The Constitution Controversy
recklessheart
Member Posts: 692
Xan and Shar-Teel both prompted me to ask this question a long time ago, but I never did get round to it. Mainly, I wanted to ask why some players saw a low constitution score as a deal-breaker. To my knowledge, a low constitution score in 2nd Edition does not reduce the number of hit points a character gains per level to anything lower than the base hit point roll for their class. As such, Xan's 7 constitution should be no more abhorrent than any other Mage's 13 constitution, right? Admittedly, I accept that some people see Xan's Moonblade as an indication that he should be in melee, but let's be honest: even if he was earning 6 hp per level instead of 4, he would surely still die more often than not.
I do appreciate why people see Xan's specialisation as a reason to be discouraged from taking him along, but generally speaking I don't know why people are getting so caught up on HP. By BG2, I don't know the exact HP scores of any of my party members! Viconia's extreme dexterity score is much more valuable to me than Anomen's extra HP when it comes to selecting a tank (not to mention her magic resistance), because when push comes to shove I would rather a character a low AC than a lot of HP. After level 8-10, HP progression is negligible anyway.
What does everybody else think? Are people putting too much emphasis on the value of a high Constitution score?
I do appreciate why people see Xan's specialisation as a reason to be discouraged from taking him along, but generally speaking I don't know why people are getting so caught up on HP. By BG2, I don't know the exact HP scores of any of my party members! Viconia's extreme dexterity score is much more valuable to me than Anomen's extra HP when it comes to selecting a tank (not to mention her magic resistance), because when push comes to shove I would rather a character a low AC than a lot of HP. After level 8-10, HP progression is negligible anyway.
What does everybody else think? Are people putting too much emphasis on the value of a high Constitution score?
3
Comments
Personally I don't discriminate on low-constitution NPCs. On the contrary I see a low constitution as an incentive for using the Claw of Kazgaroth.
Speaking of Xan I think he is an awesome npc, if people feel they arent utilizing the variety of mage spells try to take him along. Xan's magery this run has been surprisingly effective.
I agree that there are NPC and character guides that put too much emphasis on the fact that certain NPC's have low constitution (without taking into consideration what that level of constitution actually means for gameplay). (Warning shameless plug) I've actually written up an NPC guide that I will be releasing on Steam when patch 1.2 hits Steam. Anyways in it I do my best to actually address on an individual NPC basis what certain stats actually mean for the character (including constitution in the case of Xan and Xzar).
If I have my game set for max HP rolls, then I don't really care. Everyone will have solid HP, even the squishy casters will climb over 30 HP by the game's end (or 40 HP by BG2).
However, if I'm running a *real* core rules or harder game where I keep whatever the die rolls, I appreciate any NPC that has 15+ Con. How depressing is it for Shar-Teel or Dorn to roll a couple of 1's and 2's early in their career? To have Imoen end up with more HP than your tank? Casters are even more fragile, they might not be able to soak a critical hit even once by BG:EE level cap.
This is a playstyle choice, and I don't let it stop me from taking low-Con NPCs (I care more about dialogue than mechanics). I like the certainty of having HP though, it's a useful buffer. Kagain on -2 AC is a better tank than Viconia on -6 AC. That's my opinion.
In 1e and 2e the "no bonus" range is much broader (7-14) and bonuses and penalties to HP only occur at the exceptionally high (15+) or low end (3-6) of the scale. The system shock and resurrection survival percentages are what make the difference between a 7 CON and 14 CON. I think the 1 point CON loss every time an NPC is resurrected should be put back in the game. It think it would make dying a more "grave" event.
As @elminster mentioned, it's interesting that the NPCs with the lowest CON scores seem to receive the worst HP rolls prior to recruiting them. If they join your party at level 6, Xzar has 12 (24 possible), Xan has 17 (24 possible), Viconia has 27 (48 possible), and Shar-Teel has 46 (60 possible). Aside from Shar-Teel, it looks like the developers were inferring that being on the lower end of the average CON scale means less luck when rolling for HP.
I always play on core rules, so I take what I get when I level up. Playing a Necromancer with a starting CON of 8 means that I'll never have high HP, but I feel I shouldn't need it if I'm playing my character correctly.
The more HP your chars have, the easier the game will be.
CON bonus may be less important if you roll max HP on levelups (either by setting game difficulty to Normal, or by reloading).
But for some purists who play on Core (or especially higher, where HP is even more important) and consider rerolls a form of cheating, it's no small thing.
On average, it almost doubles the HP at L10 (for mages, 1d4 means 2.5 on average and max CON bonus is 2. For fighters, 1d10 is 5.5 on average and realistic max bonus is 4-5) and even at maximum allowed char level in ToB still contributes roughly 1/3 of total HP for mages and 1/4 for fighters.
Don't take damage.
I find this works VERY well.
Also, I seem to get awful rolls with Minsc 4 out of 5 times. Even though he has decent CON, I've always seen him as a low HP character because of the frequently bad rolls he get on level up.
About NPCS. Maybe Shar-Teel isn't meant to be a tank, same for Dorn (especially in non EE BG, Shar-Teel was a beast with 2-handed sword. Now they made her just material for dual classing)? Maybe it's worth for Xan to memorize some protection spells? By the way, the fact that he has his Moonblade does not mean that you can use him in the front line. His Moonblade is just something (aside from his attitute) that makes him special.
Now, I can kind of understand argument that it is quite depressing when character recieves 1 or 2 HPs per level, but it's just a risk. And without a risk there is no fun. Everything in DnD is based on rolling dices, so I see no point in maxing the HPs by choosing "normal" difficulty over "core" or using mods for that matter. It's equalivent of cheating for me.
Xan has 1 Hp per level up, so what? I'll make him use more defensive spells, then (and maybe invisibility/shadow doors to escape in difficult situations). My fighters have avarege/less than avarege HPs? I'll memorize more healing/summoning spells then. Things like that makes each of my BG playthroughts more unique, and quality of playthrought is what I expect from Baldur's Gate.
That's it from me regarding this topic.
Less of an issue when you're near-permanently stoneskinned at higher levels though.
Dual-wielding can be pretty cruel and merciless, especially when you catch enemies off-guard with the insignificant dagger in your off-hand they failed to notice XD.
Only the vanilla proficiencies from BG1 agrees with everyone, because those are the setups that you got used to. I'm pretty sure we won't see many players complaining over the BG2:EE proficiencies, because the same problem won't apply to that game, but in BG:EE developers had to make decisions that hopefully made as many players as possible happy. Unfortunately that doesn't make everyone happy.
Anyway, I think this discussion is better left for another thread.