Thus a human using a halfing longsword as a medium shortsword is holding a shortsword that has a hilt sized for a child. It may be long enough, but it is too thin to get a good grip on it like he would normally do.
That´s my problem with it:
Der Origami Mann wrote:
Yes, but there are also humans / elves / ... with verry big and verry smal hands, too. (I am a tall man with smal hands, so I use a longsword with a slim, short hilt, too.)
I can handle a "child sword" better than the most "normal swords", AND it´s no problem to make the hilt a little bigger, too. A good drip is a thing of training (I do kendô and european sword fighting in my freetime).
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Just because two different weapons happen to do 2d6 damage, this doesn't make them the same weapon!
I don´t speak over making a longsword in a club (and yes, some fighter handle a sword like a club), even if you can do B-damage with a longsword (in real) it´s not the "normal way" to handle it ...
lemeres wrote:
(...) each of those weapons do different kinds of damage. (...)
this is a good point, but I don´t think, that you can do pircing damage with a large longsword (if you can´t do it with a greatsword).
lemeres wrote:
Can you effectively wield a fire extinguisher as a club in real life? No, it is to wide and awkward to hold properly, so it is just a metal bludgeon rather than all the advantages of leverage found in a normal club.
I would say that a so big item like a fire extinguisher is bigger/taler than a 2-handed weapon
->
weapon size:
(...) If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.(...)
|
|
|
--> Again. I want to understand the meaning and the idea, why a large longsword =/= medium greatsword. Ok there is a differenze between the hilt (like by all weapons that not made for one person) and the damage type (S and P), but that´s it.
You can twist the words however you like, but the RAW answer isn't going to change.
A large sized longsword =/= A medium sized greatsword.
I don´t want to twist the words, I want to understand the meaning and the idea, why a large longsword =/= medium greatsword.
Perhaps the trait Sword Scion should be get a FAQ with: "You begin play with a longsword or Aldori dueling sword and gain a +1 trait bonus on all attacks and combat maneuvers made with such weapons sized for you."
Yes the rules are clear about a dagger / shortsword longsword / bastardsword / greatsword (...) but the rules about greater/smaler versions also say that:
Weapon Size:
Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.
A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.
Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.
... with Jotungrip (Ex) you can use a 2-handed weapons as a 1-handed weapon
blackbloodtroll wrote:
The trait effects any Longsword or Aldori Dueling Sword you wield, no matter the size.
I can wield a large longsword (2d6) with -1 or take a greatsword (2d6) without penality ... the stats are the same.
In the trait there is no "sized for you" like in weapon finesse or duelling sword. So why can I use a large longsword but no greatsword (with trait bonus)?
A greatsword is actually constructed differently than a longsword.
Even a Large Longsword? Yes there could be a differenz for the hilt (bigger), but I think, there are also Longswords with big and smal hilts, too.
ErrantPursuit wrote:
Just creating oversized versions of smaller weapons does not equate a different weapon, even if they are very similar. You still get -2 as far as I am aware.
A Large Longsword is a two handed sword (like the greatsword) and has the same DMG as the greatsword... so why the -2 penality?
On the other hand, the bastardsword is a "exotic one hand sword" which could be used without penality as two handed weapon ...
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Do you mean in regards to the trait, or are you thinking of creating a houserule for inappropriately sized weapons?
Yes in regard to the trait - I think the trait should allow to use shortswords and greatswords, too.
But I also think the rules for inappropriately sized weapon is a little strange/broken. Because the large longsword is very, very similar to a greatsword. And you can get more DMG through taking bigger light weapons:
1-handed Weapon -> large version (two handed) DMG: 1D10 -> 2D8
light weapon -> hugh version (two handed) DMG: 1D8 -> 2D6 -> 3D6
(only -2 attack for more DMG)
btw.: I also think that not every 1-handed longsword could be used 2-handed. There are "1,5 handed" longswords, which could be used in both ways, like the bastardsword.
Mark Sweetman wrote:
As ErrantPursuit intimates, the difference in the weapon is not merely the damage. One specific would be the hilt girth for a halfling's hand being vastly different than that for an ogre's hand.
Yes, but there are also humans / elves / ... with verry big and verry smal hands, too. (I am a tall man with smal hands, so I use a longsword with a slim, short hilt, too.)
Large Longsword = Greatsword (for Medium PC)
Medium Longsword = Longsword (for Medium PC)
Smal Longsword = Shortsword (for Medium PC)
Or do I realy get a -2 when I use this "Large" Longsword as a Greatsword?
(I get a +1 on attacks with longswords with the
Sword Scion (Trait):
Sword Scion
You have lived all your life in and around the city of Restov, growing up on tales of Baron Sirian Aldori and the exploits of your home city’s heroic and legendary swordlords. Perhaps one of your family members was an Aldori swordlord, you have a contact among their members, or you have dreamed since childhood of joining. Regardless, you idolize the heroes, styles, and philosophies of the Aldori and have sought to mimic their vaunted art. Before you can petition to join their ranks, however, you feel that you must test your mettle. Joining an expedition into the Stolen Lands seems like a perfect way to improve your skills and begin a legend comparable to that of Baron Aldori.
Benefit: You begin play with a longsword or Aldori dueling sword and gain a +1 trait bonus on all attacks and combat maneuvers made with such weapons.
but didn´d get a benefit on Shortswords or Greatswords?)
- If you take one wrong feat you have to wait 2 levels to get the right one AND with every level you get, the next level comes later. so it´s better to plan the character before in details and till lvl 10+ when you start.
- I look for MinMaxing / PowerGaming but don´t do it completly. It´s just nice to know what you CAN do. With a little of MinMaxing / Powergaming you can do some "wrong things" and still have a good character ;-)
- There is so much time without roleplaying and so I think about what I can do next and how the character can grow in the future.
(btw.: I play a elf barbarian with int and dex 16, str 14 and con 10 ...)
This thread Equipment must haves let me search for a equipment guide, but I did´nt find one.
OK, there are some tipps in the classguides, but there are also "equipment must have" for every Meele-/Ranged-/Magic Classes or perhaps race equipment must have.
One of the things that can be said about the barbarian is they get half their stuff pretty early on and then it just scales with level. Half the fighter stuff has no scaling and most of their cool stuff comes pretty late in level in big chunks.
Underline this and write it bigger!
I think this is the biggest benefit of the barbarian class wich make many people think, that the barbarian is too good, because he is good at the low, middle and the high levels:
barbarians get their stuff pretty early and it scales with level
The problem with Armor Master (though it makes a GREAT Tank) is that it trades in Weapon Training for it
The invulnerable rager gives up dodge, but, yes, you are right.
Rynjin wrote:
I really wish this game rewarded defense more because that would be a stellar archetype if so.
You are right. One of our group members has a high AC, but this was only good in the first levels, now all foes has a better attack and hit him, too. It´s still nice (my barbarian get damage everytime and he only 50%) but it seems that DR is better in higher levels than AC.
I read some of this stuff before but not in this context :-)
You guys are great - thanks for this great input!
One other point Damage Reduction:
DR through invulnerable rager (barbarian) is often a big argument, that the barbarian is better than the fighter, but the armor master (fighter) can get DR 12 and ad the DR stacks with that provided by adamantine armor - so he get DR 15 at lvl 19. OK, the invulnerable rager get DR 20 against non lethal DMG, but I think DR 15 AND heavy Amor + shield (Deflective Shield ability: +6 AC) is the better choice.
Is the barbarian class unbalanced and THE fighting class?
Our group seems to think, that the barbarian class has to much power (10ft movement bonus, ragepower(s), damage reduction, ...) and is better as all the other meele classes. They say the barbarian is a better fighter, but I think not and found some answers in some threads here.
My group was talking about the mechanics of the barbarian and the fighter the other day. The talking points were basically that the fighter should be able to outlast the barbarian, but the barbarian was the higher damage-dealer. Since I’m always focused on game balance (meaning that given two melee classes like this, if both are to be appealing to play, then one’s strengths & weaknesses should be complimented by those of the other), I took a look at the stats to see if that was really the case.
Here are the results:
(...)
The barbarian has a +2/+2 melee advantage over the fighter until level 5.
After ~10 level the fighter has a better attack and damage bonus.
The fighter always has a major advantage in AC over the barbarian.
The barbarian always has a slight advantage in HP over the fighter.
After 5th level, the fighter is superior to the barbarian in all ways.
When survivability is considered, the damage output of the fighter is dramatically higher.
The idea that the barbarian is a DPS class is false.
(...) From what I've noticed the barbarian and fighter move the same speed now. The Barbarian gets +10 when wearing medium armor so that assuming a base 30 speed that 20 in medium armor +10 so 30. The fighter now with Armor training at 3rd level gets no movement penalty for wearing medium armor so the fighter is 30 speed too. The Barbarian can go to light armor to get faster but the fighter can also get Heavy armor with no movement penalty at level 7. (...)
For straight melee ability, in PF, the fighter will win out every time. The fighter gets a feat every level all the way to 20th, plus some addititve class abilities like weapons and armor. If your worried about hitpoints, the fighter could just take toughness. In the end the fighter has 10 more feats then the barbarian and gets all sorts of weapon bonuses for his weapon groups. 20 feats is a ton of feats, matter of fact most of your fighter builds are going to be the same just because with 20 feats, they end up taking almost all the feats available to them and have to get creative to fill some slots.
What do you think about this?
I think the biggest "Barbarian Problem AND Bonus" is the rage ablitiy. Rage is verry nice and gives you some good boni, but you can´t do everything in rage (like casting spells) and can´t rage the hole day long and when you run out of rage, you got a big problem.
If you don´t want a half-ork, take the half-elf (if you can take the half-drwo with two favored classes, acces to paragon surge, wizzard spells through the ancient lorekeeper and take the favored class option for more spells known ("Add one spell known from the oracle spell list. This spell must be at least one level below the highest spell level the oracle can cast.").
I think a Half-Drow would be excellent for the flavour of your background-storry and you can later take (a dip in) Pain taster PrC, too.
But I hit FAQ on the top post, you should too, to bring this to Paizo's attention.
It is a result of their FAQ, and they may find this case relevant on how they rule on the game.
THX and THX for your answer :-)
Drachasor wrote:
(...) I'd probably allow it just because the end result of advancing Lantern Arcana would be someone with much weaker abilities than using a proper spellcaster. (...)
I think the "Lantern Arcana" is a special type of an "arcane spellcasting class".
Lantern Arcana:
Lantern Arcana (Sp)
A Lantern Bearer gains a series of spell-like abilities. The Lantern Bearer's caster level for these effects is equal to her character level, and the save DC is equal to 10 + the spell's level + her Intelligence modifier. To use a spell, she must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell-like ability's spell level.
At will: dancing lights, light, and spark.
A lantern bearer gains additional abilities as she advances in level. When she initially gains access to a set of spell-like abilities, she can use each spell-like ability once per day. For every two class levels after gaining a specific set of spell-like abilities, she gains an additional use per day of each ability in that set. (For example, a 3rd-level Lantern Bearer would be able to use darkvision, delay poison, and see invisibility each once per day, and faerie fire, pass without trace, and protection from evil each twice per day.)
1st level: faerie fire, pass without trace, and protection from evil.
3rd level: darkvision (self only), delay poison (self only), and see invisibility.
5th level: continual flame (3rd-level spell, lasts up to 10 minutes/level; a Lantern Bearer within 20 feet of a continual flame she created using this ability can extinguish it to cast searing light), dispel magic, and magic circle against evil (self only).
7th level: heightened daylight (heightened to a 4th-level spell), dimensional anchor, and freedom of movement (self only).
You can go Lantern Bearer-> DD, sure. But if you don't have levels in a class that can actually cast spells, the +1 spellcasting per level will be wasted.
But when I can get in DD through Lantern Bearer, why isn´t Latern Bearer a "spellcasting class"?
"(...) The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). (...)"
I mean you can take 2 Lvl Ancient Lorekeeper and do not need to take 1 Lvl Sorcerer (Ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells without preparation) to get into DD with the oracle.
I think this could be a nice combo for Barbarian+Lame-Oracle+Dragon-Disciple.
_____________________________________________________________________
... Yes, elf is not optimal for DD, but I like my elf Urban Barbarian, Invulnerable Rager and I think Lame-Oracle + DD could be a nice option for him
Combat Reflexes gives you more opportunities for AoO, but you still only provoke once per opponent per action.
By RAW, you are seems to be right:
Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity wrote:
If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.
But I am not sure how to read "different opportunity" in this context (tumble). Because I think tumble shuold be/is harder for every foe (AND threatend square) you pass.
the issue is do I have to roll acrobatics every time I leave a square threaten by a foe or just once per the entire move action.
Perhaps (I am not sure) there could be more than one AoO if the foe have combat reflexes (or something else) AND you get through more than one threatend square...
As a dm, I seem to be expected to look up every dumb question by the party whether its via rule books or on forums. If it's an easy rule, I don't mind. If its complex, I make a fast ruling on the fly and try to find official ruling later.
That´s what I made as GM and knew from other GMs before - but in this group, the GM (and the other players) allways try to find an "correct" rule - even if I say "just give me a DC / let us handle this how you think we should (and look in the rules later) ..."
awp832 wrote:
Bring a computer and have the paizo srd open when you game. If you have a question, you can look it up without even bothering the GM for an answer. If it's called into question, you can easily provide the GM with a reference to where you got your information. With hyperlinks and search functions and such it's easy to go exactly the section you need.
That´s a nice idea - perhaps it could work - Thanks :-)
Everytime we play, up to 1/3 playtime we have rule discussions.
For example "what can you do in barbarian rage" (long storry) or "can I use acrobatic to tumble and which DC must I use", "can an animal use the heal skill", and so on and on ...
It seems the GM wants to do everything 200% correct, but sometimes I think it´s only because I am "new" player. Sometimes I think the "new" group like discussions about rules and take every chance they could get.
I want to play with the correct rule - but first I want to play and have fun.
What did you / your group / your GM do, if there is (to much time spent on) a rule discussion?
That is a good, point - perhaps you only need to give them a good/better start, because they will faster level up and become more powerfull themself. Later they can get more/powerfull NPCs over the Leadership Feat, too.
As I said in the OP, this was not my idea it was my friend's.
Der Origami Mann wrote:
Perhaps you should take the Titan Mauler (Barbarian Archetyp) - this could be what you are searching for ;-)
YES!! That's exactly it!.......not.
This character is Ranger all the way.
OK, you know what you want - you want to play a "ranger"
But there are many kind of rangers like the wild stalker (with rage) ... so sometimes take a look or make a dip in other classes to build your own ranger concept.
I think the skill could use some extra love, even if its not this idea. I think a feat would be appropiate. That way, a character doesn't need to choose an simply archetype to fulfill one aspect of a character concept.
It's bad enough trying to explain to a player why getting hit by a thug is making him run away. When just about anyone can make them flee, it'll be a riot. Intimidate shaking someone is just about right. Having it do more is pretty disassociative, if you ask me.
Getting this option through one rogue level is not good.
I would prefer a feat AND/or (home) rules for the intimidate skill.
Standard rule characters can work... it's just the campaign that needs adjustment. Because you really can't make up for the lack of action economy of four characters with two unless you make some major changes to the game system.
I don´t think SuperJebba should change the campaigne, because it´s better to change the group (give them NPC etc.). If you begin to change the campaigne, you can make a complete own kampaigne and don´t need to buy one.
SuperJebba wrote:
Thanks, Der Origami Man, for your suggestions. I'll probably use a lot of those.
We play the Kingmaker (book 1-2, until now) with 3-4 PC´s (90% with 3 PCs), but we use a homebrew of the Lorefinder-Skillrules, actionpoints, Plot-Twist-Cards and I think the GM make the foes a little bit easier, too.
Most of the time we could handle hard situations with the action points and the plot twist cards, but sometimes we nearly died, because he didn´d change the random foes (and I think we have only survived because he let them die with HP left) ... and on the other hand he made other foes toooo easy for us (he couldn´t believe it).
So, better change the party-power and not the campaigne-power ;-)
I would be at a -2 with it, but once someone cast enlarge on me I would be able to use it one handed.
-->
Bearded Ben wrote:
Enlarge should also enlarge your weapon (...)
Perhaps you should take the Titan Mauler (Barbarian Archetyp) - this could be what you are searching for ;-)
Jotungrip (Ex):
At 2nd level, a titan mauler may choose to wield a two-handed melee weapon in one hand with a –2 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. The weapon must be appropriately sized for her, and it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like.
This ability replaces uncanny dodge.
Massive Weapons (Ex):
At 3rd level, a titan mauler becomes skilled in the use of massive weapons looted from her titanic foes. The attack roll penalty for using weapons too large for her size is reduced by 1, and this reduction increases by 1 for every three levels beyond 3rd (to a minimum of 0).
Anyone else have any thoughts on what I could do or allow for our PCs to make them more powerful than the standard adventurer without making them ridiculous?
Yes, that is correct. But some people only wants to play a game and other wants to play the game correct.
master_marshmallow wrote:
You cannot perfectly recreate the aspects of the human psyche and all the different possible interactions between separate parts of their personalities.
OK, there are more aspects as the intelligence or the three mental stats - there are Skills and Feats and Traits and so on, but, I think the mental stats are a good base to say if the charracter "has a high/low IQ".
If somebody wants to play a INT 7, CHA 7, WIS 7 barbarian, than I think he should play him like he have taken theese stats, too.
Saying "he's a bit gruff" is fine. Saying "he's actually quite the charmer and the men idolize him and the woman swoon at his feet". Is. And I've seen people try to play an eight charisma like that before.
Underline: I've seen people try to play an eight charisma like (...) "he's actually quite the charmer and the men idolize him and the woman swoon at his feet"
--> That´s my problem,too. There are many MinMaxer / Munchkins - but also good "normal" players, too - that take lesser mental stats and play their characters like a "Don Juan-Einstein-Budda" in one person
[edit] ... but i have also seen some players playing their SC with high mental stats like an "idiot", too ;-)
(...) suggest a spell needs to explicitly be said to be from a divine source to be divine.
That is correct, because a divine magic could get lost, so if it would be divine, that must be explicitly told.
Quandary wrote:
And Paizo has specifically said that there is more than just arcane and divine: psychic magic
In Psionics unleashed there are "psi-like abilities", and "(...)Unlike spells, which are cast, psionic powers are manifested to achieve their effect.(...) The innate power of the mind is present within all creatures. But it is those who choose to take levels in psionic classes who can unlock and develop this immense power contained within. ".
EDIT: After reading again I think: a part of every magic is "psionic", but only those who learn levels in psionic classes use "psionic magic".
And in FAQ it was said, that spell-like abilities could be arcane and divine - there was nothing said, that it could be psionicpowers.
If you (as a GM) throw a puzzle or a mystery at the party you want everyone to be able to participate in solving it. You definitely don't want to be telling specific players that their INT is too low and they should just sit that part of the session out. And if there is an interesting puzzle in the game you don't want to reduce it to some intelligence rolls.
I, as a GM, sometimes do what you have written, but not so "hard".
-> I let the player - which have low mental-stats - puzzle, too. And when he to unravel the mystery, I let his PC give the other PC´s some hints or a told them a part of the mystery.
-> If nobody could unravel the mystery I give them a DC and give them some hints or a part of the mystery.
Peet wrote:
Since your character has a high WIS though he will be quite perceptive and he won't be easy to trick or fool. His low CHA would make him socially awkward with a tendency to irritate people, but his high WIS means that he would be aware of this and would probably try to avoid situations that depended on his social skills, which might come off as him being laconic or shy.
This is why I (would) take more than one mental-stat for the IQ.
All part of the RAW, just as the 7 INT Fighter will have very few skills and will be a total failure at INT-based skills.
Why then feel the need to add extra penalties (not RAW) to the Fighter ?
I don´t want to give them more penalties - I want the players to understand and accept their penalities if they take a INT 7. ;-)
Cranefist wrote:
Der Origami Mann wrote:
There are many players with a INT / CHA / WIS 8 character, which play him as he would be Albert Einstein / Don Juan de Marco / Budda
How are they managing that? The player isn't Albert Einstein or Buddha. Probably not even close.
(...)
As a player, you only know what is described to you and the rest you fill in with your imagination. Doing your best, your character is no where near as equipped to make decisions as you are in real life.
Yes you are right, but I would like to give the player more information as only INT=7, INT=..., so they can get a better imagination on their character...
Not the same thing. With the +10 to the DC you must use two actions. The first to move at your full base speed, the second to move again at your full base speed.
And you can take the DC+10 to make a full run (4x base speed) with tumbling, too.
If you rule (like MurphysParadox) that a failed acrobatic check will end the movement - than one fail will end "both" actions. So it´s could be better to use two actions with a +10 as one action without a +10.
Avianfoo wrote:
You can attempt to acrobatics (tumble) past an opponent, fail (and provoke an AoO) and still carry on moving with the same move action.
Can you give me a quote, where I can find this?
Because if you can tumble past an opponent and can carry on after a fail, this should be the same for tumble through a threatend area :-)
If all players are minmaxer or munchkins, there is no problem, but if there is only one player you get some trouble, because he is better than the rest of the group.
David C Smith wrote:
I have tried to explain that if they keep doing that, it makes it hard to design encounters to be challenging without having to do the same thing myself.
Any advice???
Go for a detective or social campaigne and/or take encounters that don´t need a DC.
Because taking foes with i higher CR / more foes only give them the feeling, that they must minmax to deal with the foes.
(--> i.e. arms race in the Cold War)
You can move at full speed by increasing the DC of the check by 10." so you already have a way to move at full speed (and x2 your full speed using 2 actions) while using Acrobatics, but you would suffer from a DC increase. Saying "I run" seem to be simply an attempt to avoid the DC increase.
But you must make a fullround movement and not a movement on full speed and an attack. The speed on this run is still halfed and you can make a full run incl. tumbling with a DC increase, too.
Diego Rossi wrote:
I have trouble with the image of people using acrobatic to avoid an attack of opportunity while running in a straight line and losing the dexterity bonus to AC.
You still must make a acrobatic DC against the CMD of the foes. If there are more foes the DC is increased, too.
So I don´t see a problem using running and tumbling - but I am not sure if I can make a extra action on the end of the run.
Long answer: (...) "If you take damage while using Acrobatics, you must immediately make another Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being knocked prone."
First, you can use Acrobatics to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground without falling. A successful check allows you to move at half speed across such surfaces—only one check is needed per round. Use the following table to determine the base DC, which is then modified by the Acrobatics skill modifiers noted below. While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any). If you take damage while using Acrobatics, you must immediately make another Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being knocked prone.
I do not agree with this because I feel that this becomes the GM (or the table) telling the player how he should roleplay his very own character.
Because I don´t want to tell the player how he must roleplay his character, there should be a rule that says (i.e.):
INT: 8 "...you are Goofy..."
INT: 20 "...you are Albert Einstein..."
The black raven wrote:
talk with them, adult to adult,
I never needed to tell a player with an STR 8 SC that he perhaps is not the best of the group to break the wall - But I often need to tell a player with a INT 8 and CHA 8 SC that he perhaps is not the best SC for makeing a plan and talk to the king...
EDIT: Yes, you can talk to them but there are munchkins which ask me: "Show me the rule I couldn´t (...)" ;-)
But in the end, it's all about roleplaying and how you want to play the character.
As a player i would like to say "Yes!", but as a DM i would like to say "No!"
There are many players with a INT / CHA / WIS 8 character, which play him as he would be Albert Einstein / Don Juan de Marco / Budda
... so I would like to have a table (or something else) which would tell them, the cannot do this. Yes, I can tell them this, too, but a official rule would be better ;-)
