So Called Standard Character Stat Build Stats Are Foolish: Lidda Did Not Have 8 Chr!

[Basement Cat]

It's a minor peeve of mine. In order to create a 'balanced' PC everyone has to assign the allotted 'standard' scores to their PC's stats:


Roll your ability scores. You have 6 Ability scores to roll for: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intellect, and Wisdom. You can either roll 4 6-sided die and record the cumulative total of the highest 3 dice 6 times or take the “standard set” which is 15,14,13,12,10,8. You do not need to assign these scores yet, but you can if you want to.

So, by definition any PC is 'above normal'. But the standard 'build' stats available include an "8" which, if the 3rd edition Archetypal [EDIT: ICONIC] character types like Lidda, Mialee, etc were concerned always resulted in Charisma getting the "8" meaning the archetypal D&D folk were some of the worst socially functional/attractive 'heroes' there were.

This is a minor peeve of mine but it still annoys me endlessly.

So, do you keep to this nonsense? Do you do the 4d6 for stats? Do you just permit players to re-roll if they simply get a sucky collection?

[bid]

So, do you keep to this nonsense?
Use point buy to get 14 14 13 12 10 10.

Or even better: 13 13 13 12 12 12.

[Theodoxus]

So many conjectures in this...

1) 5E isn't 3E so comparing stats is meaningless. An 8 Chr is 5E is perfectly usable thanks to bounded accuracy.

2) Even IF we take your wild hare conjecture as true, an 8 Chr would certainly explain the preponderance of murderhoboism that abounds in this hobby.

3) It's a game, not a "real life simulation." As such, balancing factors, such as standard array are taken into consideration. Would you enjoy an MMO where you could roll stats? How many times would you go through the creation process to get the perfect RNG that lands you all 18s? If it took you 1,000 times? 10,000? I guarantee there would be more than 1 person doing exactly that - even if it took 5 minutes to get to the rolling stats stage. If there was even a hint of PvP in the game, you wouldn't last long...
How about a nice game of Monopoly, where I start with $10,000 and you start with $500. Sounds fair, right? that's the effect - If you roll and get amazing stats, and I roll and get average stats, you have more options as well as will be better at all all aspects of the game. It leads to hurt feelers at best...

4) This "nonsense" keeps things in balance, allows DMs to know what to expect from the players and their options - can quickly determine if the player is either lying, or not understanding all the underlying math, etc. And since I never have to listen to another player bitch about Billy's lucky rolls, I've been quite happy.

[Basement Cat]

The thing that remains with me was seeing the Iconic characters' stats and outside of those needing high Charisma scores they all of them--ALL OF THEM--had 8's for Charisma.

*rolls eyes*

[Laserlight]

Standard is 4d6b3; point buy and arrays are optional.

Also, there's no requirement to dump CHA. And even if you do take an 8 instead of 10, you can train a skill, use Guidance, get a buddy to Aid Another, or just rely on the fact that a +1 difference just isn't all that significant.

[Malifice]

3d6 in order.

[JBPuffin]

...Yeah, it sounds like you should get this moved to the 3.5 thread since it's a 3.5 complaint.

[Arkhios]

The thing that remains with me was seeing the Iconic characters' stats and outside of those needing high Charisma scores they all of them--ALL OF THEM--had 8's for Charisma.

*rolls eyes*

What was in 3.5 does NOT have to transfer to 5th edition. Just saying.

Since halflings (for example) don't get negative adjustment to their strength in 5th edition, just assign that 8 to Strength for Lidda.

[Basement Cat]

What was in 3.5 does NOT have to transfer to 5th edition. Just saying.

Since halflings (for example) don't get negative adjustment to their strength in 5th edition, just assign that 8 to Strength for Lidda.

I apologize for being iffy about the editions but my impression--and I'm open to being convinced that I'm wrong--is that the basic system remains in 5th.

Not trying to put burrs under saddles.

[Malifice]

I apologize for being iffy about the editions but my impression--and I'm open to being convinced that I'm wrong--is that the basic system remains in 5th.

Not trying to put burrs under saddles.

Lidda is 3 and a half foot tall. The size of a 12 year old girl.

Any reason why a Strength 8 wouldnt be appropriate? Generous even?

[Talamare]

So many conjectures in this...

1) 5E isn't 3E so comparing stats is meaningless. An 8 Chr is 5E is perfectly usable thanks to bounded accuracy.

2) Even IF we take your wild hare conjecture as true, an 8 Chr would certainly explain the preponderance of murderhoboism that abounds in this hobby.

3) It's a game, not a "real life simulation." As such, balancing factors, such as standard array are taken into consideration. Would you enjoy an MMO where you could roll stats? How many times would you go through the creation process to get the perfect RNG that lands you all 18s? If it took you 1,000 times? 10,000? I guarantee there would be more than 1 person doing exactly that - even if it took 5 minutes to get to the rolling stats stage. If there was even a hint of PvP in the game, you wouldn't last long...
How about a nice game of Monopoly, where I start with $10,000 and you start with $500. Sounds fair, right? that's the effect - If you roll and get amazing stats, and I roll and get average stats, you have more options as well as will be better at all all aspects of the game. It leads to hurt feelers at best...

4) This "nonsense" keeps things in balance, allows DMs to know what to expect from the players and their options - can quickly determine if the player is either lying, or not understanding all the underlying math, etc. And since I never have to listen to another player bitch about Billy's lucky rolls, I've been quite happy.

Geez dude...
Well, /thread... You did it~

That was easily the perfect response.


The thing that remains with me was seeing the Iconic characters' stats and outside of those needing high Charisma scores they all of them--ALL OF THEM--had 8's for Charisma.

*rolls eyes*

Don't worry, these days there are more saves vs Cha than there are vs Int... so everyone has 8 Int instead
Everything is fixed.

[JNAProductions]

Who is Lidda?

Because, if she's a book character... They don't have to be balanced. There's no "other player" they have to worry about upstaging. There's just the author and the story.

[Malifice]

Who is Lidda?

http://images.comiccollectorlive.com/covers/aff/afff3c79-c842-4aa0-bd12-7fe113f53b70.jpg

The sexiest halfling in the world.

[Basement Cat]

Lidda is 3 and a half foot tall. The size of a 12 year old girl.

Any reason why a Strength 8 wouldnt be appropriate? Generous even?
It was her Charisma score that got the 8. That's the point.

By giving out "standard" scores practically all the Iconic characters ended up with CHR: 8.

The critical point is:

1: That by "standardizing" Stats it's a given that most shall end up with standard dump Stats.

2: "Standardizing" goes completely against the concept of PC's being better than the Community.

3: Any semblance (including allotting given points, I figure) inherently "standardizes" any and all PC's.

[Nifft]

Lidda is 3 and a half foot tall. The size of a 12 year old girl.


The sexiest halfling in the world.

Must... resist... commenting...

[Knaight]

That by "standardizing" Stats it's a given that most shall end up with standard dump Stats.

This is what happens when games design stats this way - because of the attributes chosen and the way classes work there's a standard class dump stat. It's not an effect of customization, as is indicated by the way this doesn't happen in any number of other games with comparable levels of it. It's an effect of dump stats existing at all.

[Arkhios]

Who is Lidda?

Because, if she's a book character... They don't have to be balanced. There's no "other player" they have to worry about upstaging. There's just the author and the story.

...oh sweet summer child...

(She's the iconic Rogue from 3.0 and 3.5 Player's Handbook; might be from before that as well but that I don't know for certain)

[Regitnui]

Somebody clarify; are we complaining about people who are pretty/sexy (by the illustrations) having low Charisma, or are we complaining about characters having a below-average score, or are we complaining about dump stats being an inevitable result of a system that encourages there to be priority stats, or are we griping in general about how a standard array does its job and puts the other guy's character on the same skill level as yours in different aspects?

If it's the first, I'm probably going to go off on a long rant about fictional childhood crushes. Be warned.:smallamused:

[JakOfAllTirades]

http://images.comiccollectorlive.com/covers/aff/afff3c79-c842-4aa0-bd12-7fe113f53b70.jpg

The sexiest halfling in the world.

...who always gets her hair done before pulling a 2nd story heist. Because, you know, somebody might see her!

[Malifice]

Must... resist... commenting...

I like short women.

Don't take it to a dark place.

[Regitnui]

I like short women.

Don't take it to a dark place.

Mmhm. Need I point out that by 3.5 PHB every race other than half-orcs are shorter than humans?

[Anonymouswizard]

http://images.comiccollectorlive.com/covers/aff/afff3c79-c842-4aa0-bd12-7fe113f53b70.jpg

The sexiest halfling in the world.

Halfling? But her head isn't deformed! :smalltongue:


It was her Charisma score that got the 8. That's the point.

By giving out "standard" scores practically all the Iconic characters ended up with CHR: 8.

The critical point is:

1: That by "standardizing" Stats it's a given that most shall end up with standard dump Stats.

2: "Standardizing" goes completely against the concept of PC's being better than the Community.

3: Any semblance (including allotting given points, I figure) inherently "standardizes" any and all PC's.

1) That's more a failure of the system to make every stat important. In 3.X Charisma was the standard dump stat, due to how many classes need it in 5e Charisma isn't dumped as much and Intelligence is the favoured dump stat (except for one person in the party who takes the knowledge skills). It happens in other systems, in GURPS I almost never raise ST above 10.

2) That's only true if we assume everybody is using the standard array and/or built like PCs. If we assume a 3.X situation and have NPCs always built like PCs then PCs are still better due to using a 'heroic' array and not an 'ordinary' array (which depending on the GM and NPC will be 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 or 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8).

3) That's the entire point. The idea is to make it more balanced, you might was well claim GURPS PCs are standardised because you don't roll on tables to determine your Advantages and Disadvantages. While in real life some people are just better than others (for a variety of reasons) that's not fun at the gaming table. Heck, making some ability scores more important in certain situations standardises PCs.

Of course, there are more fun ways to standardise PCs, but they require a different system than D&D. In GURPS everybody is built on the same number of points, but a character specialised in raw stats and one specialised in skills or advantages look different. In the Mistborn Adventure Game (actually a neat little system) you have to choose which of Attributes, Standings, and Powers you're Strong, Average, and Weak in before you can assign points. S on and so forth.

[Unoriginal]

character types like Lidda, Mialee, etc were concerned always resulted in Charisma getting the "8" meaning the archetypal D&D folk were some of the worst socially functional/attractive 'heroes' there were.

One, 3.X stats aren't the same as 5e stats. Two, yes, D&D characters being barely socially functional is something that happened a lot in the past.


The thing that remains with me was seeing the Iconic characters' stats and outside of those needing high Charisma scores they all of them--ALL OF THEM--had 8's for Charisma.

*rolls eyes*

Yes, because 3.X was all about min-maxing and even the people who wrote those "Iconic" charsheet knew that players weren't going to use Charisma unless they were playing one of the classes who needed it maxed out.

Again, it has NOTHING to do with 5e.



Lidda is 3 and a half foot tall. The size of a 12 year old girl.

Any reason why a Strength 8 wouldnt be appropriate? Generous even?

5e Halflings are as strong as Humans, despite the size difference. They can have any STR score.



It was her Charisma score that got the 8. That's the point.

By giving out "standard" scores practically all the Iconic characters ended up with CHR: 8.

The critical point is:

1: That by "standardizing" Stats it's a given that most shall end up with standard dump Stats.

2: "Standardizing" goes completely against the concept of PC's being better than the Community.

3: Any semblance (including allotting given points, I figure) inherently "standardizes" any and all PC's.

Why are you complaining about a 3.X min-maxing problem in the *5e* forum?

Also, considering your point 2: no, it doesn't, because the PCs' stats are still WAAAAAAAAY better than the average person.


Who is Lidda?

http://www.paperspencils.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/lidda_kaboom_t1.gif

Such beauty, such charisma.

[Talamare]

http://www.paperspencils.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/lidda_kaboom_t1.gif

Such beauty, such charisma.

Clearly, they should have dump stated her INT

[DarkKnightJin]

Use point buy to get 14 14 13 12 10 10.

Or even better: 13 13 13 12 12 12.

I usually do take the 14 -10 for point buy. Unless I really need the 15 for something, and I can work the 8 into being sub-par at that.
Otherwise, I just take that 14 and resolce to spend the first ASI on bumping it.

[ZorroGames]

Standard array is not horrible, I just never use it. I also no longer (AD&D/2nd last time) roll since Point Buy was introduced in 5e. Skipped 3.x and 4 and apparently that was a good idea.

That said, 8 is not terrible. It’s a game and it works fine as is.

Finally, Therte are many successful people in the real world who function successfully with a weakness in their “stats” such as socially inept teens; People who are slow, low balance skill, and suffer from eye hand coordination issues (like me) who might easily be an eight in DE; or have speech language challenges like my special needs daughter who lead independent successful lives. An 8 is where the game reflects elements of reality.

Play on!

[Joe the Rat]

Leaving aside other elements of discussion, you are quite capable of looking good, and having the personality of a shrieking half-banshee-templated gnoll.
Also consider, that in 3.5 there was very little for raw charisma to do for a non-caster. You put points in Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Gather Information, and you're good.


Halfling? But her head isn't deformed! :smalltongue:
What, you think that's teased up 80's hair? It's all head under there.

Elmore be damned.

[Slipperychicken]

Across roleplaying games, example player-character game statistics are almost always poorly-made, fail to do what they're meant to do, and are riddled with choices that simply do not follow the rules. This is just a continuation of that pattern


...who always gets her hair done before pulling a 2nd story heist. Because, you know, somebody might see her!

The genre is called fantasy for a reason.

We're still allowed to have beautiful people in fantasy art, right? ...right?

[mephnick]

Such beauty, such charisma.

Yeah, that supermodel Lidda is not the Lidda I remember. I remember her always looking like the kind of person that was in dungeons and sewers for her career.

[GreyBlack]

I think the OP's point has less to do with 3.5 and more to do with the standardization involved in the 5e system. And it is a fair gripe; most groups in 5e I've seen have taken point buy as a given and character creation in general incentivizes this sort of play. The archetypal characters tend also to be designed with this in mind, which can often lead to some downright bizarre choices.

A character like Lidda, the archetypal rogue, is able to fill the skill monkey aspects of the rogue extremely well. This includes social and dexterity skill bases. As such, one would expect a certain degree of charisma from such a character beyond her skill but this is not seen under standard point buy systems.

EDIT: However, it is apparent that even in 3.5 she lacked that natural charisma. So there's that.

[JNAProductions]

I think the OP's point has less to do with 3.5 and more to do with the standardization involved in the 5e system. And it is a fair gripe; most groups in 5e I've seen have taken point buy as a given and character creation in general incentivizes this sort of play. The archetypal characters tend also to be designed with this in mind, which can often lead to some downright bizarre choices.

A character like Lidda, the archetypal rogue, is able to fill the skill monkey aspects of the rogue extremely well. This includes social and dexterity skill bases. As such, one would expect a certain degree of charisma from such a character beyond her skill but this is not seen under standard point buy systems.

It easily can be. Lightfoot Halfling gives you starting stats of , assuming 27 point buy:

8 Strength
16 Dexterity
14 Constitution
12 Intelligence
8 Wisdom
16 Charisma

Edit: You can swap Wisdom and Intelligence, if you want, or make them both 10. I just kinda assumed she's a more reckless type, hence the low Wisdom.

[GreyBlack]

It easily can be. Lightfoot Halfling gives you starting stats of , assuming 27 point buy:

8 Strength
16 Dexterity
14 Constitution
12 Intelligence
8 Wisdom
16 Charisma

Edit: You can swap Wisdom and Intelligence, if you want, or make them both 10. I just kinda assumed she's a more reckless type, hence the low Wisdom.

You are correct; that is possible. However, it does lead to very cookie cutter variations on character creation which I, personally, am uncomfortable with. Heroes come in all shape and sizes, and not all of them necessarily have a 16 in their primary statistic.

[mephnick]

Man, I'd be pretty scared if my trap-finding rogue had a Passive Perception of 9

[JNAProductions]

You are correct; that is possible. However, it does lead to very cookie cutter variations on character creation which I, personally, am uncomfortable with. Heroes come in all shape and sizes, and not all of them necessarily have a 16 in their primary statistic.

And not all do. A Half-Orc Rogue, for instance, either 1) has Strength as a primary stat, or 2) has a 15 (at best) in Dexterity.

Also, this was for Lidda. Does Lidda have anything less than a great Dexterity?


Man, I'd be pretty scared if my trap-finding rogue had a Passive Perception of 9

I just don't like high Wisdom scores. Bad decisions make for good stories.

[ZorroGames]

I think the OP's point has less to do with 3.5 and more to do with the standardization involved in the 5e system. And it is a fair gripe; most groups in 5e I've seen have taken point buy as a given and character creation in general incentivizes this sort of play. The archetypal characters tend also to be designed with this in mind, which can often lead to some downright bizarre choices.

A character like Lidda, the archetypal rogue, is able to fill the skill monkey aspects of the rogue extremely well. This includes social and dexterity skill bases. As such, one would expect a certain degree of charisma from such a character beyond her skill but this is not seen under standard point buy systems.

EDIT: However, it is apparent that even in 3.5 she lacked that natural charisma. So there's that.

If she is an experienced character her skills should have been capable of gaining via ASIs. Right?

Not every character ends level 20 with the same stats as level1. Right?

And if she chooses to stay at 8 for charisma (or any other stat) that is a choice. Right?

EDIT: And Cookie Cutter characters are a result of player choices.

[GreyBlack]

And not all do. A Half-Orc Rogue, for instance, either 1) has Strength as a primary stat, or 2) has a 15 (at best) in Dexterity.

Also, this was for Lidda. Does Lidda have anything less than a great Dexterity?


Playing against type is extremely fun. I love making characters that one looks at and jl you just have to ask "wtfmate". But that's neither here nor there, and perhaps I didn't come across correctly in my initial posting. Allow me to clarify.

Point buy systems assume a certain level of equality between characters that I am uncomfortable with. In addition, there is are certain numbers that you never see used. The average character I've seen in 5e is 16, 16, 14, 12, 8. Notice how there are no odd numbers here. By the numbers, you would never willingly buy an 11, or a 9.

In addition, standard point buy doesn't allow for stats _below_ a certain number. I literally could not recreate one of my iconic characters from second edition using 5e, because his intelligence was a 5 (Dwarven fighter, by the way). That limitation on variation limits character possibilities but is a necessary imposition for point buy.

Now, how does this relate to Lidda. Looking again at her stat block, we see again that same 16, 16, 14, 12 10 8 that I railed against mere seconds ago. That lack of variation doesn't make sense for character creation to my mind.

[ZorroGames]

Playing against type is extremely fun. I love making characters that one looks at and jl you just have to ask "wtfmate". But that's neither here nor there, and perhaps I didn't come across correctly in my initial posting. Allow me to clarify.

Point buy systems assume a certain level of equality between characters that I am uncomfortable with. In addition, there is are certain numbers that you never see used. The average character I've seen in 5e is 16, 16, 14, 12, 8. Notice how there are no odd numbers here. By the numbers, you would never willingly buy an 11, or a 9.

In addition, standard point buy doesn't allow for stats _below_ a certain number. I literally could not recreate one of my iconic characters from second edition using 5e, because his intelligence was a 5 (Dwarven fighter, by the way). That limitation on variation limits character possibilities but is a necessary imposition for point buy.

Now, how does this relate to Lidda. Looking again at her stat block, we see again that same 16, 16, 14, 12 10 8 that I railed against mere seconds ago. That lack of variation doesn't make sense for character creation to my mind.

Under point buy with or without Racials you can end up with odd stats at level 1. Or even later. Some builds use that for planning The plus 1 with “half-feats” (I believe that is the term) where there is a gain in a non-numerical asset along with a +1.

[Naanomi]

Yeah she should have rolled for Stats, then we could be trying to figure out where to put her ‘6’ she rolled instead! Characters created first as ‘example PCs’ shouldn’t expect higher than average stats across the board anyways...

[ZorroGames]

Playing against type is extremely fun. I love making characters that one looks at and jl you just have to ask "wtfmate". But that's neither here nor there, and perhaps I didn't come across correctly in my initial posting. Allow me to clarify.

Point buy systems assume a certain level of equality between characters that I am uncomfortable with. In addition, there is are certain numbers that you never see used. The average character I've seen in 5e is 16, 16, 14, 12, 8. Notice how there are no odd numbers here. By the numbers, you would never willingly buy an 11, or a 9.

In addition, standard point buy doesn't allow for stats _below_ a certain number. I literally could not recreate one of my iconic characters from second edition using 5e, because his intelligence was a 5 (Dwarven fighter, by the way). That limitation on variation limits character possibilities but is a necessary imposition for point buy.

Now, how does this relate to Lidda. Looking again at her stat block, we see again that same 16, 16, 14, 12 10 8 that I railed against mere seconds ago. That lack of variation doesn't make sense for character creation to my mind.

While I like that you “play against type” (done that too in earlier editioins) I also have intentionally designed characters with two or more odd starting stats. And sometimes you just have that odd point left over.

[JNAProductions]

Greyblack, are you complaining that classes have a primary stat that's more useful than others? I guess I'm kinda confused what exactly your gripe is.

[Millstone85]

I just kinda assumed she's a more reckless type, hence the low Wisdom.
I just don't like high Wisdom scores. Bad decisions make for good stories.But being description-starved does not, and this is what your Wisdom score and associated skills are really about: how aware you are of your surroundings (Perception, Survival) and how well you can read other creatures (Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine). You can be reckless with a 20, or overly cautious with an 8.

[ZorroGames]

Snip

Point buy systems assume a certain level of equality between characters that I am uncomfortable with. In addition, there is are certain numbers that you never see used. The average character I've seen in 5e is 16, 16, 14, 12, 8. Notice how there are no odd numbers here. By the numbers, you would never willingly buy an 11, or a 9.

In addition, standard point buy doesn't allow for stats _below_ a certain number. I literally could not recreate one of my iconic characters from second edition using 5e, because his intelligence was a 5 (Dwarven fighter, by the way). That limitation on variation limits character possibilities but is a necessary imposition for point buy.

Now, how does this relate to Lidda. Looking again at her stat block, we see again that same 16, 16, 14, 12 10 8 that I railed against mere seconds ago. That lack of variation doesn't make sense for character creation to my mind.

Standard array maybe... with a limited set of choices you have to get creative and choose fun/RP over optimizatiion which I endorse. It seems like a design decision for those who think “balance” in starting characters should be the goal. But then ST and DE fighters are not necessarily ‘equally balnced’ but eminently playable.

Point buy can be a lazy trap for people but that is a choice they make to create standardized characters. And if that is what they want then there is no legitimate room to complain about their design of their character.

Dice rolling does give a more variable range but not everyone wants that “3” they rolled. Why kill off a character just to have a chance at re-rolling a “better” (to some) character when you can just re-roll (yeah, killing off “bad” characters happened a lot in OD&D days,) until you get something better than a “3” or multiple “6s”? Once rolled a set of 6 characters for a game where multiple numbers below 7 were reflected in every character. Heroes can have weaknesses but why gimp some peoples’ playing intentionally.

[Coffee_Dragon]

By the numbers, you would never willingly buy an 11, or a 9.

And if you did, it would hold no particular significance. Ability scores are abstract, and at this point the numerical scale is a concession to tradition. Lamenting the relative absence of 11s is like lamenting the absence of half-points if they finally compressed the scale into just the modifiers.

[JNAProductions]

But being description-starved does not, and this is what your Wisdom score and associated skills are really about: how aware you are of your surroundings (Perception, Survival) and how well you can read other creatures (Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine). You can be reckless with a 20, or overly cautious with an 8.

I suppose. I generally associate high Wisdom scores with ample common sense and good thought processes, but it can vary person to person.

[JackPhoenix]

Clearly, they should have dump stated her INT

UMD was cha-based, that's why she failed. It all makes sense!

[Unoriginal]

Odd numbers still show up when you have a +1 of racial mod

[Sception]

Setting aside for a moment (we'll come back to it) the somewhat off-putting way this question was framed, Charisma isn't how attractive you perceive a character to be, it's how successful the character is in terms of social manipulation & how effective they are at harnessing instinctive forms of magic. 'Force of personality', assertiveness, leadership. Not hotness - which is itself highly subjective.

An attractive character with low charisma might, for instance, have trouble making their opinions and insights and personality heard by people who would rather pay attention to what they look like instead of what they're saying. Ironically enough, coming back to the question's framing, that's exactly how OP is treating Lidda as a character in this very thread. "How could she have low cha, when I think she's hot?"

No examples of Lidda being a leader, no stories of her successfully navigating high society situations, intimidating captives, or deceiving enemies. No examples of her pulling off a clever disguise. No examples of her succeeding at Cha-based skill checks. Quite to the contrary, one of the /most/ iconic (and hilarious!) pictures of Lidda from 3rd edition is the one already posted where she has spectacularly failed a cha-based 'Use Magic Device' check. What little we actually know of Lidda very much supports the idea that she was a high Dex and Int, Cha-dumping, cat-burglar type rogue, not the high-Cha charlatan/con-artist sort.

If I were to make a D&D character based on Lidda, she would absolutely dump Cha. I would definitely dump Charisma over Strength, considering that I would consider a high athletics score important for the character to climb and jump, and a decent carry capacity important for making off with treasure.

[ZorroGames]

Okay, let set out some “Standard Array” characters and see if I can get some non-standard but fun character, GreyBlack, before Racial adjustments of any numbers. I will stick to Fighter for simplicity sake.

“Standrd” ST Fighter that I would expect to see before racials.
ST 15, CO 14, DE 13 IN 8, WI 12, CH 10.

Switch ST and DE for DE Fighter.

Grizzled old Veteran who has seen the elephant.
ST 12, CO 10, DE 13, IN 14, WI 15, CH 8

Role play gold mine and still playable.

Natural Born Leader.
ST 14, CO 13, DE 10, IN 8, WI 12, CH 15.

Lead with his insight and his persuasiveness more than this physical abilities.

Loyal but overly direct speaking boyhood friend acting as Battle Advisor and shield bearer.
ST 10, CO 14, DE 12, IN 13, WI 15, CH 8

Disguised as boy page to noble third born (you) but really your runaway younger sister who just won’t marry “that old man” your/her Dad arranged.

ST 10, CO 12, DE 14, IN 13, WI 8, CH 15.

Bookish youth just turned adult and desperately wanting to prove himself/herself to his/her village.

ST 8, CO 10, DE 12, IN 15, WI 14, CH 13

Sprinkle in racial bonuses to flavor.

[Naanomi]

Odd strength still influences carry weight; and any odd stat offers protection from the few cases of ‘ability damage’ that exist

[ZorroGames]

Odd strength still influences carry weight; and any odd stat offers protection from the few cases of ‘ability damage’ that exist

Point noted, good comment.

[Anonymouswizard]

What, you think that's teased up 80's hair? It's all head under there.

I assumed it's where she kept the loot. I didn't see any sacks.


Across roleplaying games, example player-character game statistics are almost always poorly-made, fail to do what they're meant to do, and are riddled with choices that simply do not follow the rules. This is just a continuation of that pattern

Oh so much truth here. They seem to have a tendency to suffer from 'designer's tunnel vision', where the creators only see what they intended for the game.


Point buy systems assume a certain level of equality between characters that I am uncomfortable with. In addition, there is are certain numbers that you never see used. The average character I've seen in 5e is 16, 16, 14, 12, 8. Notice how there are no odd numbers here. By the numbers, you would never willingly buy an 11, or a 9.

In addition, standard point buy doesn't allow for stats _below_ a certain number. I literally could not recreate one of my iconic characters from second edition using 5e, because his intelligence was a 5 (Dwarven fighter, by the way). That limitation on variation limits character possibilities but is a necessary imposition for point buy.

The first is a problem with the system, there's no reason to have an odd score if you can help it. Really. The scores should have been done away with and only the modifiers used.

I totally get the low stats argument, I'd have made the minimum 6/-2 (to make it so you can truly be bad at something but not so low to cause insane minmaxing), and made a maximum cap at character creation 16 by point buy or racial increase (so an Elf Ranger is more versatile than a Half Orc one but not inherently better at Rangering). Sure, cookie cutter maximums, but that's going to happen anyway.

[Unoriginal]

Setting aside for a moment (we'll come back to it) the somewhat off-putting way this question was framed, Charisma isn't how attractive you perceive a character to be, it's how successful the character is in terms of social manipulation & how effective they are at harnessing instinctive forms of magic. 'Force of personality', assertiveness, leadership. Not hotness - which is itself highly subjective.

An attractive character with low charisma might, for instance, have trouble making their opinions and insights and personality heard by people who would rather pay attention to what they look like instead of what they're saying. Ironically enough, coming back to the question's framing, that's exactly how OP is treating Lidda as a character in this very thread. "How could she have low cha, when I think she's hot?"

No examples of Lidda being a leader, no stories of her successfully navigating high society situations, intimidating captives, or deceiving enemies. No examples of her pulling off a clever disguise. No examples of her succeeding at Cha-based skill checks. Quite to the contrary, one of the /most/ iconic (and hilarious!) pictures of Lidda from 3rd edition is the one already posted where she has spectacularly failed a cha-based 'Use Magic Device' check. What little we actually know of Lidda very much supports the idea that she was a high Dex and Int, Cha-dumping, cat-burglar type rogue, not the high-Cha charlatan/con-artist sort.

If I were to make a D&D character based on Lidda, she would absolutely dump Cha. I would definitely dump Charisma over Strength, considering that I would consider a high athletics score important for the character to climb and jump, and a decent carry capacity important for making off with treasure.

Well put.




“Standrd” ST Fighter that I would expect to see before racials.
ST 15, CO 14, DE 13 IN 8, WI 12, CH 10.


Could also go

ST 15, CO 14, DE 8, IN 10, WI 13, CH 12.

or

ST 15, CO 14, DE 8, IN 12, WI 13, CH 10.

or

ST 15, CO 14, DE 10, IN 12, WI 13, CH 8

or


ST 15, CO 14, DE 10, IN 8, WI 13, CH 12

[ProsecutorGodot]

... It's a game, not a "real life simulation." As such, balancing factors, such as standard array are taken into consideration. Would you enjoy an MMO where you could roll stats...

Funnily enough the Neverwinter MMO has rolled* base stats. You can redo them as many times as it takes to roll max on your relevant stats. It's an agonizing process when the game doesn't give you those rolls and you can't just max them yourself for no good reason.
*It's not even actually rolled stats, it's just randomized point buy

To OP, DM's aren't going to let you reroll until your relevant stats are passable, so I prefer to guarantee that they are even if it's slightly less than superhuman at level 1. I like point buy the most. I think that I'd even prefer standard array if I was given the choice between only rolling and taking standard.

[GreyBlack]

It appears I've sparked some debate. Excellent.

So, because of the design space that 5e occupies, let me just say that I understand the need for point buy. The entire design space appears catered to the idea that it is extremely hard to make a nonfunctional character. Not impossible, mind, but you'll airways be able to contribute in some way. There is also an underlying assumption that your character can never be completely crippled in some meaningful way. It goes with the power fantasy and the illusion being created. Everyone should be able to contribute in a meaningful way.

What that does, though, is that it does undercut some of the ability to create interesting characters and limits character design space, and encourages the fantasy equivalent of the Generically Good Looking Fantasy Dude (tm). In addition, it undercuts a certain level of diversity that can make for interesting campaigns. When you believe everyone can contribute to the problem, it can take away from the person who wants to make it their character's central point. And, when there is no mechanical reason to differentiate characters, then why differentiate them at all?

Please keep in mind that this is the design space that 5e has chosen; and that's absolutely fine. It's a legitimate design space. However, please recognise that it is a limited design space which does not lend itself to all types of storytelling.

[JNAProductions]

It appears I've sparked some debate. Excellent.

So, because of the design space that 5e occupies, let me just say that I understand the need for point buy. The entire design space appears catered to the idea that it is extremely hard to make a nonfunctional character. Not impossible, mind, but you'll airways be able to contribute in some way. There is also an underlying assumption that your character can never be completely crippled in some meaningful way. It goes with the power fantasy and the illusion being created. Everyone should be able to contribute in a meaningful way.

What that does, though, is that it does undercut some of the ability to create interesting characters and limits character design space, and encourages the fantasy equivalent of the Generically Good Looking Fantasy Dude (tm). In addition, it undercuts a certain level of diversity that can make for interesting campaigns. When you believe everyone can contribute to the problem, it can take away from the person who wants to make it their character's central point. And, when there is no mechanical reason to differentiate characters, then why differentiate them at all?

Please keep in mind that this is the design space that 5e has chosen; and that's absolutely fine. It's a legitimate design space. However, please recognise that it is a limited design space which does not lend itself to all types of storytelling.

I disagree with this. The Rogue with Dex 16 and Expertise in Stealth is rocking +7 to his checks. The GWF Fighter with heavy armor is rocking a -1 with disadvantage. They are very much differently specialized, and the gap only grows with level.

I will agree that D&D is not suitable for all types of stories-it's a heavily combat focused game, so any story that lacks a lot of combat isn't the best.

[Unoriginal]

It appears I've sparked some debate. Excellent.

Would be even more excellent if you engaged with the people who responded to you.



What that does, though, is that it does undercut some of the ability to create interesting characters and limits character design space

No it doesn't. Interesting characters can still be created without being "undercut" and the limits of the character designs are defined by the game itself, not by the ability point arrays.


In addition, it undercuts a certain level of diversity that can make for interesting campaigns.

Not really, no.


When you believe everyone can contribute to the problem, it can take away from the person who wants to make it their character's central point.

No, unless this person has ego problems and can't accept that others might be not hopeless at things they're exceptional at.


And, when there is no mechanical reason to differentiate characters, then why differentiate them at all?

Why not be even more hyperbolic, while you're at it?

Claiming that there is no mechanical differences between 5e characters is ridiculous. Claiming that there is no reasons to differentiate two characters who have similar stats is just as ridiculous, if not more.

Even if you took two characters with the same classes and starting stats, their creators can easily make them different thanks to Ideals, Bonds, Flaws, Alignment and Background, to say nothing of their appearances and how they're interpreted.



Please keep in mind that this is the design space that 5e has chosen; and that's absolutely fine. It's a legitimate design space. However, please recognise that it is a limited design space which does not lend itself to all types of storytelling.

No, there is no such thing to recognize.


D&D isn't fit for all types of storytelling, indeed, as it's written in the books. It's a game about adventurers doing hero stuff, not about building a baked goods empire or fighting the loss of your humanity after being infected by a vampire.

However, it has nothing to do with a "limited design space" for characters or anything else.

[GreyBlack]

No it doesn't. Interesting characters can still be created without being "undercut" and the limits of the character designs are defined by the game itself, not by the ability point arrays.





No, unless this person has ego problems and can't accept that others might be not hopeless at things they're exceptional at.



Why not be even more hyperbolic, while you're at it?

Claiming that there is no mechanical differences between 5e characters is ridiculous. Claiming that there is no reasons to differentiate two characters who have similar stats is just as ridiculous, if not more.

Even if you took two characters with the same classes and starting stats, their creators can easily make them different thanks to Ideals, Bonds, Flaws, Alignment and Background, to say nothing of their appearances and how they're interpreted.




No, there is no such thing to recognize.


D&D isn't fit for all types of storytelling, indeed, as it's written in the books. It's a game about adventurers doing hero stuff, not about building a baked goods empire or fighting the loss of your humanity after being infected by a vampire.

However, it has nothing to do with a "limited design space" for characters or anything else. No matter how much you want to be condescending about it.

Please explain, then, why I can't roleplay a character with a 5 wisdom under point buy rules.

ETA: I'll elaborate. It appears you may have missed my point. All games have a limited design space, and 5e is no different. That's not a bad thing and it is good for certain storytelling. However, that eye towards balance (everyone has an equal number of "points" they can spend) does limit some of the fun to my mind personally. If you enjoy point buy, by all means, have fun. I'm not going to tell you that there's only one way to play.

[ZorroGames]

Please explain, then, why I can't roleplay a character with a 5 wisdom under point buy rules.

It is an optional rules thing. Roll, standard array or point buy. AL it matters; your private game, like your private life, it doesn’t matter.

Roll dice long enough and you will achieve your goal.

Or just tell the DM you want a 5 instead of an 8 in WI score. Why would a DM stop you from choosing to reduce a score for role play? Just create a backstory between you and the DM.

Just do not expect to get those three points back for other stats. It was a design choice on your part. To expect otherwise would be... manipulative munchkin min-max tactics. :smallwink:

[ZorroGames]

Please explain, then, why I can't roleplay a character with a 5 wisdom under point buy rules.

ETA: I'll elaborate. It appears you may have missed my point. All games have a limited design space, and 5e is no different. That's not a bad thing and it is good for certain storytelling. However, that eye towards balance (everyone has an equal number of "points" they can spend) does limit some of the fun to my mind personally. If you enjoy point buy, by all means, have fun. I'm not going to tell you that there's only one way to play.

Who said you can’t? You seem to be limiting yourself.

And you do seem to be trying to get people to agree with you that you are being limited by the rules. You are not. No where does it say you MUST spend all 27 points or FORBID you dropping scores for Role Play purposes.

Why don’t you try taking your character to your DM and asking to play a character with a 5 WI and only 24 points in point buy? There should be no problem I would think. Have you done that or is this just theory-craft self-limiting?

[Unoriginal]

Please explain, then, why I can't roleplay a character with a 5 wisdom under point buy rules.

One, nice attempt at dodging the issues that were actually discussed.

Two, if you want an explanation: maybe the game designers didn't want ridiculously min-maxed characters or, more likely, maybe they thought that someone whose wisdom is inferior to a Gelatinous Cube's isn't adventurer material.

Three, if you want to roleplay a character with low wisdom, you can. But "I want a character is 5 WIS" is definitively not roleplaying.


However, that eye towards balance (everyone has an equal number of "points" they can spend) does limit some of the fun to my mind personally.

What about it limit your fun?


I'm not going to tell you that there's only one way to play.

Oh? So we don't have to "recognize" how limited it is anymore?

[GreyBlack]

It is an optional rules thing. Roll, standard array or point buy. AL it matters; your private game, like your private life, it doesn’t matter.

Roll dice long enough and you will achieve your goal.

Or just tell the DM you want a 5 instead of an 8 in WI score. Why would a DM stop you from choosing to reduce a score for role play? Just create a backstory between you and the DM.

Just do not expect to get those three points back for other stats. It was a design choice on your part. To expect otherwise would be... manipulative munchkin min-max tactics. :smallwink:

Why would I want those points back? Maybe I'm interested in playing a character who isn't as good as everyone else. Or, alternatively, is really good in one stat but horrible at everything else (say, 15/9/8/10/9/12).

Again, it's a design space choice. Which is fine, but it does limit some player freedom. Standardizing that all heroes have the same number of starting statistics only serves to say that heroes are either: 1) only so good or 2) must be this good. That's fine for a game which tries to say that all ways of playing are fine, but it doesn't allow, for example, a mentally handicapped character (think my dwarf from earlier) or an extremely sickly character who cannot move on their own (think Professor X). Wouldn't you want those character archetypes represented?

ETA:

One, nice attempt at dodging the issues that were actually discussed.

Two, if you want an explanation: maybe the game designers didn't want ridiculously min-maxed characters or, more likely, maybe they thought that someone whose wisdom is inferior to a Gelatinous Cube's isn't adventurer material.

Three, if you want to roleplay a character with low wisdom, you can. But "I want a character is 5 WIS" is definitively not roleplaying.



What about it limit your fun?

QUOTE=GreyBlack;22542212] I'm not going to tell you that there's only one way to play.[/QUOTE]

Ah, I see you're conflating that I want less points to get a mechanical advantage. What does it say that your mind instantly went to that example?

[JNAProductions]

Why would I want those points back? Maybe I'm interested in playing a character who isn't as good as everyone else. Or, alternatively, is really good in one stat but horrible at everything else (say, 15/9/8/10/9/12).

Again, it's a design space choice. Which is fine, but it does limit some player freedom. Standardizing that all heroes have the same number of starting statistics only serves to say that heroes are either: 1) only so good or 2) must be this good. That's fine for a game which tries to say that all ways of playing are fine, but it doesn't allow, for example, a mentally handicapped character (think my dwarf from earlier) or an extremely sickly character who cannot move on their own (think Professor X). Wouldn't you want those character archetypes represented?

In the base rules? No-not with limited book space. They're archetypes, yes, but they aren't core to D&D stories, and so don't need to be in the main book.

Now, in later expansions or in homebrew, yes, definitely. But I don't think D&D needs to cover literally everything ever possible.

In addition, I'd seriously hesitate to ever play a character who I'd describe as mentally handicapped. That sounds like a recipe for being an asshat.

[Unoriginal]

Ah, I see you're conflating that I want less points to get a mechanical advantage. What does it say that your mind instantly went to that example?

It says nothing about my mind, because it did not went instantly to that exemple.

Again, you're dodging anything you don't want to answer and are trying to imply there is something wrong with people who do challenge your points.

It's a simple fact of game design that if you create a point-buy system that allows very low stats, you'll get people who will take those very low stats in order to be better at something else. It's true of any system that allows it.

Also, nice to see you promptly ignored the actual point.

[Anonymouswizard]

Can I play a fighter who bashes people with a sword, a crafty rogue who steals treasure from under the dragon's snout, a wizard researching things man was not meant to know, or a cleric who calls on the power of the gods?

D&D presents all the archetypes it needs to be D&D.

[GreyBlack]

It says nothing about my mind, because it did not went instantly to that exemple.

Again, you're dodging anything you don't want to answer and are trying to imply there is something wrong with people who do challenge your points.

It's a simple fact of game design that if you create a point-buy system that allows very low stats, you'll get people who will take those very low stats in order to be better at something else. It's true of any system that allows it.

Also, nice to see you promptly ignored the actual point.

Except I'm not arguing for a point buy system. I'm arguing against it. My personal preferred system of generating statistics is rolling it. In that, in a 4d6b3 I can assign my statistics how I like.

[Anonymouswizard]

Except I'm not arguing for a point buy system. I'm arguing against it. My personal preferred system of generating statistics is rolling it. In that, in a 4d6b3 I can assign my statistics how I like.

Weakling, back in my day we rolled 3d6 in order and we liked it.

[MaxWilson]

Lidda is 3 and a half foot tall. The size of a 12 year old girl.

I think you mean "the size of a five-year-old girl." The average twelve-year-old girl is only a couple of inches shy of her adult height, about five feet tall. The average five-year-old girl is three and a half feet tall.

Ref: http://halls.md/chart-girls-height-w/

Halflings are really, really small by human standards.

[JackPhoenix]

Why would I want those points back? Maybe I'm interested in playing a character who isn't as good as everyone else. Or, alternatively, is really good in one stat but horrible at everything else (say, 15/9/8/10/9/12).

Again, it's a design space choice. Which is fine, but it does limit some player freedom. Standardizing that all heroes have the same number of starting statistics only serves to say that heroes are either: 1) only so good or 2) must be this good. That's fine for a game which tries to say that all ways of playing are fine, but it doesn't allow, for example, a mentally handicapped character (think my dwarf from earlier) or an extremely sickly character who cannot move on their own (think Professor X). Wouldn't you want those character archetypes represented.

Your problem seems to be that you assume stats matter in roleplaying the character. They do not, they only matter on the mechanical side of things. How do you roleplay "Wisdom 5"? How is it different from wisdom 4, or wisdom 6? Or wisdom 8, for that matter?

You can make perfectly viable orc wizard with Int 1 (roll 3 and asign it to Int, then -2 penalty for being orc). Animals have higher Int than you... but they are still animals, and the wizard learns and casts spells (though good luck hitting something with them, or making anyone fail its save), speaks multiple languages, and possess various skills, most likely including lore skills (and yes, he's going to have negative modifier until fairly high level).

Just because my character is mentally handicapped (which I agree with JNAProductions shouldn't be allowed in the first place) doesn't mean he's almost blind (Perception mod), has no willpower (Wis saves) or can't be favored by higher power (Wis casting). Even Dex 1 (which is, and was impossible in 3.5e too) doesn't mean you can't move on your own, only that you take serious penalties to certain mechanics. You'll have to play the character as crippled and incapable of movement on your own in both editions. And yes, I don't want those character archetypes represented, neither of them has any place in heroic fantasy focused on exploring dungeons and killing dragons. There are other systems for that.

[GreyBlack]

Weakling, back in my day we rolled 3d6 in order and we liked it.

Man, I've been looking for a group to do that with for years! Ran a 1 shot under those rules and random race and I swear it was the best game we ever did.

ETA:

Your problem seems to be that you assume stats matter in roleplaying the character. They do not, they only matter on the mechanical side of things. How do you roleplay "Wisdom 5"? How is it different from wisdom 4, or wisdom 6? Or wisdom 8, for that matter?

You can make perfectly viable orc wizard with Int 1 (roll 3 and asign it to Int, then -2 penalty for being orc). Animals have higher Int than you... but they are still animals, and the wizard learns and casts spells (though good luck hitting something with them, or making anyone fail its save), speaks multiple languages, and possess various skills, most likely including lore skills (and yes, he's going to have negative modifier until fairly high level).

Just because my character is mentally handicapped (which I agree with JNAProductions shouldn't be allowed in the first place) doesn't mean he's almost blind (Perception mod), has no willpower (Wis saves) or can't be favored by higher power (Wis casting). Even Dex 1 (which is, and was impossible in 3.5e too) doesn't mean you can't move on your own, only that you take serious penalties to certain mechanics. You'll have to play the character as crippled and incapable of movement on your own in both editions. And yes, I don't want those character archetypes represented, neither of them has any place in heroic fantasy focused on exploring dungeons and killing dragons. There are other systems for that.

How would a character with an intelligence of 8 differ from a character with an intelligence out 15, then? You mean to say that both characters would approach problems the same way?

[Naanomi]

If I wanted a weakness like ‘makes poor decisions’ I would use the Flaw system to do so instead of (or in addition to) low stats

[GreyBlack]

If I wanted a weakness like ‘makes poor decisions’ I would use the Flaw system to do so instead of (or in addition to) low stats

And that's just fine. That's what makes the game fun for you. I'm happy for that.

My beef is more that there is that there appears to be an overarching belief that characters who are well outside the statistical norm cannot be heroes. You lose characters like Arya Stark in book 1 and 2, Brann Stark, Gollum (I'd say about a Wisdom 5 for him), and River Tamm. All of them have severe character statistic deficits which are not allowed under standard point buy rules but have a clearly definable archetype in fantasy literature.

[Unoriginal]

My beef is more that there is that there appears to be an overarching belief that characters who are well outside the statistical norm cannot be heroes. You lose characters like Arya Stark in book 1 and 2, Brann Stark, Gollum (I'd say about a Wisdom 5 for him), and River Tamm. All of them have severe character statistic deficits which are not allowed under standard point buy rules but have a clearly definable archetype in fantasy literature.

Gollum doesn't have WIS 5. River Tamm doesn't have severe character statistic deficits. Arya Stark in the first book isn't a hero, she's a kid who hasn't gotten her first level (and she hasn't severe statistic deficits when she grows up and learn). And Bran Stark's not a D&D style hero.

[Sception]

Can I play a fighter who bashes people with a sword, a crafty rogue who steals treasure from under the dragon's snout, a wizard researching things man was not meant to know, or a cleric who calls on the power of the gods?

Yes to all of those except, sort of, the cleric. But that's not a problem with point buy, it's a problem with the clerics defining character trait (their spells) using a different stat from their defining class skill (religion) - a problem that's existed for several decades & editions. Either cleric spells should cast based on int, or else religion should check based on wisdom. Same with Druids and nature. Easiest fix would be to trade nature and religion to wisdom, and in exchange maybe make medicine int based.

But that's a whole separate conversation.

[Unoriginal]

Yes to all of those except, sort of, the cleric. But that's not a problem with point buy, it's a problem with the clerics defining character trait (their spells) using a different stat from their defining class skill (religion) - a problem that's existed for several decades & editions. Either cleric spells should cast based on int, or else religion should check based on wisdom.

What.

Calling the power of the gods has nothing to do with the Religion skill.

A Cleric is a Chosen One of the god. They don't need to be scholars of religion. Plenty of scholarly priests are not Cleric.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yes to all of those except, sort of, the cleric. But that's not a problem with point buy, it's a problem with the clerics defining character trait (their spells) using a different stat from their defining class skill (religion) - a problem that's existed for several decades & editions. Either cleric spells should cast based on int, or else religion should check based on wisdom. Same with Druids and nature. Easiest fix would be to trade nature and religion to wisdom, and in exchange maybe make medicine int based.

But that's a whole separate conversation.

That's a weird complaint. Religion has to do with the knowledge and practices of religions, which sounds like INT to me. Conversely Clerics sound like they should be Charisma casters to me, but that's personal opinion. Heck, in several editions clerics are noted as not being exclusively trained priests, but also being those highly religious people chosen by their god despite following another profession.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes to all of those except, sort of, the cleric. But that's not a problem with point buy, it's a problem with the clerics defining character trait (their spells) using a different stat from their defining class skill (religion) - a problem that's existed for several decades & editions. Either cleric spells should cast based on int, or else religion should check based on wisdom. Same with Druids and nature. Easiest fix would be to trade nature and religion to wisdom, and in exchange maybe make medicine int based.

But that's a whole separate conversation.

But knowing a lot of religious doctrine (the religion skill) is very different than having faith (the requirement of a Cleric). I've known lots of very knowledgeable atheists and many more very faithful people who knew only the very basics. All the INT skills are about academic knowledge. Knowing the rituals, the symbols, etc. None of them require a connection to deity.

Same with nature. Being a druid is about having a connection to the ebb and flow of natural powers (in my setting, specifically connecting with nature spirits) that can't be understood through reason and logic, because they're a-rational. Nature, the skill, is about knowing specific things about mating habits, etc.

Of course, many clerics learn a bunch about religion (are proficient in it) and many druids learn facts about nature (are proficient in it), but for neither is this a prerequisite for being a successful member of that class.

[GreyBlack]

Gollum doesn't have WIS 5. River Tamm doesn't have severe character statistic deficits. Arya Stark in the first book isn't a hero, she's a kid who hasn't gotten her first level (and she hasn't severe statistic deficits when she grows up and learn). And Bran Stark's not a D&D style hero.

River Tamm's extreme difficulties associating with other people indicates to me that she that her charisma is significantly lower than the average person, a byproduct of the experimentation she underwent. Her charisma is certainly not an 8.

Gollum's long experience with the Ring has left him extremely susceptible to mind-affecting effects, and has caused him trouble associating with reality again. That, combined with his addiction, makes it difficult for him to discern reality from falsehood. I'd argue his wisdom is below an 8.

Arya Stark... yes. I'll give you that she isn't necessarily a "hero" in book 1, but she does still have a character level by book 2 (Rogue 1, I'd argue). She's 10 years old, but that still makes her strength under 8. She does grow into it.

I'd argue that Brann Stark is a D&D style character; while immobile, he is integral to the success of his allies, granting significant buffs to his allies and mind controlling animals and such to fight for them. He just can't walk. And Hodor is his familiar.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You're putting too much weight on the ability scores. There are background features (which don't have to be positive), there are curses, there are other effects. Oh, and modeling non-D&D characters in D&D is fraught with peril, since the rules of those fictional worlds don't map exactly.

Alternate interpretations--


River Tamm's extreme difficulties associating with other people indicates to me that she that her charisma is significantly lower than the average person, a byproduct of the experimentation she underwent. Her charisma is certainly not an 8.


No. She is unpracticed (not proficient) with social skills, and has a background feature Extreme trauma that gives disadvantage on social skill attempts. Her force of will, her ability to resist control is high, thus her CHA is high.



Gollum's long experience with the Ring has left him extremely susceptible to mind-affecting effects, and has caused him trouble associating with reality again. That, combined with his addiction, makes it difficult for him to discern reality from falsehood. I'd argue his wisdom is below an 8.


Gollum is suffering from a "curse" that gives him a penalty (disadvantage at least) to Wisdom saving throws and Wisdom (Insight) checks. He can see and hear (perception) just fine. Thus his Wisdom is in the normal range, with a more specific penalty.



Arya Stark... yes. I'll give you that she isn't necessarily a "hero" in book 1, but she does still have a character level by book 2 (Rogue 1, I'd argue). She's 10 years old, but that still makes her strength under 8. She does grow into it.

I'd argue that Brann Stark is a D&D style character; while immobile, he is integral to the success of his allies, granting significant buffs to his allies and mind controlling animals and such to fight for them. He just can't walk. And Hodor is his familiar.

I don't know SoFaI, so I can't say anything about these ones.

[Potato_Priest]

http://images.comiccollectorlive.com/covers/aff/afff3c79-c842-4aa0-bd12-7fe113f53b70.jpg

The sexiest halfling in the world.

Everyone always focuses on the halfling in the picture, but every time I see this cover come up my focus is on pondering the tactics necessary to fight pixies without being pantsed.

Personally I use 4d6 b3, reroll if you ask for one and I decide your stats are bad enough.

[thepsyker]

You're putting too much weight on the ability scores. There are background features (which don't have to be positive), there are curses, there are other effects. Oh, and modeling non-D&D characters in D&D is fraught with peril, since the rules of those fictional worlds don't map exactly.

Alternate interpretations--



No. She is unpracticed (not proficient) with social skills, and has a background feature Extreme trauma that gives disadvantage on social skill attempts. Her force of will, her ability to resist control is high, thus her CHA is high.



Gollum is suffering from a "curse" that gives him a penalty (disadvantage at least) to Wisdom saving throws and Wisdom (Insight) checks. He can see and hear (perception) just fine. Thus his Wisdom is in the normal range, with a more specific penalty.



I don't know SoFaI, so I can't say anything about these ones.
Well for Bran at least the issue has nothing to do with his attributes, but with his being paralyzed from the waist down as a result of a fall. Since D&D doesn't have that level of granularity in representing long term injuries you would need to use a house rule to represent it, but point buy or dice role dosen't really come into it.

[Sception]

But knowing a lot of religious doctrine (the religion skill) is very different than having faith (the requirement of a Cleric). I've known lots of very knowledgeable atheists and many more very faithful people who knew only the very basics. All the INT skills are about academic knowledge. Knowing the rituals, the symbols, etc. None of them require a connection to deity.

Some of that stuff - ancient religions & practices for instance - is better shuffled to history. While the actual meat of the religion skill - practicing services, conducting rituals, deciphering the meaning of sigils and signs - can just as easily be characterized as being based on intuition, perception of the needs and emotions of your congregation, and an open mind to the bordering-on-subconscious influence of the gods acting on you. Remember, in D&D land, divine will and influence is real and present, not a purely academic concern, as much or more about subtle insight than rote memorization.

Same with nature, with a skill rebranded as being open to and aware of natural patterns, the ebb and flow of predator and prey. Knowing that this or that is poisonous not because you memorized a field guide, but because of the colors it displays, where it grows, what has or hasn't fed on it. Maybe merge the skill with survival, which is already a wisdom skill. And that's before you get to the supernatural aspects, which again in D&D land are very real. There are wind spirits, tree spirits. The natural places are full of subtle supernatural presences that will inform those with the insight and intuition to listen to them.

Alternatively, make the cleric and druid int-based casters. Faith, after all, is not key to their spell casting. Their power is drawn from concrete and tangible service to supernatural sources that they know to exist. Because, again, the gods and spirits in D&D are real. Divine magic isn't psychosomatic. Cure wounds isn't going to fail to heal due to a lack of faith in the gods any more than scorching ray is going to fail to harm due to a lack of faith in fire.

Regardless, I would absolutely say that clerics being, as a rule, pretty bad at religion, while druids are likewise, generally pretty bad at nature, both represent rather obvious points of failure. Not of the characters or their players, who are simply following where the game mechanics lead, but rather of the game mechanics themselves. If D&D regularly produced tone deaf bards or wizards ignorant of spellcraft, those would likewise constitute very real points of mechanical failure in the game's system design.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well for Bran at least the issue has nothing to do with his attributes, but with his being paralyzed from the waist down as a result of a fall. Since D&D doesn't have that level of granularity in representing long term injuries you would need to use a house rule to represent it, but point buy or dice role dosen't really come into it.

Right. The attributes are meaningless in this case--you'd need the Lasting Injury optional rules from the DMG (at minimum, probably more) to represent that character.

Playing D&D (and accepting that ruleset) already limits the viable character space. The point-buy vs roll vs standard array impose needed standardization and reduce imbalance.

[GreyBlack]

You're putting too much weight on the ability scores. There are background features (which don't have to be positive), there are curses, there are other effects. Oh, and modeling non-D&D characters in D&D is fraught with peril, since the rules of those fictional worlds don't map exactly.

That's fair. I'm more just pointing to examples of characters who could be considered outside of the statistical norms.



Alternate interpretations--

No. She is unpracticed (not proficient) with social skills, and has a background feature Extreme trauma that gives disadvantage on social skill attempts. Her force of will, her ability to resist control is high, thus her CHA is high.


Except the Command, Charm and Dominate spells operate against a Wisdom saving throw. So then wouldn't a better model for force of will be her Wisdom? I'll agree her wisdom is off the charts.



Gollum is suffering from a "curse" that gives him a penalty (disadvantage at least) to Wisdom saving throws and Wisdom (Insight) checks. He can see and hear (perception) just fine. Thus his Wisdom is in the normal range, with a more specific penalty.


Or he could just be proficient in Perception, which would make sense being out in the woods. His proficiency balances out his other negative parts of the wisdom score while maintaining the drawbacks of the low wisdom. Heck, let's go the other way; when outdoors, Gollum gets a background feature that gives him advantage on Perception checks.



I don't know SoFaI, so I can't say anything about these ones.

That's fair. So Arya starts as a 9 year old girl; I don't know many 9 year olds who can carry 120 pounds easily, so I'm going to say that her strength is less than 8.

And Bran we'll just ignore for now; he's really irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. Much like to the rest of the story to this point. (HEYO!)

[Regitnui]

I think GreyBlack is confusing character stats for character. You can put things like "Reckless" or "Don't tell me the plan, I'll forget it, and what I don't forget I'll ignore" in Flaw. There's a reason we have the Traits now, after all. Say I have two fighters in my group (former compatriots), same stats off the standard array. Now we add the following Traits;
Ideal:
1) I fought for freedom, and I plan to enjoy it.
2) The war is never over until the last of my enemies fall.

Bond:
1) I've got a family now, and I promised my wife I'd always come home.
2) A child dropped her doll at my feet when she was slaughtered by the enemy. The culprit will pay.

Flaw:
1) I have a slight tendency to overindulge. After all, I earned this the hard way, with my own blood and sweat!
2) I get tunnel vision when someone stands between me and making these wrongs right again.

Are they the same character, despite their identical stats? Do they play the same way?

[lunaticfringe]

5e Lidda could easily dump cha and end up being more charming than most of her party.

8 Cha w/ Expertise @ 20: 6x2=12-1=11

20 Cha w/ Proficiency @ 20: 6+5=11

But one of many reasons why Rogues are the ****.

[ZorroGames]

In the base rules? No-not with limited book space. They're archetypes, yes, but they aren't core to D&D stories, and so don't need to be in the main book.

Now, in later expansions or in homebrew, yes, definitely. But I don't think D&D needs to cover literally everything ever possible.

In addition, I'd seriously hesitate to ever play a character who I'd describe as mentally handicapped. That sounds like a recipe for being an asshat.
Yes, agree.
Yes, agree.
Certainly could be seen that way.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Some of that stuff - ancient religions & practices for instance - is better shuffled to history. While the actual meat of the religion skill - practicing services, conducting rituals, deciphering the meaning of sigils and signs - can just as easily be characterized as being based on intuition, perception of the needs and emotions of your congregation, and an open mind to the bordering-on-subconscious influence of the gods acting on you. Remember, in D&D land, divine will and influence is real and present, not a purely academic concern, as much or more about subtle insight than rote memorization.


Same with nature, with a skill rebranded as being open to and aware of natural patterns, the ebb and flow of predator and prey. Knowing that this or that is poisonous not because you memorized a field guide, but because of the colors it displays, where it grows, what has or hasn't fed on it. Maybe merge the skill with survival, which is already a wisdom skill. And that's before you get to the supernatural aspects, which again in D&D land are very real. There are wind spirits, tree spirits. The natural places are full of subtle supernatural presences that will inform those with the insight and intuition to listen to them.


But neither of those is what the Nature skill or the Religion skill mean in game. Yes, if you change them, you could re-brand them. But that's not what they are. They're specifically, and intentionally, academic learning skills.



Otherwise, I would absolutely say that clerics being, as a rule, pretty bad at religion, while druids are likewise, generally pretty bad at nature, both represent rather obvious points of failure. Not of the characters or their players, who are simply following where the game mechanics lead, but rather of the game mechanics themselves. If the game regularly produced tonedeaf bards or wizards who knew nothing of spellcraft, those would likewise constitute pretty obvious points of failure.

They're not bad at religion or at nature. With proficiency, they're way above average. You can make someone who's slightly worse (on average) at those (by dumping INT and not selecting proficiency), but that's beyond the norm. That'd be the semi-literate street preacher who has a strong connection to his god and is inspired, but can't quote chapter or verse. That's a fine character.

For druids, take a character who has a natural connection to the wild spirits. He can see them, and they obey his requests because they're friends. He has no formal training, can't tell a robin from a bluebird, but can evoke the spirits' help powerfully. This is also a fine character.

As is a bard who, while he has no stage-sense (low performance) is an utter magician on a recording and can resonate with reality to cast spells. There are plenty of such examples (minus the spell-casting) in the real world--people who can't act a lick on stage but are great voice actors (for example). People whose live shows stink, but who have great soul to their music.

[GreyBlack]

I think GreyBlack is confusing character stats for character. You can put things like "Reckless" or "Don't tell me the plan, I'll forget it, and what I don't forget I'll ignore" in Flaw. There's a reason we have the Traits now, after all. Say I have two fighters in my group (former compatriots), same stats off the standard array. Now we add the following Traits;
Ideal:
1) I fought for freedom, and I plan to enjoy it.
2) The war is never over until the last of my enemies fall.

Bond:
1) I've got a family now, and I promised my wife I'd always come home.
2) A child dropped her doll at my feet when she was slaughtered by the enemy. The culprit will pay.

Flaw:
1) I have a slight tendency to overindulge. After all, I earned this the hard way, with my own blood and sweat!
2) I get tunnel vision when someone stands between me and making these wrongs right again.

Are they the same character, despite their identical stats? Do they play the same way?

Character traits are not the same thing as statistics. I'll agree. But let's go the other way. We have a wizard with the same ideals, bonds, and flaws, but one has an Int of 16 while one has an Int of 8 (we'll do a bull**** background story that they're both nobles who were forced to go to wizarding school). Will they both approach a problem in the same manner?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Except the Command, Charm and Dominate spells operate against a Wisdom saving throw. So then wouldn't a better model for force of will be her Wisdom? I'll agree her wisdom is off the charts.


Charisma is the ability to force the universe to listen to you. When a charismatic person says "jump", reality asks "how high." Charisma saves also are against things like banishment--a charismatic person refuses to budge from this place.

But yes, she has high wisdom as well.

She's not modellable as a D&D character without breaking the system beyond its bounds. So don't. Stick to D&D characters for examples. Bringing in other fiction doesn't clarify anything.

[ZorroGames]

Why would I want those points back? Maybe I'm interested in playing a character who isn't as good as everyone else. Or, alternatively, is really good in one stat but horrible at everything else (say, 15/9/8/10/9/12).

Again, it's a design space choice. Which is fine, but it does limit some player freedom. Standardizing that all heroes have the same number of starting statistics only serves to say that heroes are either: 1) only so good or 2) must be this good. That's fine for a game which tries to say that all ways of playing are fine, but it doesn't allow, for example, a mentally handicapped character (think my dwarf from earlier) or an extremely sickly character who cannot move on their own (think Professor X). Wouldn't you want those character archetypes represented?

ETA:


Ah, I see you're conflating that I want less points to get a mechanical advantage. What does it say that your mind instantly went to that example?[/QUOTE]

It says that that has been a reality since white box OD&D for me.

[Honest Tiefling]

Clearly, they should have dump stated her INT

UMD was tied to charisma in 3.5. I could be wrong, but I don't think there's any evidence that she was particularly charismatic. Also, why are these complaints only being leveled at the female characters?

As for Mialee, she is a thing of unspeakable wrongness whose very visage is terrifying. Yeah, 8 charisma for her. Maybe even 6.

[ZorroGames]

And that's just fine. That's what makes the game fun for you. I'm happy for that.

My beef is more that there is that there appears to be an overarching belief that characters who are well outside the statistical norm cannot be heroes. You lose characters like Arya Stark in book 1 and 2, Brann Stark, Gollum (I'd say about a Wisdom 5 for him), and River Tamm. All of them have severe character statistic deficits which are not allowed under standard point buy rules but have a clearly definable archetype in fantasy literature.

Oh for God’s sakes, book characters are not PCs.

[Unoriginal]

Cure wounds isn't going to fail to heal due to a lack of faith in the gods

Yes it will.

You're only a Cleric because your deity says so. Stop having faith in them, dedicating yourself to them, and they'll take your power away. Of course, there is plenty of other things to worship, so you could get a new faith, but still.



Regardless, I would absolutely say that clerics being, as a rule, pretty bad at religion, while druids are likewise, generally pretty bad at nature, both represent rather obvious points of failure. Not of the characters or their players, who are simply following where the game mechanics lead, but rather of the game mechanics themselves. If D&D regularly produced tone deaf bards or wizards ignorant of spellcraft, those would likewise constitute very real points of mechanical failure in the game's system design.

I fail to see how a Cleric who bother to select Religion or a Druid who bother to select Nature would be "pretty bad" at that skill.

[Sception]

They're not bad at religion or at nature. With proficiency, they're way above average. You can make someone who's slightly worse (on average) at those (by dumping INT and not selecting proficiency), but that's beyond the norm. That'd be the semi-literate street preacher who has a strong connection to his god and is inspired, but can't quote chapter or verse. That's a fine character.

End game maybe, when proficiency has eclipsed stat modifiers in skill checks. But sadly most gaming is done in the early game, and in the early game a measily +1 to a skill check doesn't really constitute being 'good at something', not in the way that, say, a wizard should be good at arcana, a bard should be good at performing, a cleric should be good at religion, or a druid should be good at nature. It's barely better than a coin flip for a 1st level cleric to know even relatively basic information about their own deity, or for a first level druid to know similarly basic information about the plants and animals in their own grove!

The problem's certainly less bad than it has been in some previous editions, but it remains, and remains glaring. If the party has a question about religion, the cleric should be the first party member they turn to, not the 3rd or 4th. Same with when the druid and questions about nature. The frequency of failures failures on these checks by these classes is an embarrassment. It's an in-universe embarrassment to the characters, an at-the-table embarrassment to their players, and a professional embarrassment to the game's creators.

[GreyBlack]

She's not modellable as a D&D character without breaking the system beyond its bounds. So don't. Stick to D&D characters for examples. Bringing in other fiction doesn't clarify anything.

Disagree. Mystic 5: Immortal
Str: 10
Dex:16
Con: 12
Int:18
Wis:15
Cha: 6

I don't think that's too far outside the bounds of the system, do you?

ETA:

Oh for God’s sakes, book characters are not PCs.

You're right. I'm pointing to character archetypes. The child growing up in a rough world is absolutely a character archetype (Arya), as is the tortured mind (Gollum, River).

You're looking at my arguments maybe a little too closely and not seeing the larger arguments at play.

[Regitnui]

Character traits are not the same thing as statistics. I'll agree. But let's go the other way. We have a wizard with the same ideals, bonds, and flaws, but one has an Int of 16 while one has an Int of 8 (we'll do a bull**** background story that they're both nobles who were forced to go to wizarding school). Will they both approach a problem in the same manner?

The bolded part is your first problem. It's a roleplaying game, not a rollplaying game.

But I'll bite. No, they wouldn't. Likely the smarter one would approach problems in a different manner to the other. Perhaps the smarter one would see the magic solution where the other would see the pragmatic, mundane solution. But if they're different personalities, they should have different traits. Having identical Traits is nigh impossible, when ability scores are Kore limited (and trust me, playing a character with any sort of gameplay-affecting disability is annoying as Gehenna and tends to be forgotten in gameplay anyway, even if it gets reflected in stats).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes it will.

You're only a Cleric because your deity says so. Stop having faith in them, dedicating yourself to them, and they'll take your power away. Of course, there is plenty of other things to worship, so you could get a new faith, but still.


Exactly. That's what separates clerics from wizards. Wizards are rote casters--they perform the same actions, words, etc over and over to produce their resonant effects (spells). Clerics beseech aid from beyond, based on their faith and their connection to that Power. It's not the words of the prayer that matter--it's the intent, the force of faith behind it.

Same with druids. If they can't connect to nature in a way that transcends knowledge, their spells don't work. The gestures, words, etc are meaningless without that non-rational connection.

[GreyBlack]

The bolded part is your first problem. It's a roleplaying game, not a rollplaying game.

But I'll bite. No, they wouldn't. Likely the smarter one would approach problems in a different manner to the other. Perhaps the smarter one would see the magic solution where the other would see the pragmatic, mundane solution. But if they're different personalities, they should have different traits. Having identical Traits is nigh impossible, when ability scores are Kore limited (and trust me, playing a character with any sort of gameplay-affecting disability is annoying as Gehenna and tends to be forgotten in gameplay anyway, even if it gets reflected in stats).

Roleplaying games take many forms. While unlikely, I could conceive of two similar characters using that same backstory, with the same ideals and flaws. One is just fundamentally more limited in their mental capacities.

To your second point: So then we should limit possible characters because they might get forgotten? Then wouldn't you not be playing your role?

[Unoriginal]

End game maybe, when proficiency has eclipsed stat modifiers in skill checks. But sadly most gaming is done in the early game, and in the early game a measily +1 to a skill check doesn't really constitute being 'good at something', not in the way that, say, a wizard should be good at arcana, a bard should be good at performing, a cleric should be good at religion, or a druid should be good at nature. It's barely better than a coin flip for a 1st level cleric to know even relatively basic information about their own deity, or for a first level druid to know similarly basic information about the plants and animals in their own grove!

The problem's certainly less bad than it has been in some previous editions, but it remains, and remains glaring. If the party has a question about religion, the cleric should be the first party member they turn to, not the 3rd or 4th. Same with when the druid and questions about nature. The frequency of failures failures on these checks by these classes is an embarrassment. It's an in-universe embarrassment to the characters, an at-the-table embarrassment to their players, and a professional embarrassment to the game's creators.

What are you talking about?

A character with proficiency in a skill will at minimum have +2. If they have INT 8, then you're essentially asking "why is my dumber-than-average character not the most knowledgeable on this subject?"

Also, having +1 in a skill is still more than most people.

[ZorroGames]

Disagree. Mystic 5: Immortal
Str: 10
Dex:16
Con: 12
Int:18
Wis:15
Cha: 6

I don't think that's too far outside the bounds of the system, do you?

ETA:


You're right. I'm pointing to character archetypes. The child growing up in a rough world is absolutely a character archetype (Arya), as is the tortured mind (Gollum, River).

You're looking at my arguments maybe a little too closely and not seeing the larger arguments at play.

No. I have decided either you want to troll to your heart’s content or you just want to rag on a game that doesn’t let you play outside the design.

Well, Monopoly, Fresco, Yellowstone, Origins of World War 2, Parcheesi, Dicover India, Eat it!, Backgammon, and Sorry! - all games on my shelf - have that same trait. Rules to define the game. You have been given ways to have your cake and eat it too. Pun unintended. You seem to want people to agree with you that your flavor, which I will call “Treacle Mint” for flavor, pun intended, is necessary. It isn’t.

Thete are no larger arguments at play, only a larger ego. Yours.

Off to block seeing your drivel.

[GreyBlack]

No. I have decided either you want to troll to your heart’s content or you just want to rag on a game that doesn’t let you play outside the design.

Well, Monopoly, Fresco, Yellowstone, Origins of World War 2, Parcheesi, Dicover India, Eat it!, Backgammon, and Sorry! - all games on my shelf - have that same trait. Rules to define the game. You have been given ways to have your cake and eat it too. Pun unintended. You seem to want people to agree with you that your flavor, which I will call “Treacle Mint” for flavor, pun intended, is necessary. It isn’t.

Thete are no larger arguments at play, only a larger ego. Yours.

Off to block seeing your drivel.

Cool beans. Enjoy your gaming!

[alchahest]

What are you talking about?

A character with proficiency in a skill will at minimum have +2. If they have INT 8, then you're essentially asking "why is my dumber-than-average character not the most knowledgeable on this subject?"

Also, having +1 in a skill is still more than most people.

+2 is not the minimum for a proficient character. if you have a -2 ability mod, your minimum will be zero. if you have (yikes) a -3, your minimum will be -1.

[Sception]

A wizard - who we would expect to be good at arcana - becomes better at everything else in their class when they put more points into the stat that makes them good at arcana. A rogue - who we would expect to be good at acrobatics - becomes a better rogue when they put more points into the stat that is associated with acrobatics. A bard - who we would expect to be good at performance - becomes a better bard when they put more points into the skill associated with performance. A fighter - who we would expect to be good at athletics - becomes a better fighter when they put more points into the stat associated with athletics.

A cleric - who we would expect to be good at religion - becomes a worse cleric the more points they invest in the stat associated with religion, and conversely becomes a better cleric the worse at religion they are.

A druid - who we would expect to be good at nature - becomes a worse druid the more points they invest in the stat associated with nature, and conversely becomes a better druid the worse at nature they are.

What other basic, core character concepts have this tension? We're not even talking about something weird or out of the box, like urban druids or the like.

These are absolutely failure points in the system. They don't undo the whole game, or even these classes in particular, but I have regularly witnessed this problem break the game's immersion and impair player connection with their characters. Again, the cleric should be the first guy the party turns to with religion questions, the druid the first guy the party turns to with questions about the natural world The fact that this regularly isn't the case is a problem.

[Regitnui]

Roleplaying games take many forms. While unlikely, I could conceive of two similar characters using that same backstory, with the same ideals and flaws. One is just fundamentally more limited in their mental capacities.

To your second point: So then we should limit possible characters because they might get forgotten? Then wouldn't you not be playing your role?

Being fundamentally more limited in their capacity, they'd see themselves differently. They can't be the same character. Your flipping honestly doesn't work from a Wastonian perspective, and is tenuous from the Doylist.

No two people are exactly alike. These hypothetical wizards could share the same bond (to their school), but they'd likely phrase it differently:
1) "I owe my life and livelihood to my school, and I'll defend it with my life."
2) "This school trains the best wizards in the world. I will make sure it will keep doing so."
Same bond, different character. Scores influence Traits, Traits make a character.

No. Don't misinterpret my point. I said, "Drawbacks that would cripple a character in some way tend to be forgotten in play." After all, your wizard with an 8 intelligence (just below average, by the way. Plenty of them in Harry Potter), if played by a smart player, would have good ideas come from the player through the character during play. Not to say it shouldn't be done, but if a player says "I can't move without help," as you would have them do, the other players would either find it annoying or it'd eventually get glossed over in play, like my artificer who had a standing bonus action to reload his gun. It got glossed over.

[Unoriginal]

A cleric - who we would expect to be good at religion - becomes a worse cleric the more points they invest in the stat associated with religion, and conversely becomes a better cleric the worse at religion they are.


A druid - who we would expect to be good at nature - becomes a worse druid the more points they invest in the stat associated with nature, and conversely becomes a better druid the worse at nature they are.[/QUOTE]

No, the Druid and the Cleric keeps becoming better and better at Religion and Nature, as proved by their increasing proficiency bonus.





A wizard - who we would expect to be good at arcana - becomes better at everything else in their class when they put more points into the stat that makes them good at arcana. A rogue - who we would expect to be good at acrobatics - becomes a better rogue when they put more points into the stat that is associated with acrobatics


Fun fact: the character who will be the best at Arcana in 5e is a Rogue (or Bard) with Expertise. They will be better than the Wizard.

Why? Because it's an academic skill, and while the Rogue is busy becoming an expert in the history of spellcasting and classifying obscure magic items, the WIzard is busy actually learning how to cast spells more and more complexe and powerful.

Ergo:

[PhoenixPhyre]

A wizard - who we would expect to be good at arcana - becomes better at everything else in their class when they put more points into the stat that makes them good at arcana. A rogue - who we would expect to be good at acrobatics - becomes a better rogue when they put more points into the stat that is associated with acrobatics. A bard - who we would expect to be good at performance - becomes a better bard when they put more points into the skill associated with performance. A fighter - who we would expect to be good at athletics - becomes a better fighter when they put more points into the stat associated with athletics.

A cleric - who we would expect to be good at religion - becomes a worse cleric the more points they invest in the stat associated with religion, and conversely becomes a better cleric the worse at religion they are.

A druid - who we would expect to be good at nature - becomes a worse druid the more points they invest in the stat associated with nature, and conversely becomes a better druid the worse at nature they are.

What other basic, core character concepts have this tension? We're not even talking about something weird or out of the box, like urban druids or the like.

These are absolutely failure points in the system. They don't undo the whole game, or even these classes in particular, but I have regularly witnessed this problem break the game's immersion and impair player connection with their characters. Again, the cleric should be the first guy the party turns to with religion questions, the druid the first guy the party turns to with questions about the natural world The fact that this regularly isn't the case is a problem.

These are all cases of dumping stats for mechanical goodies. And I wouldn't necessarily turn to the cleric--it depends on who else is in the group. If I'm looking for information about beliefs of other faiths (pantheons of evil races, for example), I'm going to look to an academic (rogue with expertise or wizard with proficiency) rather than to a practitioner of faith. If I want theology information in real life, I look to a Divinity School professor, not my local priest.

Faith and knowledge are orthogonal. A devout cleric of Torm is unlikely to know much about the religious histories and practices of a small cult of Mieleki. A scholar of religion might. A practicing forest druid isn't necessarily going to know much about the life-cycle of this desert-dwelling lizard. But a scholar of natural history might.

[thepsyker]

A practicing forest druid isn't necessarily going to know much about the life-cycle of this desert-dwelling lizard. But a scholar of natural history might.
And the skill that represents the sort of practical nature information you would expect a druid to be good at, Survival, does match with their casting ability.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And the skill that represents the sort of practical nature information you would expect a druid to be good at, Survival, does match with their casting ability.

Exactly. You can be great as Survival without knowing the formal names of things or the reasons that the weather patterns are the way they are (Nature).

[Nifft]

http://www.paperspencils.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/lidda_kaboom_t1.gif

Such beauty, such charisma. AFAICT she's the only Iconic who shows any positive emotional expressions, including that one.

She is my favorite iconic, and the one I'd most likely befriend if they existed.

She's not the sexiest (unwashed wolf druid girl gets that award) but Lidda's got the most attractive personality by a very wide margin.

[JackPhoenix]

How would a character with an intelligence of 8 differ from a character with an intelligence out 15, then? You mean to say that both characters would approach problems the same way?

No, because the character would have different personalities, and would favor different skills and abilities based on the difference of their base stats.


Character traits are not the same thing as statistics. I'll agree. But let's go the other way. We have a wizard with the same ideals, bonds, and flaws, but one has an Int of 16 while one has an Int of 8 (we'll do a bull**** background story that they're both nobles who were forced to go to wizarding school). Will they both approach a problem in the same manner?

Maybe, depending on the problem and traits in question.

If both have personality trait "I always use the the most effective solution", they would take different actions, because the most effective solution for one may not be the most effective solution for other: the one with higher Int knows his spells are more reliable, harder to resist and easier to aim, and that he's more likely to succeed on Int-based skill checks. The other would choose spells without attack rolls or saves, or try to use different skills, if possible, because he's better than the other at other skills (thanks to the high score being elsewhere)

If, on the other hand, both had the flaw "I'm incredibly stubborn and never learn from past mistakes", they may take the same approach to the problem, but the one with lower Int would have higher chance of failure.

[Nifft]

As for Mialee, she is a thing of unspeakable wrongness whose very visage is terrifying. Yeah, 8 charisma for her. Maybe even 6.

I actually liked how alien and unattractive Mialee looked.

3.5e Elves were not just pretty humans. There was something fundamentally alien about them. IMHO that's interesting and useful.

The Sandman comic book series also did something similar, whereby an Elf girl looked like a busty super-model ("comic book good looks") until her glamour was dismissed, at which point she looked homely and more than a bit uncanny. IMHO that's cool.

[LtPowers]

I'm curious, has anyone ever been told "No, you can't do that because your character is smarter (wiser/more charismatic) than that?"


Powers &8^]

[Honest Tiefling]

I actually liked how alien and unattractive Mialee looked.

3.5e Elves were not just pretty humans. There was something fundamentally alien about them. IMHO that's interesting and useful.

That would be a great idea...If the text matched up with the artwork. However, these alien beings were being touted as being unearthly beautiful, which is a sliiiiight problem for me.

[thepsyker]

I'm curious, has anyone ever been told "No, you can't do that because your character is smarter (wiser/more charismatic) than that?"


Powers &8^]

I've seen a DM ask a player what there wisdom is or ask them to make a Wisdom check, and then tell the player that their character is wise enough to realize that doing a thing might be a bad idea. Most players take the hint such that there is no need to out right say "no, you can't do that." But that was in a 1ed game.

[Nifft]

That would be a great idea...If the text matched up with the artwork. However, these alien beings were being touted as being unearthly beautiful, which is a sliiiiight problem for me.

The part about "unearthly" checks out, so the text is at least 50% accurate.

[imanidiot]

So, do you keep to this nonsense? Do you do the 4d6 for stats? Do you just permit players to re-roll if they simply get a sucky collection?

Roll 4d6k3 7 times and keep the highest 6. If you don't like what you roll you can assign 16, 15, 14, 12, 10, 9.

[alchahest]

my tables are all point buy. We prefer to make characters based on our backstories and / or themes or concepts, and randomly rolling doesn't really suit that.

[Sception]

A devout cleric of Torm is unlikely to know much about the religious histories and practices of a small cult of Mieleki.

Except that, as is, a devout cleric of Torm is also unlikely to know much about the religious histories and practices of the cult of Torm.

[Unoriginal]

Except that, as is, a devout cleric of Torm is also unlikely to know much about the religious histories and practices of the cult of Torm.

Why? That kind of knowledge would be DC 0 for someone who regularly speak with Torm because they're their Chosen One.

[Sception]

A cleric does not, by default, regularly speak with their god in a way that provides concrete information. That sort of thing is limited to spells, which pay a premium in spell level for quantity, detail, and specificity of information. Any question about their cult that would require a knowledge check from anyone else would still require the same check from the cleric. You might give them advantage, but even that isn't concretely spelled out within the rules, at least not that I'm aware of. If clerics automatically passed religion checks relating to their own religion, or likewise if druids automatically passed nature checks relating to their own grove/homeland, then I wouldn't be here complaining about this.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A cleric does not, by default, regularly speak with their god in a way that provides concrete information. That sort of thing is limited to spells, which pay a premium in spell level for quantity, detail, and specificity of information. Any question about their cult that would require a knowledge check from anyone else would still require the same check from the cleric. You might give them advantage, but even that isn't concretely spelled out within the rules, at least not that I'm aware of. If clerics automatically passed religion checks relating to their own religion, or likewise if druids automatically passed nature checks relating to their own grove/homeland, then I wouldn't be here complaining about this.

The bold section is a 3.5e mentality at work. All checks are for unusual things. Any practicing clerics, as with religious people in general will know of the practical doctrines and practices of their own church. Those are the type of things that should be auto-pass for any religious person, cleric or not. What they won't know is the more theological stuff. This is true of even practicing priests in our world. Most are not theologians, nor are they expected to be. Many theologians are atheists. The priests may not be able to construct a dissertation on the symbolism of a particular element, but they know how to worship and have a strong connection to their god. That kind of knowledge is DC 0 for any devout person, no feature needed.

You're also assuming that they're dumping INT. That's not true (especially for a cleric, who really only needs STR/WIS; DEX is often dumped with heavy armor, as is CHA). They'll likely have a +1 or +2, even without proficiency. And choosing proficiency gives a scaling bonus. Since clerics only get 4 class skills, and the default background is acolyte (which guarantees religion proficiency)...

[KorvinStarmast]

2) Even IF we take your wild hare conjecture as true, an 8 Chr would certainly explain the preponderance of murderhoboism that abounds in this hobby. Among players or characters? :smallbiggrin:

I just don't like high Wisdom scores. Bad decisions make for good stories. And sometimes dead PC's/TPK's. :smallbiggrin:

Can I play a fighter who bashes people with a sword, a crafty rogue who steals treasure from under the dragon's snout, a wizard researching things man was not meant to know, or a cleric who calls on the power of the gods?

D&D presents all the archetypes it needs to be D&D. Yeah. It is fit for purpose.

Everyone always focuses on the halfling in the picture, but every time I see this cover come up my focus is on pondering the tactics necessary to fight pixies without being pantsed. That's two of us.


AFAICT she's the only Iconic who shows any positive emotional expressions, including that one.

She is my favorite iconic, and the one I'd most likely befriend if they existed. Does the size of the spleef she's holding in her left hand have anything to do with this? :smallbiggrin:


my tables are all point buy. We prefer to make characters based on our backstories and / or themes or concepts, and randomly rolling doesn't really suit that. Also a rational approach.

[2D8HP]

...oh sweet summer child...

(She's the iconic Rogue from 3.0 and 3.5 Player's Handbook; might be from before that as well but that I don't know for certain)


Not that I recall.

They were other "iconics" (though that term wasn't used), such as:

Morgan Ironwolf (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2007/01/morgan-ironwolf-old-school-iconic.html?m=1) in '81.

[lunaticfringe]

Not that I recall.

They were other "iconics" (though that term wasn't used), such as:

Morgan Ironwolf (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2007/01/morgan-ironwolf-old-school-iconic.html?m=1) in '81.

I wonder if it costs extra to have nipples added to your armor. Or if it's against any decency laws.

[Nifft]

I wonder if it costs extra to have nipples added to your armor. Or if it's against any decency laws.

"Sit yo' Cuirass down an' get you a history lesson."

Seriously: google "muscle cuirass" or "greek breastplate nipples".

[Unoriginal]

I wonder if it costs extra to have nipples added to your armor. Or if it's against any decency laws.

From what I've heard, in Game of Thrones it apparently happened because how the costume was fabricated, then the costumeer in charge of it misunderstood instructions and no one questioned it up until the point the episode was released.

So I guess "shabby crafters" would be an explanation.


"Sit yo' Cuirass down an' get you a history lesson."

Seriously: google "muscle cuirass" or "greek breastplate nipples".


This too.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dpd/italica/twlanuvium09.jpg

But I think there is a debate over how much it was for ceremony and how much it actually saw the battlefield.

[Honest Tiefling]

I wonder if it costs extra to have nipples added to your armor. Or if it's against any decency laws.

I don't know if I should be more confused by how she balanced with those gazongas, or amazed at that hair. Such volume! Much hairspray.

As for the cuirass, I believe those are mostly ceremonial as having bits of your armor sculpted like that could lead to weak points to get stabbed in, which armor is typically supposed to prevent.

[Garimeth]

I just read this whole thread, and I'm convinced the OP took you all for a ride.

[Nifft]

As for the cuirass, I believe those are mostly ceremonial as having bits of your armor sculpted like that could lead to weak points to get stabbed in, which armor is typically supposed to prevent.

Armor spikes are weak points? Nah.

That's a modification of a fallacious anti-boob-plate argument.

[Honest Tiefling]

Armor spikes are weak points? Nah.

Last I checked, a women's cleavage is not entirely comprised of spikes.

[lunaticfringe]

I just read this whole thread, and I'm convinced the OP took you all for a ride.

Lol you read the whole thread? I read the first page pre coffee and didn't realize it was 3-4 pages long. Didn't go back.

I can't wait for XGtE so we can go back to pointless arguments about mechanics and builds. I feel like lately this part of the forums has too much time & not enough Source Material. And I'm not even a fan of a lot of splatbooks.

[Nifft]

Last I checked, a women's cleavage is not entirely comprised of spikes.

Clearly one of us is dating the wrong women.

[Malifice]

5e Halflings are as strong as Humans, despite the size difference. They can have any STR score.

So can a housecat.

And they are not equally strong. Humans get +1 to Strength. Halflings, dont.

Plus Humans can use heavy weapons. Halflings get disadvantage when doing so. A duel to the death using heavy weapons favors the human, cause the halfling isnt strong enough to weild it properly.

With enough time an effort a halfling can reach 20 Strength. Presuming a realistic world, few (if any) do.

Have you ever seen a Halfling that guns for high strength, and not Dex as they advance?

[lunaticfringe]

So can a housecat.

And they are not equally strong. Humans get +1 to Strength. Halflings, dont.

Plus Humans can use heavy weapons. Halflings get disadvantage when doing so. A duel to the death using heavy weapons favors the human, cause the halfling isnt strong enough to weild it properly.

With enough time an effort a halfling can reach 20 Strength. Presuming a realistic world, few (if any) do.

Have you ever seen a Halfling that guns for high strength, and not Dex as they advance?

Yeah but my home games are different. Small Races can treat Versatile Weapons wielded in Two Hands as Heavy weapons for GWM. Spears also work for PAM. Also Barb/Rogues.

[Honest Tiefling]

Have you ever seen a Halfling that guns for high strength, and not Dex as they advance?

Not yet, but now I really want to see a burly halfling swing a greatsword.

[Malifice]

Yeah but my home games are different.

You can have halflings with strengths of 150 in your own games.


Small Races can treat Versatile Weapons wielded in Two Hands as Heavy weapons for GWM.


Wut?

How is [a 35lb halfling swinging a 4' longsword] = to [a 200lb half orc swinging a 6' greatsword]?

Surely the Half-orc could swing that longsword with far more force and power than the halfling, and swing the greatsword even harder.

Why cant half-orcs GWM with longswords?

[Honest Tiefling]

How is [a 35lb halfling swinging a 4' longsword] = to [a 200lb half orc swinging a 6' greatsword]?

This is a game with people who are literally made of fire. I think biology left the game somewhere in second edition.

[lunaticfringe]

You can have halflings with strengths of 150 in your own games.



Wut?

How is [a 35lb halfling swinging a 4' longsword] = to [a 200lb half orc swinging a 6' greatsword]?

Surely the Half-orc could swing that longsword with far more force and power than the halfling, and swing the greatsword even harder.

Why cant half-orcs GWM with longswords?

They can too but the impetus of the change was for Small STR builds. An orc player always picks the greatsword imx. Also a giant or dragon would just squish a person in one hit. Game not reality. How many people you know that can survive being hit by a boulder?

[Malifice]

They can too but the impetus of the change was for Small STR builds.

Its not realistic, but if you see some kid of pressing game balance reason for the change, go nuts.

Also a giant or dragon would just squish a person in one hit. Game not reality. How many people you know that can survive being hit by a boulder?[/QUOTE]

The same number as in DnD.

Losing 50 hit points from getting hit by a dragon or boulder doesnt mean the dragon or boulder actually hit you.

You probably luckily and dramatically dodged out of the way at the last minute like Kirk.

Unless you had 5 HP like some redshirt, in which case it landed right on you and killed you.

[Garimeth]

Lol you read the whole thread? I read the first page pre coffee and didn't realize it was 3-4 pages long. Didn't go back.

I can't wait for XGtE so we can go back to pointless arguments about mechanics and builds. I feel like lately this part of the forums has too much time & not enough Source Material. And I'm not even a fan of a lot of splatbooks.

What can I say, it was mildly more entertaining than work drama.

[JackPhoenix]

So can a housecat.

And they are not equally strong. Humans get +1 to Strength. Halflings, dont.

Plus Humans can use heavy weapons. Halflings get disadvantage when doing so. A duel to the death using heavy weapons favors the human, cause the halfling isnt strong enough to weild it properly.

With enough time an effort a halfling can reach 20 Strength. Presuming a realistic world, few (if any) do.

Have you ever seen a Halfling that guns for high strength, and not Dex as they advance?

Note: Heavy property has nothing to do with weight or strength, but rather size. See longbow: at 2 lb, it's one of the lightest weapons, but it's still got Heavy, because it would be very awkward to use for someone less than 4' tall.

[Malifice]

Note: Heavy property has nothing to do with weight or strength, but rather size. See longbow: at 2 lb, it's one of the lightest weapons, but it's still got Heavy, because it would be very awkward to use for someone less than 4' tall.

Note: Halflings struggle to draw Longbows despite their 2lb weight.

[2D8HP]

It's a minor peeve of mine. In order to create a 'balanced' PC everyone has to assign the allotted 'standard' scores to their PC's stats:

Roll your ability scores. You have 6 Ability scores to roll for: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intellect, and Wisdom. You can either roll 4 6-sided die and record the cumulative total of the highest 3 dice 6 times or take the “standard set” which is 15,14,13,12,10,8. You do not need to assign these scores yet, but you can if you want to.



So, by definition any PC is 'above normal'...



Really, "by definition any PC is 'above normal'?

Always?

:annoyed:

Bah!

This "Adventurers are exceptional" claptrap has gone too far!

How can you "go from zero to hero" if you don't start as a zero?!

From page 19 of 1974's Dungeons & Dragons Book 1 "Men & Magic" - "Normal men equal 1st-level fighters"

:furious:

(They were usually slightly better than commoners, not always "exceptional" dagnabbit!)


...But the standard 'build' stats available include an "8" which, if the 3rd edition Archetypal [EDIT: ICONIC] character types like Lidda, Mialee, etc were concerned always resulted in Charisma getting the "8" meaning the archetypal D&D folk were some of the worst socially functional/attractive 'heroes' there were.

This is a minor peeve of mine but it still annoys me endlessly.


Your beef is that with Standard Array one stat out of six is slightly below human average?

8 and 9 are not that bad!

Check it out:

A "Commoner" (common human) on page 345 of the Monster Manual has a ten in all stats, so that's average. We may infer that it's derived from the most likely result of rolling 3d6 for "stats" (as in the 1974 Dungeons & Dragons volume 1, Men & Magic).
The nearly actual odds for rolling each and every 3d6 sum, from 3 to 18 (rounded numbers) are:

3: 0.5% (actually 0.46, or 1 in 216, but rounded off for this table)
4: 1.4%
5: 2.8%
6: 4.6%
7: 6.9%
8: 9.7%
9: 11.6%
10: 12.5%
11: 12.5%
12: 11.6%
13: 9.7%
14: 6.9%
15: 4.6%
16: 2.8%
17: 1.4%
18: 0.5% (as 3’s note above)

So someone with a 10 INT is at least as smart as about 49.96% of humans.
Someone with a 9 is as at least as smart as about 37.46% of people.
And someone with an INT of 8 is at least as smart as 25.86% of folks.

Not too shabby!

By definition half of all people are below "average", I just don't buy that "Adventurers" must always be in the "smart", "strong", "wise", etc., half, and always be better than average in everything, especially when 5e PC's already start so powerful and rocket so quickly up the levels to their first ASI potentially cancelling out the one (slightly) below average stat (if the player choses).

If it's so important to you @Basement Cat that your PC be superhuman then just request to start at high levels, I know I don't like to, but most seem to like it so I'm sure you may probably convince the table, if not host your own game.


So, do you keep to this nonsense? Do you do the 4d6 for stats? Do you just permit players to re-roll if they simply get a sucky collection?


When I'm a player, if I choose to roll for stats, I usually stick with them, but after I rolled an 18 for INT and another player kept insisting that I play a Wizard because it was more "optimal" (much to my irritation), when I preferred to play a Fighter or Rogue (and good enough stats to be effective as one, even if not "optimal"), I now always take the point buy (if allowed), or standard array, unless I trust that I won't be hassled by the other players (in that case when I rolled an 18 INT, I finally said "if it's so important to you, then we'll trade PC's, how about that?" And we did).

Otherwise I tend to regard stats that my co-players regard as "sucky" as good enough for me.

I do admit to being irritated by how many players when given the option for standard array or point buy, select to roll stats, and then change their minds after they see what they roll, but I also admit that as a DM it's simply not important enough to me to argue about.

But I've never played 2e to 4e D&D, just 0e,1e, B/X, and 5e.

[lunaticfringe]

Its not realistic

No ****...one could call it fantastic.

[Malifice]

No ****...one could call it fantastic.

Can Pixies use GWM with daggers?

[Honest Tiefling]

Can Pixies use GWM with daggers?

Huh. That seems pretty nifty, I needed some ideas for a fey campaign. I'll just tack that onto my corgi-riding NPC...

[Nifft]

Can Pixies use GWM with daggers?

Do monsters get feats?

Is there a Pixie PC race now?

Either way, my personal answer would be HELL YES, that's hilariously awesome.

[lunaticfringe]

Can Pixies use GWM with daggers?

I guess. I generally just mess with their spell lists if I'm using an encounter with them. They are too castery. I don't go reinventing the wheel.

If I ran a Tiny Player Game I would make Tiny=Medium. Halflings would be Large, Humans would be Huge. So yeah Pixies could wield Greatswords and take GWM.

[Knaight]

Oh for God’s sakes, book characters are not PCs.

In terms of design space they're completely relevant - other RPGs can cover those characters just fine.

[Malifice]

In terms of design space they're completely relevant - other RPGs can cover those characters just fine.

DMs often overrate book characters [Conan is clearly 20th level!] and devalue PCs [even at mid tier play, you're still some no name pleb]. It never happens the other way around.

I once was about to play in a Star Trek game, and the DM (a huge Star Trek fan) informed us that 'No PC can take Starship Tactics skill above level 8 because Captain Kirk has level 9 and he's the best ever.'

I politely made an excuse to leave at that point.

Its like DMs who wont let you murder Drizzt, and insists on adding 10 levels of some broken homebrew PRC to him 'because he's underpowered and an important NPC' (read: the DM loves the books and is a huge fanboy).

Even if you gain enough XP to match him, the DM just adds 10 more levels 'because he's been adventuring and doing stuff this whole time also'.

Again; it's best to just quit that game then and there.

[Nifft]

DMs often overrate book characters [Conan is clearly 20th level!] and devalue PCs [even at mid tier play, you're still some no name pleb]. It never happens the other way around.

I once was about to play in a Star Trek game, and the DM (a huge Star Trek fan) informed us that 'No PC can take Starship Tactics skill above level 8 because Captain Kirk has level 9 and he's the best ever.'

I politely made an excuse to leave at that point.

Its like DMs who wont let you murder Drizzt, and insists on adding 10 levels of some broken homebrew PRC to him 'because he's underpowered and an important NPC' (read: the DM loves the books and is a huge fanboy).

Even if you gain enough XP to match him, the DM just adds 10 more levels 'because he's been adventuring and doing stuff this whole time also'.

Again; it's best to just quit that game then and there.

I've noticed that some DMs seem to run games for "my friends, the NPCs" rather than "our heroes, the PCs".

The "friend NPCs" might be:
- characters from a novel; or
- local personalities for the DM's custom setting; or even
- the DM's old character(s) from a different game;
- or something else that steals the spotlight.

I've never had a good experience in one of those games.

[Knaight]

DMs often overrate book characters [Conan is clearly 20th level!] and devalue PCs [even at mid tier play, you're still some no name pleb]. It never happens the other way around.

Putting aside for the moment the validity of conflating rating, level, and value the tangent that got this all started had a lot to do with the 8 minimum preventing characters who should by rights be worse.

This isn't about character power. This is about how D&D is a highly specialized system by design, which is fine, but which is worth actually acknowledging instead of brushing off as some sort of RPG wide inability to ever represent characters from literature. Just because D&D can't do it doesn't mean that RPGs can't do it.

[Anonymouswizard]

This is a game with people who are literally made of fire. I think biology left the game somewhere in second edition.

I'm not certain it made it to second edition...


DMs often overrate book characters [Conan is clearly 20th level!] and devalue PCs [even at mid tier play, you're still some no name pleb]. It never happens the other way around.

True, depending on the book most characters can be placed somewhere before tenth level. The exceptions tend to be either demigods or over the top manga protagonists (and even then Guts is pretty much a straight Fighter of somewhere between sixth and tenth level).


I once was about to play in a Star Trek game, and the DM (a huge Star Trek fan) informed us that 'No PC can take Starship Tactics skill above level 8 because Captain Kirk has level 9 and he's the best ever.'

I politely made an excuse to leave at that point.

*facepalm* Just give Captain Kirk a rating of infinity then. This is like running a Night's Dawn game and saying nobody can take Starship Pilot over six because that's what Joshua Calvert has (which in-universe would be justified because Joshua is literally one in a billion, but this is a game).

I mean, I would like to run a game in one universe I'm a massive fan of (Peter F. Hamilton's Commonwealth Saga), but due to how the universe works I can't even do a case of 'after all the important novel characters have died', so I don't to avoid this idiocy.


Its like DMs who wont let you murder Drizzt, and insists on adding 10 levels of some broken homebrew PRC to him 'because he's underpowered and an important NPC' (read: the DM loves the books and is a huge fanboy).

Even if you gain enough XP to match him, the DM just adds 10 more levels 'because he's been adventuring and doing stuff this whole time also'.

Again; it's best to just quit that game then and there.

I don't know if it's worse when it's someone from a novel, or the DM's special druid prince who won't put us in his will already (why do you think we hadn't poisoned him by the second session?).

[Unoriginal]

This "Adventurers are exceptional" claptrap has gone too far!

I like the current paradigm. Not very fair to call



How can you "go from zero to hero" if you don't start as a zero?!


5e assume that zero was in your backstory, because it wants your PC to be ready to go on an adventure on lvl 1, and zeroes who go on adventures ends up dead or maimed.

If the PCs were 0s, NPCs would ask any 1s they see to help them rather than the PCs.



From page 19 of 1974's Dungeons & Dragons Book 1 "Men & Magic" - "Normal men equal 1st-level fighters"

:furious:

(They were usually slightly better than commoners, not always "exceptional" dagnabbit!)



I for one am very happy that Fighters aren't "Commoner who went to the gym twice" anymore.

[Regitnui]

I for one am very happy that Fighters aren't "Commoner who went to the gym twice" anymore.

I for one am very happy that NPC stat blocks cover for NPC classes.

[Crusher]

I like short women.

Don't take it to a dark place.

Not to make things worse, but 3’6” isn’t a 12-year old’s height. Its more like a 6-year old’s height.

[Asmotherion]

We have used 2 systems (never the one in the book), because we hate this system.

System 1 (epic/heroic point buy):

You start with 1 stat of your choice at 18 (usually your key stat) and then point buy 22 starting at 8. Each point gives you an equal value at how much you raise the stat. This was our first attempt. It was unbalanced, but it cut the job for a Heroic Game.

System 2 (Heavy RP+Downtime):

You start with 8 around the board, and a point buy 12 (caps at 18, point by point as above). This means your stats are very low at the start of the game, with a possible exception of 1 stat, or you are average in mostly everything.

From that point on, training during downtime raises a stat by a percentage, and when you get 100%, you raise your stat to the next Value.

We prefear this to the standard system, as you devote more time developing your character, instead of just making him a random set of values. It does have the possibility of getting too high values, but again, the way we play in our group numbers matter less than actual RP.

[Corsair14]

Why is this even a question, just roll 3d6 or 4d6 drop the lowest like a normal person.

Even if she had a personality like a harpy I think she is at least a 12 charisma. That said, I played 3.0 and 3.5 extensively and I cant recall ever seeing this person so I cant agree she is some iconic rogue from 3rd.

[2D8HP]

...I for one am very happy that Fighters aren't "Commoner who went to the gym twice" anymore.


Yes, and I'm quite pleased with the novelty of most of my PC's surviving to reach 2nd level, what I'm not pleased with is laments, such as of the OP's, of PC's not being even more powerful at 1st level in 5e.

As I posted before, 8 isn't that low, but the OP seems offended that with Standard Array just one stat out of six may be slightly below human commoner average.

Bah!

If we're going to retain a level system at all 5e D&D seems to hit a sweet spot at 1st level already, and I see no need for "moar power".

[Unoriginal]

Even if she had a personality like a harpy I think she is at least a 12 charisma.

How can you say she has that much?



That said, I played 3.0 and 3.5 extensively and I cant recall ever seeing this person so I cant agree she is some iconic rogue from 3rd.

She appears in several of the books, most notably at least twice in the PHB.



As I posted before, 8 isn't that low, but the OP seems offended that with Standard Array just one stat out of six may be slightly below human commoner average.

Bah!

If we're going to retain a level system at all 5e D&D seems to hit a sweet spot at 1st level already, and I see no need for "moar power".

I agree with this.

[2D8HP]

....I cant recall ever seeing this person so I cant agree she is some iconic rogue from 3rd.


I did not play 3e or 3.5 at all, but I do remember the illustrations and "sample of play" from the 3e PHB (a small part of the book).

Anyway, there's a Wikipedia article about the

Iconics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_iconic_characters).

[Anonymouswizard]

Yes, and I'm quite pleased with the novelty of most of my PC's surviving to reach 2nd level, what I'm not pleased with is laments, such as of the OP's, of PC's not being even more powerful at 1st level in 5e.

As I posted before, 8 isn't that low, but the OP seems offended that with Standard Array just one stat out of six may be slightly below human commoner average.

Bah!

If we're going to retain a level system at all 5e D&D seems to hit a sweet spot at 1st level already, and I see no need for "moar power".

True, I'm more a fan of games with a higher starting level than D&D and a lower level of advancement than even 5e. Guess why I don't run 5e.

(One of my favourite systems is the Vortex system used by Rocket Age because characters start being competent and not as squishy as starting D&D characters, then are supposed to advance by one Skill or Attribute point per few adventures.)

[ZorroGames]

Why is this even a question, just roll 3d6 or 4d6 drop the lowest like a normal person.

Even if she had a personality like a harpy I think she is at least a 12 charisma. That said, I played 3.0 and 3.5 extensively and I cant recall ever seeing this person so I cant agree she is some iconic rogue from 3rd.

Assumption about normal characters (persons and player characters) not always warranted.

Never played 3.x or 4, skipped to 5e from AD&D after decades off on other life activities, so as I ask what, besides physical beauty, drives your conclusion she is 12+?

[ZorroGames]

Clearly one of us is dating the wrong women.

You are assuming he is dating women (he may or he may not or he may be dating both - 21st Century,) and not making this conclusion from the public at large. One of the more charismatic women I was friends with lacked the fantasy character’s um... “build” but most of us males were smitten with her.

[Anonymouswizard]

One of the more charismatic women I was friends with lacked the fantasy character’s um... “build” but most of us males were smitten with her.

I'd say that this is actually fairly common, although I have met charismatic women with a similar build.

I'm certain that there is a difference between what people like and what they say they like. The girl I'm currently smitten with is the opposite of the stereotypical 'attractive woman' in my country in many ways, and yet I find her absolutely adorable and one of he most beautiful women I've ever met. It's the same the other way, most of the men I find attractive would never make it in Hollywood due to not looking right, but even the ones which aren't conventionally attractive are charismatic (one very much in the 'excitable professor' variety).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd say that this is actually fairly common, although I have met charismatic women with a similar build.

I'm certain that there is a difference between what people like and what they say they like. The girl I'm currently smitten with is the opposite of the stereotypical 'attractive woman' in my country in many ways, and yet I find her absolutely adorable and one of he most beautiful women I've ever met. It's the same the other way, most of the men I find attractive would never make it in Hollywood due to not looking right, but even the ones which aren't conventionally attractive are charismatic (one very much in the 'excitable professor' variety).

Amplifying your point--

The original definition of "charismatic" said nothing about appearance--in fact, it often applied to people who could magnetize a room or a crowd despite being plain or otherwise unattractive. Think street preachers who can whip up a mob, politicians who can work a room like no one else, etc. This was usually considered divine inspiration.

I've met some attractive people who came across like lead balloons (in a bad sort of way), others who were magnetic. I've met "ugly" people who everybody wanted to be with (in all sorts of ways, romantic or not). I've met "ugly" people who were ugly on the inside as well. Charisma only has a very weak connection to appearance.

[Nifft]

You are assuming he is dating women

That's factually incorrect.

I'm asserting that one of us is dating women.

Be careful with pedantry -- we're experts at it here, and you're kinda new.


Also, be aware that blue-text is used here for humor & sarcasm: it's probably a bad idea to try to apply rigor to humor in general. In this case it would have been fine, except you tried to make a judgemental soap-box speech founded only on partial comprehension of the text.

[lunaticfringe]

It's a lot more amusing to rarely use blue text and watch people respond to the ridiculous in a serious way.

Just sayin'

[2D8HP]

It's a lot more amusing to rarely use blue text and watch people respond to the ridiculous in a serious way.

Just sayin'


To me sarcasm only works as a joke if you notice it afterwards.

SO I NEVER USE BLUETEXT!!!!

No, not even once!!!

- Your welcome

If you can't infer hyperbole and sarcasm from lots of CAPITALIZATION AND EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!

And "Your welcome"

Communication would be difficult anyway.


As to "Lidda's so hot CHA must be at least 12"

Um no.

She just looks like a kid.

Besides, at the very least, an extremely unpleasant voice is enough to drop CHA on almost anyone.

[Garimeth]

DMs often overrate book characters [Conan is clearly 20th level!] and devalue PCs [even at mid tier play, you're still some no name pleb]. It never happens the other way around.

I once was about to play in a Star Trek game, and the DM (a huge Star Trek fan) informed us that 'No PC can take Starship Tactics skill above level 8 because Captain Kirk has level 9 and he's the best ever.'

I politely made an excuse to leave at that point.

Its like DMs who wont let you murder Drizzt, and insists on adding 10 levels of some broken homebrew PRC to him 'because he's underpowered and an important NPC' (read: the DM loves the books and is a huge fanboy).

Even if you gain enough XP to match him, the DM just adds 10 more levels 'because he's been adventuring and doing stuff this whole time also'.

Again; it's best to just quit that game then and there.

I have never agreed with you as much as I do right now.

[2D8HP]

...Its like DMs who wont let you murder Drizzt,....


I did not realize until now just how much I crave playing a "lets murder Drizzt" campaign".

[ZorroGames]

That's factually incorrect.

I'm asserting that one of us is dating women.

Be careful with pedantry -- we're experts at it here, and you're kinda new.


Also, be aware that blue-text is used here for humor & sarcasm: it's probably a bad idea to try to apply rigor to humor in general. In this case it would have been fine, except you tried to make a judgemental soap-box speech founded only on partial comprehension of the text.

If I used blue text it would have been clearer but I choose not to. I see and understand that some people use blue text. I just don’t conform to changing text color as if it was some religious faith requirement on this forum.

And New means subservient? Bull****. You are the one judging my comment to be some soap box tirade instead of humor about the 21st century world we live in. You are an expert at being an arrogant pharisaical ******* to think I was judging anyone. I am too old to care what you (or anyone else) think I said.

[Garimeth]

If I used blue text it would have been clearer but I choose not to. I see and understand that some people use blue text. I just don’t conform to changing text color as if it was some religious faith requirement on this forum.

And New means subservient? Bull****. You are the one judging my comment to be some soap box tirade instead of humor about the 21st century world we live in. You are an expert at being an arrogant pharisaical ******* to think I was judging anyone. I am too old to care what you (or anyone else) think I said.

Woah, easy there. Pretty sure Nifft was joking a second time when he said that about you being new. In a kind of one-upmanship way.

I could tell both of you were joking in both posts, no need for you guys to start going at it.

[2D8HP]

...no need for you guys to start going at it.


See this is what happens when vile acts of sarcasm are committed!!!!

Remember:

THERE IS NO GREATER EVIL THAN SARCASM!!!

The road to Hell?

Paved with sarcasm!

To the Abyss?

Hyperbole stones!

Carceri?

Cemented with snark!

LEARN FROM THIS!!!

- Your welcome

[Nifft]

See this is what happens when vile acts of sarcasm are committed!!!!

Remember:

THERE IS NO GREATER EVIL THAN SARCASM!!!

The road to Hell?

Paved with sarcasm!

To the Abyss?

Hyperbole stones!

Carceri?

Cemented with snark!

LEARN FROM THIS!!!

- Your welcome
* Yore

Also: "There is no deeper chasm than sarcasm."

[Unoriginal]

I did not realize until now just how much I crave playing a "lets murder Drizzt" campaign".

Did they release his stats for 5e?




Also: "There is no deeper chasm than sarcasm."

I think you meant the Sarchasm.

[Honest Tiefling]

You are assuming he is dating women (he may or he may not or he may be dating both - 21st Century,) and not making this conclusion from the public at large. One of the more charismatic women I was friends with lacked the fantasy character’s um... “build” but most of us males were smitten with her.

1) Mentioned looking at ta-tas. It's cute that Nifft assumed I meant dating, so I'll go with it.

2) I never mentioned size, only that most women aren't spiky there. I assume this to be true regardless of cup size.

[2D8HP]

...I never mentioned size, only that most women aren't spiky there..


They're not?

:eek:

Okay, I have some serious reevaluation to do now!

[Nifft]

1) Mentioned looking at ta-tas. It's cute that Nifft assumed I meant dating I actually said one of us was dating.

Don't try to make this all about ~you~.


They're not?

:eek:

Okay, I have some serious reevaluation to do now!

No, it's cool, I have found photographic proof that you and I were both correct all along:


Women have spikes:
https://i.imgur.com/oRlczlK.jpg


Men also have spikes:
https://i.imgur.com/nflInve.jpg

[KorvinStarmast]

For the OP: personally, I blame power creep.
Let's go back to the beginning. Page 10, Men and Magic

DETERMINATION OF ABILITIES:A sample of the record of a
character appears like this: Name: Xylarthen Class: Magic-User Strength: 6 Intelligence: 11 Wisdom: 13 Constitution: 12 Dexterity: 9 Charisma: 8 Gold Pieces 70 Experience Nil

This supposed player would have progressed faster as a Cleric, but because of a personal preference for magic opted for that class. With a strength of only 6 there was no real chance for him to become a fighter. His constitutional score indicates good health and the ability to take punishment of most forms. A dexterity
of 9 (low average) means that he will not be particularly fast nor accurate. He is below average in charisma, but not hopelessly so. As to what charisma is, or was ...

Charisma is a combination of appearance, personality, and so forth. Its primary function is to determine how many hirelings of unusual nature a character can attract. This is not to say that he cannot hire men-at-arms and employ mercenaries,
but the charisma function will affect loyalty of even these men. Players will, in all probability, seek to hire Fighting-Men, Magic-Users, and/or Clerics in order to strengthen their roles in the campaign. A player-character can employ only as many as indicated by his charisma score:(Snipped the table) In addition the charisma score is usable to decide such things as whether or not a witch capturing a player will turn him into a swine or keep him enchanted as a lover. Finally, the charisma will aid a character in attracting various monsters to his service. Charisma has changed, and IMO not for the better.

[Arkhios]

In general I find it silly that people tend to assimilate charisma to one's looks.

Charisma is, just like Intelligence and Wisdom are, categorized as a mental attribute. If it had anything to do with the appearance there ought to be third category: "superficial".

Really, Charisma is about force of personality. A world-class beauty might have the personality of a sweaty sock, turning people away in disgust the moment she opens her mouth and let's her personality to do the trick.

A hideously scarred spec-ops officer might not look like much, but his authority doesn't rely on his pretty face. On the contrary, it's how he makes his point heard and understood.

TL;DR: Charisma ≠ Appearance.

[Waterdeep Merch]

In general I find it silly that people tend to assimilate charisma to one's looks.

Charisma is, just like Intelligence and Wisdom are, categorized as a mental attribute. If it had anything to do with the appearance there ought to be third category: "superficial".

Really, Charisma is about force of personality. A world-class beauty might have the personality of a sweaty sock, turning people away in disgust the moment she opens her mouth and let's her personality to do the trick.

A hideously scarred spec-ops officer might not look like much, but his authority doesn't rely on his pretty face. On the contrary, it's how he makes his point heard and understood.

TL;DR: Charisma ≠ Appearance.
A million times, this. Look like whatever the hell you want to look like, charisma measures how charismatic you are. Simply being beautiful does not make you charismatic. Rather, it's one of many tools that can be wielded by someone who knows how to use it.

Likeable and pretty are not the same thing.

[HermanTheWize]

In general I find it silly that people tend to assimilate charisma to one's looks.....
TL;DR: Charisma ≠ Appearance.

If I could kiss you I would.

Well made point

[lunaticfringe]

TL;DR: Charisma ≠ Appearance.

While I 100% agree with this sometimes when I have a player who is playing Charismatic just terribly it helps me to think:

"Oh they're just really hawt" and move on.

[Nifft]

TL;DR: Charisma ≠ Appearance. Truth.

Various non-Charisma ways to represent hotness have been attempted over the years.


While I 100% agree with this sometimes when I have a player who is playing Charismatic just terribly it helps me to think:

"Oh they're just really hawt" and move on.

We should really make some tables to justify a high (or low) Charisma for people who RP against their stat.

High Charisma (1d8):
1 - The light of heaven occasionally flashes from your brilliant eyes. The implied righteousness of your words may be a balm or a menace, but either way your words have weight.
2 - An aura of inexorable order occasionally manifests around you, making your words resound pure law.
3 - Vigorous energies of chaos occasionally radiate from you, making even your wildest claims seem like a good chance.
4 - The potent fires of hell occasionally flash from your implacable eyes. This makes others subconsciously afraid to defy you.
5 - Thanks to your fey ancestry, you always bring the scent of a clean breeze with you. This helps others enjoy your presence.
6 - Your military training, good posture, and snappy uniform helps give a positive context for your abrupt and utilitarian style of speech.
7 - The huge scar on your face represents a heroic deed from your past. Thanks to that constant reminder of your bravery, your words have weight.
8 - That weird mole on your face is the same shape as the holy symbol of a notably angry god. People are pretty sure it's just random chance, but they listen to you anyway.

Low Charisma (1d8):
1 - You stink.
2 - You dress very poorly.
3 - Inappropriate giggling.
4 - Inappropriate yawning & stretching & licking yourself (see also Cat Bloodline).
5 - You have a weird accent. People sometimes ignore you rather than try to puzzle out what you said.
6 - Inappropriately sticking your tongue out (see also Serpent Bloodline).
7 - You wear a button proclaiming your race or class the best. Even people of your race or class don't like you for doing that.
8 - You constantly snort when other people talk, making it seem like you're mocking them.

[Naanomi]

Eh, I take a middle ground. Having Unearthly Beauty can be *part* of why you have a high Charisma score. It *may* be part of the equation, but it doesn't *have* to be. Likewise with being hideous and having low Charisma. There can be high-charisma people who are ugly... but being ugly may be a piece of why your charisma is low (depending on the character)

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly, I stopped caring about people's justifications for Charisma ever since I discovered there are people out there who have 'cup size by Charisma score' tables (unfortunately no mention of spikiness).

[Unoriginal]

Honestly, I stopped caring about people's justifications for Charisma ever since I discovered there are people out there who have 'cup size by Charisma score' tables (unfortunately no mention of spikiness).

This was parodied in "Dungeon of Naheulbeuk".

[alchahest]

Honestly, I stopped caring about people's justifications for Charisma ever since I discovered there are people out there who have 'cup size by Charisma score' tables (unfortunately no mention of spikiness).

yeah, I tune out of any comparison of charisma to real world people, especially women, as it kinda digs a pretty terrible and misogynistic hole.

in D&D charisma is force of personality, it's commanding a room with your words, it's manipulating a situation using your knowledge or raw talent at affecting people's moods and ideas. It's not (what dude x thinks is hot)

[Malifice]

*facepalm* Just give Captain Kirk a rating of infinity then. This is like running a Night's Dawn game and saying nobody can take Starship Pilot over six because that's what Joshua Calvert has (which in-universe would be justified because Joshua is literally one in a billion, but this is a game).

I think the point being is it doesnt matter.

If a PC wants to be better than Calvert, let him. He's one in a trillion. The PC's the protagonist here, not Calvert.

It just signals 'something' about the DM when he bans anyone being better than his special snowflake character from the books/ movies. Something that I always avoid.

[Chaosmancer]

I know my opinion (on the original OP, I tend to agree with this crowd on charisma) is going to vary pretty wildly from most, but ah well.

The OP seems to want super low stats or multiple super low stats to get "more in character". Personally, no sarcasm, I wish it was easier to have my lowest be a 10 and my highest an 18. I see almost no value in a negative score.

Now, people want them obviously, and all the power to them, but I struggle enough and I face enough challenges over the course of a higher powered game, I don't need to compound the challenge by being dumb or unobservant or clumsy or rude.

And the numbers are kind of weird towards the lower ends. 8 is only "below average" barely noticeable. 5 and 6 are monumentally stupid, see most ogres and "cunning animal" monsters. 3 is the limit of sapience, as far as you can go before things like understanding object permenance is simply beyond you. Now reverse the count, 10 and 11 are average, bog standard nothing to see here. 13 is slightly smarter than your average person, maybe they are a bit bookish or a young apprentice librarian.

And that is five points in both directions... That decline is immensely steep, and frankly, for my purposes my numbers mean little to my roleplaying. I have a very hard time playing someone less intelligent, reasonable, or personable than I am for long periods of time. I just can't pull it off. So, the only time a -1 is going to impact my character is on mechanical challenges.

Now, I could take a long time talking about how I've rarely if ever had a DM who made failure interesting. For example, I spent a long time with a DM who gave us locked doors and we could not break down until we beat the DC, despite our declared intentions to keep trying until we succeeded, and there was no consequence to failure except wasting game time. So on nights when the dice hated us, we could spend almost 10 minutes rerolling until we got through into the mostly empty chamber, or finally got to fight the three skeletons patiently waiting beyond. And, people could argue that is a DM problem not a system problem, and give me plenty of stories about how they had interesting failures. But I've been labeled "the dumb character" with a 13 int just because I was the fighter and you're still likely to fail and have interesting stories with a +0 but those negative modifiers make people feel bad about their characters sometimes, and have led characters in my games to refuse to engage in a scene because their sheet tells them they are going to fail, despite me telling them otherwise, and I just don't see the value in certain archetypes within the game.

For example, "the coward" is a common archetype. The one who runs away when the fighting starts. Classic in tales and movies, and absolutely horrible in the game. Nothing except "the traitor" gets more hatred at the table than someone who bails on the party in their time of need. I don't want the game to encourage that archetype. The disabled person whose mind or power is immense, common archetype. But, no one wants that player satelliting in while the normal schlubs are actually risking real harm while professor X sips tea in his heavily defended mansion.

The players need to be somewhat the same, and decent teamplayers to an extent or suddenly the basic aspects of the game break down and people don't have fun.

So really, I don't want the same experiences as a lot of people, and I think DnD works well for the stories i want to tell, and I don't need negative modifiers to spice things up or make it interesting

[JackPhoenix]

Did they release his stats for 5e?

Sort of. D&D Beyond's trailer had charsheet with Drizzt as playable character. The math was off.

[Anonymouswizard]

I think the point being is it doesnt matter.

If a PC wants to be better than Calvert, let him. He's one in a trillion. The PC's the protagonist here, not Calvert.

It just signals 'something' about the DM when he bans anyone being better than his special snowflake character from the books/ movies. Something that I always avoid.

Yes, that's exactly my point. It doesn't matter that Calvert is the best spaceship pilot in the Confederation going by the novels, this is a game and it's not fun that I can't raise my piloting above 6 because that's Joshua's level (although skill caps for other reasons are fine, especially for roll under systems). Heck, the second book introduces someone almost as good at piloting as Joshua (implied to only be worse due to lack of experience), so there's nothing actually saying Joshua Calvert is the best pilot ever.

My point was that if you're not going to let anybody have a higher tactics rating than Kirk or a higher pilot rating than Calvert then you might as well just give them ratings of infinity. Not allowing the protagonists to be better at their thing than secondary characters (at best) is just wrong. With some asterisks attached: it's fine if Kirk begins higher than Geoff, as long as Geoff can spend XP to become better than Kirk (this is where Star Wars d6 fails, it'll take a lot of adventures to reach the power of the movie characters provided you spend your CP only on advancement and never on rolling better, starting at 6D in Blaster Pistols means you need 63 character points to hit Han Solo's rating in that one skill*).

* Random example, I don't know Solo's exact Blaster Pistols skill but 9D sounds reasonable.

[Regitnui]

My point was that if you're not going to let anybody have a higher tactics rating than Kirk or a higher pilot rating than Calvert then you might as well just give them ratings of infinity.

This is partially why I dislike the settings with established (playable) history. Why do we need these first-level chumps if there are X 10th-level expert chumps who can solve the problem by sneezing at it? Both Dark Sun and Eberron are better at this than FR, Dragonlance or Greyhawk, in my opinion. Dark Sun and Eberron both start at a point in time: a varying point for Dark Sun and 998YK for Eberron. Both just after grand changes to the established order of things.

Eberron has a defined expectation that the most powerful people in the world aren't the highest level (rulers of nations include a thin, conniving woman, a disenfranchised prince, a 10-year-old girl and a tree). Barring one or two examples, you don't have powerful people who can directly kick PC butt (King Boranel, former adventurer, rides a bear, has two ghost tigers as pets and is in his seventies is the exception). The PCs are the heroes who can get higher than level 5-7.

Dark Sun takes the opposite route. Everyone is as tough as you are, from the merchant to the beggar child, and they only get tougher. The world is more likely to kill you than the monsters, and you can't trust people from.the next town over, so there's plenty of reasons why the PCs are the heroes. They're the closest and the most helpfully-inclined.

[2D8HP]

This is partially why I dislike the settings with established (playable) history. Why do we need these first-level chumps if there are X 10th-level expert chumps who can solve the problem by sneezing at it?....


I'm reminded of ("back in the early 1980's") the Stormbringer RPG, which had an early published "adventure" that largely consisted of following Elric around.

Suffice it to say the judgement of my gaming circle was "Dude, that was hella lame".

Built in DMPC's are a bad idea.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm reminded of ("back in the early 1980's") the Stormbringer RPG, which had an early published "adventure" that largely consisted of following Elric around.

Suffice it to say the judgement of my gaming circle was "Dude, that was hella lame".

Built in DMPC's are a bad idea. Not to mention the small problem that, in the fiction of Elric as Moorcock wrote it, hanging around Elric was freakin' dangerous, and you might get your soul drunk by that sword of his.

[Honest Tiefling]

TL;DR: Charisma ≠ Appearance.

In 5th edition, appearance is not mentioned as a part of charisma. In 3.5, where Lidda and Mialee come from, physical appearance is listed by the rules to be a part of charisma. It is not the only part, but I think Naanomi's way of thinking is often how it was handled. At least at the saner tables.

[MeeposFire]

Did they release his stats for 5e?



I think you meant the Sarchasm.

What is lower than that? PUNS!!!

[Knaight]

I know my opinion (on the original OP, I tend to agree with this crowd on charisma) is going to vary pretty wildly from most, but ah well.

The OP seems to want super low stats or multiple super low stats to get "more in character". Personally, no sarcasm, I wish it was easier to have my lowest be a 10 and my highest an 18. I see almost no value in a negative score.

The low end is being used as an example for characters poorly supported by the system, but the same thing applies at the upper end. 5e is generally pretty evenly partitioned - the attributes are supposed to be comparable with characters having comparable scores in them, the classes are supposed to be comparable with characters having comparable classes, the skills are supposed to be comparable with characters having similar skill levels, etc. That's not a bad thing in any way, but it comes with some limitations. The standard different way of doing things, where there's a set of distinct packages (attributes, class) is ranking them, where you can have really high attributes but it comes at the cost of less skills, picking worse classes, etc. This also limits character options, but with a fairly different set enabled and blocked.