Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jay_Ibero_911 05-10-07, 12:52 PM	I'm just curious as to what justifications people have for low con characters, what makes you think it is worth it? All of my LG characters always put 6 points into con...
solbergb 05-10-07, 01:00 PM	Generally there are two parts to the decision 1. A need for the attribute points elsewehere to support the character (eg, an archer needs both high strength and high dex, he may also need decent int for skills or wis for spellcasting. A cleric of knowledge domain that wants to be good at turning undead and banishing demons needs good intelligence, wisdom and charisma, etc) 2. A feeling that the character has defenses other than hitpoints that will keep him alive. Usually this is the "air barrier", ie, you are a mounted combat rideby-guy, or an archer, or a back-rank spellcaster. This may also include access to spells or feats that grant tons of temp hitpoints or spells/feats/class abilities that make you more resistant to ranged combat and area effects that target hitpoints. You need both for it to be a good decision. It's easy for an inexperienced player to see that attribute points would be nice elsewhere (#1) but not understand the tradeoffs in making this character so fragile (#2). You can't tell by looking at the character sheet if the player has thought it out. Much of #2 is playstyle, and in the case of spellcasters, it is also tied to spell selection. My bias is to have a decent constitution and not sweat armor class, which horrifies more conservative folks sometimes. I have a few high AC characters, but the vast majority have their dex+size+whatever the cheapest armor is that won't encumber them or interfere with their main schtick (this is often a potion of mage armor).
bitznarf 05-10-07, 01:05 PM	I don't know that people consider it 'worth it' issue. Its more of a diversity or challenge for the people I know who have low con characters.
Japangirl 05-10-07, 02:01 PM	The problem I have with 'playstyle' arguments is that unless someone is really good, they might not die but their party will. Playing it really cautious is a good way to lets someone else die because you wouldn't attack because of being only 20 feet away from the bad guy who was attacking someone else, so if you attacked they *might* break off, walk over, and hit you once. I have been in combats with two 12-Con sorcerors who had invested nothing into Con (no amulet or ioun stone), and they both spent the vast majority of it running in circles instead of casting something either blasty or useful. It put the others of us into far greater danger than was necessary and cost enormous amounts of resources to heal up afterwards, which wouldn't have been necessary if they had spent more time casting and less time trying to be safe. When one of them finally decided to do damage, he finished off the big baddie in a round. It would have been nice to see that 5-7 rounds earlier though . . . It is not impossible to play a 12 Con character, but doing it "for the challenge" means you had better be really good at it so you don't put your party at risk.
Jay_Ibero_911 05-10-07, 02:19 PM	Funny thing is, assuming all invenstments are the same, as 12 con character will only have 15 less hp than a 14 con character at 15th level...so it seems to be more of a percieved weakness than an actual one. A full hp 12 con character should be no more wary of combat than a 14 con one...it's just they'll need to be patched up a little sooner...
amnuxoll 05-10-07, 02:20 PM	There's a mystic theurge in our region who has Dex 8 and Con 10. I think he's nuts but he's made it to level 10 without dying due to the "air barrier." And, as you might expect, his saving throw DCs are quite formidable. :AMN:
jimmy_dowdall 05-10-07, 02:48 PM	different classes have different priorties, while a high con is good (my wizard has a con of 16) it is more important for casters to good at what they do, whether it be IQ, WIS, or CHR and if everyone is doing there job right low con should not be an issue.
JamesMaissen 05-10-07, 02:57 PM	Funny thing is, assuming all invenstments are the same, as 12 con character will only have 15 less hp than a 14 con character at 15th level...so it seems to be more of a percieved weakness than an actual one. A full hp 12 con character should be no more wary of combat than a 14 con one...it's just they'll need to be patched up a little sooner... That's the problem with just looking at the piece of paper rather than in practice. It hides the reality of it. CON doesn't give immunity to death, but it gives just a little more buffer between the time that a random attack can hit you and when you need to spend party resources (ie actions) in dealing with it rather than applying pressure to the enemy to regain tempo for the party. A lower CON character has less room for forgiveness and unfortunate events. They need to spend in combat and out of combat resources addressing this. That's either directly in defensive actions/preparations or in curtailing more extreme actions to address great combat inequities. It alters how they play their character even before they are damaged. While it's possible to play and survive, in almost all cases they could have been played better with a higher CON. In my mind it's up there with starting with multiple odd ability scores, while this could be what needs to occur that's normally not the case. -James
Fleetfang 05-10-07, 03:25 PM	I recently played a session alongside a self-professed "front-liner" who had a 10 Con. When I noticed this, I asked the obvious "whatareyoucrazy?" question. The player replied with a grin, "I spend a lot of time unconscious." :D ... And that was supposed to make me feel better? At the first opportunity the "front-liner" PC ran headlong into a massive melee without even waiting for even one buff from my caster. So at the bottom of round one, three of the bad guys returned her single charge attack with three full attacks. Bam. Thanks. Honestly, it might seem like if YOU don't care if your PC dies, that other people shouldn't care. But if a key part of a pot luck adventuring party drops, not only are you not helping the party to win the fight, but you're eating up other PC's actions who have to try to get you back up. Not for your benefit necessarily, but for the benefit of the team. My archer can't take out 12 guys by himself. He needs other people blocking, drawing attention, and oh, I dunno, being a "front line" so he can do his job. I'm getting off this rant before I go on and on and on. Bottom line: If you spend less than 6 points on Con in your build, you not only need to ask what you're going to do to offset it, but ask how you can avoid becoming a liability for your allies. Part of that would be NOT charging straight into the bad guys right away.
thorinXXX 05-10-07, 03:25 PM	Most of my characters have less than 6 build points in Con. My high level light infantry type has a base Con of 10. He uses Spring Attack to do the 'air barrrier' defense. Of course he was an early character and I overestimated the RP in RPGA. ;) My paladin has a base Con of 12. He depends on AC for defense, and is capable of some self healing. My Dwarven Defender wannabe has a Con of 14 after racial modifiers. He still has plenty of hit points, and I wanted the stats elsewhere. He is a Combat Expertise AC *****. Much of it is a matter of play style. Much of it is a simple desire not to be a clone of every other character out there. It is fun to see the looks when people realize that the barbarian has a positive intelligence modifier and ranks in knowledge skills. People remember that character more than they do another 2H Power Attacking BDF.
Reylance 05-10-07, 03:46 PM	I've done it with builds that require so many stat points. In some cases, it's buying the 18/20 that drains most of your stat points. In other cases, it's playing a class where you want a high stat that isn't normally used (Intelligence for clerics). Some class combos or feats require additional stat point investment. For some metaorgs, you need to avoid penalties in all stats. The biggest culprits include the Arcane Disciple feat, fighter builds that require Charisma (Divine Crusader and Holy Liberator), and Enlightened Fists.
thorinXXX 05-10-07, 03:48 PM	I recently played a session alongside a self-professed "front-liner" who had a 10 Con. When I noticed this, I asked the obvious "whatareyoucrazy?" question. The player replied with a grin, "I spend a lot of time unconscious." :D ... And that was supposed to make me feel better? At the first opportunity the "front-liner" PC ran headlong into a massive melee without even waiting for even one buff from my caster. So at the bottom of round one, three of the bad guys returned her single charge attack with three full attacks. Bam. Thanks. Honestly, it might seem like if YOU don't care if your PC dies, that other people shouldn't care. But if a key part of a pot luck adventuring party drops, not only are you not helping the party to win the fight, but you're eating up other PC's actions who have to try to get you back up. Not for your benefit necessarily, but for the benefit of the team. My archer can't take out 12 guys by himself. He needs other people blocking, drawing attention, and oh, I dunno, being a "front line" so he can do his job. I'm getting off this rant before I go on and on and on. Bottom line: If you spend less than 6 points on Con in your build, you not only need to ask what you're going to do to offset it, but ask how you can avoid becoming a liability for your allies. Part of that would be NOT charging straight into the bad guys right away. Your example is a poor one. It was not the lack of Con that was the problem, it was a reckless play style. I seriously doubt that a few extra hit points would have kept that guy up. While 6 points in Con is a good rule of thumb it is not an absolute. Having a 10 or 12 Con does not by itself make you a liability to the party any more than having a 10 or 12 Wis does.
LachlarlanIII 05-10-07, 04:14 PM	Much of it is a matter of play style. Much of it is a simple desire not to be a clone of every other character out there. It is fun to see the looks when people realize that the barbarian has a positive intelligence modifier and ranks in knowledge skills. People remember that character more than they do another 2H Power Attacking BDF. It's even more fun when they realize the same barbarian has the Well Read feat and knows more than the wizard does. :D
copper_wyrmling 05-10-07, 04:37 PM	My L12 (human) sorc started with Con 12 - because I wanted Dex / Int / Cha more than I wanted Con, and having watched a number of grey elf wizards in play, I was confident that I could play her successfully with Con 12 (and btw, regarding the thread title, I don't need an "excuse" for a PC having Con < 14, I need a "reason"). She's played up on a fairly regular basis, didn't buy a Con-booster until late in L11, and I have NEVER felt like she wasn't pulling her weight in the party. I'm sorry some of you have had bad experiences with low-Con PCs being played stupidly, but to be fair... if that charging "front-liner" had had Con 14, would that have meant she was fine after those three full attacks? That seems very unlikely to me... it's not Con that's the problem there. Re Japangirl's comment, yeah, I don't have much time for arcanes who spend time casting defensive spells in combat: my own Con-12 sorcerer leads with offensive spells (or more rarely, buffs or teleports), she doesn't know a single defensive spell that doesn't last hours / level (unless you count invisibility and fly, but they are for utility and mobility, not in-combat defence).
trollbill 05-10-07, 04:51 PM	My L12 (human) sorc started with Con 12 - because I wanted Dex / Int / Cha more than I wanted Con, and having watched a number of grey elf wizards in play, I was confident that I could play her successfully with Con 12 (and btw, regarding the thread title, I don't need an "excuse" for a PC having Con < 14, I need a "reason"). She's played up on a fairly regular basis, didn't buy a Con-booster until late in L11, and I have NEVER felt like she wasn't pulling her weight in the party. I'm sorry some of you have had bad experiences with low-Con PCs being played stupidly, but to be fair... if that charging "front-liner" had had Con 14, would that have meant she was fine after those three full attacks? That seems very unlikely to me... it's not Con that's the problem there. Re Japangirl's comment, yeah, I don't have much time for arcanes who spend time casting defensive spells in combat: my own Con-12 sorcerer leads with offensive spells (or more rarely, buffs or teleports), she doesn't know a single defensive spell that doesn't last hours / level (unless you count invisibility and fly, but they are for utility and mobility, not in-combat defence). I agree. While my own Sorcerer has a 14 Con, he was designed to at least stand in the front some of the time. But he doesn't have to do that to be effective. I usually walk away from most battles with far less damage on me than anyone else, mostly due to False Life. At 9th I still haven't bought a Con boost, but I admit that's mostly because that slot is currently being occupied by my left hand.
Fleetfang 05-10-07, 04:56 PM	Well, Yeah. I suppose Thorin and CpprWyrm are right. A few extra hp might not have kept that PC on his feet, but it certainly didn't help. Actually, as I recall, there were a couple times in that fight after the front-liner got back up that he was knocked out again and brought back and knocked out. I'll bet a couple extra hp or five would have helped a lot. The guy was 5th level I think at APL 4. If he'd had a 14 CON, that's 10 extra hp. Funny thing is, from a role-playing perspective, I did get something out of it. I realized that my Cuthbertine isn't going to prioritize healing combatants who have terrible tactics. In fact, I may just say, "Oh well," and fire off a couple arrows rather than endanger my life for those types. The way I see it, the blindly-charging BDF has committed a sin against St. Cuthbert, the god of Common Sense. So they can stabilize on their own. heh heh.
Japangirl 05-10-07, 05:06 PM	Like I said. 12 Con is not unplayable by any stretch of the imagination (though it is a terrible idea for any frontliner). You just have to be smart about it, and smart means not screwing over your party to keep yourself alive. CopperWyrmling, I'm glad you figured out how to do it right :). The two sorcerors at APL 16, not so much, and it has been my experience that most people with 12 Con do not compensate correctly. People can do it, and kudos to those that do, but overall it's a bad idea.
Tarlyn Alurach 05-10-07, 05:26 PM	I don't see what the big deal is. My primary character is a rogue/cleric and my role in the party is to find the traps and heal the party. I'm a Dex monkey and if I do have to do anything to help the frontliners, I use my tumble skill to give them flanking. And I fight defensively. I've seen guys that have spent Cons of 10 and 12 that have lasted longer in combat as front line than those that have Cons of 14, 15 or 16. It's people that sit there and try to tell me that how I or anyone else should build a character that just annoy the hell out of me.
Sieylianna 05-10-07, 05:39 PM	I have about 10 LG PCs from 2nd to 18th level. The only one who didn't get six points in Constitution was the druid. However, that mistake was rectified with this year's druid rebuild. Ed
Tarlyn Alurach 05-10-07, 05:46 PM	I have a scout/archer who also doesn't have a 14 Con. He's died twice. Both times because our front line fighters dropped and we needed to buy time to heal them up. I still don't see why non-fighter types have to have 14 Cons. That detracts from other more important stats like Intelligence or Wisdom or Charisma or Dexterity.
Jay_Ibero_911 05-10-07, 05:50 PM	Here's what I've gotten out of this thread: The easiest way to make a character survivable is to put at least 6 points into con at creation. Lower con scores are just as viable, but require more strategy to play effectively. Lower con scores can also cause less experienced players to adopt an overly defensive play style reducing their contribution to the party...
solbergb 05-10-07, 05:57 PM	A lot of it is phsychological. Just like with armor class. We had a 30 AC tank who played all of one long mod where half of his actions seemed like they were wasted on things like "I move and go total defense". Once he even ran away, exposing the squishies. Halfway through my wife's cleric started tossing the defensive buffs at my 19 AC monk (17 when enlarged) because I was out there killing the monsters and blocking. Now while he was acting all defensive, I didn't feel especially threatened or worried at any point. The threats were the same, so all I can assume is that the difference was confidence in our characters and our teammates. I knew that most of the time I could handle the incoming threats, by a mix of tactical feats, raw damage output and in worst case, my own escape skills, and I also knew that the two full caster clerics and the full caster arcanist would do a lot to either block incoming attacks with debuffs or battlefield control, or patch me up if I got in over my head. My archer has almost never noticed his low constitution. My wife's cleric eventually got divine vigor to give an extra edge if she was concerned about area spells or ranged combat, but otherwise never much noticed. My other chars have good con. Essentially, the acid test is this: 1. Do you get knocked out or killed very often. The answer to this should be "almost never" for a typical character. 2. How often are you unable to do your normal offensive contribution because of purely defensive actions? (ie, if you are a primary caster, how often do you use standard actions on anything but casting a spell that either hurts the enemy or helps allies other than yourself. If you are primarily melee, how many rounds do you spend not contributing offensive smack to the party. If your only real contribution is "tanking", that's ok IF you are successfully drawing fire. If they don't swing at you - you better be doing damage or helping someone else do damage) 3. Is your normal offensive contribution meaningful? You will note that the answer to this can not be determined by con score alone. This is a mix of saving throws, hitpoints, armor class, out-of-combat defensive buffs (passive defenses) and active defenses such as debuffs, battlefield control, doing so much damage that you kill things before you die and being able to move out of danger AND attack meaningfully. Furthermore the players PERCEPTION matters too. If you are too reckless compared to actual capabilities, you spend a lot of time getting rescued or bleeding out.(like the 10 con frontliner who spends a lot of time bleeding out) If you are too cautious, you tend to be a noncontributor (like Copper's example sorcerers) Experienced players get it right more often. Which lets them successfully play characters that boggle people who don't understand how it works. Inexperienced players get it wrong more often, and can play a "power build" much, much less usefully than an experienced player can play a "crippled build"
Tarlyn Alurach 05-10-07, 05:58 PM	No. It's all about knowing where you fit in the party.
Japangirl 05-10-07, 06:01 PM	Because if you drop, you can't do your Int-y or Charisma-y or Wisdom-y or Dex-y things. Hitpoints are life, and those few extras matter. My rogue has a 16 Con, and it isn't high enough. Things hit her and they hit hard and they throw Fort save or die spells her way, all of which a higher Con helps with. As a cleric, you need to get up front to heal people. That means you will become a target and you will, on occasion, get hit. If the healer drops, all Heck breaks loose for the party. Building survivable healers is really important for overall party success. We just fought an APL 6 mod where a 9th level caster drops an Empowered Fireball on you. It did over 50 points of damage to everyone in the party: everyone needs to be able to survive half that. I have no idea what level your rogue/cleric is, so I will not presume to judge what you have or have not fought. But I will tell you that unless you are very lucky, fighting defensively stops being useful at high APLs unless you have a very high AC already, because the things hit you anyway. At that point, you need Con to survive the hits. My rogue fights defensively with an additional +4 cover bonus to AC and hastes herself for a 36 AC at APL 14/16 and it's not very missable for most big bad things. Besides, no one here is telling anyone how to build a character. There are serious risks to both you and your party if you do it and you must take those into consideration when building characters. What I, at least, am saying is if you are building a character with less that 14 Con, make sure your low HP don't endanger the rest of the party because you are too scared to be useful. If you can do that, then a lower Con is fine. If you can't, then don't do it. As I have never played with you, I have no idea if you can or not.
copper_wyrmling 05-10-07, 06:03 PM	Here's what I've gotten out of this thread: The easiest way to make a character survivable is to put at least 6 points into con at creation. Lower con scores are just as viable, but require more strategy to play effectively. Lower con scores can also cause less experienced players to adopt an overly defensive play style reducing their contribution to the party... I mostly agree with this. Just remember that putting 6 points in Con doesn't "make a character survivable" of itself: if you charge the three gargantuan monsters without party support then it's unlikely to matter very much that you have a few extra HP. Still, if you don't need the points elsewhere, Con will always be helpful. EDIT: Gah, so many people posting! But from my own experience... I have a L15 human cleric who started with Con 12. That wasn't a deliberate decision on my part, the PC was built for me. She's gone unconscious a grand total of three times in her LG career, I think, and has never died (the lowest she's ever gotten is -8, but that was in her second LG mod ever: Con 14 would've meant she was at -7 instead). Her defences are armor class and resist energy / energy immunity spells, and half-decent initiative and reflex save because the points that aren't boosting Con mostly went into Dex. Also, she can and does do defensive buffs and healing as swift / immediate actions, so they don't detract much from her main actions. She meets solbergb's acid test pretty well, but I did have to put some effort into pumping up her AC around L8 in order to maintain effectiveness without focusing too much on defence mid-combat. My sorcerer, as previously mentioned, has Con 12 - in combat she relies on never allowing herself to end up in full attack range, and / or on debuffing bad guys sufficiently that they can't hurt her effectively (this may mean killing them before they act, it may mean split ray empowered rays of enfeeblement, it may mean tying them up in so much battlefield control that they can't move). Solbergb's sorcerer plays just the same way, and she had starting Con 14 (but doesn't empower her false life, which makes up some of the gap). Azrien took significant damage for the first time in a loooooong time in the last game she played, but it still didn't drop her (and wouldn't have dropped her even without her Con amulet, although it would've been a lot closer), and her action (plus another PC's followup) dropped the bad guy before he got another go. I think she also meets the acid test pretty well.
Tarlyn Alurach 05-10-07, 06:17 PM	They can't hit what they can't see. I'm 4/4. I'm going for Temple Raider. My character always the other clerics free to cast more damage inducing spells without really dumping those to spontaneously cast healing. I have wands, scrolls, and potions to assist us. If I had put more points in Con instead of Dex, then the party would have died on more than one occassion. Cause yes, we have had a mage drop a sudden empowered fireball on us. Against undead and evil outsiders, I can do more physical damage to them any most of the frontline fighters at my level. And I don't have an adamantine ghost touch weapon. My high Dex score has saved my kiester in more than one battle against undead. My character has sat in at high level tables and has walked away unscratched. That wouldn't have been the case if I had put more points into Con than I did Dex. Instead, he'd be dead and I wouldn't be where I'm at now with him. For a front line fighter, I can see a 14 Con. For all others, not so necessary.
Mommy was an Orc 05-10-07, 08:19 PM	The reason for having a 14 Con in general is that you probably spend 8-10 points on your primary stat, 6-8 points on your secondary stat, 4-6 points on tertiary stat, and then 6 points everywhere else. Most builds probably rank Constitution as either the secondary or tertiary stat. You need to justify some other stat to lower it and most of the builds with MAD are melee builds and can't.
Morgen 05-10-07, 08:24 PM	That does it, I'm making a 6 con elf. :P
solbergb 05-10-07, 08:29 PM	actually I have to take something back on my archer, who started with 10 constitution and 17 dexterity (wood elf, so 17 wasn't that expensive). At level 8, he's got an amulet of health+2 and no dexterity gloves. So I guess the low con did have an impact on where my 4k attribute boost item went. Of course part of why I haven't needed the dex gloves is that from level 4-7+ I had an extra +1 to hit from higher native dex and I probably will buy the dex gloves sometime during this level. I might have been smarter to go 16 dex 12 con, at least in the 8-11 range, but at 12+ I'll likely be happier with my current choice. It's kind of a wash, but if I had a higher con, I might have different equipment, slightly.
Ancillary 05-10-07, 10:05 PM	Of my 4 LG characters 3 are 12 Con elves. A front-line fighter, a light infantry, and a wizard. They have 25 levels and 3 deaths between them, and when they died it would have taken at least 30 more hitpoints to keep the sneak attacking grells/cryohydra/sneak attacking something elses from killing them. The way you play is dramatically more important than 1 or 2 * your level in hitpoints. I do not believe that statistically a higher con would have saved my characters more than the higher strength or dex or etc they do have. That is why they have a twelve con. Character number 4 has a 20 con but, although he has yet to perish, he is in almost more danger since he often has 2 shield others up, and always at least one. He doesn't need to travel far to heal though!
Maesto 05-10-07, 10:37 PM	Hmm... I've got a lot of LG characters (8?), and the only ones who don't have CON 12 are the dwarves (CON 16/17 starting stats). Go figure. I've had a few PC deaths. One was due to the animated hand of Vecna in A Tiger? In Ahlissa?, and no amount of pointbuy con was going to save that character. The same character also almost died thanks to an advanced dreadwraith (DC 31 fort save?! ouch!), but again, more con buys only another round at most, really (especially when the DM is rolling above average on that d80. The other character who's died, well, twice in the same game... First death was a meteorswarm in the surprise round. Put me squarely on about -30 as a wizard with effective 14 con. Sure, if I'd had 4 more con, then I'd be on 0, and would've copped the quickened empowered scorching ray that came next. Second death was from a full attack from a dragon. Sure, I probably shouldn't have been standing there to take it, but it was me or somebody else in the party, and I chose to take an action which might have taken the thing out completely before it got another go (after moving in to threaten the entire party). Again, I dropped after the 3rd attack (to -30 odd); if I didn't, I would've just been hit by the next attack, or the one after that, or the one after that... the thing ended up doing 250 damage in it's full attack, dropping me and another PC, but the other guy got the delay death. If you're going to be standing up the front and taking the brunt of the damage, then con is important. Most of my characters aren't built to do that, so I guess that as long as you play smart, you can get away with a lower constitution. Then again, I have seen inordinate amounts of damage dumped on a party in the surprise round with no save (multiple icestorms).
magebeast 05-10-07, 10:43 PM	That does it, I'm making a 6 con elf. :P It's been done, and they're no fun to play with. Grey Elf Wizard. 7 hitpoints at level 6. SEVEN. An EL+4 spellcaster that magic missiles you drops you if they roll average damage.
paigeoliver 05-10-07, 11:43 PM	I find characters with a specific weaknesses to be more exciting to play. I have a 7th level Marshal with an 8 con and he is a melee fighter. He has no con item, has never died, and has only been negative a few times. Although he is a whip tripper and disarmer and almost never does actual damage. If I am in a party with no beef then I will trade in the trusty whip for a flail and tank with my big bad 8 con. The 8 con is a roleplaying thing as I am playing a warrior in his late 50s who wasn't the beefiest guy even in his younger days. I have a marshall/outcast champion/mutt at 8th level who has a 10 con (no con item). This is a ride by attack character with massive damage potential. I have died 3 times, and the con would have never helped me. Either I am kept safe from the space buffer or a big beasty or two trap me and wail on me until I die. Despite the very low con scores of these characters they are the characters of mine most often requested by other players when we are putting together tables. There is actually a character type that I would almost universally recommend con dumps for, and that is full BAB archers. I have one I have played up to 8th level so far and I almost never take damage. When I do it is self inflicted half of the time (jumping off of things and stuff like that).
LachlarlanIII 05-11-07, 09:56 AM	That does it, I'm making a 6 con elf. :P We've got one in our gaming group, and although he tries extremely hard to get himself killed, he's never been killed. He's a gray elf that wants a reincarnation. :)
LachlarlanIII 05-11-07, 10:00 AM	My personal opinion is that if you intend to get hit (quite often) you need to have an extremely high Con score to survive it. Such characters include Karmic Strikers and barbarians that have Reckless Rage.
bitznarf 05-11-07, 10:20 AM	Such characters should also include Elusive Target in my opinion.
Efekjek 05-11-07, 10:24 AM	yeh, i took a 14 con on my light infantry character, and i'm glad i did. even though the chance that extra con will save you is quite small, it is still a chance. i guess i've been "lucky" enough to have my 14 con pull its weight: i've been at -9 twice, and have never died. currently, lvl 6.
Mommy was an Orc 05-11-07, 10:33 AM	There is actually a character type that I would almost universally recommend con dumps for, and that is full BAB archers. I have one I have played up to 8th level so far and I almost never take damage. When I do it is self inflicted half of the time (jumping off of things and stuff like that). That's actually not as true anymore. Rage/Extra Rage is a pretty cheap way to boost bow damage. Low Con means that doesn't work.
KShaver 05-11-07, 10:38 AM	Such characters should also include Elusive Target in my opinion. My gnome cork working on getting elusive target seems to have too much con. I'm sure it will come in handy eventually, but most of the time extreme AC and HP just aren't both needed at the same time.
Tarlyn Alurach 05-11-07, 10:56 AM	It's all about party composition. My scout/ranger will put himself between the spellcasters and the enemies. I don't have a high con because I needed it else where. I have the skills and the mobility to get where I'm needed when I'm needed. As the back up healer it comes in very handy. He's died twice in order to save our frontline fighters. I have a 24 AC, when I go full defense I raise it to 30. If we have our bard, I can get it up to around 32. I don't really see why the majority of non-fighters need to have higher than a 14 Con in the first place. Simply because if something can drop your frontline fighters in the first round, and your magic-users can't drop it, you're dead anyway. I've seen TPKS that way.
amnuxoll 05-11-07, 12:43 PM	Just remember that putting 6 points in Con doesn't "make a character survivable" of itself: if you charge the three gargantuan monsters without party support then it's unlikely to matter very much that you have a few extra HP. I give my PCs high Con score precisely because as a player I *like* having the freedom to be a bit reckless in order to stay in character and be heroic. If my PC has to spend an action to run away, go full defense or acquire healing then I consider that a miserable failure. (Curse you and your demon archers, Steve Baker!) My PCs' initial Con scores (from highest level PC to lowest): 15 16 12 (archer, and my first LG PC) 16 14 14 16 16 Most of these PCs have since bought amulets of health and/or use false life. :AMN:
Tarlyn Alurach 05-11-07, 01:52 PM	Good for you. I also enjoy being reckless. Ask anyone who played Fane of the Drow with me. I got very up close and personal with two drow priestesses who had me flanked. And I went mano-e-mano with one of them. But I've seen other players with higher Con scores go recklessly into combat. And almost to a man, they've been beat the eff down. That drastically changed the battle plan. Stupidly charging into battle because of the "I have the HP to take it" mentality has killed more parties than anything else I've seen.
solbergb 05-11-07, 02:12 PM	that's why I say the player perception is more important than the actual scores. If your preception matches the actual capability of the character, you won't be too overly cautious or too reckless. Only if the capability is too fragile relative to typical challenges will an accurate perception interfere with actually playing the game (eg, 6 constitution grey elves, primary casters who can't seem to stay out of melee but can't reliably cast defensively, etc) More commonly, I see characters perfectly capable of handling the incoming threat run away or self-buff instead of doing something positive to defeat the threat, or alternately characters taking stupid risks that result in them being knocked out or killed, throwing the whole fight out of balance. Sometimes it is hard for others to know whether something is a stupid risk for you. Which is why communication is important. (I remember when my monk rolled a "1" then rerolled a "2" vs a corpse collector with his close quarters combat AOO and got grabbed. I had to shout out "it's ok, I'm fine, I'm in no real danger" to prevent ill-advised rescue attempts....I had a 100% reliable way to both escape the grapple and finish off a wounded enemy all lined up for my next action...and I try to make a point to warn people if my "tank" is going to have to move soon and expose squishies if he doesn't get support)
KShaver 05-11-07, 02:25 PM	Good for you. I also enjoy being reckless. Ask anyone who played Fane of the Drow with me. I got very up close and personal with two drow priestesses who had me flanked. And I went mano-e-mano with one of them. As the tank I moved up slowly and carefully during this fight, single moving and throwing javelins for a couple of turns in a row. The favored soul ran off on his own, took a couple crossbow bolts and Zzzzz. His reasoning was I was advancing too slow...I guess I did only have a 15' move at that point in time, but still it was a lot safer behind me than off on his own.
Tarlyn Alurach 05-11-07, 02:34 PM	I got in between the two of them because I scouted out and saw the priestess on the altar. I didn't see the second one. They waited until I got into position to try to backstab her. And I missed. But because of my actions, I took the two priestesses and the golem out of the combat for a couple of rounds. What I wanted to do, was grab one, kiss her and then run. But then common sense hit me upside the head and I tumbled away. I went toe-to-toe with the higher level preistess and she laid me out. I didn't die, but I bought us enough time for our tank to finish off the statue and then he and our battle cleric dropped her. But because of this mod, my character WILL NOT get anywhere near spiders.
trollbill 05-11-07, 02:46 PM	I got in between the two of them because I scouted out and saw the priestess on the altar. I didn't see the second one. They waited until I got into position to try to backstab her. And I missed. But because of my actions, I took the two priestesses and the golem out of the combat for a couple of rounds. What I wanted to do, was grab one, kiss her and then run. But then common sense hit me upside the head and I tumbled away. I went toe-to-toe with the higher level preistess and she laid me out. I didn't die, but I bought us enough time for our tank to finish off the statue and then he and our battle cleric dropped her. But because of this mod, my character WILL NOT get anywhere near spiders. Careful. You guys are giving out spoilers for a Mod that isn't retired yet. And you can complain all you want about what you had to go through in Fane, my 3rd level sorcerer had to be party tank!!!
Tarlyn Alurach 05-11-07, 02:54 PM	I actually enjoyed it. We all played our parts and it worked rather well. That mod must have really sucked if yoru sorcerer had to be the tank.
trollbill 05-11-07, 05:13 PM	I actually enjoyed it. We all played our parts and it worked rather well. That mod must have really sucked if yoru sorcerer had to be the tank. We enjoyed it too, no one died, but still, it was pretty pathetic. My Sorcerer has a 14 ST. I did that mostly just to be different. I figured at low levels I could help out the front rank fighters from the second rank with a longspear. Little did I know I would be one of the front rank fighters. Our problem was essentially this. We had a Sor3, a Clr3, a Rng2/Rog2, a Wiz3/Rog3 and a Ftr3/Rog3. All the possible fighter types used either light weapons in combat or ranged attacks and all relied on sneak attack to do damage. I was the strongest person there. Well, you've played the mod, there are lots of drow (no surprise) and drow with Veil of Shadows up can't be sneak attacked because they have concealment. So all these sneak attackers were severly nerfed. My Sor3, with his White Dragonfang Longspear was the only one capable of doing more than 8 points of damage in a single blow. So when we needed the heavy damage, they all buffed me and did aid another while I stood behind everyone Enlarged and poked things with my spear. Sad...but it worked.
LachlarlanIII 05-11-07, 05:18 PM	So when we needed the heavy damage, they all buffed me and did aid another while I stood behind everyone Enlarged and poked things with my spear. Sad...but it worked. There's an interesting concept. Front-lining from the rear position. ;)
Tarlyn Alurach 05-11-07, 08:10 PM	:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: That's brilliant.
Swiftbrook 05-11-07, 09:16 PM	This has been an interesting thread to look over. I never considered putting many points into CON for my ranger archer build. Other things were more important. Str 16 (6 point = 14 + 2 racial) Dex 18 (10 points = 16 + 2 racial) Con 10 (4 points = 12 - 2 racial) Int 10 (2 points = 10) Wis 12 (4 point = 12) Cha 8 (2 point = 10 - 2 racial) Rational Need some points in strength to get a good plus strength damage on a bow Need very high dex for both archery and AC due to light/medium armor Didn't think about CON Didn't want to take a penalty to intelligence and lose valuable skill points Need wisdom to cast spells, used with many skills, and Will saves Need charisma for Handle Animal, but I'm willing to take that hit. My stat boost went to Wisdom at 4th. Now understand, I got a bump to Wisdom in a mod at 3rd level, so it seemed a simple choice to take the bump in Wisdom and get the stat bonus now. Also, I have used the bonus 2nd level spell in every mod I've played since qualifying. My archer is not a front liner. I try to hang back with the spell casters. I've got 48 HP and currently an AC of 22. I'm now saving for an animated shield and something to boost my CON :-). -Swiftbrook
Tarlyn Alurach 05-11-07, 09:43 PM	I see nothing wrong with that build. I'm usually 10's across the board before I do anything else. I make my decisions from there. Strength, Dex, Wisdom and Intellegence are the biggies. Namely because we have a real lack of rogues in my area. And then there are times when my archer IS the primary healer. Con got what points were left over.
just_be_glad_now 05-11-07, 10:20 PM	I think the rationale for auto-6pts into Con is diminishing over time as the campaign advances and changes are made with an attempt to make things more fun for the players. Since more fun generally means friendlier or at least less cruel, probably it is "safer" now than before. Many of us recall a time when not only did delay death not exist, PC destroying spells like destruction were still in the campaign, stat boost items and resistance items were not all core, and PCs had to walk uphill both ways in the snow. In this case, I find it highly interesting that nobody has mentioned the effect on fort saves. In my experience, failed fort saves are as dangerous as hp loss at high APLs. Probably it is twice as dangerous now that PCs will be delay deathed all the time. I tend to find myself highly dissatisfied with my level 15 grey elf wizard's +17 fort (starting con 12, 6pts), and will be crafting the pale green prism ioun stone next for one more. I'm really hoping some day to find access to a luck blade (0) wishes for him. My two wheat, jbgn
Tarlyn Alurach 05-11-07, 10:23 PM	I don't have problem with Fort saves with any of my characters. But will saves, on the other hand....The majority of my characters dread going on voyages.
zoinks69 05-12-07, 03:27 AM	"That does it, I'm making a 6 con elf." I've seen a sorc with 5 con. Temp hp are a wonderful thing.
gomeztoo 05-12-07, 03:30 AM	I have on 12 Con char, and she's a bard. Her puprpose is buffing, diplomizing and taking out indidvidual targets when possible. Hig Con might be better, but I needed a good Cha, Dex, and Int, and didn't want to give here a dump stat. She does fine, success varries a bit depending opponents and situation. She is brave enough to dive into the fray when needed. Despite basic lack of melee-effectiveness, she's fun to play and contributes, and that is important. Nesaliua is an elf with a 14 Con. I probbaly need to give her an amulet of health but I am wodneirng whether AC isn't better. She has, at 10th lvl, 110+ hitpoints when she rages, which is a nice buffer. Unfortunately, low AC and non-optimal Ref saves occasionally mean she is hit quite quickly through her reserve. In Dragondown Grotto those hp went fast in almost every combat. Luckily she has more options so she can withdraw and still contribute. I like to get more hp, but what I really need is more AC... My dwarf, now, has a 20 Con and a pretty good AC. But he's designed as a cork. Took a direct hit of a charging ogre when flatfooted at level 1, and was still standing. Next round, he enters melee, counting on his AC-bonus vs giants. A calculated risk that payed off. Yes, hp are nice. High AC, however, is often much, much better.
Iswald 05-12-07, 03:41 AM	When I first started to play LG, I was advised to put 6 points into con. Over time, I've started to view that as less necessary. Sure, my dwarven cleric with his 16 con has needed all of his hps and could have used more. It sucked to go from full health (maybe higher if we had heroes' feast) down to -9 before his initiative in the first round (Iuz mod). But, my "we go first" character (mutt type with marshal and dread commando levels) has only a 10 con. His first two levels were as bard. Even though he had PBS, he would normally have to engage in melee. Three of his companions for the most of those first few levels were grey elves with 6 con. They also had low strengths, intending to eventually add their dex and/or int to damage. Since my character was going to be an archer, he had good strength and dex. He was very effective in melee compared to the rest. With more points in con, he'd have to have taken points from one of those two stats. The only time in the lower levels that it was a problem was when the party's cleric went off to do his own thing. Now, though, as a mid level PC, he can stay towards the back and shoot his bow, though he still needs another level to be effective as an archer. He's been unconscious a few times and died once. A higher con would not have kept him alive. For new players, I would still recommend having a good constitution score. However, it's less of an issue for more experienced players who know what they are doing.
JamesMaissen 05-12-07, 03:20 PM	For new players, I would still recommend having a good constitution score. However, it's less of an issue for more experienced players who know what they are doing. I would recommend that you figure on a base 14 CON as a default. Character creation points don't get banked so it's a question of tradeoffs rather than conserving them. So put down for a 14 CON and then see for what you'd lower it. CON is the hardest to judge. It's not tied to your DCs, damage, AC or to almost any skills. The numbers seem small.. is +level hps really worth this or that? Becareful and err on the side of health. I've seen people decide to tank CON and then wind up casting false life overmuch, buying a CON amulet earlier than they wished, or becoming less and less happy with their character's ability to achieve things as time progressed. Those spent resources were never worth the tradeoff they made by 'lowering' their CON. Can you make it work? Yes. Can you make it work as well as you could make it work with a higher CON? No. More hps leads to more forgiveness in actions. It's not the only factor by far, but when everything else is nearly equal this is true. This increased flexibility allows you to not only make up for your own mistakes (to a point of course) but lets you try to cover others when they slip. Again, when I make a character I start by figuring 6 points into CON. I then decide if there's anything worth stealing from that for, or if I wish to invest further into it from there. -James
KShaver 05-13-07, 09:33 PM	I just realized my marshall only had 12 con when I played over the weekend. Couldn't be too big of a problem if I didn't even notice until now. ;) Doesn't really specialize anything aside from massive social skills, so usually ends up on the front line...after making sure all the front liners are there first via grant move action.
Timlagor 05-13-07, 11:31 PM	Haven't read all the thread but here's my take. 1) You don't stop at 6 points because that's enough but because it's all you can spare. 2) You get two important things from Constitution: HP and FORT save bonus. 3) Number one excuse: "I didn't know any better" Self Explanatory. 4) "I'm an archer": [can be stretched to Ride-By] Archers with largely d10HD and good Fort saves don't really need to invest heavily in Constitution. If they do find themselves having to tank for the group then they should be able to expect a lot of support from the casters. 5) "I like the Risk" ("I like the Challenge") This is ok so long as you aren't excessively sacrificing offensive ability (whether through actions or other build-investment ..or falling over mid-combat) to compensate. I can't think of any good reason to shave Con-Investment on a melee build. [Ride-by thrown in with the Archers] I've seen a couple of posts saying that Con isn't that important and then going on to cite their experience with an Archer. The Archer is the single Archetype least dependant on Constitution. You can't base your overall assessment on the experience you have playing an Archer. * "Wildshape will fix it" used to be up there.
Timlagor 05-13-07, 11:38 PM	My dwarf, now, has a 20 Con and a pretty good AC. But he's designed as a cork. Took a direct hit of a charging ogre when flatfooted at level 1, and was still standing. Next round, he enters melee, counting on his AC-bonus vs giants. A calculated risk that payed off. Yes, hp are nice. High AC, however, is often much, much better. 14 Con is certainly not a substitute for good AC. That's a different subject but to justify low AC you essentially need 1) Never to intend to be in melee OR 2) Even more HP (usually through D12HD and Con > 15) AND hideously high damage output.
copper_wyrmling 05-14-07, 12:28 AM	Haven't read all the thread but here's my take. 1) You don't stop at 6 points because that's enough but because it's all you can spare. 2) You get two important things from Constitution: HP and FORT save bonus. 3) Number one excuse: "I didn't know any better" Self Explanatory. 4) "I'm an archer": [can be stretched to Ride-By] Archers with largely d10HD and good Fort saves don't really need to invest heavily in Constitution. If they do find themselves having to tank for the group then they should be able to expect a lot of support from the casters. 5) "I like the Risk" ("I like the Challenge") This is ok so long as you aren't excessively sacrificing offensive ability (whether through actions or other build-investment ..or falling over mid-combat) to compensate. I can't think of any good reason to shave Con-Investment on a melee build. [Ride-by thrown in with the Archers] I've seen a couple of posts saying that Con isn't that important and then going on to cite their experience with an Archer. The Archer is the single Archetype least dependant on Constitution. You can't base your overall assessment on the experience you have playing an Archer. * "Wildshape will fix it" used to be up there. I'm not sure if you'd class my high-level sorcerer as an "archer", although she does actively avoid melee, and can do so to a rather greater degree than a normal archer (high-CL phantom steed, teleport used as a tactical movement spell and sculpted battlefield control are all helpful there). She has d4 HD and nonfavored Fort for all her levels, although the rat familiar helps a bit with the Fort save. Still, "I'm an archer" is closer to the way she deals with having less-than-excellent HP than "I like the challenge" - I honestly think she is a stronger character with this attribute buy than she would've been if I'd lowered Dex, Cha or Int to afford more Con. (Although I might have given her more Con in a rebuild if I lowered Dex to buy more Int, since I'd have a couple of spare points and Con is more useful than Str or Wis - her stat priority order is Cha/Dex/Int/Con/Str/Wis.) Also, add dervishes to your list of melee PCs who can cope pretty well with low Con. It's still probably worth putting six points in, though (even more than archers, you will be called upon to provide flanking and play meatshield, and you can't dervish-dance every encounter until quite high levels). Re AC, I absolutely hate being the sole healer in a party containing raging barbarians who didn't invest in AC, they always want in-combat Healing (capital H) :P I don't mind low-AC arcanists or archers, since they don't actively court getting hit really hard by big monsters, but the melee types are annoying. Oh, and my cleric also has Con 12, she recently managed to find a non-amulet-slot stat-booster and get it to 14. That was a case of "I didn't know better" / "someone else built the PC for me and we've never had a stat rebuild", but she's done just fine - level 15, no deaths, plays tank / cork / substitute fighter on a regular basis. High AC is good...
Haro 05-14-07, 12:43 AM	Yes, hp are nice. High AC, however, is often much, much better. Oh, how I wish that were the case at high APL. If it were, my 15th level Human Swashbuckler/Rogue type wouldn't worry too much about only having 110hp, since he regularly sits on AC 42 unbuffed in combat (only 5 point CE). As it is, having an extremely high touch AC doesn't save him from Orbs and Rays. His Will save leaves a bit to be desired, so he can take damage when failing them too. High AC is great as a preventative measure at high levels, in the same way that high saves are. Hit points are in a class of their own... Joe
Timlagor 05-14-07, 06:39 AM	The AC-less Melee-Nuke is certainly demanding of Party Resources. If there isn't someone able and willing to Heal them then they should be willing and able to adjust their behaviour. Nonetheless it is a valid reason for not investing in AC. A good one should also be able to kill things before they fall over even if they don't get Healed. I don't agree that Dervishes don't need the Con. They don't generally have enough speed to really disengage the way a Mounted character can* and their damage isn't really obscene enough** to justify completely failing to defend the rest of the party. They also tend to have good AC (at least potentially) giving them that little bit more incentive to stand in the way. * Often hundreds of feet and flying ** It's definitely very good but I don't think it's usually in the Spirited Charge category ...it's possible that I'm underestimating it as I haven't actually seen one at high level.
solbergb 05-14-07, 02:06 PM	14 Con is certainly not a substitute for good AC. That's a different subject but to justify low AC you essentially need 1) Never to intend to be in melee OR 2) Even more HP (usually through D12HD and Con > 15) AND hideously high damage output. Or just understand tactical placement and how to make best use of other things going on (concentrating force, focusing on the debuffed enemies, etc). The ability to disengage all by itself can substitute for a substantial amount of armor class. It means you don't need rescuing or immediate support if stuff goes bad (beyond squishies needing to back up some, because the meat shield is about to move) My monk has typical to slightly low hitpoints for a frontliner. He does more damage than a sword+board guy, less than a dedicated high damage fighter, but generally enough to kill a mook in one full attack and most anything else n two full attacks. He makes ruthless use of trip where it will help, reach weapons (and enlarge) where they will help, grapple where it will help, terrain, fog, friendly OR enemy battlefield control spells and the ability to place himself next to the most dangerous enemy that is NOT primarily a melee threat at will as a big part of how me makes it work. But he does sometimes slug it out like a normal fighter. Typically I can't do it for long, or need support to keep doing it. But that's what "light infantry" means. Playing an effective skirmisher is much more challenging than an ordinary heavy infantry guy or an archer or a rideby guy. But it can be done. I wouldn't have considered playing Burke with less than 14 con, and a con amulet has been a moderate priority his career (+2 at level 8, +4 by level 12, +6 probably by level 15 and certainly before retirement depending on the exact APL's he plays and what other goodies tempt him away). He needs a certain hitpoint buffer to play the way he does. But his AC has horrified most traditional player throughout his career. Add four if an arcane was present - there wasn't any till I started playing APL10 stuff (I met about 1 arcane with mage armor before that). L1: AC12 L5: AC13 L10: AC14 (yes, for 10 levels, only the 1/5 level monk "bumps" increased his AC) L12: AC15 (dex ioun stone) I had a brief, weird time at level 13 where I could cast alter self and was traveling with an argent savant putting +8 greater mage armor on me. Bad guys missed. It was really, really weird. At L14, He's ac18 or 19, depending on whether an arcane is at the table, and often two less because of enlarge. He has d8 hit dice (and one hit die at d4, one at d10). He can't rage and doens't have damage reduction. He is a front line damage dealing guy, not a spring-attack-stun-weenie. There is more than one way to be successful. But high con and decent AC is easier to do yes, and has a much higher margin for error. I play a couple of those too.
copper_wyrmling 05-14-07, 05:39 PM	They don't generally have enough speed to really disengage the way a Mounted character can* and their damage isn't really obscene enough** to justify completely failing to defend the rest of the party. They also tend to have good AC (at least potentially) giving them that little bit more incentive to stand in the way. * Often hundreds of feet and flying ** It's definitely very good but I don't think it's usually in the Spirited Charge category ...it's possible that I'm underestimating it as I haven't actually seen one at high level. It's not in the spirited charge + full attack category, more like spirited lance charge with single attack, but spread out over a full attack. It's considerably higher than normal archer damage. (I'm basing this on my L10 dervish, and on a L15 dervish I saw in action who was doing ~250 damage / round, every round including the first since he could full attack and move, with no-better-than-average luck with the dice (it was online so we could all see what he rolled). It wasn't the best single-round damage I've ever seen, but probably the most reliable over the course of the game.) As a dervish you're unlikely to end your move out of the bad guys' charge range, that's true. You are, however, likely to end up out of range of full attacks. That makes a lot of difference. Like I said, I don't think they can dump Con, but they need it a bit less than more typical melee types. My dervish has pathetic AC most of the time, albeit not Burke or raging shocktrooper level of pathetic (can't use a shield, limited to light armor, Dex is only good rather than amazing) ;) He can crank it up if he needs to, but every point into combat expertise is a point that's not going into power attack: he can cork OR do heavy damage, not both, and normally the party needs the damage more.
Ancillary 05-15-07, 01:17 AM	I have a barabrian with a lot of hitpoints and mediocre AC. I invest in it, but Barbarians just don't have great AC. While I believe I fall into the kill it before it kills you catagory (things tend to die before I run out of attacks), not being a burden on the party helps. I believe the answer is illusions. If you have a 20ish AC (ie nothing) and are fighting a Dragon w/ +33 on his attack, having Displacement up is like getting over 20 points of armor class. (even blur would be like getting 17ish) It does require a friendly arcane for non gishes, but is worth working towards. I have a lesser metamagic rod of quicken that I give to the arcane. Bracelets of spell sharing also work well. I dislike ride-by builds, because having any character essentially running away from the fight is annoying, and makes it more dangerous for everyone else. They also tend to be very liberal with the charge rules. (just a generalization). I am somewhat jealous of their damage (having a lance in each hand is just showing off!, I mean how dead does it need to be?), but console myself that I will defeat one in a duel the vast majority of the time (not that that is really relevant since they do not show up as npcs that often). Back to the Op, I believe the only legitimate reason to have below 6 points in con is if you fight by proxy. Your good strategy for not getting hit is just selfish if someone else takes it instead. But if you have a pet or summons or solid battlefield control to take your hits for the party then it is okay.
Timlagor 05-15-07, 09:22 AM	I should have allowed for miss chance except that such characters generally can't rely on getting it and even then it won't always work. There are certainly weird characters that work -being able to disable someone rather than killing them works wherever you do it from. My impression of Burke (from your comments) is that he relies heavily on extremely good combat decisions and would fall over dead in most fights if played by most people: I'd put him in the category of "successfully compensating for low AC" rather than justifying it ;) IIRC you said previously that you tend to not get into melee with the big monsters (ie grappling won't work) until you believe they will fall to your full attack.
Cardinal Teplin 05-15-07, 12:08 PM	My front-liner has a 10 con. He's 5th level, one adventure off 6th. He's a barbarian marshal. High strength and high charisma doesn't leave room for much else. Have I noticed the lack? Not really. If I'm taking heavy damage I withdraw, using smokesticks as necessary. I don't charge into combat assuming the rest of the party will join me, and I'm happy to make use of thrown or reach weapons if that fits in with what the party is doing, even if that isn't what I'm best at. My low AC is troubling me, and full plate is next on my list, but I don't think an extra 10 hp would have made any difference to any fight I've ever been in. I don't usually get dropped, and when I do, I don't think the extra hp would have stopped that. My concept wouldn't have worked with a higher con, and I took the decision knowing what I was getting into. So far, it's worked out fine.
Mattastrophic 05-15-07, 12:11 PM	The strategy I use is to create as large of an opportunity cost as possible to come after you. I don't make myself a target. My Virtuoso has 10 Con, for a grand total of 50 hp at 14th level. He also walks around with AC 19. It's been 4 mods since I've ever taken damage, and many, many more (at least 12) since I even had to look at what my AC was. The way I look at it, AC and HP are meaningless if no one attacks me. So my objective is to not get attacked. Thus, instead of expending resources on increasing my AC and HP, I can expend my resources on increasing my ability to control whether or not I get attacked. -Matt
Japangirl 05-15-07, 12:30 PM	I don't know your character, Matt, but it sounds to me like you are saying "expend resources so I don't get hit, wasting resources that could help my party". One person not contributing to a combat renders that person effectively useless, which means that even if you don't die with a 10 Con, someone else in your party is far likelier to die than if you were playing slightly more aggressively or even just slightly less defensively. Now again, I don't know what your character is and does, so I can't say that this is what you're saying. Your previous statements just seem to imply that to me, and if so I would like to point out that personal survival isn't necessarily the purpose of this game. Party survival and mission completion is.
Mattastrophic 05-15-07, 12:48 PM	I don't know your character, Matt, but it sounds to me like you are saying "expend resources so I don't get hit, wasting resources that could help my party". Oh, believe me, that's SO not true. For example, I picked up Boots of Speed for the sole purpose of being able to increase my movement speed as a free action, and thus not take away from my allotment of swift and standard actions, which are useful for helping my party. We'll just say that the rest of my choices are kind of like that one. I'm THAT hardcore about it. -Matt
magebeast 05-15-07, 02:16 PM	I don't know your character, Matt, but it sounds to me like you are saying "expend resources so I don't get hit, wasting resources that could help my party". One person not contributing to a combat renders that person effectively useless, which means that even if you don't die with a 10 Con, someone else in your party is far likelier to die than if you were playing slightly more aggressively or even just slightly less defensively. Now again, I don't know what your character is and does, so I can't say that this is what you're saying. Your previous statements just seem to imply that to me, and if so I would like to point out that personal survival isn't necessarily the purpose of this game. Party survival and mission completion is. I think Bards and Bard-like characters can afford to get away with 10 con, actually. You know my Bard pretty well, and the one time where he died recently it didn't make a bit of difference. He was 5th level playing APL 6, ate an empowered 9th level fireball rolling high, failed his save and dropped to like -30 because I'd taken some minor damage while dealing with something earlier. Every other mod I've played in, I've never dropped down to less than 10 hitpoints, so at no time would it have mattered that I had 10 con. I think pure support characters can afford the lower con, to be honest.
solbergb 05-15-07, 03:14 PM	My impression of Burke (from your comments) is that he relies heavily on extremely good combat decisions and would fall over dead in most fights if played by most people: I'd put him in the category of "successfully compensating for low AC" rather than justifying it ;) IIRC you said previously that you tend to not get into melee with the big monsters (ie grappling won't work) until you believe they will fall to your full attack. If you play a character designed to be a skirmisher like a tank you will get eviscerated. What I discovered is that if you have excellent mobility, a variety of different battlefield control feats and a dangerous full attack, things either don't hit you often enough to matter or you kill them before you die. The role of Burke is normally not the blocker, but the "go after the enemy squishies". If he's in a party with no blockers, he does that role but asks for more spell support (and generally gets it, as a party lacking in tanks is often quite strong in support,debuff and/or battlefield control magic) This allowed me to spend more resources (feats, skill points, equipment, attribute allocations, good saves so he isn't rendered irrelevant by a single spellcaster's actions) on being a good skirmisher. By contrast, my tanks spend significant resources being able to just stand there and take it, round after round. This has significant impacts on their ability to move, have tactical feats or do damage, and also usually introduces a saving throw weakness too (mithril fullplate+2 being the same cost as a vest of resistance+4, for example). Had Burke gone down that road, he would have taken enough of a hit to his effectiveness at tactial feats and raw damage and ability to get where needed that he might have rendered himself irrelevant. Monks walk a very fine line, they've got great defenses except for armor class, but their offense starts out below the curve. If you spend your offense resources shoring up the AC weakness, you may find yourself unable to contribute meaningfully. That said, the way I would recommend a monk skirmisher to be designed ends up with similar AC to most light infantry builds (high teens in low levels, mid 20s in higher levels with ability to spike it up a bit further from time to time). Burke was an edge case, I was experimenting a bit - I wanted a purely physical and intellect-oriented monk - he has intelligence where most monks have wisdom. This fits his adopting the philosophy of a god of Knowledge as an alternative to the path of rage, plus growing up culturally orcish. Skirmishers are challenging to play well. Probably the best skirmishers at damage are dervishes, but their feat requirements tend to leave them not much room for anything else. The best non-spellcaster tactical skirmishers are monks with strength emphasis but pretty good stunning fist as well (unlike my character, who lacks that feat). Rogues and barbarians have a different approach to light infantry, although there is sometimes some overlap. They tend to need AC more.
Japangirl 05-16-07, 02:01 PM	I think Bards and Bard-like characters can afford to get away with 10 con, actually. You know my Bard pretty well, and the one time where he died recently it didn't make a bit of difference. He was 5th level playing APL 6, ate an empowered 9th level fireball rolling high, failed his save and dropped to like -30 because I'd taken some minor damage while dealing with something earlier. Every other mod I've played in, I've never dropped down to less than 10 hitpoints, so at no time would it have mattered that I had 10 con. I think pure support characters can afford the lower con, to be honest. I was there too, and having 14 Con meant that I didn't fall down when I made the save and took half. I went to 0 instead. If I'd gone unconscious, I probably would would have died because BBEG would have killed all the unconscious people and we would have failed because Flux only came back because I headed back, but instead we took a bit to heal up and then came back to save the day (well, except for you, you were already sadly crispified).
Gelth 05-18-07, 08:52 PM	I start with 6 points into Con on any character and then adjust up or down from there. Even if your concept doesn't take you into combat, there are mods out there with significant area-effect damage, and having the hitpoints makes the difference in tactics. Can you afford to keep attacking for another round, or do you need to withdraw? My characters: Mardal, Human mounted combat, started with 12. My first character, in restrospect I'd have liked 14 (and he has died once because of this, a Cone of Cold just got him below -10). Any mounted combat character will be called on to be a frontliner if there aren't charge lines (and sometimes there just aren't), and in those cases hitpoints (and AC) help. This is why, at 14th level, he has +4 Mithril Fullplate of Death Ward, I'd like to be able to contribute no matter the circumstances. Sure he's better on the charge, but that doesn't always pan out. Helt, Dwarven Cork. Started with 14 (before race). Goes for the AC and HP combo, which is the only one that'll keep you standing in melee over time, particularly at higher levels. Damage dealing is secondary, but still important to keep attention on him. Skizzix, Centaur. Started with 14 (before race) and I currently (at 6th level) wish he had more, although each +2 Con only gets him 4 hitpoints. He's the classic massive damage dealer, but when he misses 5 attacks in a row, the return attacks wear him down (this caused his only death so far). Plandybast, Halfling Bard, started with 14. He was concieved as a generalist, no stat over 14 or under 10. Archery, singing, spells, skills, he does it all. As of 4th level his sad archery is becoming redundant, I would in retrospect have lowered the Dex probably, for more Charisma. Con probably the same, as I can survive as the tank briefly if I have to. Vrasti, Human Cleric. Con 14. Buffer/Healer, no reason to change. --Penn