Lots of interesting stuff
I would point out that I was accepting wraithstrike's challenge on his own terms, but pointed out in doing so that under any character generation system I've ever heard of anyone playing with, scores of 12,10,10,10,10,10 would be extremely improbable. That said, I think I met the challenge. Your opinion may differ, of course, based on your own gaming experiences. As I've said elsewhere, I think a lot of people play far more super-powered games completely dominated by combat than I do, and in those types of games it is harder to survive and contribute with average to slightly above average scores. that's not the only way to play, though.
Also, you can't treat commoner NPCs like adventuring PCs. I don't actually give commoners any racial bonuses at all. The character generation rules were designed with adventuring PCs in mind, not commoners, and applying them to every commoner is a time-wasting intellectual exercise at best. I don't know any DM who stats out every commoner the PCs meet. I've always just assumed that they have mostly average scores ranging from 9-12, with the occasional outlier.
Also, on one level, you can't assume every NPC commoner puts their bonus into their best stat. Not even every PC does that. Min-maxing is an option, not a requirement. Remember commoners aren't preparing themselves for a live of dangerous adventure. They're just trying to meet the ordinary challenges of everyday life, which are usually less life-threatening.
On another level, this is metagaming to the max. Normal people (commoners) aren't carefully built like PCs to achieve maximum effectiveness in adventures, they develop organically through their life experiences based on the building blocks their genes give them. Again, it's kind of a waste of time to theorize about what a commoner would look like if you built him like a PC.
|
I didn't get the impression he couldn't hit his targets (with a +4 Dex mod for Ranged attacks I would be surprised if he was), just that he wasn't getting his Sneak Attack damage as much.
The problem is that he wanted to be as effective as someone with a regular set of attributes. The player at least in my game wanted to havehis cake and eat it too.
And if "cowardly" was played in a manner that he wouldn't wade into melee, but would provide combat support via ranged attacks, usually from hiding, then I would have no issue with that at all as he was still contributing (maybe not as much as the fighter but then I am sure the fighter won't be contributing as much to the trap finding!)
And I would agree if it was just the character being a coaward in melee. Except the player in my game started even avoiding traps after he almost was taken out by one. Then while he was hiding out covering the rear all the time expected an equal anount of fame glory and treasure. Which eventually led to him being told that if he was always "covering the party rear" he would be getting a lesser amount of treasure. And the player left shortly after.
If dragons live for a very long time, that's because they are more smart than egotistical. They aren't invincible, and they know it.blah blah blah
Has armchair quarterbacking season started already?
Can we extend the guy the courtesy of not second-guessing his DM? The encounter made for a fine story and was probably a heck of a lot of fun to play.|
|
The problem is that he wanted to be as effective as someone with a regular set of attributes. The player at least in my game wanted to havehis cake and eat it too.
I didn't get the impression he couldn't hit his targets (with a +4 Dex mod for Ranged attacks I would be surprised if he was), just that he wasn't getting his Sneak Attack damage as much.
Ah, I thought you were referring to the player character mentioned by kenmckinney, rather than a player in your own game.
Lots of stuff.
Sounds like you have a completely different gamestyle than we do. Probably because we are a bunch of geezers who have played up through all the editions, when you didn't have an applicable skill or stat for everything and just had to roleplay things and the DM adjudicates what happens.
We still play with a lot of roleplaying, and the skill rolls only come if the DM isn't sure what the result will be or wants to introduce some randomness, or if the player either doesn't bother to roleplay it or roleplays it inappropriately. In this case he ruled that the dragon's hand was forced by the dwarf's actions and the audiences watching. Other DMs may have ruled differently and slaughtered the whole party. I think the way our DM played it was more fun and more appropriate, but opinions may vary. Those who want to roll for everything are welcome to do so, but we prefer to play differently.
I would also point out two things. The beguiler wasn't an option at the moment, as she was temporarily unconscious. Wouldn't have ever done so anyway, in character, and probably wouldn't have survived if she did. Second, the dragon was I believe only an adult dragon, not an ancient red. We are only 8th level after all :) It's smart, but not a genius, and it doesn't have the experience of centuries behind it yet. It actually played pretty smart, in my opinion, and was kicking our butts for quite a while.
One final thing. True leadership in RPGs, like true leadership in real life, is defined by actions, not stats or innate traits. The dwarf is the leader because every party member knows that, more than any other character, he'll put his life on the line for them anytime, anywhere.
The 3e has changed that: on the plus side, now a 12 or a 14 is not the same as a 9. On the con part, the ability scores influence every aspects of the game: if they are low, you can't do anything.
This is what I disagree with. You can have straight tens and still do quite a bit in the game. As I said earlier, the bonus is only a small part of skill totals compared to Ranks and Class Bonus.
At first level, simply taking a class skill puts you on par with another charater who has a 18 in an attribute relevent to the skill but no ranks in it.
This drops off very quickly as you advance and add more ranks.
The effects on the damage of weapons is also not that much when you consider what else is often added into damage from a weapon...damage enhancement bonus, energy effects (flaming, frost, etc), feats (weapon specialization).
The impact of minimal to me compared to Class features, Feats, Magical Items, Skill Ranks (and the accompanying Class Skill Bonus). A big part of what makes a fighter a living wrecking machine is not having straight 16 in physical abilities...it is his combination of feats and class feature and a player who nows how to maximize the impact of those combined.
A character does not have to start at first level with a pair of 16s or even a pair of 14s to "do anything". You can start with a single ability at 14 and the rest at 10 and get quite a bit done in the game (either starting out or later at 15th level).
The only classes hugely impacted in my view by low-average ability scores are the casters due to the requirement of having a Caster Ability = 10+ Spell level to be able to cast certain spells.
-Weylin
Sounds like you have a completely different gamestyle than we do. Probably because we are a bunch of geezers who have played up through all the editions, when you didn't have an applicable skill or stat for everything and just had to roleplay things and the DM adjudicates what happens.But in the previous edition, the skills didn't matter that much. You could have a fighter with 9 strength, from the moment you found some belt of giant strength, it were the same as having 18/00. The same hold for every ability: items didn't increase abilities, they simply gave you a new ability score.
And you needed exceptional abilities to get some bonus: their were a huge difference between 10 and 18, but only a little difference between 10 and 14. They didn't influence all part of the game (before the higher levels, intelligence were only useful to learn spells: no spells DC, no bonus slot, just the chance to learn spells and the max spell level). And since the encounters were designed for abilities of 10 (in fact, they didn't even have stats: a fighter with good Con had more HP than a dragon; and the dragon didn't have any strength either, and were doing quite low damages), you had a totally playable character with one ability at ~13 and everything else at 9.
The 3e has changed that: on the plus side, now a 12 or a 14 is not the same as a 9. On the con part, the ability scores influence every aspects of the game: if they are low, you can't do anything.
I understand the evolution of the rules. I was there. And I don't even pine for the "good old days" that much. I think the rules have gotten better and better. My point is just that you can play the game by letting the rules, the stats and the dice control everything you do, or you can play the game with more of a balance between rolling dice and roleplaying. Both are valid gamestyles. I prefer the latter, but have no problem if you prefer the former. I just prefer people avoid blanket statements about character effectiveness as if they were the one and only source of truth in the gameplaying universe, and the way they play the game is inherently superior to the way others play it.
I disagree completely with your finishing statement that "if they are low, you can't do anything." Low scores either in stats or skill points just give you a lesser chance to succeed at anything that actually requires a roll. Not very heroic to say that just because you only have a ten percent chance of success rather than a 30 percent chance that it isn't even worth trying. Isn't it a lot more epic when Frodo throws the ring into the fire than if Gandalf or Aragorn had done so? Or when Buster Douglas knocks Mike Tyson silly rather than the other way around?.
I also note that it is totally within the rules and actually very good DM practice to give circumstance bonuses on rolls when the PCs come up with a good plan or roleplay something well. Brings some flavor into the game and rewards good and inventive play. And it is another way good players can overcome low scores.
I removed a post. Please be polite.
I removed a post. Please be polite.
Fascist.
Humiliation!
Lots of interesting stuff
I agree with you that literature doesn't always trasnfer well into the world of fantasy RPGs, although much of the original game was clearly based on Tolkien and others. That said, guess I didn't see Shelob as a bebilith, but more as an advanced and awakened giant spider. And I would assume Sam had more than few levels of fighter in him before the encounter with Shelob. And of course he is wielding a sword that is especially effective against spiders, and has another potent magic item in the vial from Lothlorien. And in the end he wins with what is obviously a classic crit and drives the beastie off. So not that far-fetched in game terms.
For Frodo, I would say he has also gained some levels (of what I'm not sure) after all that adventuring. And probably invested more than once in the Iron Will feat to avoid the influence of The Ring.
LOTR examples aside, crits are a way that the system does allow for folks to take on apparently overwhelming adversaries, particularly when you add the new crit deck, which gives additional effects to these crippling blows. All it takes is that one lucky shot to turn the whole battle.
Anyway, thanks for engaging.
Knowing that you are truly French, rather than having Stephane just be your blog name, I am having to fight incredibly hard against the urge to do a little World Cup trash talking. I'll resist the temptation as I don't know if you are even a football/soccer fan.
Aragorn was just a fifth level ranger....
couldnt help myself.
Not counting Gandalf who was actually a demi-god. I dont see anyone in LOTR being particularly high level.
-Weylin
Have to agree to disagree, then. Your campaign must be a lot more powered-up, combat-dominated and deadly than the ones I've played in then, if everyone needs to have bonuses in their constitution just to survive. The style of play I described, as a second-line combatant and healer/buffer, would be perfectly survivable in every campaign I've ever DMed or played in. However, campaigns differ, and if yours is one in which every combat is a deadly affair that the PCs barely survive, I'll concede that he might not survive in YOUR campaign. Doubt that's the norm, though.
If you go upfront and/or try heal your 10 constitution makes you a deadman(assuming average rolls, and the DM is playing the monsters intelligently). There is no more planning after that.14, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 while barely playable is better than what we gave you to work with, and it could survive depending on the class. I understand it was theoretical, but if I had to bet money I...
Not every combat is deadly, but when a monster has a PC almost down, and you heal him he will realize he cant kill anyone until you are dead first.
The other issue is you using the aid another tactic to help the fighter. It is a good idea in theory, but killing you is like debuffing the fighter. If the monster thinks the debuff will work the cleric is dead.PS: I dont use a lot of monsters with animal intelligence.
stuff about a dragon's ego overuling intelligence and wisdom
Dragons are also wise enough, depending on the dragon, to know when to keep their egos in check. If not they would die sooner. They dont get by on power alone.
Dragons are smart, but they are also egotistical, and don't let insults pass.If dragons live for a very long time, that's because they are more smart than egotistical. They aren't invincible, and they know it.
ninja'd by 7 hours.
If dragons live for a very long time, that's because they are more smart than egotistical. They aren't invincible, and they know it.blah blah blah
Has armchair quarterbacking season started already?
Can we extend the guy the courtesy of not second-guessing his DM? The encounter made for a fine story and was probably a heck of a lot of fun to play.
No we can't not when dragons are involved and fall for something so easy. It is not about the fun. It is about the ego vs ability to survive, when dragons are involved. No reason to pretend like we agree when we don't.
The 3e has changed that: on the plus side, now a 12 or a 14 is not the same as a 9. On the con part, the ability scores influence every aspects of the game: if they are low, you can't do anything.
This is what I disagree with. You can have straight tens and still do quite a bit in the game. As I said earlier, the bonus is only a small part of skill totals compared to Ranks and Class Bonus.
example please
This looks like a fun place for a reading:
'Well, boy?' asked the dragon commander.
'I...I asked if I could hear some of their poetry.'
'You what!?'
'Only some poetry, that's all. I just said I wished I had time to hear some.'
'No, boy, no, a thousand times no, that is one thing you must never ever do when you're face to face with a sea dragon. You must never ever -- on any account -- encourage their artistic pretensions. Art, you see, is purely their excuse for being the lazy, idle, shiftless, foolish, irresponsible, degenerate pack of glutinous, sex-obsessed drunkards this side of the east ditch of Glash Ebrek.'
from Hugh Cook's The Questing Hero, a.k.a. The Wordsmiths and the Warguild.
This looks like a fun place for a reading:
'Well, boy?' asked the dragon commander.
'I...I asked if I could hear some of their poetry.'
'You what!?'
'Only some poetry, that's all. I just said I wished I had time to hear some.'
'No, boy, no, a thousand times no, that is one thing you must never ever do when you're face to face with a sea dragon. You must never ever -- on any account -- encourage their artistic pretensions. Art, you see, is purely their excuse for being the lazy, idle, shiftless, foolish, irresponsible, degenerate pack of glutinous, sex-obsessed drunkards this side of the east ditch of Glash Ebrek.'from Hugh Cook's The Questing Hero, a.k.a. The Wordsmiths and the Warguild.
I am completely lost.
I was being opportunistic. I posted this excerpt of Planet Stories' author Hugh Cook because I thought it was fun, and then later, here was this disagreement about draconic assumptions. The attraction was too great. Sorry if you weren't entertained, carry on.
Final scores:
16
11
16
9
13
9What would you do with these scores?
Among other possibilities:
Dwarf Barbarian
16 Str, 13 Dex, 18 Con (+2 race), 9 Int, 13 Wis (+2 race), 7 Cha (-2 race)
Half-Orc Bard
18 Str (+2 race), 11 Dex, 13 Con, 9 Int, 9 Wis, 16 Cha
Human Cleric
11 Str, 9 Dex, 13 Con, 9 Int, 18 Wis (+2 race), 16 Cha
or
16 Str, 11 Dex, 13 Con, 9 Int, 18 Wis (+2 race), 9 Cha
Gnome Druid
14 Str (-2 race), 13 Dex, 13 Con (+2 race), 9 Int, 16 Wis, 11 Cha (+2 race)
Human Fighter
18 Str (+2 race), 16 Dex, 13 Con, 9 Int, 11 Wis, 9 Cha
or
16 Str, 18 Dex (+2 race), 11 Con, 13 Int, 9 Wis, 9 Cha
Human Monk
15 Str (+2 race), 16 Dex, 11 Con, 9 Int, 16 Wis, 9 Cha
Half-Elf Ranger
18 Str (+2 race), 16 Dex, 13 Con, 9 Int, 11 Wis, 9 Cha; TWF
or
16 Str, 18 Dex (+2 race), 13 Con, 9 Int, 11 Wis, 9 Cha; archer
Halfling Rogue
14 Str (-2 race), 18 Dex (+2 race), 11 Con, 13 Int, 9 Wis, 11 Cha (+2 race)
Human Sorcerer
9 Str, 16 Dex, 11 Con, 13 Int, 9 Wis, 18 Cha (+2 race)
Elf Wizard
11 Str, 18 Dex (+2 race), 11 Con (-2 race), 18 Int (+2 race), 9 Wis, 9 Cha
How does the 12 10 10 10 10 10 character contribute on a consistent basis?
Depending on the rest of the party composition, he has a few choices: a support bard or cleric would probably work best, but a sorcerer or wizard that concentrates on spells without saves could also work.
Gnome Bard/Sorcerer
8 Str (-2 race), 10 Dex, 12 Con (+2 race), 10 Int, 10 Wis, 14 Cha (+2 race)
Halfling Bard/Sorcerer
8 Str (-2 race), 12 Dex (+2 race), 10 Con, 10 Int, 10 Wis, 14 Cha (+2 race)
Half-Elf, Half-Orc, or Human Bard/Sorcerer
10 Str, 10 Dex, 10 Con, 10 Int, 10 Wis, 14 Cha (+2 race)
Dwarf Cleric
10 Str, 10 Dex, 12 Con (+2 race), 10 Int, 14 Wis (+2 race), 8 Cha (-2 race)
Elf Wizard
10 Str, 12 Dex (+2 race), 8 Con (-2 race), 14 Int (+2 race), 10 Cha
None of these characters are likely to overwhelm encounters through raw ability, but they're not that "gimped" when compared to "heroic NPCs" (i.e., the 3.5 "elite array"), either. They all have ways to contribute in many situations, as well.
How does the 12 10 10 10 10 10 character contribute on a consistent basis?Depending on the rest of the party composition, he has a few choices: a support bard or cleric would probably work best, but a sorcerer or wizard that concentrates on spells without saves could also work.
Gnome Bard/Sorcerer
8 Str (-2 race), 10 Dex, 12 Con (+2 race), 10 Int, 10 Wis, 14 Cha (+2 race)Halfling Bard/Sorcerer
8 Str (-2 race), 12 Dex (+2 race), 10 Con, 10 Int, 10 Wis, 14 Cha (+2 race)Half-Elf, Half-Orc, or Human Bard/Sorcerer
10 Str, 10 Dex, 10 Con, 10 Int, 10 Wis, 14 Cha (+2 race)Dwarf Cleric
10 Str, 10 Dex, 12 Con (+2 race), 10 Int, 14 Wis (+2 race), 8 Cha (-2 race)Elf Wizard
10 Str, 12 Dex (+2 race), 8 Con (-2 race), 14 Int (+2 race), 10 ChaNone of these characters are likely to overwhelm encounters through raw ability, but they're not that "gimped" when compared to "heroic NPCs" (i.e., the 3.5 "elite array"), either. They all have ways to contribute in many situations, as well.
The fact the monsters dont have to worry about spell DC's makes them a lot less effective since it kind of shortens the spell list. They are probably about as affective as an adept at that point. Ok, so they are not that bad, but they are weakened to the point that I still think the usefulness of the character is in question. I guess I will have to see it to believe.
The fact the monsters dont have to worry about spell DC's makes them a lot less effective since it kind of shortens the spell list. They are probably about as affective as an adept at that point. Ok, so they are not that bad, but they are weakened to the point that I still think the usefulness of the character is in question. I guess I will have to see it to believe.How does the 12 10 10 10 10 10 character contribute on a consistent basis?Depending on the rest of the party composition, he has a few choices: a support bard or cleric would probably work best, but a sorcerer or wizard that concentrates on spells without saves could also work.
Gnome Bard/Sorcerer
8 Str (-2 race), 10 Dex, 12 Con (+2 race), 10 Int, 10 Wis, 14 Cha (+2 race)Halfling Bard/Sorcerer
8 Str (-2 race), 12 Dex (+2 race), 10 Con, 10 Int, 10 Wis, 14 Cha (+2 race)Half-Elf, Half-Orc, or Human Bard/Sorcerer
10 Str, 10 Dex, 10 Con, 10 Int, 10 Wis, 14 Cha (+2 race)Dwarf Cleric
10 Str, 10 Dex, 12 Con (+2 race), 10 Int, 14 Wis (+2 race), 8 Cha (-2 race)Elf Wizard
10 Str, 12 Dex (+2 race), 8 Con (-2 race), 14 Int (+2 race), 10 ChaNone of these characters are likely to overwhelm encounters through raw ability, but they're not that "gimped" when compared to "heroic NPCs" (i.e., the 3.5 "elite array"), either. They all have ways to contribute in many situations, as well.
Considering the save DCs for the casters above differ by 10% on the chance of success/failure from an 18 in the casting stat (a +2 instead of a +4 modifier), that's hardly the same thing as the spells with saves being useless. It just means the player needs to target them against the opponent's weak save(s) more consistently instead of relying on a high DC to affect strong save(s). It also makes Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus (as well as race/class bonuses) more important to raise the DC.
"Concentrating on" does not mean "use to the exclusion of anything else."
Spells without saves include many of the "bread and butter" low-level sorcerer/wizard spells like magic missile, ray of enfeeblement, acid arrow/scorching ray, spectral hand+shocking grasp/touch of idiocy, and summon monster. Also most buffs, information gathering, and utility spells don't have saves.
Considering the save DCs for the casters above differ by 10% on the chance of success/failure from an 18 in the casting stat (a +2 instead of a +4 modifier), that's hardly the same thing as the spells with saves being useless. It just means the player needs to target them against the opponent's weak save(s) more consistently instead of relying on a high DC to affect strong save(s). It also makes Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus (as well as race/class bonuses) more important to raise the DC.
"Concentrating on" does not mean "use to the exclusion of anything else."
Spells without saves include many of the "bread and butter" low-level sorcerer/wizard spells like magic missile, ray of enfeeblement, acid arrow/scorching ray, spectral hand+shocking grasp/touch of idiocy, and summon monster. Also most buffs, information gathering, and utility spells don't have saves.
I am still not buying it. He can't withstand a full round attack with a 10 con unless he gets lucky and rolls high for hit points. If he does not participate or do anything effective he in combat it is really a 3 man party.
We will assume level 3 because that is about the first level when you can take a good hit and still be standing
wizard/sorc(3.5 x 3) +(3 for the favored point to hit points) 14.5
The average CR 3 monster does 13 points of damage on its high damage attacks. With 1.5 hit points separating you from a new character sheet I can't put much stock in it.
Cleric/druid(4.5 x 3) +(3 for the favored point to hit points) 16.5
3.5 is not too much better. As a cleric he will most likely get targeted first, and then there is the issue of not being able to selective channel because the charisma(13) is not there to take the feat.
The druid comes with a body guard, but the low amount of spells they get makes them not to much better than the animal companion.
Just came up with this on the fly
Hyrbid Stat Rolling
First
Choose 3 stats , use 20 point buy and choose scores for those 3 stats
then
roll using your favorite method 4d6(drop lowest),whatever
and then you get the benefit of the dice gods leaving thier mark on your charcter without the risk of having a gimped chacter.
consider that most people spend most of their stat buy points in only 2-3 stats leaving the other 3-4 stats between 8-12.
this is becuase those other 3 stats arn't as important to the charcter, so having them high or low really won't change things or break anything.
so for example.
Wizard
say I choose DEX INT and CON as my pointbuy stats
DEX14, INT16 and CON 14
then I roll for STR WIS and CHA
STR 4d6 = 3624 = 13
WIS 4d6 = 1232 = 6
CHA 4d6 = 6223 = 11
you wizard works just fine but he's oddly strong and is not very perceptive, flavour without being broken.
I am still not buying it. He can't withstand a full round attack with a 10 con unless he gets lucky and rolls high for hit points. If he does not participate or do anything effective he in combat it is really a 3 man party.
So the only way a character is effective is in the thick of melee? They can't attack at range (most low level encounters lack strong ranged attacks), buff party members, and cast battlefield control spells?
Whatever...
my personal favorite system thus far has been dice pool. we roll 24d6 and drop the lowest 6, then everyone takes the dice and makes up their stats from the same pool, that way everyone can tailor the character how they like, and since they are all from the same source the party is balanced in statistical power. I can handle if the party rolls really well because that just means i may have to bump up the encounters a CR here and there, its a nice balanced way to do things and it still adds the random chaos of the almighty dice gods.
I am still not buying it. He can't withstand a full round attack with a 10 con unless he gets lucky and rolls high for hit points. If he does not participate or do anything effective he in combat it is really a 3 man party.So the only way a character is effective is in the thick of melee? They can't attack at range (most low level encounters lack strong ranged attacks), buff party members, and cast battlefield control spells?
They can't do it and survive. If you can't survive you are gimped.
|
|
They can't do it and survive. If you can't survive you are gimped.I am still not buying it. He can't withstand a full round attack with a 10 con unless he gets lucky and rolls high for hit points. If he does not participate or do anything effective he in combat it is really a 3 man party.So the only way a character is effective is in the thick of melee? They can't attack at range (most low level encounters lack strong ranged attacks), buff party members, and cast battlefield control spells?
What would kill them? The only thing that can kill a PC is a DM. Gimped is a very nebulous term in an RPG. Gimped compared to what gold-standard? I agree in the example above the PC can only survive one round - so my question is what sort of DM would put that encounter in the PC's path?
Perhaps the DM doesn't want the PC's to fight? Perhaps the creatures want to capture the PC's? I think the misconception that every encounter must (a) be balanced/fair and (b) winnable by the PC's should be beaten out of players.
The DM doesn't loss XP or levels or teeth for matching an encounter, not talking CR pseudo-mathematical-astrology matching to work out an encounter here, but rather the DM understanding of his/her PC's capabilities. It's why we have a DM rather than a computer algorithm running an RPG game.
Gimped is a another's Hero...
:)
Have to agree to disagree, then. Your campaign must be a lot more powered-up, combat-dominated and deadly than the ones I've played in then, if everyone needs to have bonuses in their constitution just to survive. The style of play I described, as a second-line combatant and healer/buffer, would be perfectly survivable in every campaign I've ever DMed or played in. However, campaigns differ, and if yours is one in which every combat is a deadly affair that the PCs barely survive, I'll concede that he might not survive in YOUR campaign. Doubt that's the norm, though.
If you go upfront and/or try heal your 10 constitution makes you a deadman(assuming average rolls, and the DM is playing the monsters intelligently). There is no more planning after that.14, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 while barely playable is better than what we gave you to work with, and it could survive depending on the class. I understand it was theoretical, but if I had to bet money I...
Not every combat is deadly, but when a monster has a PC almost down, and you heal him he will realize he cant kill anyone until you are dead first.
The other issue is you using the aid another tactic to help the fighter. It is a good idea in theory, but killing you is like debuffing the fighter. If the monster thinks the debuff will work the cleric is dead.PS: I dont use a lot of monsters with animal intelligence.
Yes, and when we play the cleric does get targeted a lot when facing bad guys with above average intelligence. Good will saves do a lot to make them survivable in that case. Since he is second-rank, unless they have a way to get around the front-line tanks, they are going to pay a price in attacks of opportunity to target him in melee. They pay a price anyway by targeting the cleric first, since other characters are capable of dealing more damage. I would think the most intelligent adversaries are going to target the most dangerous PCs first (unless they see an easy kill that is pretty risk-free). I'll concede that the cleric won't survive long if he is always targeted first, but neither would any character in that situation. In our current campaign the barbarian is hard to keep alive because he has such massive damage potential that intelligent enemies quickly decide he has to go before they do.
In a way being targeted for termination first is a compliment, so if you think the theoretical cleric of modest scores is always or frequently going to be targeted first, you have essentially conceded my point about him being able to make a valuable contribution. If he's not contributing much of value, he wouldn't be targeted.
No we can't not when dragons are involved and fall for something so easy. It is not about the fun. It is about the ego vs ability to survive, when dragons are involved. No reason to pretend like we agree when we don't.
If dragons live for a very long time, that's because they are more smart than egotistical. They aren't invincible, and they know it.blah blah blah
Has armchair quarterbacking season started already?
Can we extend the guy the courtesy of not second-guessing his DM? The encounter made for a fine story and was probably a heck of a lot of fun to play.
I'll make just one more point about this situation. If you aren't familiar with Red Hand of Doom, this combat with the dragon takes place near the end of the adventure, after a long period in which the party has been a major thorn in the side of the army to which the dragon is attached. The identities of the PCs have become well-known to the bad guys by this point, and it was known that the dwarf cleric was their leader. So he made a very inviting and tempting target. The dragon could easily assume that taking out the dwarf would deal a major blow to the town's resistance and possibly win the battle. If you think a dragon of reasonable, but not super-genius intelligence (16-17 per Bestiary) would never take such a gamble then you merely disagree with my DM and I. Welcome to do that, in your game, and we'll keep playing our way.
I'll make just one more point about this situation. If you aren't familiar with Red Hand of Doom, this combat with the dragon takes place near the end of the adventure, after a long period in which the party has been a major thorn in the side of the army to which the dragon is attached. The identities of the PCs have become well-known to the bad guys by this point, and it was known that the dwarf cleric was their leader. So he made a very inviting and tempting target. The dragon could easily assume that taking out the dwarf would deal a major blow to the town's resistance and possibly win the battle. If you think a dragon of reasonable, but not super-genius intelligence (16-17 per Bestiary) would never take such a gamble then you merely disagree with my DM and I. Welcome to do that, in your game, and we'll keep playing our way.
Letter from Mia to Wyrmlord Kharn
"The Thorns [Yes, that's what they call you] are in Tamaryzk (Brindol)! They are at the South Gate and have just slain one of the Kulkor Zhul escorting Skather! He was unseen as best I can tell. Send Abithrax quickly, the time is NOW!!
Mia "
Abithrax's Rampage, pg90 Red Hand of Doom
"...He starts combat by breathing fire on the PCs then swoops down to land near any spellcasters (Especially Clerics displaying Holy Symbols of Good deities) or other characters who have a good chance at affecting him at range."
"...Once his Blood is up, Abithrax refuses to back down. His stubborn nature and refusal to admit defeat is one of the traits that won him an honored position with the horde, and he doesn't retreat, instead dedicating his fate to Tiamat. (Zilibrangst in my campaign)
Am I a bad DM for following the Plot Line of the Adventure? Hmmm, I don't think so. If the conditions were never met to bring him to the ground, he would have remained aloft and *POOF* end of fight. The Dwarf Cleric both met the conditions of the Plot Line AND did something heroic and selfless to bring the beast down so the TEAM could win the day.
His stats, well, they were the worst of the group. He knows he's not the sharpest sword in the scabbard and admits that often.
As to all this stat mumbo jumbo.... in a team, you cover each other. Fight together and fill in for weaknesses others might have. The group in my game does it well.
If you like Rolling for that chance at great stats I'm with ya. If you like point buys to build what you want and get okay stats, more power to ya.
Now, pipe down, play the game, have fun and for the love of Pete remember: If you're not having fun, do something else. The only gimped character is the person who thinks they are.
" Life's splendor forever lies in wait about each one of us in all its fullness, but veiled from view, deep down, invisible, far off. It is there though, not hostile, not reluctant, not deaf. If you summon it by the right word, by it's right name, it will come."
- Frank Kafka, Diaries
...The only gimped character is the person who thinks they are...
If a player and his group doesn't mind his character having very low chances to succeed at many things then fine, more power to him and his buddies - his character is still gimped, only he doesn't care.
Of course if you have battle once every three sessions and only seldom call for skillchecks, no char is basically gimped, you only do not really play D&D!
Same goes for players of gimped chars who shout ideas to the group and let better chars take care of the checks but then it's the player that's "been able to contribute", the char is still gimped.
...The only gimped character is the person who thinks they are...If a player and his group doesn't mind his character having very low chances to succeed at many things then fine, more power to him and his buddies - his character is still gimped, only he doesn't care.
Of course if you have battle once every three sessions and only seldom call for skillchecks, no char is basically gimped, you only do not really play D&D!
Same goes for players of gimped chars who shout ideas to the group and let better chars take care of the checks but then it's the player that's "been able to contribute", the char is still gimped.
I don't think this is an argument that is winnable or worth continuing at this point, so long as there are players/DMs/groups that insist that the game is completely dominated by the mechanics of die-rolling and the tyranny of statistical modeling. For those players/DMs/groups, have at it and have fun. It is a very different style of game than we are playing, but both styles are still PF/D&D, which is broad enough to encompass a lot of different game styles.
My initial post asking folks to stop using labels like "gimped" to refer to characters with lower stats was written from the perspective of my own 30+ years of experience as a player and DM. However, even that length of experience certainly does not encompass the entirety of the PF/D&D experience. If folks who run the mechanically-dominated games want to call characters "gimped" in their own campaigns, fine. I'll just roll my eyes and be glad I'm not playing in those campaigns. What they should stop doing, and what I will always react to is the flat statement that characters with certain stats, by their very nature, no matter what style of game you are playing, are "gimped" or "deadweight". Wasn't true in 1st edition, wasn't true in 2nd edition, wasn't true in 3rd edition, wasn't true in 3.5, and isn't true in PF. And it won't ever be true in any game I run, or that is likely to be run by the other DMs in my group.
|
There are two issues...if it's a homebrew campaign, then you are gimped when the majority of the gamers at the table says so.
If it's an AP, you are gimped if you can not face the challenges within.
When talking about a gimped character, I assume the second scenerio because the first is kinda moot. So, yes you can make gimped characters...that character maybe the most powerful broken character in a home brew...but if it can't reasonable survive an AP, it's gimped.
I honestly don't know the answer to this...
Do you folks think homebrew games are more common than AP games, or vice versa? In all my 16+ years of gaming, I have played a written module once as a player and never as a GM.
|
|
I honestly don't know the answer to this...
Do you folks think homebrew games are more common than AP games, or vice versa? In all my 16+ years of gaming, I have played a written module once as a player and never as a GM.
No the issue is that a homebrew has too many variables...so Aps make for default difficulty for the sake of discussion of mechanical balance.
There are two issues...if it's a homebrew campaign, then you are gimped when the majority of the gamers at the table says so.
If it's an AP, you are gimped if you can not face the challenges within.
When talking about a gimped character, I assume the second scenerio because the first is kinda moot. So, yes you can make gimped characters...that character maybe the most powerful broken character in a home brew...but if it can't reasonable survive an AP, it's gimped.
So does this mean a character with great stats but terrible luck who never survives any attempts at playing an AP is gimped? Are we back to a relative label again?
|
|
So does this mean a character with great stats but terrible luck who never survives any attempts at playing an AP is gimped? Are we back to a relative label again?There are two issues...if it's a homebrew campaign, then you are gimped when the majority of the gamers at the table says so.
If it's an AP, you are gimped if you can not face the challenges within.
When talking about a gimped character, I assume the second scenerio because the first is kinda moot. So, yes you can make gimped characters...that character maybe the most powerful broken character in a home brew...but if it can't reasonable survive an AP, it's gimped.
No because we assumed taking 10 in many cases vs just rolling...or use statistical percentages. Mostly we use statistical percentages and averages.
...The only gimped character is the person who thinks they are...If a player and his group doesn't mind his character having very low chances to succeed at many things then fine, more power to him and his buddies - his character is still gimped, only he doesn't care.
Of course if you have battle once every three sessions and only seldom call for skillchecks, no char is basically gimped, you only do not really play D&D!
Same goes for players of gimped chars who shout ideas to the group and let better chars take care of the checks but then it's the player that's "been able to contribute", the char is still gimped.
Look, I'm a Combat FIEND! I love combat in the game but I've had multiple games back to back that had NO combat! Skill checks, good roleplay and no need for actual combat. The PCs actions did this. They had a blast. While none of them had the silly examples above with all 10s and a 12 or something like that, none were overpowered.
DMs / GMs that play bad guys as just min/max pieces with no motivations or flaws are the weak ones here. It takes a lot for the guys and gals behind the screen to play out the BBEGs personalities and traits instead of metagaming them as the optimums. My take on it. Also, it's impossible to second guess DM/GM reasons, it's their game, their story their plot and we owe them the courtesy of assuming they are playing the BBEGs appropriately.
As Brian Bachman wrote...
...I don't think this is an argument that is winnable or worth continuing at this point...
Gonna have to with you on this one, folks just don't seem able to see this view as an option. If that's how they like to play the game, it's all good.
If it's just about the mechanics and rules, I'll go with Historical Miniature Wargaming. If any folks out there have never been to an HMGS type Event in Lancaster Pa (THe ones I know of, there are many more) I recommend them. They cover periods from ancient battles to sci fi Its a great time with any flavor of game you can imagine.
Have Fun out there!!
~ W ~