Which is more important for Bbn: Dex or Con?

[KarinsDad]

being in the front ranks only means something in the games where the DM decides to throw softballs to the mages. Its just way to easy to circle around and face the foes you want to face. Heck I think you pointed this out in the fighter skill point thread, who really dies all the time at low levels, its the wizard hands down all the time.

The DM has not thrown softballs at the Wizards in any game I've played in.

It is not the DM that makes the game deadly for Wizards and it's not the AC or hit points of the Wizard. It's the stupidity of the player of the Wizard.

Risk in a game is determined by the actions of the player of the character in a given situation, not AC or hit points. AC and hit points merely often determine player choice of actions.

Barbarians have a lot of hit points. In our current campaign at second level, the Barbarian has 26 hit points and the Rogue/Wizard has 12.

Because of that, the Barbarian will rush to attack one or two opponents. The Wizard will not.

Last week, in a situation where the party was surrounded and outnumbered by Brigands with short bows and light crossbows, none of the PCs were willing to try anything to start a fight. Every character readied an action until we got to the Rogue/Wizard who immediately cast Mage Armor (and hence, precipitated the fight).

The Barbarian and Fighter would have rushed in if they would not have been outnumbered. The Wizard, on the other hand, was not interested in fighting, but was imminently interested in boosting his AC quickly because he was smart enough to realize that a fight was probable.


Hence, it is a difference of character actions. Wizards will do actions like "take cover" (even if that cover happens to be another PC nearby), "cast defensive spell", or even "run away when the situation worsens", etc.

Barbarians and Fighters, on the other hand, will rush in to attack nearly every time unless the threat seems beyond them (e.g. a Wight at low level or some such) and therefore, they will be in harms way more often (at least initially) and more likely to have fewer escape routes or opportunities (and hence, more likely to die).

At least in every campaign I've ever been in.

As DM, sure I start having intelligent opponent NPCs target the party Wizard once they find out who he is. That is just playing the NPCs smart. But, that does not mean that the party Wizard dies more often. It just means that he becomes a target once the situation changes so that the NPCs can do that. In order to change that situation, the NPCs often have to forego a round of combat in order to move to where the Wizard is or some such as well (unless using missile weapons or spells themselves, in which case most Wizards in our game have defensive spells and/or cover/concealment bonuses to help them).

And, non-intelligent NPCs (creatures, monsters, some undead) will rarely focus on a Wizard unless the Wizard was foolish enough to melee with them. If they get hit by Magic Missiles, they will typically not leave their current opponent to track down whomever may have hurt them. So in these situations, Wizards who do not melee are protected more than combatant types that melee as well.


But, it isn't typically the DM who decides to kill a Wizard PC. It is more often a Wizard PC attempting something beyond this abilities. Low level Wizards have few options and rarely are the deciding factor in a combat. That is why they are not necessarily the first to die at lower levels unless the entire party is way over their head (where multiple PCs will probably die).

The phrase "being in the front rank" does not necessarily mean being in the front rank, it means being in harms way more often, and if the Wizards in your campaigns are in harms way nearly as much as the Fighters and Barbarians, it just means that they are not being played very intelligently and yes, they will die more often. If played intelligently, a Wizard is one of the last to die, at least in our campaigns because he tries to stay out of harms way. Sure, as string of unlucky rolls can change that, but unlucky rolls can change that for any class of character.

 

[KarinsDad]

I've never been in a campaign where luck -- good or bad -- could be casually dismissed like that. I'm sure you've had sessions where all of your monster can't seem to roll below a 15 and at least one of the PCs nevers seems to roll above 5. Part of the nature of randomness is that it can land in the high range repeatedly. My experience with 1st level characters is that they don't survive due to superior number crunching; they survive through dumb luck, DM fudging, and through the assistance of the party's cleric.

You keep talking about "to hit" luck and are ignoring "damage" luck.

The Barbarian can get hit 5 times if the DM rolls 2 points of damage every time. But, he will go down on 1 hit if the DM rolls a critical with 8+ points of damage on each roll.

I agree that sheer dumb luck can change the outcome of any conflict. I just do not agree than an extra hit point at first level is going to make as much of an impact on that as an extra point of AC.

The math totally disagrees with your assertion. If bad luck comes into play, neither the extra hit point nor the extra AC is going to make much of a difference.

But, over the long run, the extra point of AC will result in fewer points of damage taken (as long as the DM challenges you with reasonable CR opponents) which means that your chance to survive is slightly greater. It's a game of inches where bad luck can throw an entire combat into disarray. But, if that happens, I'd prefer that 5% chance of not getting hit at all than that 3% chance of the extra hit point keeping me alive for an extra round. Like in real life, you often make your own luck.

I'm not expecting that 1 extra HP to keep him going in the fight (though if a generic orc with a great-ax hit him for max damage while he was raging, it actually would); I'm expecting it to buy him another round to bleed quietly while the party can finish off whatever took him down and attend to him. If he dies anyways, then such is the lot of 1st level characters.

This could happen, but it is not the only thing you have to look at.

The extra hit point will allow him to quietly bleed for an extra round. But, the extra AC might allow him to actually stay conscious by not getting hit in the first place where the combat might end quicker because of it.

At low level, a point of AC is worth about 2 hit points for a Barbarian. That's the bottom line. If he does go down, the player can bemoan the fact that he doesn't have the extra hit point, but there is also the chance that he went down 4 rounds later than he would have if he would not have had the extra point of AC.

 

[reapersaurus]

Bringing up luck in a discussion about probability and statistics (i.e. what is better over the long haul?) is inappropriate and digressing.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Taking this seriously and analyzing low levels as 1-4, it would seem then that having 14 dex, 13 con is better than 13 dex, 14 con at first level, they push at 2nd level and from third level on, the barbarian is better off with the higher con.

What happens after that will depend upon how you play the barbarian. If you take fighter levels and wear fullplate, you're clearly better off with the 13 dex/14 con. A higher dex wouldn't do you any good. If you intend to wield a reach weapon and use combat reflexes, a higher dex and lower con might be the wise choice (potentially more AoOs). If you intend to use a shield and wear light/medium armor and use expertise to pump your AC high, you're shooting yourself in the foot by playing a barbarian rather than a fighter (since rage doesn't help that style of play too much but feats do). However, 14 dex, 13 con might be a viable choice there too. However if you just want to trade damage, 14 con, 13 dex is a better choice.

At low level, a point of AC is worth about 2 hit points for a Barbarian. That's the bottom line. If he does go down, the player can bemoan the fact that he doesn't have the extra hit point, but there is also the chance that he went down 4 rounds later than he would have if he would not have had the extra point of AC.

 

[KarinsDad]

Taking this seriously and analyzing low levels as 1-4, it would seem then that having 14 dex, 13 con is better than 13 dex, 14 con at first level, they push at 2nd level and from third level on, the barbarian is better off with the higher con.

Actually, it is not a push at second level. If you look at my analysis earlier in this thread, an extra +1 from Dex is still more advantage than an extra +1 from Con at second level.

Although I have not done an actual analysis beyond that, I would guess (and granted, this is only a guess) that it isn't until about 5th level or so where Dex and Con push.

The reason for this is that in order to push, the chances of getting hit has to decrease to the point where one hit point per level overcomes the damage not taken if you have the extra point of Dex (for an entire combat).

The break even point for that is determined by 4 things: the average to hit of opponents at the break even level, the average damage of opponents at the break even level, the hit points of the Barbarian (assume average) at that level, and the AC of the Barbarian at that level. This will determine how many attacks the Barbarian can survive on average. When having the +1 AC from DEX results in the same number of rounds as having the +1 hit point per level from CON, you have reached the break even point.

This is more difficult to analyze than first or second level due to the increased number of variables, but here is a rough guess on my part:

The barbarian will gain +1 AC per two levels either due to superior armor or magic items.

His opponents will gain +1 BAB per level (assuming combatant types, even monsters) and +1 damage per two levels.

Making these assumptions and comparing with the example (that I posted earlier in this thread) of the Barbarian having AC 16 at first level with his opponents having +3 to hit on average and D8+2 damage, they hit 40% of the time for 6.5 points of damage. So, his 14 hit points (16 hit points AC 14 with Rage) will last 5.4 (non-raging) to 4.9 (raging) attacks on average. If he takes the extra Dex, he will have AC 17 and 13 hit points, they hit 35% of the time for 6.5 points of damage. So, his 13 hit points (15 hit points AC 15 with Rage) will last 5.7 (non-raging) to 5.1 (raging) attacks on average.

With the assumptions above, the number of rounds for which the Barbarian will stay standing for these two cases at each level are:

Level 2 Con: 8.65 (non-raging) to 8.15 (raging)
Level 2 Dex: 9.0 (non-raging) to 8.4 (raging)

Level 3 Con: 9.2 (non-raging) to 9.0 (raging)
Level 3 Dex: 9.3 (non-raging) to 9.1 (raging)

Level 4 Con: 11.7 (non-raging) to 11.5 (raging)
Level 4 Dex: 11.8 (non-raging) to 11.6 (raging)

Level 5 Con: 11.3 (non-raging) to 11.4 (raging)
Level 5 Dex: 11.2 (non-raging) to 11.3 (raging)

Level 6 Con: 13.3 (non-raging) to 13.4 (raging)
Level 6 Dex: 13.2 (non-raging) to 13.4 (raging)

Level 7 Con: 12.4 (non-raging) to 12.8 (raging)
Level 7 Dex: 12.2 (non-raging) to 12.6 (raging)

Given these assumptions, the advantage shifts slightly over to CON from DEX at level 5 and is solidly there by level 7.

And granted, there are a lot of variables here. If, for example, the Barbarian manages to acquire extremely good AC at a low level (e.g. a +2 Ring of Protection or magical armor), than these levels are pushed back even further.

On the other hand, if the DM starts throwing extremely powerful opponents with good to hits (more important than damage in this discussion unless we are talking really serious damage), then these levels drop down.

It is all dependent. But basically, it will typically be at least fourth or fifth level before CON catches up to DEX assuming that BAB outweighs AC by a factor of one per two levels. If it doesn't, the levels push back more. YMMV.

In the long term, there is no doubt that CON is better. And, this analysis did not take into account comparing numbers where the delta is great than +1. For example, if you compare 16 CON / 12 DEX with 12 CON / 16 DEX, the numbers would come out somewhat different.

 

[Endur]

I prefer to think of this as "If the wizard is played cowardly, he will live longer."

Likewise, if a barbarian is played cowardly, he will also live longer.

Most people who opt to play a Barbarian do not intend for their barbarian to be a coward.

If played intelligently, a Wizard is one of the last to die, at least in our campaigns because he tries to stay out of harms way.

 

[KarinsDad]

I prefer to think of this as "If the wizard is played cowardly, he will live longer."

Likewise, if a barbarian is played cowardly, he will also live longer.

Most people who opt to play a Barbarian do not intend for their barbarian to be a coward.

To each their own.

Personally, I would not put the cowardly label on any PC Wizard, even if the player is playing him that way. I would call him prudent.

The reason is that it is a real live human being with real feelings and emotions behind that Wizard. If that player is enjoying the game that way, that's totally fine. A DM shouldn't do anything like make fun of the Wizard or give him less experience or whatever, just because the player wants the Wizard to survive long enough to become powerful.


I once ran a "non-cowardly Wizard". He was a Dwarven Illusionist and he was more of a fighter than an illusionist because he had many defensive spells. He did quite well for the first 3+ levels. At level 4, we were on a mission where we came to this large (500+ foot) clearing with trees on both ends. At the other end was a band of Orcs, determined to stop us. We did not have horses at the time and the distance was too great to hit the Orcs with arrows or bolts due to cover and concealment, so we eventually decided to rush them.

My dwarf had Mirror Image, Shield, Mage Armor, and Expeditious Retreat up and since I was the fastest, I ran to engage them so that they would not shoot arrows at my allies. As it turned out, I got into the midst of them and was doing quite well fighting them all by myself when the Orc Shaman behind them cast Dispel Magic, got lucky, and wiped out all of my spells. Needless to say, I didn't last a round after that.


So, who am I to call a Wizard PC cowardly, especially those prudent PCs that managed to get past 4th level whereas my gung ho Wizard died.

Food for thought.

 

[Al]

I once played a 'cowardly' wizard in a campaign with a pretty killer DM, and my character survived right until the campaign fell apart...after no less than 15 PC deaths over the course of four levels.

Needless to say, 'cowardice' prevailed.

 

[Endur]

Let's distinguish for a moment. Between discussing actions in the abstract and "playing with friends."

When I'm playing with a friend, I'm not going to call their character's actions "cowardly", "treasonous", "stupid", or any other negative word. Its because we're friends, and using a negative word could ruin the game and/or damage our friendship. Regardless of what I perceive the truth of the matter is.

Now lets talk about the abstract. Our PCs and our cultural forebears have definitions of what it means to have honor, bravery, justice, and so on. If your character is a Medieval Knight, he might have thought the bow was a cowardly or dishonorable weapon. Not every knight felt that way: King Richard the Lionhearted, who always fought in the front rank, thought the crossbow was great (he later died of a crossbow bolt in France). Whole generations of warriors thought magic was an evil thing.

I don't like the "prudent" title because that implies the brave warrior who charges the enemy is "foolish." "Cautious" is a more acceptable adjective to my way of thinking.

Bravery is one of the key virtues identified in heroic tales. As a story-teller, I don't want anything to take away from the PCs their chance to be brave. Even if they don't look before they leap.

Also, I quite agree that the GM should never take exp away from a player based on the player's actions. Even if the player chooses to have their character stay home and not go on the adventure. Giving out seperate exp rewards to different players is just a really bad policy and it starts your game on the wrong path.

To each their own.

Personally, I would not put the cowardly label on any PC Wizard, even if the player is playing him that way. I would call him prudent.

The reason is that it is a real live human being with real feelings and emotions behind that Wizard. If that player is enjoying the game that way, that's totally fine. A DM shouldn't do anything like make fun of the Wizard or give him less experience or whatever, just because the player wants the Wizard to survive long enough to become powerful.

 

[Darklone]

Often enough I had situation where I wanted to encourage good ideas from the players, so I hand out separate XPs.