The Case Against AD&D - Ability Scores, pt. 4

Constitution is one of the most important ability scores in the D&D game, and I think, occasionally an underrated one. When I was first introduced to the game, the group that did so never emphasized the importance of the ability score, and I recall that they wouldn't prioritize Constitution over other ability scores (most of our play was during 3rd edition, so that may have had something to do with it, but I doubt it).

Most editions of D&D have differing hit dice values for each class, meaning that classes use a different die with a particular range. In AD&D 2e, mage classes (Wizards, Illusionists, Elementalists, etc.) use a d4, rogues (Thieves, Bards, etc.) use a d6, priests (Specialty Priests/Clerics, Druids, etc.) use a d8, and warriors use a d10. Because of this, Constitution actually benefits the smaller dice by a greater amount. In Basic Fantasy RPG, a character with a 16 Constitution would have a +2 bonus to HP. Let's do some math with that assumption.

Both BFRPG and AD&D 2e have rolled hit points at 1st level, so we can (for the sake of discussion) use the average per die. BFRPG uses slightly smaller hit dice for classes, so Fighters use d8s, Clerics use d6s, and Magic Users and Thieves use d4s.

Knowing this, a Fighter would have a range of 3-10 hp per level, and an average of 6.5. A Cleric would have 3-8, with an average of 5.5. Magic Users and Thieves would have a range of 3-7, with an average of 4.5. For Magic Users and Thieves, the +2 bonus Constitution from a 16 is an 80% increase over their average. But for Fighters, it's only a 44% increase. In the time that I've been a fan of D&D and been a part of online communities, the more math savvy have pointed out that the percentage of the increase greatly favors the smaller dice as far as the raw increase is concerned. This means that a Fighter in BFRPG has less reason to desire a high Constitution, because the bonus doesn't make as large an impact on their hit points from hit dice (however, veteran players will rightly point out that even a single extra hit point can spell the difference between victory and defeat).

Constitution and AD&D 2e

Interestingly, AD&D makes an effort to ensure high Constitution scores have a bigger impact for warrior classes. I'm not convinced it is successful, but I'll give them some credit for trying. However, I have some issues with some of the derived statistics the are tied to Constitution in AD&D. In particular are System Shock, and Resurrection Survival. System Shock is basically another form of saving throw vs. death, but it pertains to most effects that change your shape or form in some way (petrification, polymorph, and magical aging). Bizarrely, it also determines whether you survive being restored to normalcy after being subjected to a spell or effect that reverses petrification. So, you have to make a System Shock check to survive being turned to stone, then make another one to survive the reversal of the process. And it gets better.

Let's say you failed to survive being rescued from petrification and after your party pooled together their resources and possibly even performed a quest, the local priest casts a raise dead. You're then, at that time, required to roll a Resurrection Survival Check. The chance of failure is very small, but it's still possible for you fail to survive being resurrected. I continually find myself bemused that these even exist in the game, because you already have saves for death and petrification, and you don't use those saving throws for System Shock or Resurrection Survival.

Arguably, System Shock and Resurrection Survival add a particular flavor to the game's world by being present, in that dangerous magical transformations, and divine intervention to bring a person back from the clammy fist of death can turn out unfavorably for the character. In System Shock's defense, its general use is to protect PCs from things that logically should kill them (like being turned to stone) but their status as heroic figures has a chance to save them. But, that defense falls a tad flat in my personal opinion. To me it seems like an unnecessary extra roll to make players sweat, and since it can also be used to make the reversal of petrification deadly, it's the sort of rule that can sour the relationship between players and DMs.

Resurrection Survival on the other hand exists solely to make life difficult, and because it's already unlikely that PCs will be getting resurrected regularly, it seems like an added complication for little reward. What, ultimately, does Resurrection Survival bring to the game to justify its existence? In my opinion, the "world flavor" isn't enough. Worse, I don't think it's necessary for it to be tied to Constitution, it could have easily been integrated into the raise dead and resurrection spells as part of their effect. For my part, I don't think that these two derived statistics have a place in the game, and I wonder how many groups out there simply glossed over these two scores in their games because they were unnecessary or bogged down play.

The bonus to Poison saving throws is completely irrelevant to beginning characters, save elves and dwarves, since it's impossible to roll a score that provides a bonus or penalty. An elf who rolled a 3 could theoretically begin play with a Constitution score of 2. I would bet however, that the number of players who were excited to do so would be vanishingly small. A very lucky dwarf could potentially begin with a 19, but it's unlikely even a dwarf player would use an 18 for this purpose, since dwarves are generally restricted to being Fighters, Clerics, and Thieves. A Fighter would want that 18 in Strength to take advantage of exceptional strength, Clerics would want to put that into Wisdom to take advantage of bonus spells. Thieves in turn would want to place it in Dexterity to maximize their thief abilities.

Only an extremely lucky dwarf with two 18s would bother putting an 18 into Constitution, and even then, it would benefit Fighters the most (dwarves have a racial bonus to Poison saves, and there's no difference between an 18 and 19 for them where the bonus is concerned). The biggest advantage to a dwarf Fighter with 19 Constitution is the +5 bonus to hit points.

Finally, there's Regeneration, which is certainly a neat ability for those who have sufficiently high Constitution, but again, this is outside the grasp of beginning characters, thus encouraging them to find ways to attain these coveted heights.

High Constitution and Warriors

Let's delve into math once more. The only Constitution scores that are important for hit points are 15-19 for beginning characters. Nothing beyond 16 is worth having (hit points wise) for non-warrior PCs. Every single score of 16 or greater only provides a +2 bonus to HP for those classes.

Priests would have a range of 3-10, with an average of 6.5; a 44% increase.

Rogues would have a range of 3-8, with an average of 5.5; a 57% increase.

Mages would have a range of 3-6, with an average of 4.5; an 80% increase.

Warriors on the other hand, stand to benefit from scores of 17-19. 17 provides a +3 bonus, 18 provides a +4, and 19 provides a +5.

A half-elf Ranger with a 17 Constitution would have a range of 4-13, with an average of 8.5; a 55% increase.

A human Paladin with an 18 Constitution would have a range of 5-14, with an average of 9.5; a 72% increase.

A dwarf Fighter with a 19 Constitution would have a range of 6-15, with an average of 10.5; a 91% increase.

Given that it's fairly unlikely that that one will roll an 18, and that the average roll for 4d6 drop the lowest produces a high score of 16, very, very few characters are going be getting the high Constitution hit point bonuses, and only a dwarf Fighter would get the +3 for having a 17. The curve for the scores just feels underwhelming as a result, and encourages that upward dash for high scores so that one can take advantage of the vastly inflated bonuses.

But, Constitution is only particularly important for warriors, and other classes just don't draw the same benefit, so any more than 16 is a waste. However, there are multiclass and dual-class characters to consider, though the high ability scores necessary to qualify for them would make it unlikely that one would favor Constitution unless it was one of the class's requirements and they were a warrior subclass.

Final Thoughts

As I mentioned before, I find myself bemused by Constitution's unnecessary derived statistics. In an OSR game, I'd probably fold System Shock (were I to use it) into Constitution's standard bonus, and leave it at that. At absolute worst, I would make it a roll-under Constitution score style check. If I were inclined to utilize Resurrection Survival, I'd make it a part of the spells, rather than a function of Constitution. I can understand the notion that warriors should get more of a benefit from Constitution, but ultimately, this can be fixed either by giving warriors a bigger hit die, or by giving them a bonus for their class group. If ability scores are going to be used, I think it behooves the game designer to keep them neat and consistent, and Constitution fails this.

Next time, we'll take a good long gander at Intelligence.