|
4 years ago ::
Jul 26, 2009 - 12:29AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2007
|
Yeah, but at a 26 strength, it pretty much required DM approval through game play.
Unless you get it through normal means, it would require a houserule.
A starting score of 18 with +2 racial bonus gets as far as you can start.
With normal bonuses for leveling you can hit it at level 24 without the requirement of houserules.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 26, 2009 - 12:30AM
#12
|
|
|
I suppose, but I would expect that if a DM has a campaign that is excluding a core race or races, the players will be informed about that BEFORE making characters. Without such information, I wouldn't expect to have to clear a core race with a DM.
And most people wouldn't expect to have to clear fluff, but the point stands. Everything has to be cleared by a DM, whether it is a concept straight from your imagination or straight built with the mechanics of the books.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 26, 2009 - 1:16AM
#13
|
|
|
If you don't allow refluff of the Strength stat in some cases, you're coming close to ruling out allowing gnome and halfling Fighters simply because it "doesn't make sense for them to be that strong". That, IMO, would be even worse than 3.5's situation of giving STR penalties to the small races.
Of course, the DM gets final say in what's permitted in the game (maybe there aren't any halflings or gnomes at all in the world), but I tend to embrace the "say yes" policy of 4E. So much so, in fact, that I now have a player in my group running a mandrill Monk based on Rafiki from the Lion King using reflavoured halfling stats. And I'm pretty sure that won't even be the weirdest thing that my group comes up with...
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 26, 2009 - 1:28AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Mar 12, 2005
|
Of course, the DM gets final say in what's permitted in the game (maybe there aren't any halflings or gnomes at all in the world), but I tend to embrace the "say yes" policy of 4E. So much so, in fact, that I now have a player in my group running a mandrill Monk based on Rafiki from the Lion King using reflavoured halfling stats. And I'm pretty sure that won't even be the weirdest thing that my group comes up with...
Does your player even go so far as Rafiki's singing? Y'know the part that he claims 'It means you are a babboon and I am not.'
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 26, 2009 - 1:51AM
#15
|
|
|
Does your player even go so far as Rafiki's singing? Y'know the part that he claims 'It means you are a babboon and I am not.'
Actually, the whole group's PCs are based on Disney characters, so the threat of singing songs from the movie is ever-present...
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 26, 2009 - 2:19AM
#16
|
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2004
|
You know, more and more, I feel like I need to apologize to someone, somewhere for making that example....
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 26, 2009 - 2:50AM
#17
|
|
|
It's possibly worth pointing out the Dragonsoul Heir pic on page 150 of PHB2. She's a paragon tier dragon magic sorceress, so she's going to have a strength score well above the human norm (19 at the very minimum). Does anyone seriously think that strength score is coming purely from her physical muscle mass?
Your character's height, weight and physical appearance are not rules-mechanical concepts.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 26, 2009 - 5:20AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2001
|
It seems those who object (those? is anyone besides Maxperson objecting?) are focusing on how a 90-pound PC can have a 26 strength. Would it be less problematic if he weighed 120? 150? 225? Where is your acceptability cut-off?
For me, the re-fluffing is not in the stat. If the PC has a 26 strength, the PC has a 26 strength. The fluff is in the PC's weight. If my player says he wants his 26-strength PC to weight 90 pounds, I say fine.
(All of this assumes the 26 strength came through game-appropriate, legitimate means.)
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion: - Three Basic Rules (p 11)
- Power Types and Usage (p 54)
- Skills (p178-179)
- Feats (p 192)
- Rest and Recovery (p 263)
- All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 26, 2009 - 5:44AM
#19
|
|
|
I don't see how or why anyone could have a problem with this in the current edition. In 4e, with its lack of antimagic fields, Quells, or similar things designed to screw casters, refluffing powers, attributes, or even defenses to be from magical sources like this is perfectly acceptable.
In a 3e game, your character would logically be down to 8 or so strength as soon as she enters an antimagic field.
I've used stuff like this before: A warlock whose AC is largely composed of his shadow whipping out and blocking attacks. A rogue whose sneak attack comes from viewing the lines of life and death and stabbing where they intersect.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 26, 2009 - 5:46AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2007
|
For myself in many regards Strength is just a number. So they may have 26 Strength but they need not give an explanation for a "high strength" since they don't, and the abilities that tie into that 26 Strength is actually something else. Like say a Fighter with high Strength his attacks are actually dexterous and clever strikes.
Now if the player does want his 26 Strength to represent strength then yeah whatever means of having this strength he wants is fine by me; magically enchanted, mutations, exoskeleton, etc.
|
|
|
