Constitution for everything? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Constitution for everything? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
AT-AT Assault
05-16-06, 11:11 PM My first real RPG(that is, non video game RPG) was the SW D20. In it everything self animate(in DnD terms, everything with Cha and Wis scores) had a Constitution score. For living organism this included their immune systems, but more broadly Constitution reflected how well one was built(so a droid built with steel would likely have more Con than one built with aluminum, but not necessarily).

So how would DnD change if every self animate thing have Constitution? What would need to be done to rebalance things?
RLRapp
05-16-06, 11:21 PM The difference is that unlike droids, constructs or undead in D&D have no weak points. driving a spike through the head of a construct has no more specific effect than through its arm, while a droid has specific sensors, power supplies and processors, making them just as vulnerable as a living creature to precision damage.
kinem
05-17-06, 01:31 AM AT-AT, the only real change that would have to be made is that many undead would no longer need to be given the Unholy Toughness special quality, and constructs with class levels would no longer suck. In other words, everything should have a con score, as I have argued from day 1.

Despite what claims you may see on the topic it has nothing to do with immunity to critical hits, metabolism, the color of Orcus' eyes, or any of the other immunities that such creatures now enjoy which could easily be given back to them even with a Con score.
ClementWillowbreaker
05-17-06, 11:26 AM Constructs would probably have to be rebalanced entirely, to make up for their changed HP scores, as would undead (who would almost certainly gain more HP). Both types of creature have lots of immunities, and they are balanced by their relative HP fraility.
BloodSpill
05-17-06, 11:32 AM Disintegrate is very powerful vs. constructs and undead.

If you give them Con scores, you're giving them a bonus to their Fortitude saves (as if you'd give them 9 or less Con). This means they get even harder to defeat. :(
AT-AT Assault
05-17-06, 08:17 PM Disintegrate is very powerful vs. constructs and undead.

If you give them Con scores, you're giving them a bonus to their Fortitude saves (as if you'd give them 9 or less Con). This means they get even harder to defeat. :(There's one thing that would have to be rebalanced. Actually I have a lot of ulterior motives, redoing magic being one of them. IMO magic is way to pervasive, and magic using classes seem to be superior to non magic classes at higher levels(reason being is the non magic classes utterly depend on buffs and magic items, without those their ECL drops by a few levels, but magic users have no need for items[though they certainly like them]).

I would like furthur responses directed at trying to help me incorporate Con. I have already decided I want everything to have Con. Your opinion( and this includes the DnD designers; since the rules arnt set in stone[if they were there wouldnt be the notion of Open Game, now would there]) of how Con-less creatures work so that they dont have Con is not one I share.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
AT-AT Assault 05-16-06, 11:11 PM	My first real RPG(that is, non video game RPG) was the SW D20. In it everything self animate(in DnD terms, everything with Cha and Wis scores) had a Constitution score. For living organism this included their immune systems, but more broadly Constitution reflected how well one was built(so a droid built with steel would likely have more Con than one built with aluminum, but not necessarily). So how would DnD change if every self animate thing have Constitution? What would need to be done to rebalance things?
RLRapp 05-16-06, 11:21 PM	The difference is that unlike droids, constructs or undead in D&D have no weak points. driving a spike through the head of a construct has no more specific effect than through its arm, while a droid has specific sensors, power supplies and processors, making them just as vulnerable as a living creature to precision damage.
kinem 05-17-06, 01:31 AM	AT-AT, the only real change that would have to be made is that many undead would no longer need to be given the Unholy Toughness special quality, and constructs with class levels would no longer suck. In other words, everything should have a con score, as I have argued from day 1. Despite what claims you may see on the topic it has nothing to do with immunity to critical hits, metabolism, the color of Orcus' eyes, or any of the other immunities that such creatures now enjoy which could easily be given back to them even with a Con score.
ClementWillowbreaker 05-17-06, 11:26 AM	Constructs would probably have to be rebalanced entirely, to make up for their changed HP scores, as would undead (who would almost certainly gain more HP). Both types of creature have lots of immunities, and they are balanced by their relative HP fraility.
BloodSpill 05-17-06, 11:32 AM	Disintegrate is very powerful vs. constructs and undead. If you give them Con scores, you're giving them a bonus to their Fortitude saves (as if you'd give them 9 or less Con). This means they get even harder to defeat. :(
AT-AT Assault 05-17-06, 08:17 PM	Disintegrate is very powerful vs. constructs and undead. If you give them Con scores, you're giving them a bonus to their Fortitude saves (as if you'd give them 9 or less Con). This means they get even harder to defeat. :(There's one thing that would have to be rebalanced. Actually I have a lot of ulterior motives, redoing magic being one of them. IMO magic is way to pervasive, and magic using classes seem to be superior to non magic classes at higher levels(reason being is the non magic classes utterly depend on buffs and magic items, without those their ECL drops by a few levels, but magic users have no need for items[though they certainly like them]). I would like furthur responses directed at trying to help me incorporate Con. I have already decided I want everything to have Con. Your opinion( and this includes the DnD designers; since the rules arnt set in stone[if they were there wouldnt be the notion of Open Game, now would there]) of how Con-less creatures work so that they dont have Con is not one I share.