|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 7:34PM
#21
|
|
|
Ah, that's why I said a common house cat.
Why did you say "a common housecat" I don't understand.
I refer only to your mention of spellcasting in your previous post. Although, an intelligent talking cat with magic would actually make for a fun game. I want to play one that wears a giant wizard hat.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 8:15PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
Ah, that's why I said a common house cat.
Why did you say "a common housecat" I don't understand.
I refer only to your mention of spellcasting in your previous post. Although, an intelligent talking cat with magic would actually make for a fun game. I want to play one that wears a giant wizard hat.
Oh I get it now, duh. I'm a bit thick headed sometimes =-)
Aplause for Salla's cat pic lulz even =-D
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 8:26PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
2. Monster/NPC attributes and PC attributes should be comparable, but the designers did a horrible job assigning monster/NPC attributes appropriately.
The way I do it, because it makes sense to me, is to look at the 3d6 breakdown and assign various human values as appropriate for the distribution. If an 18 represents 1 in 216 humans, then I look at what the top 0.5% of humanity can do and use that as my guideline.
For example, the top 0.5% of intelligence correlates to roughly IQ 140 (according to random internet data). Roughly 2% of humans have an IQ below 70, so I set INT 4 = IQ 70 and INT 3 < IQ 70 (with this data being much harder to find online).
That means I can play INT 5 just fine, because I'm still sharper than Gump, and he managed to do pretty well for himself - and PCs generally have other PCs to help keep them in check, so it's not a big issue.
I'm not sure which edition actually wrote it down, but I was certain that I read somewhere about a sharp break in the scale between 2 and 3, since 2 is not a number normally attainable by humans and thus they can set its value arbitrarily low. If that was AD&D, then they could have prevented demi-humans from scoring that low (even if they had a racial penalty) by increasing their racial minimum requirement.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 9:13PM
#24
|
|
|
Ah bloodninja...I'll never look at robes and wizard hats the same way again.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 9:23PM
#25
|
|
|
That's why 18/01-00 was such an awesome idea for PC humanoids. They should have done the same for the other stats. It separated the humanoid from the larger creature and made objects like gauntlets of ogre power and girdles of giant strength AWESOME!
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard
con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb
1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic.
it?" -anon
"Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it."
-Maxperson
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 1:37AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
There are more factors to the numbers than mere chance distribution across the population. For instance, females should get an across the board 2-3 point penalty in strength to make it an accurate system.
Never. Never ever. The numerous reasons why not should be obvious.
Yeah, yeah, go stand on someone elses soapbox because you're factually incorrect. Political correctness is a plague and post-modernism is ignorance in celebration. Besides, I wasn't calling for its return. Reading comprehension for the win.
Political correctness and post-modernism isn't my point. My point is that we're playing a fantasy game where fantastic characters in fantastic adventures are commonplace. It isn't unheard of of a 6'5", 250 lb. muscular woman. Is it common? Certainly not, but it's not unheard of. Not only that, but the idea of a stat penalty for gender disincentivizes a player from pairing a gender with a class. With D&D Next, while using the stat array, if I invest my 15 in strength for my fighter, being my primary stat, add the extra 1 for the boost from being a fighter, and take a -3 penalty for being female, I get to be a 13 strength fighter. I'm statistically terrible at what I do, even though I specifially statted out to decent at that. Major stat penalties for minor choices is never a good idea.
1. Remember, I never called for it. I used it as an example.
2. You'd have to define 'fantastic', and 'commonplace' before I'd agree with that statement.
3. It isn't unheard of to be stillborn, but we don't put in a mechanic for it. We live on generalities and statistics, not outliers.
4. In an RPG, where roleplaying and not mechanics are the point, no mechanical rule 'disincentivizes' anything. We don't have people making roleplaying choices based on mechanics, and if you do then I'm DEEPLY sorry for your experiences.
5. Stat array is garbage, only rolling matters (to us). Not only that, we roll 3d6 because we KNOW for a fact that numbers and mechanics absolutely do not matter a diddler's darn in an RPG.
6. Human women ARE statistically terrible at being strong. Period. Don't care in the least if you don't like that absolute, unavoidable FACT of life, because there it is.
7. REMEMBER, I NEVER CALLED FOR IT. I USED IT AS AN EXAMPLE.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 1:38AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
Howdy folks,
The gender and ability score issue was laid to rest months ago. Let's not resurrect it.
Thanks.
I didn't, there was NO ISSUE or call to return it, only people with ZERO reading comprehension trying to harp on it, and me setting them straight.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 3:07AM
#28
|
|
|
Howdy folks,
The gender and ability score issue was laid to rest months ago. Let's not resurrect it.
Thanks.
I didn't, there was NO ISSUE or call to return it, only people with ZERO reading comprehension trying to harp on it, and me setting them straight.
And yet, you're extraordinarily defensive about it.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 6:50AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2012
|
2. Monster/NPC attributes and PC attributes should be comparable, but the designers did a horrible job assigning monster/NPC attributes appropriately.
The way I do it, because it makes sense to me, is to look at the 3d6 breakdown and assign various human values as appropriate for the distribution. If an 18 represents 1 in 216 humans, then I look at what the top 0.5% of humanity can do and use that as my guideline.
For example, the top 0.5% of intelligence correlates to roughly IQ 140 (according to random internet data). Roughly 2% of humans have an IQ below 70, so I set INT 4 = IQ 70 and INT 3 < IQ 70 (with this data being much harder to find online).
That means I can play INT 5 just fine, because I'm still sharper than Gump, and he managed to do pretty well for himself - and PCs generally have other PCs to help keep them in check, so it's not a big issue.
I'm not sure which edition actually wrote it down, but I was certain that I read somewhere about a sharp break in the scale between 2 and 3, since 2 is not a number normally attainable by humans and thus they can set its value arbitrarily low. If that was AD&D, then they could have prevented demi-humans from scoring that low (even if they had a racial penalty) by increasing their racial minimum requirement.
Saelorn, how do you deal with monsters such as the Ape in the bestiary that have an INT of 5? Do they also have an IQ > 80 and all the learning potential that could represent? Are they on a different IQ scale? Do you even care what the Ape's INT score is because as a DM you would have a monsterous Ape in a fantasy setting behave similar to how you would expect an Ape to behave in the real world? This line of thought makes me wonder why do we even have attribute scores for monsters/NPCs if they aren't comparable to PC scores. Mechanically, you could just get away with size, AC, hp, attack bonuses, damage and special effects. If monster attributes don't actually give you any reference for how smart or strong they are then why not just describe them in text such as, "Apes have animal intelligence and behave mostly by instinct but are much stronger than humans"?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 7:04AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2012
|
Pheonix, you said you use the 3D6 method to determine attributes. Does your group actually keep low rolls? Does the player who rolls a 5 STR pray they roll a decent INT so they can at least play a decent wizard? Do you allow people to swap attribute scores so they can have a decent score in the primary attribute of the class they want to play? Do players just keep re-rolling characters until they get attributes that will work for the class/PC they want to play?
|
|
|
