|
1 year ago ::
Dec 05, 2011 - 6:12AM
#51
|
|
|
Invoker is ok, but without charisma I can't see them being a master manipulator-type. However, can an enchanter fill roughly the same bill? I don't know how many hard dominates they get, but they DO get plenty of "soft dominates" like hypnotisim and charm of misplaced wrath in lower levels, and I'm sure they have at least some 'hard" dominates at the mid-high levels, if not before that. Does anybody think that an enchanter could fit the bill for what I am looking for, perhaps with necromancy or nethermancy as a secondary school?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 21, 2011 - 1:46PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Mar 24, 2009
|
As the title asks. I always try to put at least a 10 in int for RP reasons yet so many min-maxed builds put int at 8. Thus, I am wondering, do people like RPing really dumb characters or is 4e's definition of 8 int different from the way 8 int was defined in the 3.5e era? I remember back in the 3.5e era 8 int was considered "mentally disabled" and in Neverwinter Nights, which was based on 3.0-3.5e putting an 8(or less) in int made it so your character spoke in "thog speak."(Aka 'FIGHTER SMASH!!" type talking.) However, a lot of the people who I have met that play 4e put 8 int on their rogues and clerics for Min-Max reasons mainly and it makes me wonder how they get away with not RPing them as low-int to the point of disability(for seirous RPers) or "thog speak" idocy(for the RPers who gravitate towards tropes/cliche's or those that don't care much for RPing.)
So, my question is simple: Just how dumb is 8 int in 4e?
A really fun example was a gamer who rolled a 6 Int for her half-orc barbarian. The DM ruled that she could only know 100 words and asked her to make up a list. She did, and because her character was a teenaged female half-orc "chocolate" and "cake" made the list. "Goblin" did not. So when the group fought some goblins, she didn't attack them because she didn't know what they were. So her group told her the little green men were full of chocolate cake, and she happily ripped them apart looking for her sugar fix.
The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science... -Einstein
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 26, 2011 - 2:18PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Sep 11, 2006
|
You don't need to roleplay in 4E so it doesn't matter.
8 int is just so you can min max it as a dump stat and be effective in tactical combat.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 26, 2011 - 2:25PM
#54
|
|
|
*points to above post*
Not that dumb.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 26, 2011 - 2:37PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2011
|
You don't need to roleplay in 4E so it doesn't matter.
8 int is just so you can min max it as a dump stat and be effective in tactical combat.
Of course the OP doesn't NEED to - but the sheer fact that he posted here means that it does matter, to him at least.
That's why I'm sometimes concerned that 4E has rules only for combat (even though I don't use D&D for anything outside it) - because it breeds attitudes like this. An attitude that "you don't need to roleplay" in a game defined as "role-playing game". People take only what's in the books, and just roll with it.
I don't think I posted here before, so my opinion on 8 Int: it's not mentally challenged or disabled. It's just your average Joe who found passing math tests rather hard - but just as normal as every other person. Or a stereotypical jock - smart enough to bully someone, but not smart enough to do anything but sport. "Challenged" may start below 6, AFAIK.
Check out my D&D-based play-by-post game, based on exploration and roleplaying. Agora
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 26, 2011 - 2:40PM
#56
|
|
|
That's because you don't need rules for roleplay. The book can't tell you how to play your character, because the number of personalities, motivations, goals, quirks, mannerisms, etc. are virtually limitless. Rules for roleplaying are counterproductive; they just get in the way.
We have freedom to RP how we like now. It disturbs me how many people are uncomfortable with that.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 26, 2011 - 3:06PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2011
|
That's because you don't need rules for roleplay. The book can't tell you how to play your character, because the number of personalities, motivations, goals, quirks, mannerisms, etc. are virtually limitless. Rules for roleplaying are counterproductive; they just get in the way.
We have freedom to RP how we like now. It disturbs me how many people are uncomfortable with that.
I know all that, and it's my main argument usually, but I did notice recently people who went "rotfl rp? f- this shed". I don't need those rules myself, and I completely agree that you don't need those rules to do that stuff. The thing is, people see only combat-related stuff in the books and start to think that's all there is to D&D. A system that rewards you for roleplaying and exploration (as opposed to telling you how to do it) wouldn't hurt.
But that's a bit off-topic, isn't it?
Check out my D&D-based play-by-post game, based on exploration and roleplaying. Agora
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 26, 2011 - 6:03PM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Sep 11, 2006
|
That's because you don't need rules for roleplay. The book can't tell you how to play your character, because the number of personalities, motivations, goals, quirks, mannerisms, etc. are virtually limitless. Rules for roleplaying are counterproductive; they just get in the way.
We have freedom to RP how we like now. It disturbs me how many people are uncomfortable with that.
You don't have freedom to RP as you like as you're constrained by a rules system within 4E that actively discourages RP and encourages metagaming.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 26, 2011 - 6:48PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Sep 11, 2006
|
*points to above post*
Not that dumb.
Truth sting?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 27, 2011 - 3:40AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Apr 29, 2006
|
That's because you don't need rules for roleplay. The book can't tell you how to play your character, because the number of personalities, motivations, goals, quirks, mannerisms, etc. are virtually limitless. Rules for roleplaying are counterproductive; they just get in the way.
We have freedom to RP how we like now. It disturbs me how many people are uncomfortable with that.
“What a terrible thing could be freedom. Trees were free when they were uprooted by the wind; ships were free when they were torn from their moorings; men were free when they were cast out of their homes—free to starve, free to perish of cold and hunger.”
Radclyffe Hall, The Well of Loneliness
You don't have freedom to RP as you like as you're constrained by a rules system within 4E that actively discourages RP and encourages metagaming.
I can play a cultured, city metroid in a top hat. Your argument is invalid.
|
|
|
