|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 10:03AM
#91
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2007
|
Well sure, why not? Why force someone to roleplay something they are uncomfortable with or don't want to? You wouldn't force someone to play a female Orc if they weren't comfortable with it, so why support a system of character generation because they might be forced to play someone with an 8 Int?
"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." -The Doctor, Remembrance of the Daleks
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 10:13AM
#92
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
But only if you only care about min/maxing. If you care about roleplaying, then having an 8 intelligence as a fighter means that you are roleplaying Forest Gump. A lot of people don't want to roleplay Forest Gump, so they won't put an 8 in intelligence. Similar defects occur with below average stats in each area. Personally, unless my concept calls for the character to be below average in a particular stat, I don't want ANY stat to be below 10.
Gump is closer to Int 5. An Int of 8 is closer to someone with IQ 90, and you probably interact with those sorts of people every day without realizing it; of course, that really depends on which edition and statistical model you're using.
In any case, I think it's really lame if you're expected to only try tasks at which you have a bonus. Strength 12 is supposed to be a bonus of +1 to hit with melee weapons (in editions 3/4/5), but if nobody with Strength 8 ever makes a melee attack, then a 12 is suddenly much closer to a -1 or -2 relative to system expectations.
I want someone with Strength 20/ Dex 7 to hit less frequently but deal massive damage, and I want someone with Strength 7/ Dex 20 to hit every time and deal death by a thousand cuts - and I want both characters to be equally viable as someone with 14/14. Make it the same thing for Int/Cha on wizards - there should be wizards with difficulty aiming their spells, because they have so much power that it's hard to control. These are all interesting choices.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 10:16AM
#93
|
|
|
In first through third edition, the stats had defined examples of what they meant. In first edition it was a direct comparison from an animal all the way up to a superhero. By third edition, it was a comparison from a mindless zombie, all the way up to a dragon, still with animals in betwee.
The stats have always meant the general quality of the character (Although 4th edition might be different, but I've no experience with it).
I don't know for sure, but I suspect those were dumped because they were wildly off-base in terms of how the mechanics actually work. One of D&D's core flaws is that when using the d20 system, -5 to +5 or so isn't enough of a span to even cover humans in general, much less the vast range of things that are worse than humans along some axis. A mechanics-accurrate chart would look something like this:
4 - Somewhat slow human
6 - Slightly dim human
8 - Imperceptably dimmer than average
10 - Essentially average human
12 - Imperceptably brighter than average
14 - Slightly more intelligent than most
16 - Noticably brighter than most, but nothing special
18 - Pretty smart
Even that's fairly generous. In order to be as dumb as they're usually portrayed, creatures like trolls would need to have negative intelligence scores, and most animals shouldn't meaninfully be on the scale at all.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 10:35AM
#94
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
But only if you only care about min/maxing. If you care about roleplaying, then having an 8 intelligence as a fighter means that you are roleplaying Forest Gump. A lot of people don't want to roleplay Forest Gump, so they won't put an 8 in intelligence. Similar defects occur with below average stats in each area. Personally, unless my concept calls for the character to be below average in a particular stat, I don't want ANY stat to be below 10.
Gump is closer to Int 5. An Int of 8 is closer to someone with IQ 90, and you probably interact with those sorts of people every day without realizing it; of course, that really depends on which edition and statistical model you're using.
Gump is dull normal 80-89 or slightly deficient 70-79. That's 7-9 intelligence, so I put him at an 8. An 8=80 IQ. 9=90.
In any case, I think it's really lame if you're expected to only try tasks at which you have a bonus. Strength 12 is supposed to be a bonus of +1 to hit with melee weapons (in editions 3/4/5), but if nobody with Strength 8 ever makes a melee attack, then a 12 is suddenly much closer to a -1 or -2 relative to system expectations.
Nice Strawman. I never said anything close to this.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 10:55AM
#95
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
Gump is dull normal 80-89 or slightly deficient 70-79. That's 7-9 intelligence, so I put him at an 8. An 8=80 IQ. 9=90.
Gump is IQ 75, which is only Int 8 if you buy into that IQ = INT x 10 line. If you prefer to follow Lesp's model, which correlates intelligence score based on mechanical effects, then Gump is much closer to the bottom of the scale (i.e. his chance of succeeding at an Intelligence-based task is 25% less than the average person, which is as low as the scale can possible measure).
Nice Strawman. I never said anything close to this.
Sorry, that should have been in response to your, "Personally, unless my concept calls for the character to be below average in a particular stat, I don't want ANY stat to be below 10," line. It's something that I've heard from many players in the past, and it represents an incredibly alien mindset to me.
Since physical stats don't appreciable affect the way you roleplay a character (at least, not nearly to the same degree as mental stats), I was just expressing general disdain for characters who are above-average in every category. While I can appreciate not wanting to RP a low (or very high) mental score, I feel very strongly that the assumption of every character having 10+ in every stat is a design decision which limits my own ability to play reasonable characters. I am mechanically punished for playing a character with stats in the 7-9 range if the game designers are operating under the assumption that everyone has 17-20 in their prime stats and 12-16 elsewhere.
I apologize if I was taking that line out of context, if you didn't actually mean it in the way I interpreted it.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 11:16AM
#96
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Gump is IQ 75, which is only Int 8 if you buy into that IQ = INT x 10 line.
Official WoTC and TSR docs have said that, so yes I buy into it.
If you prefer to follow Lesp's model, which correlates intelligence score based on mechanical effects, then Gump is much closer to the bottom of the scale (i.e. his chance of succeeding at an Intelligence-based task is 25% less than the average person, which is as low as the scale can possible measure).
No. I don't follow a house rule.
Sorry, that should have been in response to your, "Personally, unless my concept calls for the character to be below average in a particular stat, I don't want ANY stat to be below 10," line. It's something that I've heard from many players in the past, and it represents an incredibly alien mindset to me.
Basically, I don't want to be clumsy unless my concept calls for me to be clumsy, so nothing below 10 in dex. That doesn't mean that I can't succeed at a dex check or shouldn't try to perform them. It just means that due to the penalty, he IS clumsy. Same for all the other stats.
Since physical stats don't appreciable affect the way you roleplay a character (at least, not nearly to the same degree as mental stats), I was just expressing general disdain for characters who are above-average in every category.
Below average in a physical stat represents clumsy, weak, or out of shape/unhealthy. You are below average. Being below average in any area usually runs contrary to how I envision my character.
While I can appreciate not wanting to RP a low (or very high) mental score, I feel very strongly that the assumption of every character having 10+ in every stat is a design decision which limits my own ability to play reasonable characters.
Reasonable is a very subjective term. 
I am mechanically punished for playing a character with stats in the 7-9 range if the game designers are operating under the assumption that everyone has 17-20 in their prime stats and 12-16 elsewhere.
The only edition that may have assumed that is 4e. No other edition has assumed a prime stat in that range. (excepting the odd class like 1e/2e paladin).
I apologize if I was taking that line out of context, if you didn't actually mean it in the way I interpreted it.
I didn't mean it that way at all, and thanks for the appology 
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 11:25AM
#97
|
|
|
I like point buy.
1- don't need to worry about balance being out of whack because players got lucky or unlucky in rolls
2- don't need to worry about one player stealing the spotlight due to particularly lucky rolls
3- players can create characters on their own time without needed a witness to "confirm" that the rolled stats were actually rolled in a fair manner
I disagree with some of the common complaints as well.
Myth #1: point buy encourages min/maxing
Not anymore than rolling does.
Myth #2: point buy lets you easily get an 18 (or 17, or whatever)
The point buy system in the playest packet allows a maximum stat of 15. Ultimately it's entirely up to the GM, if you don't want players min/maxing the point buy into an easy capped stat, don't allow it.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 11:35AM
#98
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2012
|
If every single stat were useful to every class then its a problem when you roll an eight. Dump stats allow me as a player to prioritize my stats and place the most useful ones where they should go.
But only if you only care about min/maxing. If you care about roleplaying, then having an 8 intelligence as a fighter means that you are roleplaying Forest Gump. A lot of people don't want to roleplay Forest Gump, so they won't put an 8 in intelligence. Similar defects occur with below average stats in each area. Personally, unless my concept calls for the character to be below average in a particular stat, I don't want ANY stat to be below 10.
Having nothing below 10 is fine but I love seeing those 16-18s for my important stats. I wouldn't want that to go away.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 11:42AM
#99
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Below average in a physical stat represents clumsy, weak, or out of shape/unhealthy. You are below average. Being below average in any area usually runs contrary to how I envision my character.
Wait, you're telling me that you use point buy and its ability to custom-tailor your stats in order to best represent the character concept you envision?
I thought point buy discouraged roleplaying, WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO PULL HERE
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 11:50AM
#100
|
|
|
If you prefer to follow Lesp's model, which correlates intelligence score based on mechanical effects, then Gump is much closer to the bottom of the scale (i.e. his chance of succeeding at an Intelligence-based task is 25% less than the average person, which is as low as the scale can possible measure).
No. I don't follow a house rule.
It's not so much a houserule as repairing what's essentially an error in the sourcebooks, approximately on the level of a typo.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
