come one you don't have to choose,just lower int and wis as much as possible,my palading has stats like 18/xx,18,18,15,12,16,17 no cheats
Whoa man, you got such a good roll that your character gained a 7th attribute.
In all seriousness though, if I assume that one of the 18s you listed is an accidental duplicate, that still makes a roll of 96, which could take ages to get if you're unlucky (although it's significantly easier to get for a paladin than for, say, a fighter). If one of the other numbers is the mistake, and your first 3 stats really are 18, then to total would be a minimum of 99, which is really pushing it.
I guess I am not understanding what you wrote. The comment was 'Early on' DEX helped the poster more than con. Early on (level 1 and on the road to Nashkal), you face Xvarts, Giberlings, Kobolds, Bandits, Hobgoblins, a few wolves, two half ogres and an ogre. There are a few other things you can encounter if you stray from the path, but for the most part they are all approximately the same power (damage in the 4-6 range per hit... except the Ogres). For all of them, a 20 is a critical and a 20 will hit -4 as easily as 1. If you are worried about the half ogres or the ogres, fine. Avoid them. But 20% worse chance to be hit won't save you more often than more hit points in those scenarios.
And once you get to Nashkal, you probably have a full party of companions one way or the other and then the 'Extra' lift you get from Either DEX or CON really mutes.
And at the end of the day, the game that early on is balanced such that a wizard or a thief (with a max AC of 1) can survive just fine and with fewer hit points than a fighter (even without a CON bonus). So adding plate mail (by killing a Flaming Fist) to -4 due to DEX is kind of overkill (Imho). Might as well cheat and have all 25s for stats.
come one you don't have to choose,just lower int and wis as much as possible,my palading has stats like 18/xx,18,18,15,12,16,17 no cheats
Woah man, you got such a good roll that your character gained a 7th attribute.
In all seriousness though, if I assume that one of the 18s you listed is an accidental duplicate, that still makes a roll of 96, which could take ages to get if you're unlucky (although it's significantly easier to get for a paladin than for, say, a fighter). If one of the other numbers is the mistake, and your first 3 stats really are 18, then to total would be a minimum of 99, which is really pushing it.
There seems to be a lot of adventurers on this forum rolling > 94
Oh yeah, I have no doubt it's do-able, but it's entirely possible it would take an hour of rolling (if, like I said, you have bad luck). Also, the difficulty of getting a certain stat total seems to rise exponentially once you get that high. For instance, I've rolled probably 5+ characters with a 94 since BG:EE came out, but only a couple with 95 or 96. I only remember seeing 97+ once, and I think I was rolling too fast and skipped over it by accident. My point was that the he was acting like getting that roll was no big deal (and maybe it wasn't, he could have got it on his first roll for all I know), but it's not necessarily realistic for people who don't like spending a lot of time rolling.
It shouldn't be to difficult to get 18, 18, 18, 10, 13, 18 on a Paladin. Thats a total of 95 points. Considering you will get at least 13 wisdom and 17 charisma all you have to worry about is getting high rolls in strength, dex, and int. That's a lot less then what you have to worry about rolling on a fighter.
I guess I am not understanding what you wrote. The comment was 'Early on' DEX helped the poster more than con. Early on (level 1 and on the road to Nashkal), you face Xvarts, Giberlings, Kobolds, Bandits, Hobgoblins, a few wolves, two half ogres and an ogre. There are a few other things you can encounter if you stray from the path, but for the most part they are all approximately the same power (damage in the 4-6 range per hit... except the Ogres). For all of them, a 20 is a critical and a 20 will hit -4 as easily as 1. If you are worried about the half ogres or the ogres, fine. Avoid them. But 20% worse chance to be hit won't save you more often than more hit points in those scenarios.
Well, as a Paladin you can leave candlekeep with an AC-1 at a dexterity of 18, or AC 3 without any dexterity bonus. A Gibberling can hit a AC-1 only with a 20 (1/20), but it can hit a AC 3 with a 17-20(4/20). This is not a 20% worse chance to be hit. This is a 3/4 worse chance to be hit. In this case you die after 70/(average damage) attacks with the CON and 200/(average damage) with the DEX bonus. Taking the wolves, best case it is about dying after 29 for CON v. 35 for DEX. Having more dexterity means more survivability in both cases. This are only 2 examples. If you take a character with no armor, AC 10/6, both still die after 20/(average damage) attacks from the gibberlings. For wolves it will be a little bit better to have the health, but what paladin would have no armor? This is meant by it depends (and not only on the enemies). Only taking into count how good you survive combats 'early on' dexterity will be the choice!
@Kamehouse. Understand that 'To hit' is D20 roll. Each number represents a 1 in 20 chance or 5% to be hit. So 4 places better is 20% (4X5) to hit vs. 5% at only a 20. I am not sure where you are getting 3/4ths because 15% or even 20% chance to be hit is not 3/4ths easier to be hit.
So, with an average damage of 4, making yourself 15% (or even 20%) less likely to be hit really won't make that much difference. But having more hit points will allow you to be hit fully one more time and survive in case you are unlucky. And that isn't factoring in critical hits.
But again that means that enemies are only hitting you 5% of the time instead of 20% of the time anyway with the lower AC. The game is balanced for lower hit points and higher ACs than you are talking. So it is a marginal difference at best.
I have literally played through on hard core with a 10 DEX Wizard with no familiar and generally had no problems. Cast Armor and your AC goes to 6. Use the +1 ring and it goes to 5. Tactically explore your environment. Pick up tanks (Montaron, Kagain, Kivan, Shar-Teel, Khalid, Jaheira, Minsc) as soon as you can and Hey-presto and you survive.
I think what is being argued is largely trivial. Because by 2nd-3rd level you can have the Dex Gaunts, so then CON is eminently more useful.
@Kamehouse. Understand that 'To hit' is D20 roll. Each number represents a 1 in 20 chance or 5% to be hit. So 4 places better is 20% (4X5) to hit vs. 5% at only a 20. I am not sure where you are getting 3/4ths because 15% or even 20% chance to be hit is not 3/4ths easier to be hit.
So, with an average damage of 4, making yourself 15% (or even 20%) less likely to be hit really won't make that much difference. But having more hit points will allow you to be hit fully one more time and survive in case you are unlucky. And that isn't factoring in critical hits.
But again that means that enemies are only hitting you 5% of the time instead of 20% of the time anyway with the lower AC. The game is balanced for lower hit points and higher ACs than you are talking. So it is a marginal difference at best.
To see the difference in combat you have to look at relative probabilities. So in this example, you go: (5%/20%) x 100%=25%. In other words, you are now only 25% as likely to be hit as you previously were, which is equivalent to having a 3/4 reduction to your chance of being hit, just like @Kamehouse said. So in the situation with the gibberlings, you will be hit 4 times as often with AC3 as you will with AC0 or less.
To see the difference in combat you have to look at relative probabilities. So in this example, you go: (5%/20%) x 100%=25%. In other words, you are now only 25% as likely to be hit as you previously were, which is equivalent to having a 3/4 reduction to your chance of being hit, just like @Kamehouse. So in the situation with the gibberlings, you will be hit 4 times as often with AC3 as you will with AC0 or less.
So, great. 4X as often. But it is still only a 20% chance of being hit. If you are doing it that way, the argument should be "CON vs DEX when you aren't using any healing". Because the number of attacks necessary (at 20% chance to be hit over 5% chance to be hit or a net +15% chance), you are still looking at greater survivability with CON than with DEX unless you aren't healing. Then I would agree that DEX is more important until you get the DEX Gaunts. But not otherwise.
Understand that thieves with much lower AC can survive the game. Same with Wizards with lower AC and HP. In other words the net gain is insignificant. And then survivability trumps not being lucky.
To see the difference in combat you have to look at relative probabilities. So in this example, you go: (5%/20%) x 100%=25%. In other words, you are now only 25% as likely to be hit as you previously were, which is equivalent to having a 3/4 reduction to your chance of being hit, just like @Kamehouse. So in the situation with the gibberlings, you will be hit 4 times as often with AC3 as you will with AC0 or less.
So, great. 4X as often. But it is still only a 20% chance of being hit. If you are doing it that way, the argument should be "CON vs DEX when you aren't using any healing". Because the number of attacks necessary (at 20% chance to be hit over 5% chance to be hit or a net +15% chance), you are still looking at greater survivability with CON than with DEX unless you aren't healing. Then I would agree that DEX is more important until you get the DEX Gaunts. But not otherwise.
Understand that thieves with much lower AC can survive the game. Same with Wizards with lower AC and HP. In other words the net gain is insignificant. And then survivability trumps not being lucky.
You said that in the previous example you would be 15% less likely to be hit, and that you didn't understand where the 3/4 came from. I was simply explaining this. I was also trying to explain Kamehouse's line about things being dependent on the enemy you're facing. For instance, if you're facing any enemy who can only hit you on a roll of 16 or higher, I would consider adding +4 to your AC (from dex) to be worth more than +4 hp per level (from con), assuming that you're only worried about physical damage. However, if your enemy only needs to roll, say, a 10 or better to hit you, I prefer the extra HP, because the AC makes less of a difference there. Which brings me back to my point about relative probabilities. You can't just say that a +1 bonus to AC makes you 5% less likely to be hit. In the gibberling example, it is not a +15% increase in your chance to be hit; it's a +300% increase.
I'm not actually arguing in favor of choosing Dex over Con (I voted in this poll way back when it was first created, and I don't think I thought about my choice very much). The exact benefits of Dex are very situational, whereas the bonus HP from Con is pretty much equally useful in every situation. I'm just saying that if someone were to actually do all the calculations, there'd be situations where having a lower AC would be more effective than having more HP.
LOL. 'Advanced' rules used to restrict DEX on certain races. Half-Orcs could only get a 14. I almost "ALMOST" wish it was still like that.
At the end of the day, maxing any/all stats just seems counter-intuitive to this type of game. In my view. My usual "charname" is nothing special stat wise. He usually runs something like this:
STR: 10 INT: 18 WIS: 10 DEX: 15 CON: 15 CHA: 12
Give or take a point or two. So in the 80-82 range. And that IS the character i want to play. I know that one more point in DEX or CON would give me better survivability. And I know that I could dump CHA with little impact. But who cares? it's an RPG.
So, great. 4X as often. But it is still only a 20% chance of being hit. If you are doing it that way, the argument should be "CON vs DEX when you aren't using any healing". Because the number of attacks necessary (at 20% chance to be hit over 5% chance to be hit or a net +15% chance), you are still looking at greater survivability with CON than with DEX unless you aren't healing.
No, 5% chance to be hit compared to 20% means taking 5%/20% = 1/4 of the damage (not 5%-20% = -15%). You'd need 10+30HP at Level 0 to compensate this. But you only get 10+4HP with CON. Taking healing into count does not change anything because it does not change damage taken. So, at the beginning of the game - level 0-1 - where you will face only AC-based combat, dexterity is the best defense if you are a fighter. No question of interpretation.
But @Tj_Hooker is right. There are many situations in BG1 where 40% more HP would be better over -4AC. If you face any kind of magic, traps or abilities where AC does not matter. On the other hand there are abilities applied by being hit. If a ghoul hits you 2 times as often, he gets equivalent more chances to stun you. And your paladin gets no saving throw bonuses by CON. It always depends on the actual AC vs. THAC0. If you compare STR with DEX. Being able to kill your enemy 5 times as fast reduces your damage taken to 1/5. But over all if standing at the front AC is most important in most cases. And you are not alone. Your party buffs and everything will matter, too.
My opinion: As the main character as a fighter prefer CON over DEX for BG1 and don't be the front fighter. Don't be a human paladin but any fighter class, a "shorty" with saving throw bonus, maximize your speed and have another char as a tank with maximized AC. This way you can have him handle AC based fights while your party load its weapon on magic on them, and be the one with the highest health running to the enemy mage to kill it fast. But @topic: Paladin, no gauntlets of dexterity, CON v.s DEX --> DEX (after calculating all of this)
Comments
In all seriousness though, if I assume that one of the 18s you listed is an accidental duplicate, that still makes a roll of 96, which could take ages to get if you're unlucky (although it's significantly easier to get for a paladin than for, say, a fighter). If one of the other numbers is the mistake, and your first 3 stats really are 18, then to total would be a minimum of 99, which is really pushing it.
And once you get to Nashkal, you probably have a full party of companions one way or the other and then the 'Extra' lift you get from Either DEX or CON really mutes.
And at the end of the day, the game that early on is balanced such that a wizard or a thief (with a max AC of 1) can survive just fine and with fewer hit points than a fighter (even without a CON bonus). So adding plate mail (by killing a Flaming Fist) to -4 due to DEX is kind of overkill (Imho). Might as well cheat and have all 25s for stats.
So, with an average damage of 4, making yourself 15% (or even 20%) less likely to be hit really won't make that much difference. But having more hit points will allow you to be hit fully one more time and survive in case you are unlucky. And that isn't factoring in critical hits.
But again that means that enemies are only hitting you 5% of the time instead of 20% of the time anyway with the lower AC. The game is balanced for lower hit points and higher ACs than you are talking. So it is a marginal difference at best.
I have literally played through on hard core with a 10 DEX Wizard with no familiar and generally had no problems. Cast Armor and your AC goes to 6. Use the +1 ring and it goes to 5. Tactically explore your environment. Pick up tanks (Montaron, Kagain, Kivan, Shar-Teel, Khalid, Jaheira, Minsc) as soon as you can and Hey-presto and you survive.
I think what is being argued is largely trivial. Because by 2nd-3rd level you can have the Dex Gaunts, so then CON is eminently more useful.
Understand that thieves with much lower AC can survive the game. Same with Wizards with lower AC and HP. In other words the net gain is insignificant. And then survivability trumps not being lucky.
I'm not actually arguing in favor of choosing Dex over Con (I voted in this poll way back when it was first created, and I don't think I thought about my choice very much). The exact benefits of Dex are very situational, whereas the bonus HP from Con is pretty much equally useful in every situation. I'm just saying that if someone were to actually do all the calculations, there'd be situations where having a lower AC would be more effective than having more HP.
At the end of the day, maxing any/all stats just seems counter-intuitive to this type of game. In my view. My usual "charname" is nothing special stat wise. He usually runs something like this:
STR: 10
INT: 18
WIS: 10
DEX: 15
CON: 15
CHA: 12
Give or take a point or two. So in the 80-82 range. And that IS the character i want to play. I know that one more point in DEX or CON would give me better survivability. And I know that I could dump CHA with little impact. But who cares? it's an RPG.
Taking healing into count does not change anything because it does not change damage taken.
So, at the beginning of the game - level 0-1 - where you will face only AC-based combat, dexterity is the best defense if you are a fighter. No question of interpretation.
But @Tj_Hooker is right. There are many situations in BG1 where 40% more HP would be better over -4AC. If you face any kind of magic, traps or abilities where AC does not matter. On the other hand there are abilities applied by being hit. If a ghoul hits you 2 times as often, he gets equivalent more chances to stun you. And your paladin gets no saving throw bonuses by CON. It always depends on the actual AC vs. THAC0. If you compare STR with DEX. Being able to kill your enemy 5 times as fast reduces your damage taken to 1/5. But over all if standing at the front AC is most important in most cases. And you are not alone. Your party buffs and everything will matter, too.
My opinion: As the main character as a fighter prefer CON over DEX for BG1 and don't be the front fighter. Don't be a human paladin but any fighter class, a "shorty" with saving throw bonus, maximize your speed and have another char as a tank with maximized AC. This way you can have him handle AC based fights while your party load its weapon on magic on them, and be the one with the highest health running to the enemy mage to kill it fast.
But @topic: Paladin, no gauntlets of dexterity, CON v.s DEX --> DEX (after calculating all of this)