PDA

View Full Version : [D&D] High Ability Scores - Cause or Effect?



Aron Times
2009-12-04, 12:05 AM
Are high ability scores the cause or the effect of one's class? Does the character with 18 intelligence become a wizard because of it, or does becoming a wizard grant him 18 intelligence? This is the question that I would like the forum to debate in a civilized manner.

Let me start by saying that I am speaking primarily from a 4e point of view, though this thread applies to all D&D games regardless of edition. Also, this is not the thread to debate the merits of each edition; the purpose of this thread is to discuss the roleplaying implications of having high ability scores, whether they cause one to become a member of a certain class or whether high ability scores are the effects of being a member of a certain class.

With that out of the way, I am leaning towards the Effect side of the debate. Class training brings up one's ability scores to the necessary levels, similar to how boot camp boosts the recruits' physical stats. One doesnt need to be at peak physical performance to enlist, but by the time he leaves boot camp, he will be.

Thus, wizard training boosts the would-be wizard's intelligence to allow him to process the various spells and rituals he will be casting throughout his career. Fighter training boosts one's strength to prepare him for a lifetime of battle. Other classes with morer arbitrary ability score requirements take a little more effort to explain. The dragon sorcerer's extended use of dragon magic augments his physical strength and his presence (strength and charisma), giving him the power and majesty of dragons. The telepathic psion's mental training allows him to process information more efficiently (intelligence) and his subconscious telepathy allows him to project an aura of confidence to everyone he meets (charisma).

What do you think?

Temotei
2009-12-04, 12:07 AM
I'm thinking both. It depends on the character, and if the player is a min-maxer.

Swordguy
2009-12-04, 12:08 AM
Both. Someone with a high INT would be drawn to a career in which he could use it effectively (Wizard, TacLord, etc), and the training in the class would feed back into the already-high score and improve it to "starting" levels.

The Glyphstone
2009-12-04, 12:10 AM
In or out of character? You also might want to define "high" as well - 20 after racials? 18 after racials? Considering the terms 'min-max' and 'powergaming' are going to be thrown around like candy, even in the most civilized debate possible, definite ground rules will be necessary.

Temotei
2009-12-04, 12:11 AM
In or out of character? You also might want to define "high" as well - 20 after racials? 18 after racials? Considering the terms 'min-max' and 'powergaming' are going to be thrown around like candy, even in the most civilized debate possible, definite ground rules will be necessary.

I would guess "high" would mean "high enough for full casters to get their last level spells when their level would normally allow it, after ability score increases from levels."

Gpope
2009-12-04, 12:13 AM
A wizard is almost certainly going to have a higher Intelligence at say level 10 than at level 1 due to stat bumps, so it's reasonable to extrapolate backwards and conclude that wizard training results in higher Intelligence. Presumably they wouldn't have gone into wizard training if they weren't already above average, though.

Crow
2009-12-04, 12:14 AM
One doesnt need to be at peak physical performance to enlist, but by the time he leaves boot camp, he will be.

LOL. I actually LOST ground in basic training.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-12-04, 12:16 AM
I suppose that would depend on the circumstances

A person can be born with a high intellect, but if that intellect is not developed with training and schooling, it really doesn't amount to much.

Conversely, even an individual of average intellect can, if that person perseveres, become quite educated and intellectual.

Really, it would depend on the cultural background of the individual in question.

Are apprentices chosen from a young age by virtue of potentials? Then yes, a Wizard would naturally choose the brightest boy for his apprentice. His INT score would be that of a budding genius, which was then shown the path of Wizardry to use that brilliant mind.


However, if you have more of a dynastic approach, "My father was a Wizard, I am a Wizard, therefore YOU will be a Wizard" attitude, then the child in question may not be particularly intelligent, but exceedingly well schooled from practically infancy, and the higher INT score could well represent that additional training in his formative years.

Serpentine
2009-12-04, 12:18 AM
Going with the other two on "both": natural aptitude and training. In the real world, someone with good practical talents but little aptitude for book-smarts will probably go into a trade rather than a university, where his natural talent will be honed and improved. Someone who's not very good with their hands but a pretty clever cookie will probably go to university, and hone their mind to even better things. Of course, each of these people could take the other path, but I think it's less likely that the interest would be there, and they'll have to work a lot harder to be as good as their naturally gifted counterparts.

It's this sort of thing, by the way, that makes me dislike the "roll your abilities, place them as they fall" method of character creation. Yes, people can't really choose the abilities they're born with, and their talents and weaknesses are likely to hinder their lives one way or another, as they never fall perfectly. However, a person with 18 Str and 8 Int is probably not going to seek, be pushed or encouraged into, or make much way in a Wizarding career. While there is without a doubt a person in the D&D world who has these attributes, and they are probably perfectly adequate characters, and they certainly didn't choose to have them, and maybe even wish they had the talent for magic, the player can choose which person in the world they control. And someone who wants to play a Wizard, isn't going to choose that person*.
If you know what I'm trying to say...

*Unless you're that one guy I gamed with that time...

erikun
2009-12-04, 12:27 AM
This really depends on a lot of factors. After all, having 18 INT does not imply that one is a Wizard, just as being a Wizard does not imply that one has 18 INT (or more).

A high-intelligence character could easily be a rogue, choosing to spend their smarts on an expansive list of skills (in 3e) rather than memorizing spellbooks. A rogue doesn't necessarily need to be dexterious or agile, either. Thugs and brutes are generally stronger than they are flexible, relying more on intimidation and group tactics for sneak attack than dodging blows and slipping under defenses.

Higher scores could be natural talent just as much as learned traits. A wizard could be an exceptional individual admitted by an old sage for his obvious talent... or he could be a nobody, kidnapped and forced to improve or starve. A sorcerer could be a silent, thought full individual who always knew he was special... or a shy, closed minded person who only started opening up to people when his spectacular powers turned him into the most popular person in the village.

Overall, I think it should be up to the player to determine which is more appropriate. Stating that one is better than the other - or, indeed, that some "method" of creating characters is better than others - just ends up saying that a player somewhere is "wrong" just because they don't agree with us.

The Glyphstone
2009-12-04, 12:47 AM
And for the love of all spectral monkeys, please, no one try to put forth that not having a maxed casting stat, or worse, deliberately giving yourself a lower casting stat than necessary, is somehow superior roleplaying...

Temotei
2009-12-04, 12:49 AM
And for the love of all spectral monkeys, please, no one try to put forth that not having a maxed casting stat, or worse, deliberately giving yourself a lower casting stat than necessary, is somehow superior roleplaying...

I am stupid, and therefore, much better at roleplaying a wizard than any of you! :smallbiggrin: Imagine.

Fhaolan
2009-12-04, 01:47 AM
I have a bit of a story about my own personal experiences here. It may not be relevant, but I think it might be. (Note, I'm not claiming to have a high score in any stat.)

When I was in high school, many-many years ago, I had a talent for chemistry. I was getting offers for scholarships and whatnot that gave me a close to free ride through University for a Chemical Engineering degree.

I, however, hated it. It wasn't what I wanted to do, but it was the only way I was going to be able to afford a University education and get a job that paid well enough to be able to support my family. I forced my way through the program, got high enough marks in certain subjects to come to the attention of the Dean of the department. He actively blocked me from taking courses that I was actually interested in so that I would be forced to take subjects *he* wanted me to take. He then proceeded to tout me in front of his collegues as a 'rising star' or some such nonsense, and was pressuring me to go for a post-graduate degree.

I graduated, told everyone that I *had* to get a job to support my family in order to get out of the University and away from this lunatic Dean, and got said job in a chemical plant. After having a steel beam accidentally land on me half a year in, severing the tendons in my hands and requiring surgery to re-attach them, I managed to parley my sick leave into retraining for computer networking, which is what I wanted to do in the first place but couldn't get scholarships for.

I now have a career in computers and work as a database engineer. I'm not quite as good with them as I was as a Chemical Engineer, but I'm still reasonably good at it, and I like what I'm doing far more.

The councilors all told me 'If you're going to do something, do what you're best at!' However, my experience was that just because you have a talent for something, doesn't mean you like doing it. You may really want to do something that you're not quite as good at.

Now, how does this translate to this question? Just because you have a natural high score in a trait, doesn't mean you will automatically gravitate towards a specific class. You might be forced into the class, you might even pick up a multiclass in it, but they're no guarantee that it's really what you *want* to do.

A character with exceptional intelligence is 'wasted' on being a fighter according to many. But people don't really work that way. They don't always want to do what is obvious. Many times they do, but sometimes you get people who really, really want to hit things with sharpened sticks, despite the fact that they'd be really, really good at healing.

It's not being a better roleplayer to have a character with less than optimal stats for their class. Just that sometimes an optimal character is not what you want to play. There's no rule that says I *have* to have a character that is Dex-high be the rogue. Sometimes I want to have a Fighter that is noted for his nimbleness more than his strength. Not because I'm a better roleplayer, but because that is what I want to play at that moment of time. (And when an optimizer-type person points out to me that I could make a much more effective nimble-warrior by building him out a different way, I appreciate it, try to figure out with that person how to get the character as optimized as possible without comprimizing the concept I have in my head, and petition the DM at the time to allow me to retrain the character or whatever mechanism he prefers to be more optimized that way. I don't do the optimization game because I'm not very good at it.)

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-04, 02:05 AM
What do you think?
If Jim is significantly stronger than Tom, and then they undergo the same strength training, I would expect Jim to still be stronger than Tom once they're done. I'd also expect each of them to be stronger than he was before the training.

Training can raise ability scores, but it doesn't account for all of the difference between individuals. Some people are just more naturally gifted than others. Life is unfair like that.


And for the love of all spectral monkeys, please, no one try to put forth that not having a maxed casting stat, or worse, deliberately giving yourself a lower casting stat than necessary, is somehow superior roleplaying...
But believable, interesting characters have flaws, man! So, obviously, bigger flaws make for better characters. After all, everyone hates overqualified Mary Sues who succeed at everything, right? So, if supreme competence is annoying and ultimately boring, it follows that ridiculous levels of incompetence should be highly entertaining. So I'll go and make my character bad at the very thing that he's supposed to be good at! Now we're cookin' with gas.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-04, 02:06 AM
Now we're cookin' with gas.

Propane. And propane accessories.

jmbrown
2009-12-04, 02:54 AM
Considering you pick your class after you roll ability scores and choose a race, your class is therefor based on your best ability scores. D&D assumes that adventurers begin their careers at puberty which reflects the age variant after a race becomes an adult.

At puberty, the D&D character is at their peak physical condition. Assuming they don't adventure and gain levels, an NPC won't physically change. This is completely unrealistic but D&D has never been a simulation game.

As far as gaining ability score points, it's a result of what you do best. If you're a desk jockey working an IT desk job, you're likely to train your mind instead of your body. Likewise if you're pro athlete, there's little reason for you to study up on psychology when you could be practicing. You could go against the grain but how's a Bachelor's Degree in sports medicine going to help a boxer win a fight against his next opponent?

In summary, the D&D classes don't provide training outside of new abilities. A characters physical and mental stats are completely based on what they had before they ever began their career.


It's not being a better roleplayer to have a character with less than optimal stats for their class. Just that sometimes an optimal character is not what you want to play. There's no rule that says I *have* to have a character that is Dex-high be the rogue. Sometimes I want to have a Fighter that is noted for his nimbleness more than his strength. Not because I'm a better roleplayer, but because that is what I want to play at that moment of time. (And when an optimizer-type person points out to me that I could make a much more effective nimble-warrior by building him out a different way, I appreciate it, try to figure out with that person how to get the character as optimized as possible without comprimizing the concept I have in my head, and petition the DM at the time to allow me to retrain the character or whatever mechanism he prefers to be more optimized that way. I don't do the optimization game because I'm not very good at it.)

I'm actually glad you brought this up because AD&D handled this perfectly. Each class had a 'prime requisite' and if you exceeded it you got a 10% increase to experience points. The game rewarded you to pick the class your character was most suited for but sometimes it wasn't always a preferably one. A character could be rolled up as

str 15
dex 7
con 8
int 16
wis 13
cha 11

The character has optimal intelligence for a wizard but his constitution and dexterity are dangerously low. He has high, but not optimal, strength and could offset his physical penalties with heavy armor.

The player would be rewarded a +10% experience bonus to play as a wizard because of his 16 intelligence, but, he would probably be better suited as a fighter. If he found a way to increase his intelligence to 17 and played a human he could dual-class into wizard later which is another rewarding option he wouldn't get had he choose recommended path of wizard.

AD&D did a good job giving what we would call 'suboptimal' characters more options instead of looking at ability scores alone. Unfortunately this was lost when D&D shifted to incremental DCs requiring high scores to do anything special at higher levels.

Ormur
2009-12-04, 03:19 AM
I think you don't get to be a wizard unless you have high intelligence to begin with (as represented by your initial rolls, point buy, elite array, whatever). I imagine you'd have to have an int score of 14 or more to be eligible for the wizard university, or attract the attention of a mentor. Most PC of course try to get an 18 if they're playing a wizard but that not necessary or common for NPCs. I can picture scenarios of rich kids with average int scores being pressured into studying wizardry but they'll have a hard time catching up with the kids that have 16 or 18 for int scores. The extra ability scores at every fourth level then represent the training of studying to be a wizard.

As I see it the intelligent kids from rich families or wizard families or other kids that somehow get noticed by wizards would mostly become wizards. Intelligent kids from the middle classes and farmers means might become artisans since craft is int-based and the poor or troubled intelligent kids might become rogues. Then there are Archivists and Factotums and Beguilers but they still strike me as relatively upper class like wizards. NPC might of course want to do stuff that's not optimal considering their stats but they'd probably gravitate to suitable professions if they have a choice beyond doing the same things their parents did. Those are the (pseudo-)middle ages most people don't have a choice of just doing what they want to do.

Zombimode
2009-12-04, 03:21 AM
The player would be rewarded a +10% experience bonus to play as a wizard because of his 16 intelligence, but, he would probably be better suited as a fighter.

Wut?
He has an INT of 16, which is not to shaby for a wizard in AD&D. And its all he need.
Dex 7? Irrelevant. Of course, wizards CAN go for AC, but they dont have to. There are lots of other ways avoiding hits.
Con 8? Irrelevant, no HP loss. Yes, the wizard is stuck with his 1W4 HP / level, but who cares? He is a goddamn wizard; if he gets hit, he did something wrong.
Str 15? Nice, now he can carry his own spellbook without losing movement.

Now for the fighter, he gets almost nothing for Str 15 (only carrying capacity; no toHit or damage increase) and nothing for Dex and Con, but this time, it actually matters. Most fighters are supposed to be in melee all the time, and now every +1 (-1 if you wish) to AC and every +1 to HP is significant.

With this stats you have the option to make a medicore fighter or a good wizard. Optimization wise I see no reason to favor the fighter.

Serpentine
2009-12-04, 03:29 AM
Well said, Fhaolan. I agree with you completely (even if my analogies before might seem to contradict me now).
Considering you pick your class after you roll ability scores and choose a race, your class is therefor based on your best ability scores.What? :smallconfused: I don't know about anyone else, but I always have a character concept - complete with class and race, and also things I want her to be good and bad at, flaws and strengths, fears and fetishes, etc. - before I even touch the ability d6s.
I think that deciding on a character based on the ability rolls could be an interesting way to construct a character if you don't already have any ideas, and one I'd quite like to try sometime, but I, at least, have never done so as of yet.

Rainbownaga
2009-12-04, 04:27 AM
And for the love of all spectral monkeys, please, no one try to put forth that not having a maxed casting stat, or worse, deliberately giving yourself a lower casting stat than necessary, is somehow superior roleplaying...

Isn't this 4th ed? I was of the impression that putting 20 into your main casting stat was a waste.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-04, 04:31 AM
Isn't this 4th ed? I was of the impression that putting 20 into your main casting stat was a waste.First off, no. It's generic D&D, no edition specified.
Secondly, If using pt-buy, yes. If rolling and you got an 18, then it's definitely not. Depending on the remaining stat spread and races, sometimes you'll go for +2 to both your secondaries instead of boosting a secondary and the primary, but 20 is never wasted, just...overkill.

jmbrown
2009-12-04, 04:54 AM
Wut?
He has an INT of 16, which is not to shaby for a wizard in AD&D. And its all he need.
Dex 7? Irrelevant. Of course, wizards CAN go for AC, but they dont have to. There are lots of other ways avoiding hits.
Con 8? Irrelevant, no HP loss. Yes, the wizard is stuck with his 1W4 HP / level, but who cares? He is a goddamn wizard; if he gets hit, he did something wrong.
Str 15? Nice, now he can carry his own spellbook without losing movement.

Now for the fighter, he gets almost nothing for Str 15 (only carrying capacity; no toHit or damage increase) and nothing for Dex and Con, but this time, it actually matters. Most fighters are supposed to be in melee all the time, and now every +1 (-1 if you wish) to AC and every +1 to HP is significant.

With this stats you have the option to make a medicore fighter or a good wizard. Optimization wise I see no reason to favor the fighter.

As I said, if he increased his intelligence by a single point (not a difficult task) he could dual-class into wizard later and be infinitely better than a straight wizard.

And I'm tired of the "if he gets hit, he's doing it wrong" statement as if every battle is assumed to perfectly favor the party. One arrow and the wizard is dead. The group is surprised and the wizard is dead. Thief ducks a dart trap and the wizard is dead. Nearly every intelligent monster, even dumb ogres, will specifically target the guy in pointy hat who's not wearing armor. You can't protect yourself 100% of the time and having 1-4 hit points is DEATH. A good number of spells also reduce constitution making this guy one to avoid enchant item and permanency.

I'd feel much happier going fighter, having the extra oomph + weapon specialization, hit level 9, wish for +1 intelligence, build a stronghold, then dual-class to wizard. I guarantee the character would live longer.


What? I don't know about anyone else, but I always have a character concept - complete with class and race, and also things I want her to be good and bad at, flaws and strengths, fears and fetishes, etc. - before I even touch the ability d6s.
I think that deciding on a character based on the ability rolls could be an interesting way to construct a character if you don't already have any ideas, and one I'd quite like to try sometime, but I, at least, have never done so as of yet.

Every edition of D&D right down to Supplement 1: Greyhawk has ordered character creation as Ability Scores, Race, Class. This was because, up until 3E, it was assumed you rolled for each ability score in order and each class had a prerequisite so you could never be sure of what you were going to play before you actually played it. The point buy system negates that but all characters that hit puberty keep their ability scores until death except for aging, magic, and gaining levels.

You could write the fluff so that everyone at puberty has the common array and their variable starting age represents the training they go through to get their final ability score but it still doesn't make sense. A 16 year old human fighter can learn everything about wizardry (multiclass fighter/wizard) even though a 23 year old human wizard hit puberty and began training the same time as the fighter. Some DMs incorporate training time into their rules but no DM is going to make a character set aside 6 years to train even though that's what would realistically happen.

dsmiles
2009-12-04, 05:10 AM
LOL. I actually LOST ground in basic training.

Yeah, no kidding. The military tends to make one less aggressive as it applies to physical fitness. I came in at a whopping 135lb. I left basic and advanced training at 165lb. (Which is supposedly average for my height.)

But seriously. I think class choices are a result of ability scores. As a person grows up, they find that they have a knack for something (i.e. they're smarter than everyone else, or more agile, or can sing, or whatever) and that's why they pick the class that best fits where their natural abilities lie.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-12-04, 05:13 AM
As I said, if he increased his intelligence by a single point (not a difficult task) he could dual-class into wizard later and be infinitely better than a straight wizard.

I'd feel much happier going fighter, having the extra oomph + weapon specialization, hit level 9, wish for +1 intelligence, build a stronghold, then dual-class to wizard. I guarantee the character would live longer.

He'd never make it that far. He'd die quicker than the 4 hp wizard. Why? Because he's got crap hps... and he's the one who is supposed to be taking hits.

Dex is fairly pointless for a Fighter in 1-2e, so we can safely dump that. But it's the Con that is the real killer, and why this character would not last past the first or second fight, much less to his next level, far less to multiclass.

One of the benefits of being a Fighter, over ANY other class, is they get higher bonuses to HD based on higher Con. This completely negates that.

jmbrown
2009-12-04, 05:17 AM
He'd never make it that far. He'd die quicker than the 4 hp wizard. Why? Because he's got crap hps... and he's the one who is supposed to be taking hits.

Dex is fairly pointless for a Fighter in 1-2e, so we can safely dump that. But it's the Con that is the real killer, and why this character would not last past the first or second fight, much less to his next level, far less to multiclass.

One of the benefits of being a Fighter, over ANY other class, is they get higher bonuses to HD based on higher Con. This completely negates that.

High armor class and polearms would certainly increase his chances as does the d10 hit die. Let the tougher fighters go in first while he stabs from behind the front ranks. It's a lot better than a wizard who could die because a child kicked him in the shins. Even if you use the optional -10hp rules, spell casters lose all prepared spells if they fall unconscious.

But I'm getting pretty off topic here so *zips lip*

Serpentine
2009-12-04, 05:21 AM
Every edition of D&D right down to Supplement 1: Greyhawk has ordered character creation as Ability Scores, Race, Class. This was because, up until 3E, it was assumed you rolled for each ability score in order and each class had a prerequisite so you could never be sure of what you were going to play before you actually played it. The point buy system negates that but all characters that hit puberty keep their ability scores until death except for aging, magic, and gaining levels. That goes a ways towards explaining why my brother-in-sin is so keen on "play 'em as they're rolled" ability scores (he wasn't aware that there was a 3rd edition of D&D until I told him). So it's a vestige of pre-3E, and a feature of "play as rolled"? Does anyone 3E+ who doesn't use that method create their characters this way?
I maintain my questioning of jmbrown's statement of the ordering as a given.

jmbrown
2009-12-04, 05:28 AM
That goes a ways towards explaining why my brother-in-sin is so keen on "play 'em as they're rolled" ability scores (he wasn't aware that there was a 3rd edition of D&D until I told him). So it's a vestige of pre-3E, and a feature of "play as rolled"? Does anyone 3E+ who doesn't use that method create their characters this way?
I maintain my questioning of jmbrown's statement of the ordering as a given.

Depends on if the system is point buy or roll-for-scores. I don't prefer one over the other. If the DM dictates a point buy system I plan the character out, if it's roll-for-scores I create the character around the final results. Nothing has really changed in 3E or 4E. Either system works perfectly fine rolling or using point buy.

Serpentine
2009-12-04, 05:31 AM
My objection is really just that you said it as though that's the default method of character creation, when in fact I've never once played in a game with it (although now I think about it, I think I do know a total of 2 DMs who require it, except one's the aforementioned brother-in-sin, and the other I'm not sure about but who houserules to the point that his games are barely D&D anymore)...

jmbrown
2009-12-04, 05:49 AM
My objection is really just that you said it as though that's the default method of character creation, when in fact I've never once played in a game with it (although now I think about it, I think I do know a total of 2 DMs who require it, except one's the aforementioned brother-in-sin, and the other I'm not sure about but who houserules to the point that his games are barely D&D anymore)...

I'd definitely say it was the default, actually, so your objection is against the writers itself. Up until 4E, every edition of D&D assumes you roll your ability scores. Even 3E begins the book with "Step 1: roll ability scores; Step 2: choose your race and class." 4E is the first material to recommend a standard array and the roll-'em-up method was recommended as a last resort because the designers want everyone to be heroic from the start.

But again, how many people actually play D&D using default material?

Serpentine
2009-12-04, 05:53 AM
People actually do that? :smallconfused: Regularly, I mean, not just occasionally? Seriously? The default is for people to have no character concept until they have a bunch of numbers in front of them? :smallconfused: Not rolling up stats rather than point-buying (I normally do that), getting the stats one way or the other and only then using that to define their characters?

Weird.

Grumman
2009-12-04, 06:06 AM
My objection is really just that you said it as though that's the default method of character creation,
It is the default. Look at the front of the 3.5 PHB, and it will tell you you generate ability scores first, then pick your class. Even if you can place them as you wish, you still might want to go for a more or a less MAD class, based on how many good rolls you made.

Kantolin
2009-12-04, 06:09 AM
I also generally prefer to have my character prepared at least mentally before I sit down.

If I do go to table and discover that we have a team of nothing but martial units (which is actually fairly frequently), I may then spend some time thinking up an alternate idea. We hardly ever play the same time we make characters (that generally becomes 'card games and character building'), so I then have until the next session to properly flesh out the character.

I find that having a character who can only relevantly be a wizard (or just be poor at his job) can be frustratingly limiting - I've done it before, but mostly as a thought exercise. It also can lead to the, "Conflabbit, I don't /like/ clerics or druids and have just played two" problem.
[This paragraph is referring to rolling your stats in order and leaving them where they lie, in case it's unclear].

I do prefer rolling over point buy, though. Puts a little more variance into it, without generally being too awful.

Serpentine
2009-12-04, 06:10 AM
Alright, I concede that apparently roll first, create later is the norm.

Still seems bleeding weird to me, though...

Chrono22
2009-12-04, 06:14 AM
4e characters don't train to become heroes. That would imply they were something else first... and there aren't any NPC classes.
4e characters just... exist. Because it's a game.

Sliver
2009-12-04, 06:31 AM
In our area I was first introduced to a whacked way of choosing ability scores.. You get a set of points and put them in your abilities. Like point buy, but it is always a +1 cost to increase a score and you don't start with the minimum 8.. Wasn't a problem because I didn't meet anyone yet who optimizes.. Although the players around here are pretty stubborn..

But there is that attitude that I don't really understand.. About flaws, which I find related to this discussion. It is logical to assume that you have your flaws before you actually start your career, so if I have this person who is fairly intelligent, has a talent for magic and the patience to study it, and always had issues with close combat.. It is realistic that people will choose a career that is affected by your flaws the least, isn't it?

onthetown
2009-12-04, 06:46 AM
Now, how does this translate to this question? Just because you have a natural high score in a trait, doesn't mean you will automatically gravitate towards a specific class. You might be forced into the class, you might even pick up a multiclass in it, but they're no guarantee that it's really what you *want* to do.



Agreed. My Ranger has an INT of 18 but a WIS of 14 because I wanted her to be well-read and intelligent, rather than those wise old Rangers shooting out anecdotes and whatnot to mislead party members. I only put the 14 in WIS for her spell list; I put the extra effort into ranks for skills that she was lacking a good ability modifier for. Just because she has the higher INT score doesn't mean that she's going to suddenly multiclass as a Wizard... she's just more intelligent than your average Ranger. It doesn't take away from her love of being a Ranger.

(I realize than anything above 10 is considered above average, but I play in a campaign where 14 is average.)

Out of character, if you're not into the roleplaying aspect that much, well... higher scores mean bonus spells or extra BAB. For the Wizard argument, since their spells matter a bit more than a Ranger's, I honestly don't have a Wizard with an INT less than 19. I'd rather be prepared to do my job in the party than run in with an INT of 10 and cast Acid Splash for the entire campaign in an effort to prove something completely arbitrary.

Serpentine
2009-12-04, 06:54 AM
Sliver: Are you talking about mechancial Flaws, or roleplaying flaws? Actually, it may not matter... Either way, it depends on how you play your character.
For example, say your Dungeondelver has Claustraphobia. If he had it before he got into adventuring, then he may:
have taken up dungeon delving to counter his fear
have taken up dungeon delving as a matter of pride: "Not gonna let it have its power over me!"
have a twisted fascination with enclosed places
have reasons to explore dungeons that outweighs his fear of them
have the talents of dungeon-delving, while avoiding actual dungeons at all cost
and so on. If he acquired it afterwards, it could be an accumulated trait, or some particular event could have caused it, or whatever.
Or, equally validly, he may avoid the dungeon delving career entirely because of his fear, in which case he won't be a Dungeondelver.

...or maybe I'm just talkin' out mah butt.

Sliver
2009-12-04, 07:07 AM
Sliver: Are you talking about mechancial Flaws, or roleplaying flaws? Actually, it may not matter... Either way, it depends on how you play your character.
For example, say your Dungeondelver has Claustraphobia. If he had it before he got into adventuring, then he may:
have taken up dungeon delving to counter his fear
have taken up dungeon delving as a matter of pride: "Not gonna let it have its power over me!"
have a twisted fascination with enclosed places
have reasons to explore dungeons that outweighs his fear of them
have the talents of dungeon-delving, while avoiding actual dungeons at all cost
and so on. If he acquired it afterwards, it could be an accumulated trait, or some particular event could have caused it, or whatever.
Or, equally validly, he may avoid the dungeon delving career entirely because of his fear, in which case he won't be a Dungeondelver.

...or maybe I'm just talkin' out mah butt.

This is not what I meant..

Balance wise, I agree that if the flaws have no affect on your character, then you get something for nothing. But RP wise, it is actually logical that you will take flaws that don't make a big difference, as real people will try to choose a career that won't be hindered by their flaws (or one that will allow them to work it out. But having pathetic strength and being a fighter will just mean you will be a bad fighter and always weaker then the average fighter. Not heroic material..)