And how much more damage does he take because of the 17 dex vs having 18? A LOT more then 40 HP over the course of ToB. It's even worse for someone like Keldorn or Anomen who have functionally useless dex scores.
Though once you get up to epic levels, HP total become irrelevant since a properly built character will only take between 3-9 damage per hit (easily offset by regen items, especially if you stack the 4 1 hp/round items available), and if you have high dex, they won't be hit as often.
It doesn't matter. What matters is surviving that battle, since you can heal or rest or have regeneration. It's not like there's a total damage cap that you have to avoid.
True, CON becomes less useful in BG2 and ToB. That's why it's good to have as high as possible CON in the first game. Since that's permanent.
Dex or AC won't protect you from magic damage. HP will. That's true for both games. Many times I have survived with just a bit of HP that gave me time to heal, from magic damage or traps.
And that extra HP will protect you against Sarevok in the first game, with the best armor/shield/spells on your Paladin.
To put it in more perspective, even if you get max HP per level at level 10, you would have 140 HP. If CON is useless and dump it totally to 3, you would actually have 50HP less. So, 90 HP instead of 140. Many don't play with max HP on.
If we go by averages, then you would have ~50 HP at level 10 with 3 CON and 100 with 18 CON. More with 19 CON. That's double the HP.
Except, much like charisma, the con Belt renders Con a waste in BG2 (and unlike the cha ring or dex gloves you don't even sacrifice an equipment slot to fix it), and unless you get REALLY screwed on hp rolls, you'll still get enough with no bonus to handle most situations.
Though I do acknowledge that certain play-styles have different needs. My personal style simply prevents damage all together by avoiding damage, killing the enemy quickly or disabling opponents so they can't damage me in the first place, so in my case Con literally is useless since the minor amounts of damage I'll take are well within the averages for HP totals and can often be off-set by a single potion (which I usually have gobs of since it's actually really rare to need them). (I also never memorize healing spells, since they aren't needed. A Command (brokenly awesome), Sleep (awesome) or even entangle (bleh!) can easily turn the tide of a battle and render HP AND AC irrelevant, though between the two, I'd much rather have AC over HP.
With Regard to defenses, in the early game, Disabling spells, AC, Damage resistances, Con. In BG2, Disabling spells, damage resistance, AC, Con.
There's a difference between being useless and not useful to you. If someone plays a sorcerer, he can survive by dumping every single stat, that doesn't say much.
And the DEX gauntlets exist in both games. So you can have both 18 DEX and 18 CON. Draw.
The CON belt exists only in the second game. You can have both 18 DEX and 18 CON but it's more limited since it can be activated only once per day for 8 hours. DEX gloves have no duration. High CON wins.
HP is more important in the first game and less in the second. So having better CON in the first game is better and more worth it, than in the second. High CON wins.
In the first game, even with 18 DEX, you are going to get hit, or poisoned or whatever. High CON wins.
Why not give the Belt to someone that needs it like Aerie or Viconia etc? Why risk your main? In the first game you can have both and in the second too, so it's a no brainer to me, since one is basically permanent and the other is not.
Because Viconia and Aerie don't need it. No non-warrior class needs it (It just doesn't add enough and if played properly utilizing their defenses or hit/fade styles make them even taking damage in the first place highly unlikely)...and of the warriors, none of them really benefit, since they all have relatively high Con anyway.
And of the warriors in the game, 2 are in DIRE need of the dex gauntlets, forcing you to either not use those characters or waste a ton of resources keep them alive when they're getting hit by blind enemies casually throwing a rock over their shoulders in those character's general direction.
Making the belt a complete and utter waste of an item if you don't use it yourself. Assuming they add Dorn, he's literally the only character who would see a noticeable benefit to using the belt, who shouldn't even be in a party with ANY paladin, much less a PC one (working with evil characters is immediate grounds for Falling for paladins, except under very specific circumstances that wouldn't apply to the PC). How much is 8 hours? WAY longer then anyone will typically spend in a dungeon and you typically wouldn't use it before traveling, only before heading into the dungeon.
(Though bare in mind, I don't use the belt at all because as above, Con is worthless in my play-style)
Con for ANY class is Icing. Dex is also Icing but WITH SPRINKLES!. THE END.
Con is only worthwhile to consider for shorties. For anyone else, it's icing on the cake.
Uh, no. Very much no.
CON > DEX. AC is avoidance, HP is actual health. You cannot avoid attacks forever, which means you need HP to survive the worst possible damage you can take before you can get healed back up. DEX doesn't add the defensive adjustment it did in pen-and-paper, so that aspect is right out.
Oh, and since it doesn't have that adjustment, DEX does absolutely jack for magic attacks. CON, on the other hand, gives you HP to survive it.
Finally, you cannot put on a pair of gloves and have 18 CON. You can do so for DEX.
@ZanathKariashi You're talking about Anomen and Keldorn, I presume? Even then, Keldorn is supposed to be a glass-cannon with Carsormyr, like Dorn. Anomen is probably the only one that can make great use of it.
And you're supposed to make compromises and sacrifices with companions but not on your main, when you can have virtually permanent 18 DEX and CON.
I will insist that you main character should be getting the best stuff. And surviving through BGEE with a warrior/tank/leader character that has crap CON, is a bad idea until you get the Belt in BG2 and that is still quite limited in it's use.
Yes, dumping CON for you is optimal but not in general and certaintly not in the first game for someone asking for advice.
@IDanielHolm True. Even 25 Dex or -30 AC can't save you against a Fireball, or Magic Missile, or Lightning Bolt, or Horrid Wilting, or Meteor Swarm, or, or. Extra HP, can. Especially in the second game.
Power gamer wise, high Con is almost always better, you can not reliably avoid attacks even with 25 dex. 20 con and above is very helpful as it gives a nice regeneration bonus which heals your char as you travel/rest. (Kagain is such a durable beast!) Plus you can get gloves of dexterity in half an hour of playing so even 3 base DEX is viable. On the other hand, a 3 CON character will be dreadful. (So few hp per lvl, tires so easily and requires more rest, gets drunken with a drink or two, etc)
I prefer agile but frail characters, it is more of a RP reason for me. Although balancing it is a nice idea too, a DEX 16 CON 16 character is quite capable.
@lunar I concur, though RP-wise, a Paladin with high CON makes more sense. Hard to be agile in that Full Plate and Shield. And I think a Paladin is not trained in being agile.
Personally, I like unimposing characters that can be devastating. For example halfling Druids that turn into dragons and rip your face off in 3.5E.
A character with lots of 18/xx STR, 16 DEX and 16 CON is... Minsc. Glass-cannon-y and viable sure, though I like specializing in a few stats.
Maxing three out of the six abilities, while keeping the rest at average, is pretty balanced, I think. Though, Sarevok would laugh in our face.
From a power-gamer standpoint, dex is better. Your effective HP over the course of the saga due to high dex is 100,000's of HP....Con CANNOT touch that. Power-gamers are always looking at the best overall, since you're always looking at the bigger pictures and squeezing everything you can. Sacking Con now means killing the enemy faster and safer later, that is fact and cannot be argued.
Con is not the best, because it takes most of the first game to be worth 40 hp, while Dex has been wracking up effective HP since the moment your character finished creation and hit the ground running. Luck can kill you no matter your stats and isn't even a consideration. Even with 25 con, you're 1 lucky hit from deaths door AT ALL TIMES, and since your dex sucks OR you're sacrificing offense to prop it up, your going to NEED the higher Con to attempt to compensate for all the extra damage you take. Of course once you get into high damage resistance and regen, con becomes worthless as you're never in threat of dying and dex becomes worth less since avoiding the hits isn't worth as much effective hp.
If you're one of those who worries about your character dying, then your stats don't matter, buff up the NPCs and use them like the nameless meat shields they really are.
And if you're power-gaming, you'll have 18/00/19 str/dex/con, 11+ int, F the rest, even if it requires rolling for hours to make it happen.
From a power-gamer standpoint, dex is better. Your effective HP over the course of the saga due to high dex is 100,000's of HP....Con CANNOT touch that. Power-gamers are always looking at the best overall, since you're always looking at the bigger pictures and squeezing everything you can. Sacking Con now means killing the enemy faster and safer later, that is fact and cannot be argued.
This is utterly meaningless. You cannot gauge how much HP damage high DEX saves you, although it most certainly isn't in the hundreds of thousands--you aren't attacked enough during the course of the games to be dealt damage in the hundreds of thousands!
If you were attacked by five people with 1 APR with a longsword, it would take them over TEN DAYS of non-stop fighting to do 100,000 damage, and that's assuming maximum damage per hit -- and zero misses. (8 damage per person, times five, times ten attacks per minute, times sixty minutes per hour, equals 400 damage/hour. 100,000/400 = 250 hours, or 10 days and 10 hours.)
At most, you can count the number of attacks you avoid thanks to high AC, though only the attacks that you avoid by your DEX modifier to AC would be relevant.
Con is not the best, because it takes most of the first game to be worth 40 hp, while Dex has been wracking up effective HP since the moment your character finished creation and hit the ground running. Luck can kill you no matter your stats and isn't even a consideration. Even with 25 con, you're 1 lucky hit from deaths door AT ALL TIMES, and since your dex sucks OR you're sacrificing offense to prop it up, your going to NEED the higher Con to attempt to compensate for all the extra damage you take. Of course once you get into high damage resistance and regen, con becomes worthless as you're never in threat of dying and dex becomes worth less since avoiding the hits isn't worth as much effective hp.
AC is NOT effective HP. It is avoidance.
And yes, luck is important in this context. A 20 followed by a 20 followed by a 20 is within the realm of possibility, even if it is remote, and that's no matter if the opponent you face is a kobold or Bhaal himself. Damage enough to keep a person with 25 CON at death's door "at all times"... That isn't even comparable. For one thing, they have to actually hit. Secondly, 25 CON regens 1 HP/10 seconds, and gives 7 HP/level to warrior-type classes.
And if I avoid a 40 damage hit 10% of the time more than I would have, that avoidance over time turns into an effective 40 extra HPs over 10 attacks.
The only area that avoidance isn't effective HP is when dealing with spike damage. Spike damage is the only reason a tank in an MMO would pump HP, for any other situation he would pump avoidance becuse thet effective HPs save a lot more of your healers mana than burning through higher HP more often.
Avoidance is not effective health because it does not increase your time-to-live in a worst-case scenario. That is the long and short of it.
The worst-case scenario is where a tank lives and breathes. That's what he prepares for. In some cases, he cannot do so effectively because the healers run out of steam. That's when you abandon preparing for the worst-case scenario and start praying for luck instead.
The effectiveness of AC increases exponentially the more of it you have, though--right up until the limit at 95% avoidance in D&D. (Natural 20 doesn't miss, regardless of how good your AC is.)
So lets look again what high con means: For a fighter class it means 36 extra HP at 18 con on level 9 if he's a shorty he gets save bonuses The chance that 36 HP let you survive another attack or with most weaker enemies even 2 hits more is pretty high.
Now high dex: As long as the ratio of AC of your character and THC0 of the enemy isn't extreme each point of AC means 5% chance of avoidance against an attack, that actually uses AC to determine the hit. With 18dex this means 20% higher chance.
Now the reason why most people say that high AC helps more in the beginning and is kind of useless in TOB even considering that reaching the extreme levels is pretty hard.
Its mainly because people will reload on a possible event of some unlucky events where they got hit despite having good AC.
So basically: If the change to be hit is in the range of 5-35% the chance of such an event is pretty unlikely and AC is pretty worth it but maybe not that much because a hit isn't very likely.
the range of 35%-70% means hits are quite possible but overall you are still quite likely to avoid so AC will be very useful in that phase
Then there is the range of 70-95% AC still is useful but in that phase you pretty much expect that the enemy hits.
In TOB good AC will at least put you in the middle range so it is still useful if you really stack it you will be in the lower range but a character that stacks AC most likely needs a shield and then con should be taken over strength because hitting stuff most likely isn't the focus of that character.
For a paladin a I'd rather go with a maxed constitution. For my current archer though I went with a minimum consitution allowed (14) and maxed dex. I'm also not going to give him the con tome. Rasaad will likely get. The poor bastard.
I selected Constitution simply because HP has more a quantifiable value that AC. Having extra HP has a big an obvious effect on your character's survivability: You have more HP, so you live longer.
This isn't quite the case with a "to-hit vs. to-be-hit" system like the one we have in this game. While you can directly see you AC being reduced, it doesn't quite have the same impact that the extra HP gives you.
Having more HP nearly guarantees you will survive longer against most enemies. Reducing the enemy's chance to hit will make you survive longer, but not all the time.
Let's consider a game where you have 100HP and every enemy attack hits. If the enemy has a 4/5 chance to hit you because of your upgraded sick dodging skills, then they will have to perform 5/4 of the attacks they normally work to balance this out. 'Effectively' you take 25% longer to kill. However, this isn't a guaranteed number. In Baldur's Gate at low-ish levels (and also at the really high levels to an extent), attacks can take large amount of health away in a single attack. Let's say our 100HP hero is being attack by an enemy that inflicts 60HP damage per hit. Our basic hero will die in two hits. However, our upgraded sweet dodging guy doesn't get hit 20% of the time. So with some calculations, there is a 16/25 chance (64%) of him being dead in the same two attacks, and a 32/125 chance (25.6%) of him being dead in 3 attacks. So there is a 9/25 (36%) of surviving longer, and a 13/125 chance (10.4%) of surviving more than 3 attacks. Compare all this to simply increasing HP by 25% to 125. The hero survives 3 attacks every single time. It's more reliable, and although is not capable of doing as much as our dodging hero (there's a 10% chance the dodger will survive longer than THAT), the reliability might be worth it.
Of course, this is a very simplistic example. However, since monsters can and will inflict large amounts of damage to you having more health can often be more valuable than decreasing you enemy's chance to hit.
And if I avoid a 40 damage hit 10% of the time more than I would have, that avoidance over time turns into an effective 40 extra HPs over 10 attacks.
The only area that avoidance isn't effective HP is when dealing with spike damage. Spike damage is the only reason a tank in an MMO would pump HP, for any other situation he would pump avoidance becuse thet effective HPs save a lot more of your healers mana than burning through higher HP more often.
As I said above, monsters in Baldur's Gate typically inflict a large amount of damage when they connect with a blow. At most it might take 8-10 hits if the monster hits for an average result each time.
While your observation is true that after attempting a large number of attacks the avoidance is basically the same as damage reduction by the same amount, the few attacks the trial contains the less valid your argument is.
Here is a pretty picture of a graph I made in Excel using random values from random.org, each value simulating a heads/tails coin flip with heads=1 and tails=0. It displays the average up to that point after a number of results. If a "heads" is a hit and inflicts full damage, while a tails is a miss and inflicts no damage, the line on the graph represents the amount of damage inflicted as a fraction of the maximum possible by that point.
The first thing to note is that for the first few dozen values, the graph is very jagged and 'jumpy' compared to the rest. Effective HP can't be used for these early values because there is a high chance of inflicting significantly more or less damage than expected. In this example, for the first 50 attacks, there was only one point where less than 60% of overall damage potential was not inflicted. Of course, it does start to 'average out' over a large number of attack attempts. The problem with applying this to BG is that one monster won't reach anywhere near that many attempts. They'll either kill you in 20 attempts in a best-case scenario or already be dead by then.
Effective HP is a concept much better applied to games with percentage damage reduction stats rather than percentage enemy miss chance.
All this isn't to say that AC doesn't do very much. In fact it becomes more and more effective the more of it you have (or less if you want to be like THAT). However, having a little bit more doesn't generally have a reliable effect if you are reducing an enemy's hit chance from 75% -> 65%. If you are going super stack-happy then that's probably what you want more of. However, as a general rule it's better to have a bit more HP than a little more AC. This is particularly the case when you are deciding between putting your 18 in one stat and 14 in the other, or the other way around. You can get AC from pretty much any decent non-weapon item in the game, and even on some weapons as well. HP doesn't show up as often and if you want to have a bit more you have to either pump your Constitution or look desperately for the 3 items across both games that give you some.
It really depends on your build, and playing style. The Blackguard I'm playing has "just enough" Dexterity that her ranged attacks won't take a penalty, and her Armor Class won't take a penalty, while she has a pretty good Constitution -- tanky, evil Paladin girl. I've had enough "fun" times in P&P games to never underestimate the value of Constitution. Well, unless I'm playing an undead character.
both are vital for tanks. Hypothetically if i had to choose one over the other i would definantly take dexterity.
Otherwise you will become extremely frustrated when you are frequently taking hits even against minor enemies. Especially in BG1 where damage is permenant and is only recovered through spells/potions/temple
also pallies get D10 so your hps will be reasonable
Not really understanding (or caring) why the OP needs to min/max. But hey.
For me, CON is the way to go. Sure you may only get 45 extra HP. But... Better that than a better AC. It isn't like you don't already have Magical Full Platemail. At the end of the day, your AC can only be so low. And monsters will still be able to hit you no matter how low it is. And throw in poison and spells, and it is always better to be able to survive that attack that you can't avoid.
Not really understanding (or caring) why the OP needs to min/max. But hey.
For me, CON is the way to go. Sure you may only get 45 extra HP. But... Better that than a better AC. It isn't like you don't already have Magical Full Platemail. At the end of the day, your AC can only be so low. And monsters will still be able to hit you no matter how low it is. And throw in poison and spells, and it is always better to be able to survive that attack that you can't avoid.
Not to mention that extra 45 Hit Points could give you just enough cushioning that HP-dependent spells like the Power Words will glance off in the event of a failed save.
Also, fun things like hold and web negate DEX bonus (as does Backstab). I would MUCH rather have the extra Hit points to survive those types of attacks and their effects.
Now, it really does depend on your character type. For most fighter types (other than Archer types), having that CON is going to make a huge difference. But if you are playing a thief or wizard, ABSOLUTELY go the DEX. Then it make sense because you are getting a dual purpose out of it.
But to calculate the DEX lift it gives to your ranged weapon when you are using it less than 10% of the time seems a bit of a miss-leading waste (to me). Fighters already hit much more often than other types. Do they really need DEX bonus on top of that? Kind of overkill if you ask me.
Having no dex in the early levels means death in most cases. Kivan and Coran seem to do fine without a huge Constitution. You still get to roll D10 if your a fighter class. The most annoying thing about low constitution is possible explosion on death (reload) and party members needing to rest more often.
Having no dex in the early levels means death in most cases. Kivan and Coran seem to do fine without a huge Constitution. You still get to roll D10 if your a fighter class. The most annoying thing about low constitution is possible explosion on death (reload) and party members needing to rest more often.
Says who? No DEX early on is no more death than anything else. And it is perfectly reasonable to play a fighter with no dex and survive just fine early, mid or late game. Particularly early on, I would much rather have 14 hit points than an AC of -3. Far to many giberlings/xvarts and kobolds get far to many hits regardless of your AC at that stage. And when you get into the Nashkal mines, those Kobold Commandos will totally destroy you if you don't have the CON and extra hit points to survive regardless of your Dex.
As for Kivan and Coran, both are Archers of a kind. They are intended to be high dex. And their chosen method of attack is at range with a bow. Therefore, they are not good examples of 'Your typical Fighter meat shield/damage dealer'.
Having no dex in the early levels means death in most cases. Kivan and Coran seem to do fine without a huge Constitution. You still get to roll D10 if your a fighter class. The most annoying thing about low constitution is possible explosion on death (reload) and party members needing to rest more often.
Says who? No DEX early on is no more death than anything else. And it is perfectly reasonable to play a fighter with no dex and survive just fine early, mid or late game. Particularly early on, I would much rather have 14 hit points than an AC of -3. Far to many giberlings/xvarts and kobolds get far to many hits regardless of your AC at that stage. And when you get into the Nashkal mines, those Kobold Commandos will totally destroy you if you don't have the CON and extra hit points to survive regardless of your Dex.
As for Kivan and Coran, both are Archers of a kind. They are intended to be high dex. And their chosen method of attack is at range with a bow. Therefore, they are not good examples of 'Your typical Fighter meat shield/damage dealer'.
I find that it doesn't matter how many hp I have early on. With 14 or 15 hp I still die in one hit more often than not. On the other hand I find I don't get hit as often with a high dex. That means I die less often. You really want to have both high dexterity and plate armor to maximize your chance to survive early in the game.
My examples of Kivan and Coran were only to point out they had pleanty of hitpoints to tank if needed in my group, but didn't often get hit even using studded leather when forced to fight in melee.
If you leave gauntlets of dexterity... Well, you'll only get more health with more constitution, and you get no shorty bonus. Considering only BG1, this will be 50% more life buffer before being killed (with the tome). Dexterity will prevent your enemies from hitting you, 4 AC can make a real difference, it really can... You'll probably not go ranged, but a reaction of +3 (with the tome) can help in a fight, too. I'd say, not getting hit is better than having more life. But the way AC is working is a little tricky. If your enemy would only be hitting you with a 15-20, a stronger AC of 4 will decrease damage taken by 2/3. And if you compare health with AC, only when you fight a very strong enemy that could hit you better than 8-20 having a better AC of 4 will reduce damage taken less than your health buffer would compensate. AC is really strong. But face to face combat is not everything. Magic ignores AC. And here 50% more health is more important than every armor. It depends on having another good tank or someone needing the gauntlets. Even I personally prefer DEX, but my advice would be BG1: CONSTITUTION. Considering you'll play BG2 later with this char, I say dexterity. You'll not have to stick to the gloves - there are others you'll want more - and the effect of the health bonus will shrink when leveling over 10 (well it will still be 165 +10*x[tome, machine, ...] vs. 205, +10 if you manage to reach 21 constitution with items, tomes and whatever) < +15-25% at max. possible paladin level. And your items and party will be better to protect you form magic and other bad things. BG2: DEXTERITY (well other will still say CON, and may be right in one or another situation...)
I find that it doesn't matter how many hp I have early on. With 14 or 15 hp I still die in one hit more often than not. On the other hand I find I don't get hit as often with a high dex. That means I die less often. You really want to have both high dexterity and plate armor to maximize your chance to survive early in the game.
My examples of Kivan and Coran were only to point out they had pleanty of hitpoints to tank if needed in my group, but didn't often get hit even using studded leather when forced to fight in melee.
Xvarts, Gibberlings and Kobolds never do more than about 4 hit points per attack, except for critical hits. In most cases even less. If you are dying based on one hit, you are doing something seriously wrong or have jacked the difficulty up to extreme levels. Or you are merely making things up to make your point.
A critical hit happens on a roll of 20 which will hit an AC of -4 as easily as an AC of 1. So lower AC isn't going to help you. At an average of 4 hit points per attack, someone with 10 hit points can take two non-critical hits. Having 14 hit points means they can survive three hits and usually survive the encounter. An AC 4 places better only means a 20% less chance of being hit. So, for the first level, DEX is not superior to CON for a Fighter type.
As far as Coran and Kivan "Tanking" for you, they are adequate. But Kivan has D8 hit points and Coran has D10+D6 all divided by 2 (or 8), so they are not the equivalent of even Shar-Teel and definitely not equal to Kagain.
but take it a different direction. Viconia is one of my favorite NPCs. However, she is very weak despite having an AWESOME DEX. it is widely accepted that her lack of strength and CON are her downfalls. And the lack of strength only means that she has to wear the Ankheg armor. So it is really the low CON that hurts her the most.
A critical hit happens on a roll of 20 which will hit an AC of -4 as easily as an AC of 1. So lower AC isn't going to help you. At an average of 4 hit points per attack, someone with 10 hit points can take two non-critical hits. Having 14 hit points means they can survive three hits and usually survive the encounter. An AC 4 places better only means a 20% less chance of being hit. So, for the first level, DEX is not superior to CON for a Fighter type.
Comments
Though once you get up to epic levels, HP total become irrelevant since a properly built character will only take between 3-9 damage per hit (easily offset by regen items, especially if you stack the 4 1 hp/round items available), and if you have high dex, they won't be hit as often.
It doesn't matter. What matters is surviving that battle, since you can heal or rest or have regeneration. It's not like there's a total damage cap that you have to avoid.
True, CON becomes less useful in BG2 and ToB. That's why it's good to have as high as possible CON in the first game. Since that's permanent.
Dex or AC won't protect you from magic damage. HP will. That's true for both games. Many times I have survived with just a bit of HP that gave me time to heal, from magic damage or traps.
And that extra HP will protect you against Sarevok in the first game, with the best armor/shield/spells on your Paladin.
To put it in more perspective, even if you get max HP per level at level 10, you would have 140 HP. If CON is useless and dump it totally to 3, you would actually have 50HP less.
So, 90 HP instead of 140. Many don't play with max HP on.
If we go by averages, then you would have ~50 HP at level 10 with 3 CON and 100 with 18 CON. More with 19 CON. That's double the HP.
Though I do acknowledge that certain play-styles have different needs. My personal style simply prevents damage all together by avoiding damage, killing the enemy quickly or disabling opponents so they can't damage me in the first place, so in my case Con literally is useless since the minor amounts of damage I'll take are well within the averages for HP totals and can often be off-set by a single potion (which I usually have gobs of since it's actually really rare to need them). (I also never memorize healing spells, since they aren't needed. A Command (brokenly awesome), Sleep (awesome) or even entangle (bleh!) can easily turn the tide of a battle and render HP AND AC irrelevant, though between the two, I'd much rather have AC over HP.
With Regard to defenses, in the early game, Disabling spells, AC, Damage resistances, Con. In BG2, Disabling spells, damage resistance, AC, Con.
And the DEX gauntlets exist in both games. So you can have both 18 DEX and 18 CON. Draw.
The CON belt exists only in the second game. You can have both 18 DEX and 18 CON but it's more limited since it can be activated only once per day for 8 hours. DEX gloves have no duration. High CON wins.
HP is more important in the first game and less in the second. So having better CON in the first game is better and more worth it, than in the second. High CON wins.
In the first game, even with 18 DEX, you are going to get hit, or poisoned or whatever. High CON wins.
Why not give the Belt to someone that needs it like Aerie or Viconia etc? Why risk your main? In the first game you can have both and in the second too, so it's a no brainer to me, since one is basically permanent and the other is not.
And of the warriors in the game, 2 are in DIRE need of the dex gauntlets, forcing you to either not use those characters or waste a ton of resources keep them alive when they're getting hit by blind enemies casually throwing a rock over their shoulders in those character's general direction.
Making the belt a complete and utter waste of an item if you don't use it yourself. Assuming they add Dorn, he's literally the only character who would see a noticeable benefit to using the belt, who shouldn't even be in a party with ANY paladin, much less a PC one (working with evil characters is immediate grounds for Falling for paladins, except under very specific circumstances that wouldn't apply to the PC). How much is 8 hours? WAY longer then anyone will typically spend in a dungeon and you typically wouldn't use it before traveling, only before heading into the dungeon.
(Though bare in mind, I don't use the belt at all because as above, Con is worthless in my play-style)
Con for ANY class is Icing. Dex is also Icing but WITH SPRINKLES!. THE END.
CON > DEX. AC is avoidance, HP is actual health. You cannot avoid attacks forever, which means you need HP to survive the worst possible damage you can take before you can get healed back up. DEX doesn't add the defensive adjustment it did in pen-and-paper, so that aspect is right out.
Oh, and since it doesn't have that adjustment, DEX does absolutely jack for magic attacks. CON, on the other hand, gives you HP to survive it.
Finally, you cannot put on a pair of gloves and have 18 CON. You can do so for DEX.
Ipso facto, CON > DEX.
You're talking about Anomen and Keldorn, I presume? Even then, Keldorn is supposed to be a glass-cannon with Carsormyr, like Dorn. Anomen is probably the only one that can make great use of it.
And you're supposed to make compromises and sacrifices with companions but not on your main, when you can have virtually permanent 18 DEX and CON.
I will insist that you main character should be getting the best stuff. And surviving through BGEE with a warrior/tank/leader character that has crap CON, is a bad idea until you get the Belt in BG2 and that is still quite limited in it's use.
Yes, dumping CON for you is optimal but not in general and certaintly not in the first game for someone asking for advice.
True. Even 25 Dex or -30 AC can't save you against a Fireball, or Magic Missile, or Lightning Bolt, or Horrid Wilting, or Meteor Swarm, or, or. Extra HP, can.
Especially in the second game.
I prefer agile but frail characters, it is more of a RP reason for me. Although balancing it is a nice idea too, a DEX 16 CON 16 character is quite capable.
I concur, though RP-wise, a Paladin with high CON makes more sense. Hard to be agile in that Full Plate and Shield. And I think a Paladin is not trained in being agile.
Personally, I like unimposing characters that can be devastating. For example halfling Druids that turn into dragons and rip your face off in 3.5E.
A character with lots of 18/xx STR, 16 DEX and 16 CON is... Minsc. Glass-cannon-y and viable sure, though I like specializing in a few stats.
Maxing three out of the six abilities, while keeping the rest at average, is pretty balanced, I think.
Though, Sarevok would laugh in our face.
Con is not the best, because it takes most of the first game to be worth 40 hp, while Dex has been wracking up effective HP since the moment your character finished creation and hit the ground running. Luck can kill you no matter your stats and isn't even a consideration. Even with 25 con, you're 1 lucky hit from deaths door AT ALL TIMES, and since your dex sucks OR you're sacrificing offense to prop it up, your going to NEED the higher Con to attempt to compensate for all the extra damage you take. Of course once you get into high damage resistance and regen, con becomes worthless as you're never in threat of dying and dex becomes worth less since avoiding the hits isn't worth as much effective hp.
If you're one of those who worries about your character dying, then your stats don't matter, buff up the NPCs and use them like the nameless meat shields they really are.
And if you're power-gaming, you'll have 18/00/19 str/dex/con, 11+ int, F the rest, even if it requires rolling for hours to make it happen.
If you were attacked by five people with 1 APR with a longsword, it would take them over TEN DAYS of non-stop fighting to do 100,000 damage, and that's assuming maximum damage per hit -- and zero misses. (8 damage per person, times five, times ten attacks per minute, times sixty minutes per hour, equals 400 damage/hour. 100,000/400 = 250 hours, or 10 days and 10 hours.)
At most, you can count the number of attacks you avoid thanks to high AC, though only the attacks that you avoid by your DEX modifier to AC would be relevant. AC is NOT effective HP. It is avoidance.
And yes, luck is important in this context. A 20 followed by a 20 followed by a 20 is within the realm of possibility, even if it is remote, and that's no matter if the opponent you face is a kobold or Bhaal himself. Damage enough to keep a person with 25 CON at death's door "at all times"... That isn't even comparable. For one thing, they have to actually hit. Secondly, 25 CON regens 1 HP/10 seconds, and gives 7 HP/level to warrior-type classes.
The only area that avoidance isn't effective HP is when dealing with spike damage. Spike damage is the only reason a tank in an MMO would pump HP, for any other situation he would pump avoidance becuse thet effective HPs save a lot more of your healers mana than burning through higher HP more often.
The worst-case scenario is where a tank lives and breathes. That's what he prepares for. In some cases, he cannot do so effectively because the healers run out of steam. That's when you abandon preparing for the worst-case scenario and start praying for luck instead.
The effectiveness of AC increases exponentially the more of it you have, though--right up until the limit at 95% avoidance in D&D. (Natural 20 doesn't miss, regardless of how good your AC is.)
For a fighter class it means 36 extra HP at 18 con on level 9 if he's a shorty he gets save bonuses
The chance that 36 HP let you survive another attack or with most weaker enemies even 2 hits more is pretty high.
Now high dex:
As long as the ratio of AC of your character and THC0 of the enemy isn't extreme each point of AC means 5% chance of avoidance against an attack, that actually uses AC to determine the hit. With 18dex this means 20% higher chance.
Now the reason why most people say that high AC helps more in the beginning and is kind of useless in TOB even considering that reaching the extreme levels is pretty hard.
Its mainly because people will reload on a possible event of some unlucky events where they got hit despite having good AC.
So basically:
If the change to be hit is in the range of 5-35% the chance of such an event is pretty unlikely and AC is pretty worth it but maybe not that much because a hit isn't very likely.
the range of 35%-70% means hits are quite possible but overall you are still quite likely to avoid so AC will be very useful in that phase
Then there is the range of 70-95% AC still is useful but in that phase you pretty much expect that the enemy hits.
In TOB good AC will at least put you in the middle range so it is still useful if you really stack it you will be in the lower range but a character that stacks AC most likely needs a shield and then con should be taken over strength because hitting stuff most likely isn't the focus of that character.
This isn't quite the case with a "to-hit vs. to-be-hit" system like the one we have in this game. While you can directly see you AC being reduced, it doesn't quite have the same impact that the extra HP gives you.
Having more HP nearly guarantees you will survive longer against most enemies. Reducing the enemy's chance to hit will make you survive longer, but not all the time.
Let's consider a game where you have 100HP and every enemy attack hits. If the enemy has a 4/5 chance to hit you because of your upgraded sick dodging skills, then they will have to perform 5/4 of the attacks they normally work to balance this out. 'Effectively' you take 25% longer to kill. However, this isn't a guaranteed number.
In Baldur's Gate at low-ish levels (and also at the really high levels to an extent), attacks can take large amount of health away in a single attack. Let's say our 100HP hero is being attack by an enemy that inflicts 60HP damage per hit. Our basic hero will die in two hits. However, our upgraded sweet dodging guy doesn't get hit 20% of the time. So with some calculations, there is a 16/25 chance (64%) of him being dead in the same two attacks, and a 32/125 chance (25.6%) of him being dead in 3 attacks. So there is a 9/25 (36%) of surviving longer, and a 13/125 chance (10.4%) of surviving more than 3 attacks. Compare all this to simply increasing HP by 25% to 125. The hero survives 3 attacks every single time. It's more reliable, and although is not capable of doing as much as our dodging hero (there's a 10% chance the dodger will survive longer than THAT), the reliability might be worth it.
Of course, this is a very simplistic example. However, since monsters can and will inflict large amounts of damage to you having more health can often be more valuable than decreasing you enemy's chance to hit. As I said above, monsters in Baldur's Gate typically inflict a large amount of damage when they connect with a blow. At most it might take 8-10 hits if the monster hits for an average result each time.
While your observation is true that after attempting a large number of attacks the avoidance is basically the same as damage reduction by the same amount, the few attacks the trial contains the less valid your argument is.
Here is a pretty picture of a graph I made in Excel using random values from random.org, each value simulating a heads/tails coin flip with heads=1 and tails=0. It displays the average up to that point after a number of results. If a "heads" is a hit and inflicts full damage, while a tails is a miss and inflicts no damage, the line on the graph represents the amount of damage inflicted as a fraction of the maximum possible by that point.
The first thing to note is that for the first few dozen values, the graph is very jagged and 'jumpy' compared to the rest. Effective HP can't be used for these early values because there is a high chance of inflicting significantly more or less damage than expected. In this example, for the first 50 attacks, there was only one point where less than 60% of overall damage potential was not inflicted. Of course, it does start to 'average out' over a large number of attack attempts. The problem with applying this to BG is that one monster won't reach anywhere near that many attempts. They'll either kill you in 20 attempts in a best-case scenario or already be dead by then.
Effective HP is a concept much better applied to games with percentage damage reduction stats rather than percentage enemy miss chance.
All this isn't to say that AC doesn't do very much. In fact it becomes more and more effective the more of it you have (or less if you want to be like THAT). However, having a little bit more doesn't generally have a reliable effect if you are reducing an enemy's hit chance from 75% -> 65%. If you are going super stack-happy then that's probably what you want more of. However, as a general rule it's better to have a bit more HP than a little more AC.
This is particularly the case when you are deciding between putting your 18 in one stat and 14 in the other, or the other way around. You can get AC from pretty much any decent non-weapon item in the game, and even on some weapons as well. HP doesn't show up as often and if you want to have a bit more you have to either pump your Constitution or look desperately for the 3 items across both games that give you some.
I've had enough "fun" times in P&P games to never underestimate the value of Constitution. Well, unless I'm playing an undead character.
Otherwise you will become extremely frustrated when you are frequently taking hits even against minor enemies. Especially in BG1 where damage is permenant and is only recovered through spells/potions/temple
also pallies get D10 so your hps will be reasonable
For me, CON is the way to go. Sure you may only get 45 extra HP. But... Better that than a better AC. It isn't like you don't already have Magical Full Platemail. At the end of the day, your AC can only be so low. And monsters will still be able to hit you no matter how low it is. And throw in poison and spells, and it is always better to be able to survive that attack that you can't avoid.
Now, it really does depend on your character type. For most fighter types (other than Archer types), having that CON is going to make a huge difference. But if you are playing a thief or wizard, ABSOLUTELY go the DEX. Then it make sense because you are getting a dual purpose out of it.
But to calculate the DEX lift it gives to your ranged weapon when you are using it less than 10% of the time seems a bit of a miss-leading waste (to me). Fighters already hit much more often than other types. Do they really need DEX bonus on top of that? Kind of overkill if you ask me.
As for Kivan and Coran, both are Archers of a kind. They are intended to be high dex. And their chosen method of attack is at range with a bow. Therefore, they are not good examples of 'Your typical Fighter meat shield/damage dealer'.
My examples of Kivan and Coran were only to point out they had pleanty of hitpoints to tank if needed in my group, but didn't often get hit even using studded leather when forced to fight in melee.
Well, you'll only get more health with more constitution, and you get no shorty bonus. Considering only BG1, this will be 50% more life buffer before being killed (with the tome). Dexterity will prevent your enemies from hitting you, 4 AC can make a real difference, it really can... You'll probably not go ranged, but a reaction of +3 (with the tome) can help in a fight, too. I'd say, not getting hit is better than having more life. But the way AC is working is a little tricky. If your enemy would only be hitting you with a 15-20, a stronger AC of 4 will decrease damage taken by 2/3. And if you compare health with AC, only when you fight a very strong enemy that could hit you better than 8-20 having a better AC of 4 will reduce damage taken less than your health buffer would compensate. AC is really strong. But face to face combat is not everything. Magic ignores AC. And here 50% more health is more important than every armor. It depends on having another good tank or someone needing the gauntlets. Even I personally prefer DEX, but my advice would be BG1: CONSTITUTION. Considering you'll play BG2 later with this char, I say dexterity. You'll not have to stick to the gloves - there are others you'll want more - and the effect of the health bonus will shrink when leveling over 10 (well it will still be 165 +10*x[tome, machine, ...] vs. 205, +10 if you manage to reach 21 constitution with items, tomes and whatever) < +15-25% at max. possible paladin level. And your items and party will be better to protect you form magic and other bad things. BG2: DEXTERITY (well other will still say CON, and may be right in one or another situation...)
A critical hit happens on a roll of 20 which will hit an AC of -4 as easily as an AC of 1. So lower AC isn't going to help you. At an average of 4 hit points per attack, someone with 10 hit points can take two non-critical hits. Having 14 hit points means they can survive three hits and usually survive the encounter. An AC 4 places better only means a 20% less chance of being hit. So, for the first level, DEX is not superior to CON for a Fighter type.
As far as Coran and Kivan "Tanking" for you, they are adequate. But Kivan has D8 hit points and Coran has D10+D6 all divided by 2 (or 8), so they are not the equivalent of even Shar-Teel and definitely not equal to Kagain.
but take it a different direction. Viconia is one of my favorite NPCs. However, she is very weak despite having an AWESOME DEX. it is widely accepted that her lack of strength and CON are her downfalls. And the lack of strength only means that she has to wear the Ankheg armor. So it is really the low CON that hurts her the most.