I was told by a fellow dnd player that he was tired of seeing the fighter and wizard and bard all have 14+ constitution scores. Same with dex and wisdom. I told him to jump into games which use point buy,
specifically 15 or 20 point buy systems. These were characters he called "b%$+**!& heroes." I spent a great deal of time trying to calm him down (profession counselor checks anyone?) Anyhow, what do people think of such characters?
If all stats are high, you can get away with the 14 at least for the big three, if stats are a bit lower, and 20s aren't all round, then you are actually hindering your strengths by making con, dex and wis all 14+.
I get tired of seeing it, but I know why it is there--safety. Problem is, a con of 14 wont immediately save you from spells or poisons, or even passing high endurance checks. A dex of 14 wont mean you dodge everything or that your reflex is good enough to avoid the trap. A wisdom of 14 gives you some nice little bonuses, but doesn't mean you are good at sense motive, saves versus enchantment or passing fear checks.
To be good, you need to burn feats and really focus on something, making countering fort, ref or will a strength, not just something you try to edge by with. If you want to be mentally and physically tough and quick, choose one, and make it fantastic.
I use 14's as my minimums also. It is no guarantee that I will live, but it is better than setting myself up for failure.
Doing what makes sense, makes sense. Making adventures more dangerous than it needs to be by deliberating making yourself weak, which is not a good idea.
As long as they are not cookie cutter characters I don't see the issue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personaly i don not like putting a bottom floor on characters, i enjoy playing the low con low str wizard, even the weak and but nimble fighter.
Generaly i geuss it matters on the game you play, but i find that being mr awsome for me is just abit lame.
(i personaly love 15 point buys)
I don't think a 14 con makes you awesome, but it does help you survive. Even with a 15 point buy I am going with a 14 con, personally
I don't know about the OP's situation, but how much your GM works with you will determine what you can or can not get away with.
Well I use 3d6 or 4d6 gen, and got to say, I'd rather one stat at 10 and one at 18, or one at 8 and two pushed up. Even with rollin' I see some that love the 14s.
Recently one of my PCs died because he only had a con 10.
Yesterday another of my PCs got below 0 but survived. With a con of 10 he'd possibly died. Such experiences influence the way you build your characters.
And from another point of view: Some players prefere specialised PCs and other ones prefer well rounded PCs. And even others build some well rounded and some very specialised.
What gives you the right to tell one group that the way they do it is wrong?
Where you say they hide from their weakness I say they compensate for it.
My two favourite, and longest played, characters both have CON penalties.
I understand why some people think they need it up, but there are more interesting things to do with your point-buy.
Unless I'm playing a class who benefits more from Con than just HP, I generally don't worry about it.
I like higher saves and ACs, but Reflex and Will are two major ones. The less often you get hit, the less HP you need. Not saying it's 100% effective every time, but in my experience, it's more useful to pump Dex than Con. I've yet to have a character die, and my longest stint as a player was with a brutal DM.
Personally, I blame the stat bonus system that D&D 3.0 put in. Back in AD&D times, it didn't matter much if your wizard had an 8 constitution or a 14 constitution There were no differences in hit points. Nowadays you'll never see a wizard (or really any character) with an 8 Con, because that penalizes saves and hit points. In fact my next mage character has a Con of 12, and I'm worried that it isn't enough. The optimizer in me is screaming that I should buy her Charisma down to 7 so I can get that 14 Con. But damn it, I don't want a completely uncharismatic mage.
Point buy and optimization really does limit the kinds of characters that seem viable.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Why wouldn't someone 'hide from class weaknesses'?
I'm fat and slow, I'm trying to fix that. Am I hiding from being fat and slow?
A wizard realizes he's frail, so he works on overcoming the glass jaw (takes toughness)
A Fighter gets mind controlled a lot, so he works on building up resistances (Iron Will)
A rogue is fast but not strong, so he starts making that work for him offensively (Weapon Finesse)
I would have lost my sorcerer last game if I didn't have a 14 con (and a 1500 GP item). Why did I have the 1500 GP item? Because Rey was trying to overcome his weakness (low HP).
My Nephew's barbarian has an 18 strength, but doesn't have a stat below 10. Is he as powerful direct damage as the Cha 7, Str 20 barbarian? No, but he *is* useful when something isn't trying to kill him as well.
If you're talking about starting array, find out why the people always put a 14 in con? Then modify the play style so they won't feel the need to. We had a Paladin in one group who had a con of 10. (PFS, Point buy). If I hadn't goofed on the math, then he'd be dead with a con of 10, and alive with a Con of 14. Even Rey, who doesn't need Charisma (sage bloodline) has a CHa of 12. Why? Because I wanted him to be somewhat charming.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are two things that totally suck as a player.
1) Death. The clear winner in the "oh crap" department.
2) Mind control. The very very very very close runner up.
And sometimes I have to tell you- i'd rather just get whacked outright than be turned against my buddies and forced to whack /them/ down.
And the solution?
1) HP. The more you have, the longer you live.
2) SAVES. THe higher they are, the longer you live AND the longer you get to live and act under your own power.
This leads to high con and high wis scores.
Is he tired of it as a DM? "omg I can't mind control the fighter! qq!"
or does he just feel that its a cookie cutter'ish build as a player and is tired of seeing it?
Either way Not really sure what to tell the guy. Players want to live as long as possible and they want to do so while under their own control.
About the only thing that sucks worse than spending 2 hours rerolling a new class and leveling it up to match the group- while they are out there enjoying the game- is sitting there for 2 hours getting little note cards from the DM telling you what to do. Because you failed that check and your PC is his NPC now.
Or fear effects. Or charm effects. or.. well heck, you get the idea.
-S
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that if you're in a campaign where your character decided to go adventuring (as opposed to getting forced into it), and your character is going to be at least average in INT and WIS, then remember: you wouldn't decide to go adventuring unless you thought you could handle it. The wizards with 14 CON would be out adventuring while the wizards with 9 CON would know better than to leave the library.
Now, if you've got INT and WIS both under 10, then feel free to choose a life of adventure in spite of your general lack of hardiness. Do so with a high INT/WIS, though, and that's something of a roleplaying failure, IMO.
Remember that if you're in a campaign where your character decided to go adventuring (as opposed to getting forced into it), and your character is going to be at least average in INT and WIS, then remember: you wouldn't decide to go adventuring unless you thought you could handle it. The wizards with 14 CON would be out adventuring while the wizards with 9 CON would know better than to leave the library.
Now, if you've got INT and WIS both under 10, then feel free to choose a life of adventure in spite of your general lack of hardiness. Do so with a high INT/WIS, though, and that's something of a roleplaying failure, IMO.
Thats a pretty interesting idea, Jiggy. I'd never really thought of it that way..
all I can really say is that- even smart or wise people have a tendency to gloss over, ignore, or just be ignorant of their own down falls.
It could be very interesting to play a wise intelligent weak person who just thought that their intelligence and wisdom were more important- especially if they were a caster. "I'll show that burly ball of muscle what real adventuring is all about!" or some such.
:)
-S
|
|
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a "standard" 14 wis, because if your party is hit with a mass charm/confusion, and (almost) all fail their saves, it's a tpk.
In general it makes sense both ooc and ic to have some con and dex, because the characters know they are going into uninhabitable environments. (deserts, cold regions, mountains).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
all I can really say is that- even smart or wise people have a tendency to gloss over, ignore, or just be ignorant of their own down falls.
You mean people who think they're smart or wise. Part of being wise is having a realistic assessment of your weaknesses.
It could be very interesting to play a wise intelligent weak person who just thought that their intelligence and wisdom were more important- especially if they were a caster. "I'll show that burly ball of muscle what real adventuring is all about!" or some such.
:)
-S
I guess you could do it like that, if you RP'd it right - they'd probably carry lots of consumables (antitoxins, for instance) and have lots of contingency plans and whatnot to make sure they could survive their weaknesses. But if they really are smart/wise, you'll be able to tell (as an observer) that they know their limits and be able to see how they deal with it.
My two favourite, and longest played, characters both have CON penalties.
I understand why some people think they need it up, but there are more interesting things to do with your point-buy.
Unless I'm playing a class who benefits more from Con than just HP, I generally don't worry about it.
I like higher saves and ACs, but Reflex and Will are two major ones. The less often you get hit, the less HP you need. Not saying it's 100% effective every time, but in my experience, it's more useful to pump Dex than Con. I've yet to have a character die, and my longest stint as a player was with a brutal DM.
Depends on the GM and campaign. I generally dump dex before con. Most blast spells I can handle, even if I fail the reflex save, and my AC is ok even with a lower dex. Not having enough hp kills and fort saves also kill.
My games(not AP's) use poison and other things that affect con more than other GM's so bring a low con to the table has generally been a bad idea. My last to AP have been AoW, and Carrion Crown which have undead, and other things that require fort saves.
PS:I don't always go for fort saves, it is just that the monsters I use generally have an effect that targets fort saves.
PS:When I have played, failing a fort save has come close to killing me on more than on occasion.
I know for myself, I don't worry heavily about Dex and Wisdom... I often give characters an average Wisdom for example. But I basically never make a character with less than 14 Con.
I like my characters to have good physical defenses, because everybody gets hit with things and one time or another.
I don't mind getting mind controlled/etc so much, because at least you can still roleplay it and make it interesting... but being dead = not playing at all = not fun at all. Who wants to not play? If you don't want to play why are you playing? If you do want to play, you want to have enough HP to be able to tough out situations that would otherwise kill you outright.
|
Remember that if you're in a campaign where your character decided to go adventuring (as opposed to getting forced into it), and your character is going to be at least average in INT and WIS, then remember: you wouldn't decide to go adventuring unless you thought you could handle it. The wizards with 14 CON would be out adventuring while the wizards with 9 CON would know better than to leave the library.
Now, if you've got INT and WIS both under 10, then feel free to choose a life of adventure in spite of your general lack of hardiness. Do so with a high INT/WIS, though, and that's something of a roleplaying failure, IMO.
Or maybe you're just so smart that you know you're awesome enough to overcome any physical shortcomings.
Overconfidence: it's not a disad, it's a lifestyle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that if you're in a campaign where your character decided to go adventuring (as opposed to getting forced into it), and your character is going to be at least average in INT and WIS, then remember: you wouldn't decide to go adventuring unless you thought you could handle it. The wizards with 14 CON would be out adventuring while the wizards with 9 CON would know better than to leave the library.
Now, if you've got INT and WIS both under 10, then feel free to choose a life of adventure in spite of your general lack of hardiness. Do so with a high INT/WIS, though, and that's something of a roleplaying failure, IMO.
"if you're in a campaign where your character decided to go adventuring (as opposed to getting forced into it), and your character is going to be at least average in INT and WIS, then remember: you wouldn't decide to go adventuring unless you thought you could handle it. "
Naaa, that doesn't make much sense. Adventurers can be naive and foolish, pursuing adventuring doesn't mean you won't have mental weaknesses. Characters within fantasy do not know their stats, they do not know they have 8, 10 or 14 wisdom, "I have a 14 wis, it is safe for me to adventure". To explain and reply to this "you wouldn't decide to go adventuring unless you thought you could handle it", if you had low wisdom it is highly likely you would think you can handle a life of adventure and whatever comes your way. Like a tough guy of a village or small town who thinks he is actually pretty strong in the grand scheme of things, but isn't. For a low level adventurer whatever their mental stats, there is a great deal that can and will eat them if they encounter it. The adventurer is betting on luck and that their allies can take it with their help. It is a gamble, perhaps an un-wise gamble to go adventuring.
As an example, I was for runelords, playing a young naive lad of Galten ancestry. He started with a wisdom of 7, was a bit craven and didn't realise the magnitude of what he was getting into. He grew up quick and came to learn adventuring and tactics. He didn't arrive at the first session all knowing, it was his first adventure. A good time for rp.
On the con issue, low con characters can survive, they just have to be smart, ready and highly mobile/adaptive. It can work for a scout or rogue. Suss out what is ahead, fall back to the rear of the main group and support.
I know for myself, I don't worry heavily about Dex and Wisdom... I often give characters an average Wisdom for example. But I basically never make a character with less than 14 Con.
I like my characters to have good physical defenses, because everybody gets hit with things and one time or another.
I don't mind getting mind controlled/etc so much, because at least you can still roleplay it and make it interesting... but being dead = not playing at all = not fun at all. Who wants to not play? If you don't want to play why are you playing? If you do want to play, you want to have enough HP to be able to tough out situations that would otherwise kill you outright.
Awww c'mon. Really? All the time?
Risk man, risk it where great fun is at. Going safe is to minimise the risk.
on a completely out of charactor response to the original issue: it also depends on your story telling style (as a player in this case.) Realisticly, characters don't have to be cartoonishly different from each other in stats and attributes. Some fantasy archetypes encourage this with people who are so different from eachother that they may as well be aliens while others encourage the ideas that even alternate races are just humans with pointy ears and a tendency to be more dexterous.
Nothing wrong with building characters with a half decent con score. Not all wizards are frail Raistlin Majere's, and not all Fighters are sword and board tank types.
Two things which came to my mind here:
1. Setting the expectations right! Explain the players that 10 is the average score, so a Str 10 char isn't weak, he is simply normal.
Also 18 means "Best of the Best". Good thing for this is to simply crosscheck the strength with a animal stat (e.g. a Grizzly has Str 21)
2. Most of us play the games because they want to be "the hero". So let them. If you explaining them Str 18 is best of the best, then not every Bandit has str 18. Even the "Strong Ulf" has only Str 16, but for the barkeeper he is the "strongest man I ever saw".
I think if you get those both right players have no problem with "Con 10" Chars.
We switched from "4d6 drop lowest" to 20 point buy recently and after we settle these things all my player understood the system.
Maybe his groups aren't role-playing their actual weaknesses? Maybe his DM isn't providing scenarios rich with environments that play towards strengths as well as weaknesses.
14's are the best buy for your points, but it's not even that much of a safety net. You can play a little smarter and avoid dying from a +1 Con imo. I've never witnessed in my play a time where it would have made a difference, but others enjoy that added safety.
Two things which came to my mind here:
1. Setting the expectations right! Explain the players that 10 is the average score, so a Str 10 char isn't weak, he is simply normal.
Also 18 means "Best of the Best". Good thing for this is to simply crosscheck the strength with a animal stat (e.g. a Grizzly has Str 21)2. Most of us play the games because they want to be "the hero". So let them. If you explaining them Str 18 is best of the best, then not every Bandit has str 18. Even the "Strong Ulf" has only Str 16, but for the barkeeper he is the "strongest man I ever saw".
I think if you get those both right players have no problem with "Con 10" Chars.
We switched from "4d6 drop lowest" to 20 point buy recently and after we settle these things all my player understood the system.
That is a good fluff argument, but mechanically,which is what it seems the players are looking at that 10 is not so hot in actual gameplay.
As an aside if the complainer is a GM then he should run his games in such a manner that ability score X is not as important. As long as it is a factor it will be treated as one.
TL;DR -- Weak DMs result in players making 14 'min' choices.
Whenever I DM, we run off 3D6 ability scores (yeah, we're a bit old school). A 14 is actually a pretty high score in that case.
We don't have problems with character mortality. Not that it doesn't happen, it's just not a problem.
We don't have issues with all characters having 14s in CON or WIS ... in fact almost every character has at least one score that gives them an -1 (8 or 9) and one score that gives them a +2 (14 or 15).
When I play with individuals who are coming from weaker DMs, they invariably make their dump stat CHA and ensure they have a high CON.
When I play with individuals who are coming from stronger DMs, they make characters that make sense and their 'dump' stat could be anything.
What do I mean by weaker or stronger DM? The following is all my OPINION about what makes a strong and/or weak DM.
There are several equally important components to a session, an adventure, a campaign, a world:
* combat
* puzzles
* social interaction / role-play
* skill challenges
* treasure
* discovery / problem-solving
* legitimate risk of failure ... partial and/or full
* legitimate reaction of the surrounding world to the actions of characters
* fun
A weak DM handles only some of these components (usually combat, treasure, skill challenges, and --sometimes-- legitimate risk of failure). They may be really good at handling these things, but they handle only some of them.
A strong DM handles ALL of these components.
When your game is rounded ... does a 14 CON help in solving puzzles? In social interaction? In discovery/problem solving? Does a higher CON make you more able to carry treasure?
The point is ... players will make characters to fit into the challenges they expect you to throw at them. If you're known to be heavy on the combat and saving throws, they will optimize their characters for combat and saving throws. If, however, you're known to give them a balanced game ... they will work together to create characters with strengths in different areas and build a well-rounded party.
Stats ... if you're playing with heroic-level stats (rolling 4d6 or doing a 20+ point-buy system) you're going to have lots of high stats. In such a case, 14 is more considered 'average' than 'really good' and you need to step up all challenges/etc in response.
Finally ... real chance of failure is something incredibly important to balance out. It is my personal experience that a DM needs to know the characters in the party and build adventures around an approximate 70% chance of success for that particular party. In that case, it's not the characters defining themselves to survive the adventure ... it's the DM defining the adventure to give the characters a 70% chance. Now, all of a sudden, no matter what the party looks like, they've got a roughly equal chance of surviving every time. I can take a 3d6 party and a 10d6 party and give each of them a 70% chance of survival ... so now the players know the survival chances are equal no matter what -- and (importantly) slightly tilted in their favor -- so they are more inclined to build what they want rather than what is survivable.
That's a lot more tl;dr than I wanted it to be ... so I'll add a tl;dr up top ...
If you die you can't do anything so yeah I still stand by the 14 con.
I would question what the OP means by samey. an entire party with 14 con is still going to have completely different characters provided they play different classes. Constitution is one of those stats that boosts survival lets face it I have a hard time criticizing anyone who does not treat it with respect. Not that I would criticize someone for dumping it either. A fighter is going to treat Con just behind their primary as is a wizard, other characters have more options. Also with point buy you will find that it is cheaper point wise to have several 14s verses one 16. So you will find when people do the math this is more a question of how they balance the value of having several midrange stats verses one superstat.
The other thing I would mention is that con is in some ways more important for a sorc than it is for say a barbarian.
If my sorc takes a 12 con that will increase is hit points approx 16% on average.
If my barbarian takes a 12 con that will only increase his hit points about 8% on average.
Yes, the barbarian is supposed to get hit more often. But he is also probably wearing armor, is more likely to also have a high dex, has his rage, likely has some feats to bump his defenses, etc...
The sorc is not suposed to get hit, but if he does he is likely to really really need a couple extra hp's. Where as alot of martial types are often meh, it's just a few points of damage.