|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 1:27PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2011
|
No ability score. That's called 'roleplaying'.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 8:29PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
A fighter with an 8 intelligence isn't a drooling idiot - he may very well have an encyclopedic knowledge of tactics and planning from every major and minor battle in the campaign world's history, drilled into him through rote memory over his years of combat experience. In Glen Cook's The Black Company series, the Company has a historian/chronicler who regularly reads to the men from those chronicles for this exact purpose - passing down both the history and the dirty tricks of the Company to the new men. As professional mercenaries, even the stupidest of them can rely on their training and hundreds of years of Company history to assess a tactical situation and respond with a situationally appropriate strategy.
An 8 in an ability score gives you a -1 penalty. An 8 in an ability score is only slightly on the low side of human average. A character's lack of prowess in certain areas is represented by their relatively abysmal skill ranks in skills governed by that ability score, not in a complete inabilty to perform actions related to those skills.
If when rolling a check a character with a low rank in a certain skill makes it anyway or a character with a low score in a relevent ability comes up with a good idea, this means that those more skilled or knowledgeable would have eventually pulled it off or thought of it sooner or later, but in this one instance the less skilled/knowledgeable character just happened to be the one who did it first, usually due to sheer luck or perhaps some narrative (i.e., non-mechanical) element of their backstory. If they want to justify a brilliant idea or lucky roll by saying their old uncle Clyde used to tell them that same riddle when they were younger or that they're good at puzzles because they naturally suck at them and thus have put a great deal of effort into studying them, then that's all the justification they really need. The "experts" in the party all slap themselves upside the head, groan loudly, and then go back about the business of killing and looting...
Spoiler:
Show
I am the Magic Man.
(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)
I am the Lawnmower Man.
(I AM GOD HERE!)
I am the Skull God.
(Koo Koo Ka Choo)
There are reasons they call me Mad...
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 19, 2013 - 8:24AM
#13
|
|
|
During and out of combat phases, I like when players play their characters's ability scores so that they have an impact of the adventutre (negative or positive).
We know that the warlord in DD4 is the master of tactics and strategy. But, which ability score actually affect this? Which ability score would make your character think more tactically/strategically than others and so make him a good tactician/strategist?
I was thinking of a combination of Intelligence & Wisdom...(Intelligence to understand your enemy's tactics, if any; Wisdom to anticipate your enemy's tactics, read between the lines of his maneuvers, and act accordingly).
I'd think INT to come up with new solutions problems, remember ones you may have studied, etc. Wisdom would tell you which ones it is a good idea to use and are likely to work out, be acceptable or intelligible to your allies, etc. Cha might also play a factor in understading your allies motivations etc. (IE asking the super honorable knights to fake a retreat to bait the enemy in, CHA is going to tell you that won't fly with them).
Of course its hard to separate out player and character in these situations. I'd recommend not trying TOO hard. The players, if they are into it, can always RP things so the smart guy comes up with the clever plan, the wise guy suggests how to make it work, and the charismatic guy sells it.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 8:21PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
Clearly, in the mechanics of the game, INT is the stat most associated with tactics & strategy - the tactical warlord uses it for his commanding presence and for many 'riders' on his 'tactical' exploits. History is also the go-to skill for tactics & strategy (military history, presumably).
But, that's the tactics and strategy of the /character/, which is all in-world, in-story stuff that the player isn't necessarily even aware of. Why does my buddy's rogue do +5 damage when my Warlord shouts at him to attack? "Tactics" What tactics? "..."
'Tactics' that players might use, like flanking or alpha-striking or focusing fire or pulling a Radiant Mafia combo, they're, well, it's a dirty word, but 'meta-game' tactics. Yes, even something with as clear-seeming an in-story meaning as flanking. Meta-gaming is in the hands of the players. So a 'not tactically-minded' player /can/ play a warlord, and pull off some astounding "tactics" via features and powers, even if the player, himself, doesn't use them to focus fire, set up flanks, and otherwise use 'good' (metagame) tactics.
This dichotomy - the divide between player ability and character ability - permeates roleplaying. Ideally, the mechanics of the game let any player play any class or concept, regardless of their particular skills or talents or aptitudes. Ideally. But, player ability does, inevitably, come into it, even if its only at a meta-game level. Trying to filter player ability through PC ability can be frustrating, and I've seen a lot of player struggle with, or get goofy results, or use "my character isn't that smart" as an excuse to do something disruptive. Completely excluding players from some challenges based on PC stats, though, is a new one on me, and very heavy-handed. In D&D, if your character has a low stat, that just gives him a penalty, he can still make rolls. So the 8 CHA character /could/ chime in with a diplomacy check, it'll likely fail, but he can still technically do it - and, if he's trained, it just might succeed (not every diplomat is personable). Better, the player could do some "metagaming" and choose a skill related to the challenge that doesn't depend on his CHA: maybe his high WIS lets him get an important Insight or his knowledge (INT) can clue the negotiating PCs into something relevant.
Skill Challenges provide a pretty good framework for letting all that happen...
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 8:01AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2001
|
Int and Knowlege skills in general, but I can see Intuition being used in certain cases. Perhaps even Bluff for particular battlefield gambits.
Sorry if I'm misremembering skills. In 3e you had Knowlege, which was Int based, and Profession was Wis based. So Profession(Soldier) might apply in certain instances.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 9:22AM
#16
|
|
|
I see what you mean and it is not my intention to dminish anything, just to be coherent.
It's like seeing a charatcer with 8 INT solving a high difficulty puzzle or enigma. When I present such challenges, I limit the players who can participate. Players at my table understand that. Some chose to max other ability scores and understand that they cannot shine in all fields of expertise because of that. Of course, some skills can counterbalance that and I am eager to let the characters with the proper skills trained pacrticipate in those short events.
For me, player freedom trumps statistical correctness.
Besides, the numbers can already handle all that. A trap which requires high int skills to solve will automatically be difficult for that player to solve. He doesn't have to play dumb because the numbers on his page tell him to. (nor should he, IMO)
It'd be like having a player claim a successful ranged attack roll of his was actually a miss because his dex is poor. The math is already taking care of that.
A player can choose to have his character do something he (the player) does not think is the best move tactically. But he should do so because he's roleplaying, not because the numbers in front of him say he should.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 1:36PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2011
|
I see what you mean and it is not my intention to dminish anything, just to be coherent.
It's like seeing a charatcer with 8 INT solving a high difficulty puzzle or enigma. When I present such challenges, I limit the players who can participate. Players at my table understand that. Some chose to max other ability scores and understand that they cannot shine in all fields of expertise because of that. Of course, some skills can counterbalance that and I am eager to let the characters with the proper skills trained pacrticipate in those short events.
For me, player freedom trumps statistical correctness.
Besides, the numbers can already handle all that. A trap which requires high int skills to solve will automatically be difficult for that player to solve. He doesn't have to play dumb because the numbers on his page tell him to. (nor should he, IMO)
It'd be like having a player claim a successful ranged attack roll of his was actually a miss because his dex is poor. The math is already taking care of that.
A player can choose to have his character do something he (the player) does not think is the best move tactically. But he should do so because he's roleplaying, not because the numbers in front of him say he should.
Well said.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 6:36PM
#18
|
|
|
The Players intelligence Score. Design your game to the Player not to the charactor lol. Skill challenge is whole seperate matter. So the question is what skill challenge are you trying to do? If its simple, whats the strategically best option to defend this city & the player is "fishing" for the DM's answer, then Int check seems most appropriate for you to give that answer. Ofcourse any time player is "fishing" for your input its cause they are hopelessly lost...which means you created the situation of hopelessness...which means you really shouldn't. 
|
|
|
