Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="scholz" data-source="post: 3385446" data-attributes="member: 10028">The question of what will induce the more balanced character.1. Needing CON to offset low (or potentially low) hit point rolls. 2. Not Needing Con to offset low hit points. If I understand your argument, people are MORE likely to put points in Str than the non-physical stats, when playing a Fighter. I agree 100%. But it doesn't follow that they will be more likely to do if they thought they could spare a few points from CON. I think some players will go Munchkin and Put everything in Strength and dump on INT/WIS/CHA... sure. However, for those that would LIKE to up their non-physical stats (the people I like to play with). The lower CON requirement seems to penalize them less for doing so, than the higher COn requirement. Or am I missing something from your argument? I play a front line Monk (what other kind of Monk is there?). I would be happy to put some points in my INT so I could buy more skills. But, realizing I am on the front line, I need to put points in my Con to ensure I don't get smeared the first couple round of combat. In a sense, I feel forced to buy up Con ( in addition to Str, Dex and Wis -- monks are tough to stat). As a result Int and Cha suffer. Not because I want to max out my Strength, but  because I need a high Con to offset potentially low HPs (5 level average = 26hps). If I had that 40hps, I might be willing to go 12Con 12 Int (instead of 14/10) [45hps vs 32hps]. That would give me 9 more skill ranks which I would definitely like, and another language! That said, you are right, this change wouldn't be a panacea for preventing top heavy characters, in fact, it might encourage it, as you show. But it could make it more palatable for people who want a more balanced ability set.</blockquote>

Verification