"Optimized" characters or parties?

[Counterpower]

There is such a thing called the suspension of disbelief. I do that every time I play D&D, since, as a fantasy world, it is most assuredly not real. And having a DEX 8, CHA 10 character described as "graceful" while there's a 18 DEX, 10 CHA rogue who is described as "anything but graceful" strains said suspension.

This is supposed to be a world. A world that I willingly enter every time I can manage to call together my D&D group. And for those five hours, I would vastly prefer to be telling my players about the storm-tossed waves below the airship ringed by glowing fire, not thinking "how in **** does that DEX 4 character gracefully stride across the stage while the DEX 18 rogue manages to trip over his own feet?" Sure, you can describe the wizard doing anything you really feel like. And there can even be contradictions, like a DEX 7 who has agile feet. But if he has that DEX 7, then I expect to see some kind of contrast between that and the DEX 27 shadowdancer. Basically, I have no problem with the DEX 8, CHA 10 being graceful. I have a problem with him being more graceful than a DEX 17, CHA 14 character. I respectfully submit that it's easy to create such differences. And if you're trying to RP a DEX 6 character as graceful, in all ways and more so than a character with DEX 36, then I will find some way to prove to the people in the campaign world exactly how graceful you are. Probably a DEX check to compete in some contest, or with that DEX 36 character. Even if a DEX check isn't the best for determining grace, if it's the best indicator available........... And if it's not, then I'll use whatever I can find that's the best available. In other words, I am fully ready to make players back their RPing fluff up with their actual abilities, if necessary. Then we will see who is, or is not, graceful.

Likewise, I won't create a character who can't back up the fluff with their mechanical abilities. If I want to play a graceful or attractive wizard, I'll put the 15s in DEX and CHA instead of CON and WIS. I described a wizard as wearing full body armor once. After I struck a disguise self spell off his prepared spells before the party even met him. I could create an agile fighter who was almost impossible to hit due to his incredible agility. If I wanted to do that, I would not create a fighter who had DEX 12 and wore full plate. The game effect is the same: high AC, can't hit him as easily as you could some other characters. But that's a fighter who relies on his heavy armor to protect him, not his agility. I can describe my characters as really anything. I could even add flavor to a fighter's attack rolls by telling everyone about the magic power flickering about his hands that he smote people with. None of that would actually make the descriptions resemble what was actually happening. Sure, the fighter may be a wizard now that he uses magic, but he's still a lvl 1 fighter wielding a longsword and a shield, with high STR and no INT to speak of. I can describe the events as anything I want, but that doesn't make any of it the truth. And when this is a world that I am trying to live in for those short five hours, what's actually happening in that world is important.

Okay, rant's over, you may now return to your regularly scheduled foruming.

[Artemician]

I've always subscribed to Bears' school of thought regarding ability scores. They're already abstracted anyway, there doesn't seem to be any harm in taking this abstraction all the way.

For example, my 18 Wis Elf Swordsage has the common sense of a baboon. He may know how to shrug off enchantments and stare really hard, but his Wisdom is nil.

[Sir Giacomo]

Hi again,

hmmm- I must say, that I am more and more fascinated by the point of view of BWL and, just above, Artemician, to give as much freedom as possible in the interpretation of the stats.
- you could have the graceful elven maid (DEX 8, CHR 18) who is clumsy at critical points in action
- you could have a rogue with DEX 20 who is NOT graceful, but apparently escapes the problems unscathed by sheer luck (and DEX is chosen high to reflect this)
- you could have a massive man with low CON and high STR, or the other way round.
- you could have a character with WIS 18 who is completely clueless. High mental strength (not easily swayed), but without any philosophical ambition (hey, an illiterate barbarian can have WIS 22 this way...without being able/not wanting to provide any wise words...)
etc etc

Probably the "as much as..." ends at the point indicated by Counterpower above: when it comes to the relative comparison of the player characters (as well as the npcs in the world around them), it is highly difficult to say for two characters that they are equally graceful, while one has low DEX and CHR, and the other has high DEX and CHR.
The "balance" thing I brought up because, for instance, a Czilla player with high STR, CON and WIS, but dump stats for DEX, CHF and INT may be tempted to desribe himself has "strong, highly resilient and a very wise man" AND as well "graceful, charming, witty". Which would then tread on the roleplaying terrain of the players wanting to fill that niche (say with a witty wizard, or a graceful rogue).

The rules are not set in stone (as is repeated time and again in the DMG); they are there to help achieve a common ground for everyone. Additionally, the rules cannot cover everything. There is no stat for "gracefulness" (although the descriptions of DEX and CHR strongly suggest they should be used as guidelines for that); so basically in every group the players and the DM should agree beforehand (or will realise in the course of play) what they see as "graceful" and what not.

However tempting the cool new interpretations of stats and abilities and classes are, I would generally caution not to take a very free interpretation of the rules too far. DD3.5 already struggles to preserve any kind of realism with the introduction of magic - which is completely "unrealistic". It would, in my view, unnecessarily make things more complicated for a DM if he then also has to take into consideration that certain basic rules can be interpreted completely differently than the mainstream would.

- Giacomo

EDIT: just noticed that one:

Hey, Giacomo--don't tell me what my character is or isn't, huh? :P

I never would dare do that! ;-)
My secret wish is actually to at some point play alongside BWL in a group of fighters hunting CoDzillas and high-level arcane casters...

[Cyborg Pirate]

- you could have the graceful elven maid (DEX 8, CHR 18) who is clumsy at critical points in action
- you could have a rogue with DEX 20 who is NOT graceful, but apparently escapes the problems unscathed by sheer luck (and DEX is chosen high to reflect this)
- you could have a massive man with low CON and high STR, or the other way round.
- you could have a character with WIS 18 who is completely clueless. High mental strength (not easily swayed), but without any philosophical ambition (hey, an illiterate barbarian can have WIS 22 this way...without being able/not wanting to provide any wise words...)
etc etc

What I like about this list, is that these are also popular archtypes.

Graceful seeming maiden who's clumsy as hell in fights; there are a couple like that in several anime.

Ungraceful rogue who somehow still escapes traps and dodges like the best; very well known too. The guy everyone considers an idiot yet somehow seems to luck out on all occasions. Hell, even Rincewind comes to mind as an example of this.

Massive man with low hitpoints; Seen from time to time in movies and cartoons. That one big guy who smashes everything, but goes down to a single headbutt from the hero.

And the mentally strong man who doesn't seem very wise; this archtype is even more prevalent in the media then the wise sage archtype. How often have we not seen a simple man who just isn't easily swayed? More often then we see a wise sage who isn't easily swayed.



Stats are abstractions. They only give us mechanics to work with. The flavour, is at best circumstantial.

[Rasumichin]

DD3.5 already struggles to preserve any kind of realism with the introduction of magic - which is completely "unrealistic".

As has recently been mentioned on this board, it would be reasonable to take this even further :
D&D is not a game bothered with realism.
D&D is designed to provide playable, fun mechanics that abstract as much as necessary since providing a consistent simulation of a fantasy world simply is not the focus of the game.

It never was.

That's why RuneQuest was written back in 1979, introducing more realistic mechanics and starting a whole school of likewise oriented RPGs such as GURPS or Hârnmaster (and did its share in rendering DSA completely broken, but that's another issue and not to be blamed on RQ).
Because D&D is not a realistic game and there have always been gamers disliking this fact and starting their own systems, because you can not turn D&D into a (pseudo- or alterna-)medieval simulation system without breaking it.


I mean, think about.
Character classes?

All RPGs devoted to realism/simulation/plausibility do without those, replacing them with pointbuy systems, lifepaths and so on.

XP? Levels?

This has nothing to do with how learning and developing in real life works.
It's a game ressource, roughly modelled after experience (XP) and a means to measure a character's power (lvl), not a simulation.
Which works great for D&D.
But every simulationist system at least abandons the concept of levels, many also replace XP with other mechanics (like rules for training) as RuneQuest did 28 years ago.

AC?

I wear a suit of plate mail that hampers my movement and become harder to hit? Sure.
Armor has the same effect as high DEX?
Why not let armor reduce weapon damage and introduce rules for dodging and parrying, as RuneQuest did in '79?
Because AC is an easier, quicker mechanism.



The very core mechanics of D&D should make clear that it does not attempt a close relation to fluff.
If you criticise lack of realism or reason in certain character concepts, you are most likely playing the wrong game.

Play RQ with a historic background juiced up with some low-level magic.
Honestly.
It's a great game, it's fun (even though i admittedly don't know about the recent editions), you might really enjoy it.
But please don't tell your players their concepts aren't realistic.

[Leush]

Actually armor does make you harder to hit: It makes the soft fleshy bits of you harder to hit since you know, they're covered in metal.

You have rules for dodging in D&D: It's called 'Touch AC' (okay not quite dodging but something like it) and 'Reflex saves'. Essentially when an enemy beats your touch AC but not your AC it means that you failed to dodge the sword and it hit you, but the strike did not hit an unprotected part of you and bounced off your armor (or something).

Now according to some arguments you can interpret touch AC as caterpillars spouting out of your eyes and smothering the enemy preventing him from striking true, but when I open a can of beans I don't expect it to be full worms genetically modified to be nutritionally equivalent to my beans.

[Sir Giacomo]

Play RQ with a historic background juiced up with some low-level magic.
Honestly.
It's a great game, it's fun (even though i admittedly don't know about the recent editions), you might really enjoy it.
But please don't tell your players their concepts aren't realistic.

But I will, if I am the DM, I consider it as unrealistic, and it is also felt so this way by the other players. I would actually do that in all systems when trying to roleplay. Some systems are admittedly better at doing that than others. I guess that the low-magic, very historic medieval kind of campaign style can also be done with DD3.5 (I both DMed and played in such a setting).

You are absolutely correct in saying that DD3.5 is not the best system out there to simulate the "real" world, although it is not that bad, either. It is full of compromises that lead to oddities like falling damage as offensive tactics, improved listening and spot abilities when older, levels getting you an amount of abilities inside days and weeks which before took you a whole life to learn, etc.
The compromises are there to lend better and faster playability vs too much realism and more fun to play vs too many statistics (like, for instance, the boring, constrained magic rules for Rolemaster).

Still, when pinpointing all these realism shortcomings, in my view it does not help to say: "the rules are not perfect, a far cry from being realistic everywhere, so just let's do as we please for all the rest."

Eventually it all boils to how the different groups approach it. However, in my view, the majority will see the DD3.5 rules on abilities and stats as a guideline on how the character is shaped and comes across in that world, not merely apply the statistics where it explicitly says so.

- Giacomo

[Rasumichin]

You have rules for dodging in D&D: It's called 'Touch AC' (okay not quite dodging but something like it) and 'Reflex saves'.

I get your point, but it is still much more abstract than "okay, the enemy might hit you...roll for parry or dodge...hm, didn't work...okay, subtract the armor's value from damage and apply it to your...*roll* left kidney's hitpoints."

The compromises are there to lend better and faster playability vs too much realism and more fun to play vs too many statistics (like, for instance, the boring, constrained magic rules for Rolemaster).

I know, and in my opinion, this is a reasonable tradeoff i apreciate.
You are completely right at pointing out that overly "realistic" systems can become terribly clumsy.
I'd prefer D&D anytime (unless i want to play Unisystem. Or SR).

Still, when pinpointing all these realism shortcomings, in my view it does not help to say: "the rules are not perfect, a far cry from being realistic everywhere, so just let's do as we please for all the rest."

This is understandable.
But i consider it to be a good reason for generally taking a more relaxed and easygoing attitude towards the issue of realism in D&D games.
Not "anything goes" but "a lot more than some people expect goes, since it is just a game (that does not pretend to be more than a game), and not a simulation (that somehow started out as a game)".

Eventually it all boils to how the different groups approach it.

Of course.

[Kioran]

Your argument is getting more and more ridiculous.

"Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness." Nothing in there about gracefulness.

Perform is Charisma-based, but has nothing to do with being graceful. Perform(oratory), perform(winds), perform(percussion), perform(comedy)... no grace requires. Dance is the only one that might require it.

Your talk of the fighter using skill focuses just so he can be competent at dealing with animals, riding, and swimming is fairly absurd. If he does that, he won't be able to fight. You can have someone grow up on a farm, then become a Fighter, and have all those skills--the point is, they're physical skills. Why would a high intelligence help?

Each ability covers a number of things. Either you say that you can have one of the qualities of an ability without the ability being high, or you say that everyone who has one of the qualities has all the others.

For example, "Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition." So everyone who's strong-willed is also perceptive?

D&D makes for a fairly poor simulation. It's not a realistic representation. It's an approximation.
And given all that, there's no reason an 8-DEX, 10-CHA character couldn't be played as graceful.

In short, you´re saying "as long is it doesn´t make absolute sense we can have it make even less sense if ti suits us. I think that´s bullcrap.

D&D is not a good simulation, granted - that´s why I use different stats in my Homebrew RPS: Str, Con, Agility, Dexterity, Inteligence and Sensory ability, relegating Charisma and willpower, which were originally abilities on par with the others, to my Advantages section(think GURPS).

I mean although it´s not perfect, i would try to make do - the less deviation from accurate simulation you have, the easier Suspension of disbelief is. A graceful Char 8 Dex 8 Char strains it, heavily, since he sucks in all crunchy applications of thinks related to grace apart from a few exceptions (by investing skill ranks, though I bet only few of the chars in your campaigns drop many points into semi-useful skills). It´s unneccesary, and if you can´t play your Char without being graceful, that´s bad RP to boot.....

[Roethke]

In short, you´re saying "as long is it doesn´t make absolute sense we can have it make even less sense if ti suits us. I think that´s bullcrap.

D&D is not a good simulation, granted - that´s why I use different stats in my Homebrew RPS: Str, Con, Agility, Dexterity, Inteligence and Sensory ability, relegating Charisma and willpower, which were originally abilities on par with the others, to my Advantages section(think GURPS).

I mean although it´s not perfect, i would try to make do - the less deviation from accurate simulation you have, the easier Suspension of disbelief is. A graceful Char 8 Dex 8 Char strains it, heavily, since he sucks in all crunchy applications of thinks related to grace apart from a few exceptions (by investing skill ranks, though I bet only few of the chars in your campaigns drop many points into semi-useful skills). It´s unneccesary, and if you can´t play your Char without being graceful, that´s bad RP to boot.....

I'm beginning to think the dispute may have its roots in system bias. I grew up on 2nd Ed. AD&D, which had a weapon/nonweapon proficiency system that was so godawful, went through a few official revisions (weapon groupings, something-for-nothing kits, skills & powers), and by no means was even close to simulation worthy. (Don't get me wrong, I loved the system, warts and all).

So, you were basically forced into separating crunch from fluff there, with the nonweapon proficiencies adding little touches of flavor for what a character was particularly good at, but lacking them didn't mean you're character couldn't do something.

So it doesn't seem like such a radical idea, to me.

EDIT:And to explain where I am, in response to your post,
To me, the abstractions of skill ranks, physical attributes, etc. are so coarse, that saying that one particular interpretation of crunch, e.g. high DEX= graceful, makes no more sense to me than another, e.g. high DEX means good at aiming, manual dexterity, and several balance oriented tasks.

Take the Climb, skill, which is STR based. Anyone who has been rock climbing can tell you that it depends a little on strength, a lot on dexterity and some on intelligence. So they simplified to STR for D&D. Does this mean you must then accept the D&D premise that climbing is solely dependent on STR? For crunch, yes, but why for fluff?

Call it bull crap, if you like, but I don't see one making more sense than the other.

[Ulzgoroth]

I think a lot of the problem with 'grace' is that the word is problematic to define. After all, one reads of 'languid grace' and 'studied grace', which don't seem to require any sort of physical capabilities so much as a particular style of movement, often consciously forced. It doesn't seem that would call for Charisma either...you could be ugly as a week-old corpse with all the social competence of a wolverine and, um, no 'personal magnetism', but move the same way. Granted people might not call you graceful, but that's largely because they'd be too busy getting far away from you. So...depending on what you mean by it, being 'graceful' might not require anything but occasional concentration checks for distraction and never needing to move fast.

As for the characters who show some possible attributes of their high ability scores but not others...that's perfectly reasonable roleplaying. High int, great logical reasoning but faulty memory? High dex but just can't make yourself palm something inconspicuously? No problem there. At the same time, if it impinges on game mechanics, you may not retain all the effects of your normal ability score. If the forgetful genius wants to make an int check to remember something, he's working on a base int closer to 8 than 18 for that. If your highly empathic and perceptive (high wis) character with the common sense of a lemming were allowed the wis check some DMs use to see if you realize how stupid an action would be, it wouldn't be with a +5 modifier.

Adding flaws like that to your character is may be interesting. If you don't get some kind of compensatory bonus, they do make your character functionally weaker (kind of what flaw means). Having the stats to be good at something and being weak at it instead is something you can inflict on yourself voluntarily. Being better at something than your character sheet accounts for is not equivalent.

Opinion, obviously...if you subscribe to the school of freeform RP interspersed with conflict resolution by an entirely unrelated tactical wargame, you're only having badwrongfun if you're doing it in a game that doesn't take that interpretation.

[Vyker]

How many times have you sat down to make a character and thought, "Gee, I'd like him to have [positive trait]. That means I have a high [attribute]. But wait... that also means I have [another positive trait]. That's not in the concept at all!"

As an example, Dex covers "hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance." It adds bonuses to ranged attack rolls, AC, reflex saving throws, and a bunch of skills.

Is it so hard to believe that there are dexterous people out there who don't have some innate ability to not be where fireballs go off?

Is every good dancer also a good archer?

Is a tight-rope walker (a man who, by definition, walks a straight line slowly) a dodge master?

I mentioned this earlier, but at eleven pages long, "earlier" really means "somewhere you'll never read it." So here it is again, for your enjoyment and edification!

"For fun, here's a "Dex 8 can be graceful" argument. Maybe you're graceful in calm (i.e., noncombat) situations, but the instant it all goes south... blam! You fumble, you trip, you get so nervous that it's hard to defend yourself (there's that -1 to AC!), etc., etc., etc. It doesn't have to mean that you automatically spill your drink on the cute chick next to you at the tavern, it doesn't mean that you trip over your own two feet, just that you shake a lot in combat."

You've got the balance-between-characters going, since once combat (or any other mechanically-based moment) hits, the penalties start kicking in. You've not prevented the player from rolling with his concept (hey, maybe there's a good story behind why he gets nervous at key moments). And since most moments that require checks are probably under some degree of stress ("Dude! Five gold says you can't fence the balor on the rickety rope bridge over a pit of lava!"), it's fairly internally consistent.

As others have said, the whole system is so coarse and abstract that I don't feel like this is where it lost me. That, and I'd rather let someone play out their concept rather than be railroaded into something they really don't want by WotC or a stingy DM.

[Kioran]

How many times have you sat down to make a character and thought, "Gee, I'd like him to have [positive trait]. That means I have a high [attribute]. But wait... that also means I have [another positive trait]. That's not in the concept at all!"

As an example, Dex covers "hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance." It adds bonuses to ranged attack rolls, AC, reflex saving throws, and a bunch of skills.

Is it so hard to believe that there are dexterous people out there who don't have some innate ability to not be where fireballs go off?

Is every good dancer also a good archer?

Is a tight-rope walker (a man who, by definition, walks a straight line slowly) a dodge master?

I mentioned this earlier, but at eleven pages long, "earlier" really means "somewhere you'll never read it." So here it is again, for your enjoyment and edification!

"For fun, here's a "Dex 8 can be graceful" argument. Maybe you're graceful in calm (i.e., noncombat) situations, but the instant it all goes south... blam! You fumble, you trip, you get so nervous that it's hard to defend yourself (there's that -1 to AC!), etc., etc., etc. It doesn't have to mean that you automatically spill your drink on the cute chick next to you at the tavern, it doesn't mean that you trip over your own two feet, just that you shake a lot in combat."

You've got the balance-between-characters going, since once combat (or any other mechanically-based moment) hits, the penalties start kicking in. You've not prevented the player from rolling with his concept (hey, maybe there's a good story behind why he gets nervous at key moments). And since most moments that require checks are probably under some degree of stress ("Dude! Five gold says you can't fence the balor on the rickety rope bridge over a pit of lava!"), it's fairly internally consistent.

As others have said, the whole system is so coarse and abstract that I don't feel like this is where it lost me. That, and I'd rather let someone play out their concept rather than be railroaded into something they really don't want by WotC or a stingy DM.

If you want your character to be graceful, you can,but at least give him a little crunchy means to do so. A few ranks in Profession(Courtier) or Perform(Dancing) or Balance or whatever would suffice - be creative. But a character who can in no situation whatsoever "outgrace" average Joe reliably in crunch - not so much.
As well as there are several builds to simulate a Pirate(generic Warrior, Swashbuckler, Fighter, Barbarian, heck, even Ranger) there are several ways to attain grace in something, be it dancing/combat/bearing. Just give it a modicum of crunch to back it (it would, even if it doesn´t give you AC or an advantage at balancing, still effect the way people see you -> social skills).

We don´t want you too knuckle under an resort to playing archetypes forevermore - just give your DM a little something to work with an you´ll be okay.

[Vyker]

If you want your character to be graceful, you can,but at least give him a little crunchy means to do so. A few ranks in Profession(Courtier) or Perform(Dancing) or Balance or whatever would suffice - be creative.

Eh. You can do that. But asking the Fighter to use his two skill points on something like Walking: Don't Trip Over My Own Feet is just mean.

[Roethke]

Eh. You can do that. But asking the Fighter to use his two skill points on something like Walking: Don't Trip Over My Own Feet is just mean.

Or,for the weird, when the Fighter takes a level of Barbarian, he can now dump a couple of extra points into Profession (Courtier).

[Jayabalard]

Or,for the weird, when the Fighter takes a level of Barbarian, he can now dump a couple of extra points into Profession (Courtier).

imo taking profession courtier is pretty contradictory to being a barbarian...

[Vyker]

I do believe that was the point.

The rules are not always the best way to resolve a situation, quandry, or conundrum.

[Kioran]

I do believe that was the point.

The rules are not always the best way to resolve a situation, quandry, or conundrum.

True point. I also don´t like this situation all that much - but a fighter who´d dump Dex, Int and Char(since he´s neither "agile-graceful" nor "charming-graceful" nor does he have additional Skills/lvl) will either have abysmal stats(in which case you may liberally compensate, nobody should be forced to play a sucker) or be more of the collossus-with-indomitable-will type, which probably isn´t all that graceful fluff-wise anyway. And if you want to play the perfect superhero - well that´s what Wushu and freeform is for, or one of the ubiquitous monstrous ToB+Gestalt campaigns are for - but you´d never lack skill ranks in these.
Point is, I just want players to make small adjustments as a gesture for playning unusual fluff, not always using the same crunch with different paint jobs. i´m not talking about gimping, I´m talking bout(*gasp*) actually adapting your crunch to the role you want to play.

That said the Fighter is probably one of the most versatile classes fluff-wise.

[Vyker]

ubiquitous monstrous ToB+Gestalt campaigns

...these are ubiquitous? Man, I gotta get in whatever groups you hang out with. I've always wanted to play one of these!

Erm. Yeah. Back to the topic at hand...

Point is, I just want players to make small adjustments as a gesture for playning unusual fluff, not always using the same crunch with different paint jobs. i´m not talking about gimping, I´m talking bout(*gasp*) actually adapting your crunch to the role you want to play.

On an abstract level, I most heartily agree. In other systems (say, Shadowrun), it's a lot easier to do since the game goes out of its way to give you that opportunity. Heck, Shadowrun even has specifically allocated points for fluff stuff.

In D&D, I "optimize" my character to achieve a set of stats which match my concept and are reasonably effective. Unfortunately, I often find that certain elements of D&D (in particular skills and feats) are so penny-pinching in their implimentation that it's difficult to portray my character concept with mechanics alone. I mean, that "small adjustment" you mentioned is fifty percent of the Fighter's already meager supply of skill points.

Feats like "Skill Focus" are interesting, but when I can either get a +2 to remembering that Lord Fancypants is the distant cousin of Baron McPompous or I can, say, cast two spells per turn... well, that's not really a hard choice to make when then the name of the game is "Nasty Places and Nastier Things That Live in Them."

In my games, I compensate for this by giving players additional skill points for background fluff. Things like knowledge skills, profession/crafting, performance, whatever helps keep their fluff and crunch at least somewhat related to one another. They're good enough to not immediately toss it in something that'll be a bonus in combat.

But really, while that helps add to the character, you still have the odd questions like, "Why are good dancers also good archers?"

All in all, though, the most important thing for your roleplaying is... your roleplaying. You can have infinite skill points in Craft: Pointless Object, but if you never actually craft it, talk about crafting it ("Man, I remember back in the summer of Level Seven... I made me some pointless objects back in those days..."), or reference it in any way, it hasn't improved your character, your game, or your roleplay.

If you want to roleplay, roleplay. That's the best, most direct method to get it done!

[Ulzgoroth]

But really, while that helps add to the character, you still have the odd questions like, "Why are good dancers also good archers?"

Well, right off they aren't really (even if we suppose dancing is a dex-based skill, which it isn't)...especially good dancers are mostly the ones with Skill Focus and level+3 skill ranks. That's a bare minimum of skill modifier 7, whereas ability mods just don't go above 5 for people within the far outermost edges of the ordinary. Phenomenal dancers, or people with an undeveloped gift in that area, are relatively good archers. But only really good if they're in a full BAB class, which most probably aren't.

The other answer is that it's for the same reason as a gifted weightlifter is also a gifted high and long jumper. Because they didn't want you to have a dozen physical stats, of which you had to reference 5 every time you attack. (Or maybe because they're keeping some continuity with a game that originally didn't even think of that, I don't know for sure.)

[Vyker]

Going straight off of Dex, there is a correlation between dancing (or tight-rope walking, if you don't like dancing) and archery. When looking at attributes, there's a lot of stuff that gets "lumped in" together which might not really fit in with your character concept.

Being very perceptive suggests a high wisdom; being weak-willed suggests a low one. Which do you take? Do you just average them out? Go with the lowest, and sacrifice the perception side of your concept? Or stick with the highest, and cover up a weakness which your fluff had originally intended to exist?

Given enough skill points and feats, in some cases you could make enough adjustments beyond your attributes to "fine tune" your concept/mechanic combo, but most classes have a pretty drastic lack of one, the other, or both. Or, say you want a high strength, because you like to bash stuff. A lot. On the other hand, you want to be a terrible climber (maybe your character is afraid of heights). Even given "enough" skill points/feats, you can't take negative ranks in climb... but if you ditch your strength attribute, you can't compensate by putting ranks in your "Hit Stuff Harder" skill. So do you go for the climbing (guess he got over that fear!), or do you hamper your damage, which, aside from being bad in a traditional (dare I say most?) D&D game, also scuttles your fluff concept.

And, again, I cannot stress enough that many of the classes simply do not have many (if any) skill points to spare for that sort of thing. It's not always even a question of whether or not you're willing to allocate skill ranks to fluff skills. Sometimes it's a matter of mechanical limitation. Two skill points will only go so far, and the list of options before cross-classing is pretty short, too!

The upshot of all this is that I find it much harder to make a fluff character than a twink character from a pure mechanical perspective. The game is slanted towards a proactive, combat approach. That's not a bad thing. It's just the approach the game (mechanically) favors. Given that I'm playing D&D with friends for the roleplay as much as the "You pwnz0r teh mob!" moments, it doesn't strike me as odd that we sometimes ignore the inconsistencies in a fairly abstract system when fluff or acting comes into play. After all, we're there to have fun, and we prefer to examiine what we can do than extol the virtues of what we can't do (heck, any character has a near infinite supply of things he can't do).

Or, look at it from another perspective:

As for the characters who show some possible attributes of their high ability scores but not others...that's perfectly reasonable roleplaying.

(above posted by Ulzgoroth, post #311 of page 11)

Why is it perfectly reasonable roleplay to ignore certain elements of a high ability score, but taboo to ignore certain elements of a low ability score? Why does a negative modifier improve roleplay? And why does -- not a positive modifier -- but even no modifier at all hinder it? Why does it go one way, yet not the other?

Yes, there may be a mechanical balance to worry about (though for anyone who believes that the game really is mechanically balanced, I submit the Wizard & CoDzilla vs. the Monk & the Bard). But if mechanical balance is your concern to such a degree that you sacrifice RP... are you really supporting RP in the first place?

--

Sidequest for all you kids keeping score at home: Count up the number of folks saying, "I support RP over mechanics, but if your mechanics don't match your fluff, your RP must change to match the mechanics."