Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6716846" data-attributes="member: 6701872">Firstly, you are continuing to mischaracterize what I said even after I've clarified. I'm not saying every wizard needs a high con (and all that other stuff is nowhere near anything I said, so I'll assume you aren't aiming it at me) - just those that are expecting to use concentration spells and put themselves in harm's way and not have those concentration spells fail.And this is exactly why you mischaracterizing my statements is bad for you. Because of it, you are ranting nonsensically.The illusionist, and even the specific spells, you mention are a perfect example of a character that relies on concentration spells and is actually doing something to avoid losing concentration. Sure, it doesn't involve a high constitution score - but that is fine because the character is being deceptive and sneaky, which reduces the number of attacks possibly coming their way, which means less (or even zero) concentration checks, so the chance of failing them is not as big of an issue.You act like I am saying this character shouldn't work in 5th edition, when in reality it is an example of what I am talking about: you want to use concentration spells, you make it so you are good at doing so - rather than having this illusionist be low-con, low-dex, not even remotely sneaky or deceptive, and not using their various options to avoid rolling a concentration check, and then acting like something unreasonable has happened when they not only get attacked, they get hit, they take damage, and then they lose the coin toss that even being bad at concentration usually equates to.Again, you mischaracterize my statment that Con should be at least, or even more, important than Int for a character that specifically relies on passing concentration checks.I think not having a minimum DC would actually irritate more people - and might even result in greater frustration among players that are playing characters that rely on concentration spells as their go-to "thing" and have not considered being good at concentration checks a priority as they fail a DC 2 check by rolling a 1 (it might just be my experience that missing a "sure thing" is more of a let down for the person doing it than losing a coin toss is). You mean give all casters one of the few things which makes certain casters special?Best way to limit how many concentration checks you have to make is to limit how many times your character is taking damage... at least, that's my experience.Having a high con isn't a necessity. You can play any one of the spellcasting classes in the game and either A) choose not to care that you are losing concentration spells if you get hit, while avoiding getting hit, B) as A but also not avoiding getting hit, but choosing to still not care that you are losing concentration spells because of it, or, and this is the big one, C) don't use concentration spells.The only "evidence" to be found suggests that you would rather mischaracterize the statements of any disagreeing with you than actually have the same conversation that they are having.And if my posts are "proof" of anything, it would be that there are a lot of different ways to play a wizard - and some of them, need to consider Constitution very important.</blockquote>

Verification