't see that as that much of a problem. A d6 or a d12 both see a .5 average HP per level by going up 2 points in Con.



Using statistical math to assess balance is a valuable thing for most of D&D, but not as much when it comes to Hit Dice.  For attack rolls or saving throws, a character will roll them hundreds if not thousands of times over the course of their adventuring career.  Over time, statistics will win out.  When it comes to Hit Dice, though, any individual character only rolls their hit dice 19 times if they're lucky enough to reach 20th level (assuming max hp at level 1).  The fact that having a d10 hit dice is supposed to give you higher HP than a d6 or d8 is of no consolation to the poor schmuck who rolls below average every time they level.

The brutal system addresses that problem by pushing that average up a bit (good), but benefits lower hit dice more often (bad), since lower dice have a greater chance of rolling a number equal to or less than their "brutal" value (a classic d4 wizard with CON 14 has a 50% chance of getting a reroll, but the d12 barbarian only has a 16.67% chance getting a reroll.  Or, to put it another way, there's an 83.33% chance that the Barbarian's CON will not help them at all at any given level).

Anyway, gotta run... 

Wounds Module [updated for Basic]

Proficiency Module

It may or may not be overpowered, but I'm not even thinking about that. I'm thinking about much bigger problems, maybe when they get those ironed out I'll take a look at stuff like Constitution being too good...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
@Ryan: I agree that the brutal thing helping low HD characters more than high HD ones feels weird (even if they both receive the same numerical benefit from Con). That is why I suggested HD always be a d6 but have classes receive an HP per level bonus.

A mid range HP class like the rogue or cleric receives +1 HP per level. A high HP class like fighter or barbarian would receive +2 HP per level. A low HP class like the wizard simply uses the unmodified d6.

One thing to think about with the multiple roll method is that it is still possible to receive a 1 or a 2 even on a D12 with a 14+ con. My method ensures this will never happen. Also it is hard to backtrack HP with the many rolls method. If a PC increases con from 13 to 14 at level 8, my method would simply increase their HP by 4 (8*0.5). I have no clue how to backtrack HP gains utilizing the many rolls method.
Over the career of a PC, +2 points of Constitution adds +20 hp. (+1 hp/hd)

From hit dice alone, a character has an expected minimum of 82hp (d6 HD; 4-siders are not currently used.), and a maximum of 145 (d12 HD),  This means that each point of constitution is worth somewhere between 6% and 12% of base hitpoints. 

Percentage wise, there are diminishing returns: a wizard upgrading from a +0 Con to a +1 Con reaps a 24% increase in survivability, but one upgrading from +4 Con to +5 Con gains only 12%.  18 Con -> 20 Con is half as effective as 10 -> 12.  Characters with larger hit dice experience slightly less die-off in the value of additional Constitution.

Most importantly, this is the only thing Con does.  A wizard or rogue (one of the sorts that benefits most from Con) reaps +5% Survivability (+1 AC) from every two points of Dex, whether he's upgrading 10 -> 12 or 18 -> 20.   Not so great compared to upping constitution?  The Wizzrogue also gets +1 (5%) Initiative from every point, +5% to several default ability checks liable to come up during exploration, and +5% to hit with ranged and finesse weapons.  The Barbarian (Least benefited by Con: 12%/2 points tops) gets +5% to-hit from every 2 points of strength, +1 Damage, and +20lbs of carrying capacity

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."
On Worldbuilding - On Crafting Aliens - Pillars of Art and Flavor - Simulationism, Narritivism, and Gamism - Shub-Niggurath in D&D
THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

For simplicity's sake, i'd just go with HP getting half your constitution modifier.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter