Crafting also would not stop you from making your quest(to save the world) since it is only during down time. I would craft, and if he chooses to deny you by arbitrarily speeding up the storyline then so be it.
If you can do it try to get in another group. I personally think your DM sucks.
PS:I am not saying you have to leave your current group, just get in with another group to get a different perspective on things.
...thanks RingTail, you da bomb :)
WC
I try.
"If a caster is out adventuring, he can devote 4 hours each day to item creation, although he only nets two hours' worth of work." ~PRD
Is there a malignant script running somewhere on the internet that is making new users and posting flamebait threads? Don't we have anything better to discuss than the same old false dichotomy OVER AND OVER AND OVER...
No? Alright then.
Crafting also would not stop you from making your quest(to save the world) since it is only during down time. I would craft, and if he chooses to deny you by arbitrarily speeding up the storyline then so be it.
If you can do it try to get in another group. I personally think your DM sucks.
PS:I am not saying you have to leave your current group, just get in with another group to get a different perspective on things.
I may do that, thing is, I'm ADD so my social skills aren't so good, I may just not play for a few months and see if the situation gets any better, my current character is very simple to play so one of the other players could manage it quite easily.
I'm also not one for going head to head with the GM, maybe not a good thing, if I was more willing to jump up and down and scream about the injustice of it all (figuratively speaking) this might have been solved years ago.
WC
Not that it sounds like fun but: If your area has an FLGS then you can at least go down and observe some other groups or interview the DM, and ask him how he does things as if you are a new DM looking for tips.
Is there a malignant script running somewhere on the internet that is making new users and posting flamebait threads? Don't we have anything better to discuss than the same old false dichotomy OVER AND OVER AND OVER...
No? Alright then.
umm, your point? Please?
wc
Eh, *I'm* trolling now, WC.
Forgive me. The thread title kind of set me off. :) Carry on.
Is there a malignant script running somewhere on the internet that is making new users and posting flamebait threads? Don't we have anything better to discuss than the same old false dichotomy OVER AND OVER AND OVER...
No? Alright then.
Seriously. I come on here hoping to really see some people asking for build help or enlightening me with rules issues and such....but I just keep seeing these threads of people telling other people they're doing it wrong.
RPGs are a cooperative experience where a group works together to tell a story and play a game. If it's not fun, find a new group. If it is fun, work with your group to make it more fun for everyone. There is no right way to play, except what is the most fun for the group as a whole. You need to facilitate the DM and the other players having a good time, and they need to do the same for you. It's when this balance and compromise isn't struck that you start running towards a "wrong way" to play.
Is there a malignant script running somewhere on the internet that is making new users and posting flamebait threads? Don't we have anything better to discuss than the same old false dichotomy OVER AND OVER AND OVER...
No? Alright then.
Seriously. I come on here hoping to really see some people asking for build help or enlightening me with rules issues and such....but I just keep seeing these threads of people telling other people they're doing it wrong.
RPGs are a cooperative experience where a group works together to tell a story and play a game. If it's not fun, find a new group. If it is fun, work with your group to make it more fun for everyone. There is no right way to play, except what is the most fun for the group as a whole. You need to facilitate the DM and the other players having a good time, and they need to do the same for you. It's when this balance and compromise isn't struck that you start running towards a "wrong way" to play.
We must be the change we wish to see on the boards.
I'm doing a wretched job of that tonight, but hey.
Is there a malignant script running somewhere on the internet that is making new users and posting flamebait threads? Don't we have anything better to discuss than the same old false dichotomy OVER AND OVER AND OVER...
No? Alright then.
umm, your point? Please?
wc
apparently there is this unwritten rule that all new posters to a message board must read every single thread in the archives before starting a thread on a subject they wish to weigh in on. Seeing as I continually see this particular B**** on every single BBS I have ever visited at least once if not more.
apparently there is this unwritten rule that all new posters to a message board must read every single thread in the archives before starting a thread on a subject they wish to weigh in on. Seeing as I continually see this particular B**** on every single BBS I have ever visited at least once if not more.
No need to hit the archives, DM. This past week seems to have more than usual.
I'm gonna read upthread and post back.
Is there a malignant script running somewhere on the internet that is making new users and posting flamebait threads? Don't we have anything better to discuss than the same old false dichotomy OVER AND OVER AND OVER...
No? Alright then.
Seriously. I come on here hoping to really see some people asking for build help or enlightening me with rules issues and such....but I just keep seeing these threads of people telling other people they're doing it wrong.
RPGs are a cooperative experience where a group works together to tell a story and play a game. If it's not fun, find a new group. If it is fun, work with your group to make it more fun for everyone. There is no right way to play, except what is the most fun for the group as a whole. You need to facilitate the DM and the other players having a good time, and they need to do the same for you. It's when this balance and compromise isn't struck that you start running towards a "wrong way" to play.
welcome to the internet...
where every opinion on every single subject is wrong.
Hi All :)
I'm just wondering what the average take is on min-maxing.
At our table one of our GM's seems to feel that it's cheating, but when I ask him why he's so opposed he never comes up with any real answer.
My last fighter in his game finished at 16th lvl with a +2 weapon.Our second GM doesn't seem too opposed but punishes players for min-maxing by making magic Items unavailable, your barbarian has a 24 strength at 12th lvl? how much good does it do him if he only has a +2 weapon?
so what's your take? also, just for fun, note whether your a player or GM.
wc
The problem isn't really with min-maxing, it's social dynamics. Different playing styles are coming into conflict.
As an example, in a 3.5 game I'm playing with a friend of mine, I'm very much into role-playing. I wrote a lengthy backstory for my character (which included a few potential quest hooks), talk with most of the NPCs, and strongly differentiate between table-talk and character-talk. Most everybody else (in a 7-player group) is of the mindset to kill things and take the loot. At least three players didn't show up with any backstory at all (though one had a prestige class in mind to build towards) and two of them weren't sure of their character's gender for the first two sessions. I've been having fun playing, but it's been a problem not "hogging the spotlight" by taking forever to have an in-character dialogue while the others wait with "nothing to do." It's also been a problem in that I have a few built-in quests to my character that the DM is letting me pursue while the others have no such handy plot-devices. Similarly, I end up bored while the "blank" characters pick through the remains of the fight or table-talk about silly things or get into pun-fests.
My DM, bless his heart, is so laid-back about the game that he can accommodate everyone as long as we don't go overboard. If you know your playing style isn't the same as the rest of the group, you need to either find a different group more receptive to it (the internet is wonderful for this) or you need to learn to "reign it in" to fit with everyone else's expectations. Often times, if you make it known that your favorite playing style is different, the GM will give you "little victories" where they'll let you indulge yourself in such a way as to not disturb everyone else (in the above example, I get to talk to an NPC in side chat while the others continue doing what they will). It's harder if only the GM is the one not meshing with the rest of the group, but that may be a sign that someone else in the group needs to learn how to GM and run their own game.
When I GM, I let people play gestalt characters (take two classes, get the best of both), use a huge point-buy, and take max hit points every level. I also give them advice on what synergizes well in gestalt and what doesn't. I also often include a "healbot/buff" type DMPC whenever it makes sense so that people don't feel the need to take a back-seat role if they don't want. Encounters can still be very, very dangerous even given all of that (such as an underwater Aboleth fight at 4th level, with no underwater breathing magic ready, and enslaved townspeople fighting for it that you don't want to hurt). Everyone seemed to enjoy themselves just fine, even players who normally ran in a low-magic Viking campaign. Just be aware of people's playing style and let them take on the roles that they want.
Yeah, I am a big fan or reworking Craft to allow player to use bits of downtime, as far as it makes sense. There is much to improve about craft.
As for min-maxing — everything is context dependent. Deck-building has become a huge part of the game since 3.0e, it was WotC's prerogative and they truly nailed it.
You can say "min-maxing bad" like "alcohol bad", but there's a certain kind of player for whom deck-building characters is an intoxicant. But it's cheaper and less consequential than booze, so why not let them?
I GM, so min-maxing isn't something I get to participate in very much. It's just not the same when you have omnipotent command of the situation. I don't begrudge my players who like to build characters, though. It's the GM's responsibility to work around it (or not), and it is really pretty trivial to deal with.
Do these lopsided characters offend my sensibility, setting-wise? I suppose so, but so much of the setting is ridiculous that it hardly matters. As a GM, I actually like to see my players give their characters intentional flaws; whether or not the system rewards it. So I don't really mind having a system that generates such characters.
I think that getting offended by the composition of characters is a hallmark of GMs who would really rather be players. Really commit to GMing, and you stop telling players what they can or can't do in their tiny domains of influence. Anything you want to make happen, you can do it by controlling everything but the players. Why get bent out of shape? People will play what they want — you can only screw it up by telling them they have to play what you want.
I have no problem with a bit of min/maxing. Heck, you need to do some to make a playable character. I have a problem with half the character being dump stats though. If that is what a player brings to the table, then I tell them that they need to create a new character that is more plausible. Since stats are important in my games, I don't have to worry about this. I have no problem with draining ability scores in as many ways as possible. The druid in the last session I was running got worried when his animal companion was targeted with 1d4+1 Intelligence drain. His companion only had a 3 Intelligence. The wizard in the group tends to have issues with his strength being targeted since it's so low. There is no way these characters could survive if they had 3 dump stats.
There are some concepts that need more min/maxing than others. I tend to keep that in mind when I look at a character that is brought to the table. For example, if you want to build a two-weapon fighter, you will need to put a lot into your Dexterity and Strength. You will probably have to dump Charisma and probably Intelligence especially if you also want some decent hit points and have a Will save that isn't going to let you down. However, if you are playing a two-handed fighter, you can get away with not focusing so much on Dexterity. You don't need as many decent stats to remain viable. Why play a cleric with a Wisdom of 9 in the name of "role playing" when that removes the primary reason to play the cleric in the first place? If you are going to play a wizard that focuses on blasting or save-or-suck spells, you will want to improve your Intelligence as much as possible but if you are playing a buffing wizard, you can focus on other things too if you want.
When I create characters, I tend to focus on the Elite Array most of the time. It gives a good range of attributes for nearly any build. If the GM says I can have 20 points, then I make necessary adjustments. I think a character should be well rounded. I don't think everyone should use the Elite Array. I just like the simplicity for myself. One of the things that I need to keep in mind though, is the racial modifiers. Sometimes the -2 to a stat that is also a dump stat can be rough. I like dwarven fighters and having a 6 Charisma is too low for my tastes but sometimes I don't have much of a choice.
Something that I really don't like with point buy, for some people it makes them build the same characters over and over. They tend to think that they can only build wizards one way and that's all you will see from them. With that type of player, you will never see them start with less than a 20 Intelligence after racial modifiers even in 15 point buy. I always see the argument "that's proper optimization and you have to do that to survive." It's a false assumption because if that were true, then every class would have the same stat array because that would be the only option for survival. This is not the type of player I enjoy gaming with. There are groups that like this sort of play, and that's cool for them. I don't think it's the norm nor do I think it should be assumed to be the only (or even best) way to game.
RPGs are a cooperative experience where a group works together to tell a story and play a game. If it's not fun, find a new group. If it is fun, work with your group to make it more fun for everyone. There is no right way to play, except what is the most fun for the group as a whole. You need to facilitate the DM and the other players having a good time, and they need to do the same for you. It's when this balance and compromise isn't struck that you start running towards a "wrong way" to play.I Absolutely agree with you 100%
but why do you assume that the only way for the rest of the party to have fun is for me to play a nerfed character?
I personally bring a lot to the table, when a puzzle comes up the rest of the party looks at me, the room often rings with laughter over my characters social ineptitude, bottom line, I'm there to have fun.
But, too me part of having fun is playing a HERO, or a VILLAIN !!!!!
I want to play Drizzt, or wulfgar, or Artemis Enteri, I'm not interested in playing, hmm, can't remember his name, or maybe, hmm, nope, can't remember his either, why? because they were't heroes...
as I said before, different strokes for different folks...
WC
I don't think that was directed towards you. It was a "you" in the general sense.
apparently there is this unwritten rule that all new posters to a message board must read every single thread in the archives before starting a thread on a subject they wish to weigh in on. Seeing as I continually see this particular B**** on every single BBS I have ever visited at least once if not more.No need to hit the archives, DM. This past week seems to have more than usual.
I'm gonna read upthread and post back.
Ah ok I see what you did there now...
minor venting thing...I get it now.
Back to the OP and his... umm... weeell, OP I guess.
No Min/maxing or optimizing, or what ever its called these days is not evil in and of its self. Like others say its only an issue if the M/M character is dominating the game.
As to what your GM is doing... It sounds to me like he is trying to "balance" the party in the most ham handed way possible. (this in no way condones his actions but it does allow us to understand them.)
The getting some one else to buy it for you tactic is one way to deal with the GM (although this will set up an adversarial role between the GM and the players as has been mentioned.)
Another method (one I employ heavily to the annoyance of many GMs) is to ask a metric $#!7 ton of questions during char gen. Slipping in the key questions such as what kind of game arte you looking to run? What kind of limits can I expect? Is this set up acceptable? would it be better for you and the group if I altered some things? etc...
This way when he approves my char he feels he has better handle on my place in the scheme of the campaign, the scope of the chars capabilities, and the chars place in the party dynamic.
|
Lest ask a few questions.
1. Can you make a charter that is good at there job with out some min/maxing? No /Yes. As long as your rolling stats, or using 20 or 25 point buy. Standard is 15.
2. Can you make a charter using a 15 point buy. That can 70% + suceed at the job? With out min/maxing? No. Not enough points to have every thing.
3. Can you make a charter that works past level 10 with out some min/maxing? No. Spell DC, Spell Resistance, AC, CMD, start geting crazy at this level.
4. Just becouse you min/max. That dose that make you a bad role player? No
5. Dose it mean you made a charter to suceed? Yes
Ahh, My bad, sorry I ranted at ya Sylvanite
WC
No worries, man. It's the internet. Things get misinterpreted all the time. I did it to someone just yesterday on these forums.
I was just trying to say that everyone needs to work towards a center for the given group, or else it gets pulled apart in different directions.
I also prefer to play Garet Jax over Frodo Baggins, so I am with you on that front! Good luck with your game!
Lest ask a few questions.
1. Can you make a charter that is good at there job with out some min/maxing? No /Yes. As long as your rolling stats, or using 20 or 25 point buy. Standard is 15.
2. Can you make a charter using a 15 point buy. That can 70% + suceed at the job? With out min/maxing? No. Not enough points to have every thing.
3. Can you make a charter that works past level 10 with out some min/maxing? No. Spell DC, Spell Resistance, AC, CMD, start geting crazy at this level.
4. Just becouse you min/max. That dose that make you a bad role player? No
5. Dose it mean you made a charter to suceed? Yes
Well the need to min/max depends on the DM also. I think that in most cases extreme min/maxing is uncalled for.
The root? No!
I am both GM and player and while min/maxing may not be the root it is annoying and, IMO, sad and pathetic.
I understand the need or desire to make the most of your pc - we all want to be the best we can be and that often comes out in a fantasy setting that you can have more control over than your own life but still - I feel if a player is min/ maxing they are kinda missing the feel of the game and their character.
I love playing characters that have weaknesses - it shows humanity, and fragility and makes them, in a word, real!
|
I tend to build very powerful character, sometimes on accident, I do however try to play down the power of my characters, usually by doing something that isn't what the character is specialized in, especially when I see that I'm doing way more than the other players are. Sometimes this includes doing things that are pointless, I know they are pointless, the character knows they are pointless, but I don't want to make my allies feel worthless in my presence.
Lest ask a few questions.
1. Can you make a charter that is good at there job with out some min/maxing? No /Yes. As long as your rolling stats, or using 20 or 25 point buy. Standard is 15.
2. Can you make a charter using a 15 point buy. That can 70% + suceed at the job? With out min/maxing? No. Not enough points to have every thing.
3. Can you make a charter that works past level 10 with out some min/maxing? No. Spell DC, Spell Resistance, AC, CMD, start geting crazy at this level.
4. Just becouse you min/max. That dose that make you a bad role player? No
5. Dose it mean you made a charter to suceed? Yes
I want to disagree with almost every thing you just said...
But being new to the pathfinder system I have trouble finding ways to back my side of the argument.point 1 and 2: If 15 point buy is that min/max dependent then why is it the standard?
Why point buys at all since they are so inherently flawed? (thats the old timer in me asking that)
point 3: Not knowing the system thoroughly I cannot make a value judgment to the validity of this statement based on the mechanics. But based on past experiences in the fundamental core system I find that statement to assume too much.
point 4: agreed.
point 5: yes but succeeds at what? combat? social? skills? what is the GM after in this situation? If you build a combat monster for a political campaign then you have failed yes? If the GM fails to tell you it is going to be a Hack and Slash game and you build a social butterfly then the GM has failed.
Mostly GM here (rarely get to be a player).
I don't think optimization, including min/maxing is evil, of course. I think that unless everybody is on the same page, the mindset that causes a player to do it, and the way a player who does that is apt to play (not always, but often), can be distracting, and even feel unfair to the players who chose to play more well-rounded characters.
I also believe there is a general feeling amongst the other players in that situation that the min/maxer is out for himself only, and therefore either cannot be trusted, or can be trusted only to show off. In my experience, that is sometimes, though not always, true. The feeling, though, probably comes from the more well-rounded players' notion that they have contributed something to the game by making their characters more believable, and therefore, easier for the GM to challenge and craft adventures for.
Of course, in a game where min/maxing is expected and encouraged, it's fine. Whatever the game suffers in terms of "realism" or difficulty in challenging the party without going to the greatest extremes ought to be something the GM is expecting. I know in some of my early campaigns, I did not pay enough attention, so only learned to expect this sort of trouble the hard way, after several games ended badly.
No way is right, but as with most of these issues, it is finding the right round pegs to fit in your round holes, or square pegs to fit square holes, etc. A party with too much disparity is going to become unhappy eventually.
I personally help my players with optimization to some degree. I do like seeing them succeed and having fun. But I also expect individuals to consider all of us at the table, and not try to break the whole thing with how cool they think they need to be. I want to be able to challenge them all fairly and reasonably without one guy being able to sit back and grin, or without killing the rest of them just to give him something to do other than grin. We've had big egos at the table, and the result, though sometimes memorable, was always eventually a disaster.
So, again, min/maxing is fun for some. It's not this old dude's cup of tea, but I don't begrudge other groups their own brand of fun.
Some really good, well said points
You are hitting the nail on the head for the most part. It's all about a group finding its own dynamic that works for everyone.
My only quibble is that I have played with some non-minmaxers who were just as selfish and egotistical as anyone else I've ever played with...they just wanted to chase their ideal story they had constructed for their characters before the group as a whole even started. Any EXTREME style of person in a group that does not all go for that style is going to wreak havoc.
Damien Magecraft: I agree with you about point buy systems. I think a lot of that came out of the standardized play movement (which is something I do enjoy). I vastly prefer to roll my own stats, then build with what Fate has given me to work with.
One style of pointbuy in a game I am currently in, however, was cool. We started with a 14 in each stat, and adjusted things on a point for point basis. However, no starting stat could be above 18, and you could only have one stat below 10 (with a minimum of an 8). This made us all have pretty solid heroic feeling characters, without people engaging in the rancid min/max of dumping scores too badly.
(As a note: This also, sadly, led to everyone playing a human character for several reasons...so it's not a completely perfect idea.)
|
Power gaming and Min maxing is , by common opinion, going beyond effective to the point to where you can solo CR+3 encounters.So it's purely a measure of combat prowess? What about those who optimize their characters for maximum healing potential or social interaction supremacy? That's all good?
They can be annoying too, especially the ones that are convinced that high diplomacy is mind control
One major issue I have with Min/Max is that the people who tend to take it to extreme (the ones who are dumping 2 or more stats to 7 or below) throw a hissy fit if you penalize them for it.
"Why do I have to climb! You put this in the game because I have a low str, you're just picking on me!"
"Why do I have to roll for talking to someone? It should be what I roleplay at the table, not what my 5 cha dwarf rolls! I'll never be able to roleplay if you keep picking on me like this, you just don't like the fact my dwarf is really good at hitting people!"
I'm sure someone can fill in one for each stat. Low con? How dare you use poison in the game! You're just picking on me because you don't like my build!
|
I have no issues as DM with min-maxing, every player does it to some extent. Why would you make a character who isn't good at what they should be good at?
What I think is more of an issue is badly worded rules that can be twisted while still adhering to what they "say" not adhering to "intent". This is the root of all evil: Badly worded rules.
S.
|
|
Added more good stuffGood stuff
I agree that players shouldn't complain if they find they have an Achilles heel, but without becoming a "Master of None" a certain amount of min-maxing is required. Dropping feats like Iron Will and the such-like may stop some being too extreme. After all those types of feats are just "outs" for those who want to dump things like WIS.
S.
While I agree completely, I'd like to point out that this has to work both ways, if the inn charges the ugly foul temperd Cha-5 dwarf double because he's ugly and foul tempered, then the Cha- 20 Half orc sorcerer should have the option to pay half.
He can absolutely make a diplomacy check for a discount. However, he's not going to get half just because the dwarf got charged double.
The whole point of charging the dwarf double is annoyance factor. The half-orc, no matter how good his charisma, is (A) a half-orc, and (B) more importantly, not annoying.
An inn-keeper is very likely to give a smooth talking character a discount, especially if they show they can do something like entertain the other guests with stories or song. A half-orc still has to put up with racial dislike (assuming orcs are hated in the campaign).
Additionally, an inn-keeper is going to double the dwarf and make money off the deal, even with the annoyance factor. If she discounts the sorcerer by half, she may not make money (unless he can entertain the other guests). I'd guess that a good diplomacy check and offer to entertain could certainly half the cost. But it won't be automatic. The Dwarf doesn't have to make a test to annoy, he just walks in and opens his mouth. :)
One major issue I have with Min/Max is that the people who tend to take it to extreme (the ones who are dumping 2 or more stats to 7 or below) throw a hissy fit if you penalize them for it.
"Why do I have to climb! You put this in the game because I have a low str, you're just picking on me!"
"Why do I have to roll for talking to someone? It should be what I roleplay at the table, not what my 5 cha dwarf rolls! I'll never be able to roleplay if you keep picking on me like this, you just don't like the fact my dwarf is really good at hitting people!"
I'm sure someone can fill in one for each stat. Low con? How dare you use poison in the game! You're just picking on me because you don't like my build!
THIS. (For the record I usually GM myself, but play sometimes)
The big issue seems to be in my games with min/maxing mental stats. Physical scores are forced in the game (IE bashing down a steel door with 7 strength naked? Failed!) versus an extremely low wisdom (making sure not to forget to tie up the horses and bring along handy item X? Done!).
The other problem is that build that has horrible mental stats can cause issues at the table. The player with that build may be offended or hurt with the way they are treated by other players. It's possible that when the character with 7 INT / 7 WIS is treated as an idiot that the owner of said character will feel that there is hostility in real life, possibly damaging a real life relationship.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I'm just wondering what the average take is on min-maxing.
At our table one of our GM's seems to feel that it's cheating,
I think he is confused.
I believe he equates min-maxing (how every character is built by every person, it is just subjective what they are min-ing and what they are max-ing) and cheating by voluntarily interpreting the rules incorrectly.
I noticed this very frequently on the Wizards.com forums. Where people would endless debate the meaning of words, for example debating the meaning of the "spells per day" to suggest that gaining 9 "full casting/memorization cycles in a day" was fine since that one 24 hour segment of time contained 9 "days" because he rest via ring of sustenance in between.
Anyway, Pathfinder has much less bogus rules interpretations and even less people willing to endless debate them. Paizo is also more likely to officially answer them and the official answers are more likely to be accepted by the community (where the wizards.com FAQ was mostly ignore as "not following RAW" when as far as I'm concerned the FAQ is RAW.)
|
I also prefer to play Garet Jax over Frodo Baggins, so I am with you on that front! Good luck with your game!Ahh, The Weapons Master, my third all time favorite character, with Raistlin Majere being tied with Tasslehoff Burrfoot for first. now Raistlin is an excellent example of min maxxing.
WC
For the record, Raistlin Majere's Constitution was 10, average. The sickliness was pure roleplaying.
|
|
As a player I almost always min-max, and as a GM I encourage it. I don't come to sessions to get my backside handed to me repeatedly for several hours, and I don't want to be forced to tiptoe around the PCs constantly to avoid handing them their own backsides in every single encounter. If my preferred game is sometimes a touch on the easy side, it's only because I'd rather challenge myself to make the roleplay more exciting.
And really, min-maxing has virtually no impact on roleplaying; having a 7 in a score is not that much of a penalty, and should only subtly inform how character is portrayed. My inquisitor in PFS has a charisma of 7, and yet he's succeeded at diplomacy repeatedly. I'm not going to roleplay him as an unlikeable freak, and there's no reason to; he just tends to be somewhat grating once in a while. He can turn on the charm with a lucky roll, even if that only means a moderately persuasive 18.
It works both ways, in fact. I had a cleric in 3e who, despite his 18 wisdom, was dangerously gullible. That's just how I wanted to play him, and I wasn't going to let my whopping +4 in sense motive prevent that. Whenever he actually noticed someone was lying (which I only rolled for in important social encounters), I chalked it to a bit of uncharacteristic luck.
The only score that doesn't lend itself well to a fuzzy interpretation is strength, since carrying capacity is clearly defined. But even then, it doesn't hurt to put a spin on it, especially if no one really pays attention to encumbrance anyways. My str 7 wizard can normally lift more than 70 lbs, he's just sore today, honest...
|
|
For the record, Raistlin Majere's Constitution was 10, average. The sickliness was pure roleplaying.
I also prefer to play Garet Jax over Frodo Baggins, so I am with you on that front! Good luck with your game!Ahh, The Weapons Master, my third all time favorite character, with Raistlin Majere being tied with Tasslehoff Burrfoot for first. now Raistlin is an excellent example of min maxxing.
WC
really? coughing up blood after spell casting was "Role Playing" ?
WC
Nothing in the rules required or even suggested. That's just what the play tester decided he wanted the character to be like.