Avoiding "dump stats"


Gamer Life General Discussion

301 to 350 of 371 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:


I have an Empiricist Investigator who dips one level into Inspired Blade Swashbuckler, and I'm on a 10 point buy. What reason do I have to not go 9, 14, 14, 15, 8, 7 for my stat array (the +2 goes into dex here.)

So, if your DM gives you a 10pt maybe you dont run that combo. Wait for a 20 pt campaign.

I mean if your DM gives you a 0 point build, maybe you do dump.... that DM.....


DrDeth wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Shouldn't a mage be disarming traps? I mean that's what Summon Monster I is for in the later levels.

How does that disarm a trap on the locked door? or on a chest? Or a teleport trap?

I mean sure if the trap is a pit trap in a corridor and the ranger spotted it, sure, send in the pony.

Okay fine, sometimes you need to break out dispel magic for traps.

Also a 10 point buy is less of a thing to avoid and more of a challenge to overcome if you ask me. I'd like to think I got the game savvy to survive and contribute in one of those...barring dice/rng deciding that I get to suck balls at that moment in particular or that the rest of the party doesn't know what they're doing.


DrDeth wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:


I have an Empiricist Investigator who dips one level into Inspired Blade Swashbuckler, and I'm on a 10 point buy. What reason do I have to not go 9, 14, 14, 15, 8, 7 for my stat array (the +2 goes into dex here.)

So, if your DM gives you a 10pt maybe you dont run that combo. Wait for a 20 pt campaign.

I mean if your DM gives you a 0 point build, maybe you do dump.... that DM.....

The most amusing thing about the 0 point game is the classes that are functional.

7 strength, wis and cha buys 12 points. Put 6 into Int for 15 [17 post racial] 3 into con and 3 into dex. There's your wizard who covers stray knowleges.

Druid does the same with a focus on wis and dumping int (perhaps starting with a 16 wis to allow a higher con or dex) and tanks via summons and animal companion. Covers survival and perception.

Bard does the same focusing on cha. Performs and buffs in combat, covers bluff, diplomacy, intimidate and handle animal. Later expands skills via versatile performance via retraining.

Cleric: might dump dex in favor of not dumping strength and use heavy armor as a support caster. Covers knowlege religion.

Chained synthesist summoner: dump EVERYTHING except cha and wis. Stay away from melee and support, summon, archer. Occasional melee is fine but taking enough damage to lose the power armor is not.


DrDeth wrote:


I mean if your DM gives you a 0 point build, maybe you do dump.... that DM.....

Play a pet class and watch the pet be the best character in the party.

Dwarven druid, 0 point buy STR: 7 DEX: 7 CON: 16 INT: 12 WIS: 16 CHA: 5


HyperMissingno wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Shouldn't a mage be disarming traps? I mean that's what Summon Monster I is for in the later levels.

How does that disarm a trap on the locked door? or on a chest? Or a teleport trap?

I mean sure if the trap is a pit trap in a corridor and the ranger spotted it, sure, send in the pony.

Okay fine, sometimes you need to break out dispel magic for traps.

Also a 10 point buy is less of a thing to avoid and more of a challenge to overcome if you ask me. I'd like to think I got the game savvy to survive and contribute in one of those...barring dice/rng deciding that I get to suck balls at that moment in particular or that the rest of the party doesn't know what they're doing.

10 pt buy can be a challenge, sure- but then its not the games fault that a particular combo doesnt do well when you are at half points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The issue people have with dump stats and point buy in particular IS the loss of organic feel to your character. It becomes an exercise in identifying the stats that directly add to your abilities and skills, the stats the provide less benefit but can't be dumped for various game reasons and the stats that don't affect your concept and can be safely dumped. And then finding that optimum array that maximizes the primary stats without losing the secondary stats all at the cost of the dump stats... It's pure mechanics and as a result there IS an optimal stat set for each class/concept and point buy level. Cookie cutter. The assembly line building of robots. And the reason I will never run a purely point buy game, I will always allow some alternatives for people who don't want to play the robot.


John-Andre wrote:
Part of a conversation tonight involved the concept of "dump stats".

It is an interesting idea.

This is vaguely related to "munchinism" and min-max'ing of PCs.

Ultimately, it depends on (1) what the gamer is trying to achieve through role-playing in this particular campaign with this particular GM, (2) the GM's world concept, and (3) how the player reacts to the challenges the GM presents.

If the player is a "power gamer" then the GM's "punishment" of the player might mean some less than fun sessions for both the player and the GM.

On the other paw, if the player is a "role-player" or an "acting" focused gamer then those challenges presented by the GM might be the fuel that the player is looking for. This might result in either terrible or great sessions for the GM.

This brings up the potential for another thread, GM motivations.

Over the years, a lot has been written about gamer types and how to relate to each type in the most positive way.

I have not personally seen as much about GM types ...

Hmmmmmmm ...

The Original Dr Games Site since 1993


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Many 'power gamers' are extremely avid 'role-players.' Myself included.

Why do you think I want a powerful character, to ramp up the challenges or some junk like that?

Heck no.

I do it so my character will actually survive long enough to complete the story. I do it to buck probability, because a thousand dice rolls are a thousand chances to fail, and the more failures the more likely any one of them could result in your demise, or that of those you wish to protect.


If point buy is "cookie cutter", is stat array also "cookie cutter"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PT.B=The Devil wrote:
If point buy is "cookie cutter", is stat array also "cookie cutter"?

They are all cookie-cutter at this point.

Rolling 3d6 then allotting the rolls wherever it fits best is also cookie cutter. So is Rolling 3d6 in order and then picking a class that benefits from the rolled stats...

The only difference is that with point buy you actually get to choose the flavor of the cookie you're eating, instead of letting the oven (dice) decide it for you.

The problem are angry elitist grognards who see a character as a build and nothing more... They see the same build twice and accuse their players of being "rollplayers", even if their characters have completely different background and personality, because they can't fathom the possibility of characters being more than their class description and feat selection. These players appeal to the Stormwind fallacy because they have no creativity to see anything beyond what's written down in the character sheet... And yet, they have the nerve to call others "rollplayers".

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I can, I try to go with rolled abilities, as it's the most fair and balanced version in my opinion, (Point Buy favors SAD classes and Elite Array favors both SAD classes and forces too much moderation).

Now, that being said, I do allow rerolling to allow a reasonable array. I've also done odd things like have the highest roll and the lowest roll count as 2 rolls for everyone, (so if one person rolls a 9 and one rolls an 18, everyone gets to use at least one 18 and is also stuck with at least one 9, and then rolls the other 4 stats).

I've also experimented with a 90ish point buy system, where everything starts at zero and you literally buy everything at a one-for-one cost, sometimes adding in a small modification that everything above 15 in a stat costs 2 points.

As far as discouraging dump stats, it's really hard to do in some ways, as classes like Bard, Fighter, Wizard, and Sorcerer can really get by pretty easily without dumping much, while classes like Cleric, Monk, and Paladin sort of have to in order to work (in the sense of actually using their abilities and doing their basic job/function).

The main thing I do is heavily suggest spreading abilities, skills, and other options out, as there will be all sorts of threats, challenges, and encounters, and it's generally more fun for everyone if you can at least attempt something or not be a hindrance to everyone else. Some degree of specialization is fine, and expected, but too much just leads to aggravation, and generally for more than just the player in question.

Despite this, I've still got player's that know that Inititive, Perception, and a few other traits are simply better than others, (Know Arcana and Local generally cover most Know Checks except to ID monsters), and know that they are just better off boosting those as much as possible over other options that don't matter as much (Appraise for instance is hardly ever critical for well, anything).

Having a Pet,(or two or even three) boosts your effectiveness exponentially. Some options are just better, and generally speaking the drawbacks are pretty easily negated. So while not directly about dump stats, it's in the same general area, and the best thing that can really be done is to suggest either utilizing moderation or asking the player to limit themselves in some areas so that both they and the other players don't just get bored with playing or playing with that character.

I try not to single them out, but at the same time, if they do choose to have a weakness, and circumstances come up that hit them harder, I don't hold back (much) either. A new player, is a different story, and I'd likely use that as a learning experience, punishing them a little, but keeping in mind I don't want to drive them away, so use moderation to make sure they feel it, but not feel powerless to do anything, and afterwards make some suggestions, and allow (if I'm able to) slight remodification.


.!?
There is NOTHING cookie cutter about organic stat rolls... Unless, you are the kind of player who plays with the exact same personality regardless of stats. In which case you are right all the characters 'that' player plays will be identical. But most people use their stats as a starting point to inform the way they play a character.

Do you play a high Int and low Int character the same? Try broadening your range and play some personalities you don't normally try. I bet you will enjoy it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

.!?

There is NOTHING cookie cutter about organic stat rolls... Unless, you are the kind of player who plays with the exact same personality regardless of stats. In which case you are right all the characters 'that' player plays will be identical. But most people use their stats as a starting point to inform the way they play a character.

Do you play a high Int and low Int character the same? Try broadening your range and play some personalities you don't normally try. I bet you will enjoy it.

I don't know... do you give you Wizards high STR and low INT? Because if you instead put your highest roll into INT and your lowest into STR, then the only difference between rolling and pointbuy (for better or worse) are the numbers you have to assign.

But no please tell me how rolling stats means you can jam your highest roll into WIS on a Fighter and be just dandy when the same is not true of point buy.


Aranna wrote:

.!?

There is NOTHING cookie cutter about organic stat rolls...

The order you put them in. Its going to be similar to point buy with just a little bit of fuzziness.


Simplest option ever:

Choice of 3 arrays.

18, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10

16, 16, 16, 12, 12, 12

16, 16, 16, 16, 08, 08


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aranna wrote:

.!?

There is NOTHING cookie cutter about organic stat rolls...
The order you put them in. Its going to be similar to point buy with just a little bit of fuzziness.

It's organic, you don't pick where the stats go. They are rolled in order.

Take a wizard, the point buy guy likely has a 10 or less Cha. The organic guy may still have his highest stat in Int but his Cha might be very high as well. Do you play them the same?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aranna wrote:

.!?

There is NOTHING cookie cutter about organic stat rolls...
The order you put them in. Its going to be similar to point buy with just a little bit of fuzziness.

It's organic, you don't pick where the stats go. They are rolled in order.

Take a wizard, the point buy guy likely has a 10 or less Cha. The organic guy may still have his highest stat in Int but his Cha might be very high as well. Do you play them the same?

Do you allow the stats to define your characters for you?

I play no two characters the same but how I play them is dictated by their personality backstory and goals. Zero influence from stats whatsoever. Those are for measuring success via dice roll modifiers, not for constricting roleplay.


Aranna wrote:

.!?

There is NOTHING cookie cutter about organic stat rolls... Unless, you are the kind of player who plays with the exact same personality regardless of stats. In which case you are right all the characters 'that' player plays will be identical. But most people use their stats as a starting point to inform the way they play a character.

Do you play a high Int and low Int character the same? Try broadening your range and play some personalities you don't normally try. I bet you will enjoy it.

Putting your highest roll in Str and your lowest in Cha when you play a Barbarian is cookie-cutter. So is picking the appropriate feats. Rolling stats in order and then picking the most fitting class is also cookie-cutter.

"But the dice can give you unusual attributes"... Well, you can also point-buy unusual attributes. Nothing stops you from doing so.

Also, the character's attributes are only as important to your character's personality as you want them to be. You can literally decide how often, how much and in which way each and every one of your stats affect your character's personality, if at all.

All that rolling 3d6 does is remove agency and inspire people with the "confidence" to call others "min-maxers" and "rollplayers".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Str: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 5, 6) = 17
Dex: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 5, 3) = 9
Con: 3d6 ⇒ (4, 2, 5) = 11
Int: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 2) = 11
Wis: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 2, 5) = 13
Cha: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 3, 1) = 5

I guess I'll play a 2-handed Fighter in heavy-armor. Probably get Power Attack and Toughness and use my FCB on HP...

Truly I'm the epitome of character uniqueness!

Shadow Lodge

Lemmy Z wrote:
Putting your highest roll in Str and your lowest in Cha when you play a Barbarian is cookie-cutter. So is picking the appropriate feats. Rolling stats in order and then picking the most fitting class is also cookie-cutter.

I'd say it's, (I'm hesitant to call it common sense), not being stupid.

Lemmy Z wrote:

"But the dice can give you unusual attributes"... Well, you can also point-buy unusual attributes. Nothing stops you from doing so.

Also, the character's attributes are only as important to your character's personality as you want them to be. You can literally decide how often, how much and in which way each and every one of your stats affect your character's personality, if at all.

All that rolling 3d6 does is remove agency and inspire people with the "confidence" to call others "min-maxers" and "rollplayers".

I'd say it's closer to the reverse, honestly, but it really just depends on how you look at it, (from what point of view). With Point-Buy and Elite Array, it's cookie-cutter in the sense that everyone has the exact same thing, just arranged slightly differently, and offers minimal opportunity to build as you want. From the above example, each Ability has between 2-3 options, and while it's absolutely possible to create a standard Barbarian with 8 Str & Con, and 16 Dex, Int, Wis, & Cha, and even the most basic person with absolute minimal "Role Playing" ability can make up story and personality elements, that doesn't mean that it's going to be fun for either that character or anyone else at the table playing with them when they are going to struggle to do every single thing that they should be good at and be extremely mediocre at well, just about everything else.

Role Playing, (and Flavor and Fluff) is, in my opinion, are the absolute easiest aspects of the game to do. Doing it well, and by that I mean using the mechanics, numbers, and crunch supportively however, is the challenge, and well, it requires actually using the mechanics, numbers, and crunch. That's honestly why I don't rate Paizo's fluff material highly, because that's the easy part of gaming. The hard part is combining it with the rules to actually make it work together, and that's where Paizo seems to have trouble with their products.

Shadow Lodge

Knott Syrius wrote:

[dice=Str]3d6

[dice=Dex]3d6
[dice=Con]3d6
[dice=Int]3d6
[dice=Wis]3d6
[dice=Cha]3d6

Ah, old school gaming. . .


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The fact that there's a reason for the "cookie-cuttery" doesn't make it any less cookie-cutter.

Obviously, most people will assign their highest roll to their most important attribute... Assigning a rolled 17 to Str on your Barbarian isn't any more creative, flavorful or unique than simply point-buying that 17.

My problem is when people claim that "point-buy leads to cookie-cutter builds" and conveniently omit how dice rolling does the exact same thing. A Barbarian with randomly-rolled 17 09 13 11 13 05 isn't really any more unique than a Barbarian with point-bought 18 12 14 10 12 07.

Shadow Lodge

I guess it depends on what you mean by Cookie-Cutter, and while Rolling abilities CAN lead to Cookie-Cutter characters/builds, it's less likely to do so because there is a degree of randomness thrown in.

Point-Buy and Elite Array instead lead to more of a min/max mindset, which I'm not saying is bad, but does then lead towards "cookie-Cutter", and by that I mean that one character's stats are close to or identical to another of the same basic build or concept.

Rolling CAN and MIGHT lead to a similar case, but is less likely to do so, (how much really depends on the rules for rolling, as 3d6 in order is going to be vastly different than 4d6, drop the lowest, and arrange as desired).

I don't think either is wrong, per se, just that I prefer overall rolling as it's more fair, balanced, and fun.

The main issue I have with most Point-Buy systems, and this is also true with Arrays, is that it heavily favors classes and builds that require fewer moderate or high Ability scores but gain more for having those few higher. For example, a Wizard can get by and still be a pretty decent Mage-type Role with Str 10, Dex 10, Con 10, Int MAXED, Wis 10, Cha 10. Everything else is just nice to have, with a particular favor towards both Dex and Con of the other five abilities. But, the class has enough synergy that it can fairly easily get by without them, especially with a level or two, (Mage Armor, Endure Elements, and Ant Haul are all level 1 options that don't decrease in usefulness).

The Fighter is slightly more MAD, needing to boost at least Str (or Dex) and Con, just to be effective as a front-liner type. Still, though that means they can much more easily pump up those two or even three stats and leave the other three or four at average levels.

And then on the other extreme, there are classes like the Cleric or Monk, which really don't have a true dump stat, but need (or really want) to have everything fairly moderate to high, and then have the less essential stats (Int and maybe Dex for Clerics, Int and Cha for Monks, Int and maybe Wis for Paladins) at least above average, as all three have too many essential skills than they can reasonably put ranks into, for instance.


3d6 OTOH rewards... Luck.

The classes are at theoretically balanced taking their SAD/MADness in consideration (obviously, Pathfinder fails quite hard in the balance department, but that's more an issue of magic x non-magic than anything else).

Admittedly, Monks are very, very MAD (and extremely poorly designed all around), but Clerics, OTOH, hardly need 5 attributes... Most of their spells don't care about save DCs, so starting with Wis 14~16 does quite well. Channel Energy tends to fall quite quickly in usefulness, so Cha 10 is more than enough. It's not rare to see Cleric builds outright dump Cha and just forget Channel Energy exists.

And let's not pretend 3d6 doesn't favor SADness... It's far more likely to get good rolls for a Wizard than for a Monk. With PB you can at least choose.

And giving higher point-buy does a lot to fix this problem, since the MAD classes benefit much more from the extra points than the SAD ones. Sure the Wizard will have slightly higher HP and/or AC, but his real power is already maxed anyway... Meanwhile, the Monk has his effectiveness increased all around!

But even putting all of that aside...

Like I said, a Barbarian with stats 17 09 13 11 13 05 isn't significantly different from a Barbarian with 18 12 14 10 12 07. And since character building includes a lot more than their base ability scores, both characters still end up quite similar.

All that 3d6 does is change the a little of the specifics... A +1 here, a +2 there... But unless you get absurdly high/low rolls (in which case balance and fairness goes out the window), the difference is mostly negligible.


DrDeth wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Shouldn't a mage be disarming traps? I mean that's what Summon Monster I is for in the later levels.

How does that disarm a trap on the locked door? or on a chest? Or a teleport trap?

I mean sure if the trap is a pit trap in a corridor and the ranger spotted it, sure, send in the pony.

With some skill points and a trait... And magic if everything else fails.


Lemmy Z wrote:
PT.B=The Devil wrote:
If point buy is "cookie cutter", is stat array also "cookie cutter"?

They are all cookie-cutter at this point.

Rolling 3d6 then allotting the rolls wherever it fits best is also cookie cutter. So is Rolling 3d6 in order and then picking a class that benefits from the rolled stats...

The only difference is that with point buy you actually get to choose the flavor of the cookie you're eating, instead of letting the oven (dice) decide it for you.

The problem are angry elitist grognards who see a character as a build and nothing more... They see the same build twice and accuse their players of being "rollplayers", even if their characters have completely different background and personality, because they can't fathom the possibility of characters being more than their class description and feat selection. These players appeal to the Stormwind fallacy because they have no creativity to see anything beyond what's written down in the character sheet... And yet, they have the nerve to call others "rollplayers".

I am grognard as they come, but I look upon a character as a character, not a set of stats. I dont like, for example- the 3.5 and PF system of buying any or all magic items and thus selling off nearly all the loot to decorate your Christmas tree of magic items.

And Stormwind isnt a "fallacy." Just because someone calls it that , doesnt make it so. At best it's a observation.


DM Beckett wrote:

W

As far as discouraging dump stats, it's really hard to do in some ways, as classes like Bard, Fighter, Wizard, and Sorcerer can really get by pretty easily without dumping much, while classes like Cleric, Monk, and Paladin sort of have to in order to work (in the sense of actually using their abilities and doing their basic job/function).

You dont need a 18 or 20 to start. So, you can build a fine character without a really high stat.

I have played a lot of Clerics, Monks, and Paladins without dumping and they contributed just fine.


Lemmy Z wrote:


Putting your highest roll in Str and your lowest in Cha when you play a Barbarian is cookie-cutter. So is picking the appropriate feats. Rolling stats in order and then picking the most fitting class is also cookie-cutter.

You have a unusual definition of "cookie cutter". To me, it's have a PC who has little or no unique abilities and where everything is packed to optimize. The Christmas tree is decorated the same, the same feats as every other two handed fighter (for example) and so forth.


Lemmy Z wrote:


The classes are at theoretically balanced taking their SAD/MADness in consideration (1.obviously, Pathfinder fails quite hard in the balance department, but that's more an issue of magic x non-magic than anything else).

Admittedly, Monks are very, very MAD (2.and extremely poorly designed all around), b... 3.Channel Energy tends to fall quite quickly in usefulness, so Cha 10 is more than enough.

1. You state this like it's true as opposed to your opinion.

2.You state this like it's true as opposed to your opinion.

3. You state this like it's true as opposed to your opinion.

You opinion is as valid as anyone else's but it's still your opinion.


DrDeth wrote:
Lemmy Z wrote:
PT.B=The Devil wrote:
If point buy is "cookie cutter", is stat array also "cookie cutter"?

They are all cookie-cutter at this point.

Rolling 3d6 then allotting the rolls wherever it fits best is also cookie cutter. So is Rolling 3d6 in order and then picking a class that benefits from the rolled stats...

The only difference is that with point buy you actually get to choose the flavor of the cookie you're eating, instead of letting the oven (dice) decide it for you.

The problem are angry elitist grognards who see a character as a build and nothing more... They see the same build twice and accuse their players of being "rollplayers", even if their characters have completely different background and personality, because they can't fathom the possibility of characters being more than their class description and feat selection. These players appeal to the Stormwind fallacy because they have no creativity to see anything beyond what's written down in the character sheet... And yet, they have the nerve to call others "rollplayers".

I am grognard as they come, but I look upon a character as a character, not a set of stats. I dont like, for example- the 3.5 and PF system of buying any or all magic items and thus selling off nearly all the loot to decorate your Christmas tree of magic items.

And Stormwind isnt a "fallacy." Just because someone calls it that , doesnt make it so. At best it's a observation.

*sigh*

I really wish people would read things before they contribute their opinions on them. The Stormwind fallacy is in fact a fallacy. It is a specific example of the False Dilemma Fallacy. Which anyone who has read it would already know.

So unless you 1. Believe the False Dilemma Fallacy is not a fallacy (it is), or that 2. The Stormwind fallacy does not map to a false dilemma fallacy (it does), then you have to accept that The Stormwind Fallacy is in fact a fallacy and not an "observation". Which was a poor term to use as the Stormwind Fallacy makes no observations.

The Stormwind Fallacy:
If someone says something to the extent of any of the following:

I am a roleplayer; thus I do not min-max.
I purposely make all my characters weak in at least some ways; that makes them better roleplayed.
You're dishing out thousands of damage per hit! You're not roleplaying, you're min/maxing!

...And so on and so forth. If those things come up, then they are committing the Stormwind Fallacy: Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean he cannot also roleplay well. Just because a character plays his character well does not mean he cannot be optimized. As a corrollary, characters who are min/maxed are not automatically played worse than those who are not, and characters who are deliberately handicapped are not automatically played better than those who are not. It's easy to imagine players who are good at either one of those things, or bad at both, or good at both.

Essentially, roleplaying and min/maxing can easily coexist since they are independent of each other.

For instance, in one of my current games, we've got three of the CO board regulars playing along with two others, with a cast of a pair of high-power swordsages, a CHAMELEON (widely held as one of the strongest PrCs ever published), and my Shadowcraft Mage (you know, as in "I can cast any spell from two different schools spontaneously, even if I don't know them"?)... and yet each character is deep enough to cause moral problems, interconnected enough to work as a team, and compelling enough to be an interesting character in their own right. The existence of a single case like this game is more than enough to debunk "Optimizers cannot roleplay" under any scientific or logical reasoning base. Now, it isn't enough to say that it's rare or common, but it is enough to demonstrate existence.

For those of you following logically, you may recognize this: It's the False Dilemma fallacy, actually, just expressed in terms of D&D. False Dilemma is a fallacy that in which one sets up a dichotomy when in truth there is a continuum or independent axes. An common example of a False Dilemma is "You're either for us or against us." It's possible to support neither cause whatsoever and abstain from helping either side, but the statement is set up in such a way to suggest that this is not a choice -- thus it presents you with a false dilemma. Here's a few more "false dilemma" examples, and a proof.

The Stormwind Fallacy is a special case of this applied to roleplaying; a faulty argument in the following fashion:

1. Either you roleplay your character well or you have min/maxed that character.
2. This character is not min/maxed.
3. Therefore he must be roleplayed well.
Conclusion: All good roleplayed characters are not min/maxed, and all min/maxed characters are poorly roleplayed.

The faulty assumption comes at 1 -- I provided an example of one of my games above which demonstrates that you can optimize your characters and roleplay them at the same time. ONE counterexample is all that's needed -- and I KNOW I'm not the only one (I should show you the Real Adventures games the CO boards hold -- several stellar roleplayers there and they're all CO board regulars, in other words min/maxers).
Unless you can either:

1) Demonstrate that this is not a mapping to the False Dilemma Fallacy OR
2) Demonstrate that the False Dilemma Fallacy does not hold,
then the Stormwind Fallacy holds.

For the record, it's named what it is because of an old debate on the DM boards. I (and others) thought that this idea was mind-numbingly obvious, while others thought that it was a logical impossibility. I snapped at one point and decided to formalize it under a handy shorthand name so people could spread it and learn about it a bit more. I was arrogant (still am), and chose my own name.
To this day I still don't think we need it, but since it's commonly cited (and misused), it stays. I do regret naming it after myself, though.


Anzyr wrote:
I really wish people would read things before they contribute their opinions on them. The Stormwind fallacy is in fact a fallacy. It is a specific example of the False Dilemma Fallacy. Which anyone who has read it would already know

It's not a fallacy as that not how it was used here. People didnt say things like "Well - optimized characters cant be roleplayed". That's a strawman, which is a type of argumentation/debate fallacy. The example given was a Strawman, no one actually brought forth a False Dilemma aka Stormwind.

In fact the "Stormwind Fallacy" as a version of the False Dilemma is rarely fallen into, what is much more often used is a accusation that the poster being replied to has used the Stormwind fallacy, when in fact they haven't.

Thus, as far as i am concerned the so called "Stormwind fallacy" aint. It's simply a way of putting up a Strawman and used to belittle another poster.

Much like "I really wish people would read things before they contribute their opinions on them." isnt actually a belief that the poster didnt read, it's simply a personal attack.


DrDeth wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

[

I really wish people would read things before they contribute their opinions on them. The Stormwind fallacy is in fact a fallacy.

It's not a fallacy as that not how it was used here. People didnt say things like "Well optimized characters cant be roleplayed". That's a strawman, which is a type of argumentation/debate fallacy. The example given was a Strawman, no one actually brought forth a False Dilemma aka Stormwind.

Here is the statement:

"The problem are angry elitist grognards who see a character as a build and nothing more... They see the same build twice and accuse their players of being "rollplayers", even if their characters have completely different background and personality, because they can't fathom the possibility of characters being more than their class description and feat selection. These players appeal to the Stormwind fallacy because they have no creativity to see anything beyond what's written down in the character sheet... And yet, they have the nerve to call others "rollplayers"."

The statement is that players who see same the build twice accuse other players of being "rollplayers" even if those characters have different backgrounds. And that those players who would say that those who place stats in a particular (min/maxed) order are rollplayers (ie. players that only look at mechanics). The accusation is that people who do that are committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

The Stormwind Fallacy's conclusion is:

"Conclusion: All good roleplayed characters are not min/maxed, and all min/maxed characters are poorly roleplayed."

Therefore someone who said "Your character has placed their stats in a certain build (min/maxing) are "rollplayers" (the indication being that they cannot also be roleplayers)", is in fact committing the above fallacy. And as previously stated, yes it *is* in fact a fallacy.

Is that clear enough to resolve your error on how the Stormwind Fallacy is used?


I thought the Stormwind Fallacy was a drinking game on the forums. You drink every time it is brought up, right or wrong. The last one awake and with a functioning liver wins.


Except no one here stated anything at all like what Lemmy accused "angry elitist grognards " of doing. Thus, there is no fallacy. No one here claimed "All good roleplayed characters are not min/maxed, and all min/maxed characters are poorly roleplayed."

The Stormwind fallacy is not a fallacy as it is mostly used to set up a strawman. No one here fell into "the Stormwind Fallacy".

Is that clear enough to resolve your error on how the Stormwind Fallacy is abused?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
I thought the Stormwind Fallacy was a drinking game on the forums. You drink every time it is brought up, right or wrong. The last one awake

I win!

Quote:
and with a functioning liver

.....awwwwwww


DrDeth wrote:


Except no one here stated anything at all like what Lemmy accused "angry elitist grognards " of doing. Thus, there is no fallacy. No one here claimed "All good roleplayed characters are not min/maxed, and all min/maxed characters are poorly roleplayed."

The Stormwind fallacy is not a fallacy as it is mostly used to set up a strawman. No one here fell into "the Stormwind Fallacy".

Is that clear enough to resolve your error on how the Stormwind Fallacy is abused?

I don't recall Lemmy saying anyone had. He presented a person committing the Stormwind Fallacy as an example of what he dislikes people doing. Maybe you could quote the part where he accused someone in this thread of Stormwind Fallacy for me. Actually while you are getting that quote, could you also please quote where he used it to set up a strawman?

Thanks! I'll wait.


Anzyr wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


Except no one here stated anything at all like what Lemmy accused "angry elitist grognards " of doing. Thus, there is no fallacy. No one here claimed "All good roleplayed characters are not min/maxed, and all min/maxed characters are poorly roleplayed."

The Stormwind fallacy is not a fallacy as it is mostly used to set up a strawman. No one here fell into "the Stormwind Fallacy".

Is that clear enough to resolve your error on how the Stormwind Fallacy is abused?

I don't recall Lemmy saying anyone had. He presented a person committing the Stormwind Fallacy as an example of what he dislikes people doing. Maybe you could quote the part where he accused someone in this thread of Stormwind Fallacy for me. Actually while you are getting that quote, could you also please quote where he used it to set up a strawman?

Thanks! I'll wait.

Why bring it up then? When you set up a hypothetical then attack it, that is a strawman. You didnt know that?

In fact I have never seen the "Stormwind fallacy" properly used, except as a attack on others.


RDM42 wrote:

And if they do put in something that challenges that stat ... You know exactly what the response will be; 'unfair'.

If someone includes a weak spot you a never to target it.

There is a difference between putting someone in situation that challenges a weakness and targeting them as form of punishment. Which one a GM is doing will likely determine if he is seen as unfair.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
You either invest, or you dump. I refuse to call +0 investing, so it falls into the dumping category. Stop trying to make it more complex than that by giving +0 its own special snowflake category, we already have to distinguish between hard dumping and soft dumping at times.

And some refuse to call it dumping.

It is not dumping by most people here. If a class only has 2 stats, and their throw a +1 modifier into a their 3rd stat and never touch it again that is not really investing. It is just that they had to put their 3rd best number into a throw-away stat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:

Alright, alright. we'll play by your system (weird as it is.) 10 is no longer dumping...now let me ask you this.

I have an Empiricist Investigator who dips one level into Inspired Blade Swashbuckler, and I'm on a 10 point buy. What reason do I have to not go 9, 14, 14, 15, 8, 7 for my stat array (the +2 goes into dex here.)

The way I see it, there's only one weakness this combo with this stat array has that it cannot patch up with its abilities or spells, and even then it has a way to soften the blow, but I'll wait for your responses. Maybe I missed something in there.

Corner cases such as 10 point buys wont help your cause on the forum since it just adds an asterisk.


Aranna wrote:
The issue people have with dump stats and point buy in particular IS the loss of organic feel to your character. It becomes an exercise in identifying the stats that directly add to your abilities and skills, the stats the provide less benefit but can't be dumped for various game reasons and the stats that don't affect your concept and can be safely dumped. And then finding that optimum array that maximizes the primary stats without losing the secondary stats all at the cost of the dump stats... It's pure mechanics and as a result there IS an optimal stat set for each class/concept and point buy level. Cookie cutter. The assembly line building of robots. And the reason I will never run a purely point buy game, I will always allow some alternatives for people who don't want to play the robot.

It is only an issue of feeling organic matters. I want stats that I can use, and I want everyone to have access to the same pool, no matter if they are point buy or stat arrays.

If someone can't get beyond making a cookie cutter character because of point buy, the problem is not the point buy. I have seen the same class using the same point buy with several different personalities and mechanical builds. If this can't be done the problem is lack of imagination, and rolling won't fix that.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I'm playing, I find that rolling up characters inspires me toward more interesting characters. I still remember some of the odd characters the dice handed me: The 18 Int genius paladin, the wizard whose stats all sucked, the high-charisma con man rogue...

I agree that it is certainly possible to create an original character with point-buy systems. Unfortunately, we've all met guys who just... don't. They min-max like crazy, then try to ignore their substandard stats. Those characters need to be periodically reminded that dump stats come at a cost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Min-maxing is not a point buy problem. The same players who favor high powered builds for point buy will do the same when rolling, and they will also still have dump(low) stats in places that are mechanically optimal. I really don't see how rolling fixes either of those issues.


Could do a "roll in order, switch any two stats" maybe.

Shadow Lodge

DrDeth wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:

W

As far as discouraging dump stats, it's really hard to do in some ways, as classes like Bard, Fighter, Wizard, and Sorcerer can really get by pretty easily without dumping much, while classes like Cleric, Monk, and Paladin sort of have to in order to work (in the sense of actually using their abilities and doing their basic job/function).

You dont need a 18 or 20 to start. So, you can build a fine character without a really high stat.

I have played a lot of Clerics, Monks, and Paladins without dumping and they contributed just fine.

Im not suggesting 18s or 20s, just saying that its more difficult for these classes to cover their own bases due to having to spread out a lot more. For Wizards, its easy to start off with a 16+ main stat, and be effective, and organize much more however you want otherwise. Palidins are a little more difficult, especially with lower Point-Buys.


RDM42 wrote:
Could do a "roll in order, switch any two stats" maybe.

Unless you have to pick class and race first minmaxing will still happen, the class and race will be chosen to fit the stats instead of the stats being set to fit the class.


This seems to have wandered from "avoiding dump stats" into "debate about whether/how attribute generation leads to minmaxing..."

When faced with a point-buy -- which I'll admit, I prefer to any random-roll method (dice hate me) -- I simply don't dump. I mean, unless the point buy is ridiculously-low, which can change my parameters. But as a rule, I want at LEAST a 10 in everything, to avoid an avoidable penalty. Obviously, YMMV.

I guess I'm aiming for as universal a utility as I can get, and with all the available ways to enhance attributes out there, deficit-spending at creation seems unnecessary and unappetizing (to me).

I've seen some hilarious rp around dumped stats; I don't mind if someone decided that Charisma (for instance) is Not Their Bag, Baby.
If I see someone sporting a Constitution penalty, I'll probably raise an eyebrow at them, but MMV...

It's what matters to any given player; just because *I* don't want gaping holes in my characters' infrastructure doesn't mean a tablemate can't play (and effectively) around them. Is everybody having fun? Then who cares?

[I do a loy more playing than running; I usually offer either a point buy or an array chosen by me. I should probably change my array; it's almost always picked over the buy-in. Anyhow, the above is from a dominantly-player view, just fyi.]


Talonhawke wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Could do a "roll in order, switch any two stats" maybe.
Unless you have to pick class and race first minmaxing will still happen, the class and race will be chosen to fit the stats instead of the stats being set to fit the class.

Except that you get fun things like a Fighter with a Int of 15, a Sorc with a STR of 15, a monk with a 14 CHA, and so forth.

I just rolled 4D6 drop one, re-roll ones (my fave)
13
14
16
11
13
15
29 points. Nice.

But think of all you can do with that!
So if they were in order, sure you'd consider a Sorc, but a rather tough sorc now, maybe one who specializes in touch attacks? Or a fighting bard? Pretty much any class that isnt INT based. Remember most races allow a +2, some more.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

That's a paladin right there, Dr. D.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The devolving happened because of the assertion that the only reason to dump stats is to be a min-maxer, to which some cited rolling or array's as purer methods of generation free from cookie cutter builds. To which it was being asserted that no matter how you generate stats there will be min-maxing going on. No you might not see stats go negative but the lowest number will go in the least needed stat and the highest in the most or second most.

301 to 350 of 371 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Avoiding "dump stats" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.