The math says it's not nonsense. From 1st level to 3rd level, you'll have 2 DC less on all of your saving throws, which is 10% less chance of successfully landing a spell. From 4-7, it will be 1 DC (5%) less, then it returns to 10% at level 8, et cetera.
So in the long run, it gimps your casting by roughly 7.5%. (This number is slightly misleading -- it actually means that about 15% more opponents will save against your spells. Normally about half your opponents will manage to save, but instead 57.5% will.) Attempting to avoid this (by restricting yourself only to spells that don't allow saves) will also gimp your casting by taking the majority of the spells off the table.
In addition, you have one fewer spell per day at level 1, which is a hefty percentage of your low-level spells. At level 8, you'll probably have two fewer spells per day, but this depends on your equipment as well.
I'd say both the lowered effectiveness and reduced number (dropping from 2 spells per day to only 1) are both meaningful.
I don't. At all.
Lucy is 100% correct, but I'd like to add that sometimes guides should not be followed blindly, and that you should double check with others because they make mistakes. I followed a guide for my first character and it gimped him good, partly because it didn't adequately explain the ramifications of the builds (by the way, if anyone says you should dump wis if your class has a good will save, they are very very wrong). I've seen some really crappy advice in guides, so new players not only need the guides but someone with experience too to help them interpret them.
It's not you *should* dump WIS. It's "you can get away more with dumping WIS". I'm willing to dump WIS on an INT/CHA based caster with a good Will Save, but only in something like 15 PB and even then only to 8. Most of the guides on here are fairly solid, but yes you should use them as starting points and do your own research. But then you should be doing your own research anyway so *shrugs*.
I don't. At all.The math says it's not nonsense. From 1st level to 3rd level, you'll have 2 DC less on all of your saving throws, which is 10% less chance of successfully landing a spell. From 4-7, it will be 1 DC (5%) less, then it returns to 10% at level 8, et cetera.
So in the long run, it gimps your casting by roughly 7.5%. (This number is slightly misleading -- it actually means that about 15% more opponents will save against your spells. Normally about half your opponents will manage to save, but instead 57.5% will.) Attempting to avoid this (by restricting yourself only to spells that don't allow saves) will also gimp your casting by taking the majority of the spells off the table.
In addition, you have one fewer spell per day at level 1, which is a hefty percentage of your low-level spells. At level 8, you'll probably have two fewer spells per day, but this depends on your equipment as well.
I'd say both the lowered effectiveness and reduced number (dropping from 2 spells per day to only 1) are both meaningful.
Care to explain your reasoning? Since having more effective spells on top having *more* spells seems pretty meaningful.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guides are guides. Despite what certain folks who don't use them would like others to believe, guides are not proclamations of the only viable way to play a given class. Guides rank the various options so that the reader can make an informed choice; they don't say "here's what you take at each level" and leave out the rest.
This notion that Guides somehow condemn any sort of deviation from a theoretical perfect build is something fabricated by those whose own sense of worth requires that "the other" to which they feel superior be as different from themselves as possible, even if it requires falsification of what "the other" is actually like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guides are guides. Despite what certain folks who don't use them would like others to believe, guides are not proclamations of the only viable way to play a given class. Guides rank the various options so that the reader can make an informed choice; they don't say "here's what you take at each level" and leave out the rest.
This notion that Guides somehow condemn any sort of deviation from a theoretical perfect build is something fabricated by those whose own sense of worth requires that "the other" to which they feel superior be as different from themselves as possible, even if it requires falsification of what "the other" is actually like.
Yeah, that seems to be a strawman that the True Roleplayers just love attacking. Every guide I've ever looked at is set up as more of a "here are the strongest options, here are the pretty good ones, and here are the ones that aren't so great. Here is why these options are good/bad/okay." Not "You must play in this one specific way or else you're a bad person."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^That said, it probably wouldn't hurt if the Guides said something like "you might want to defocus a build slightly to make your character more versatile, to cover gaps in your party's abilities, to adapt to the particular situations of the campaign, or simply for improved roleplaying potential, and here are some ways you can do it without shooting yourself in the foot . . .". I have seen a couple of examples of this in numerous Guides -- that is, most don't even mention this apart from mention of things that might be useful in certain types of campaign, and on the rare occasions that they do they pretty much gloss over it (even giving the situationally useful things rather short shrift).
|
Because that's not the purview of an optimization guide. By its definition, giving up focus in your primary area of expertise to be a bit more versatile is not optimizing.
It also shouldn't need to be said. Anyone with any sense looks at a guide and says, "Okay, I don't particularly want to follow this to the letter because of personal preference/my group's houserules/etc." and then uses it as a guide and not a pair of shackles.
A build is too specialized if you specialize to much in the build.
/thread
:)
A lot of builds are exercises in "how to get this one quality as high as possible." It's quite possible to do this for various reasons...
...but when you play the character at the table, you may need quite a few other qualities from time to time. It's a trade-off: optimizing one thing often requires reducing other things. And sometimes those other things are what you need, Mr. I-Can-Kill-Anything-With-One-Swing-But-Have-No-Will-Save, or Ms. My-Magic-Does-Everything-But-I-Cannot-Survive-One-Hit.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The hell?
"Build" is how I call any selection of mechanical choices in the character... Asking if "builds are too specialized" sounds like asking if "food is too salty".
Some of them are, some aren't... It depends on what you do with it.
When ti comes to optimization, there is such thing as over-specialization, which is usually avoided by most optimizers.
Any character can be as specialized as you make it to be. That's doesn't mean it's more (or less) optimized.
Optimization is about efficiency, not specialization (although those two attributes often walk side by side).
Ms. My-Magic-Does-Everything-But-I-Cannot-Survive-One-Hit.
That describes every S****n caster character ever doesn't it?
My personal preference on Spellcasters is to keep Con and Wis relevant for the build.
^That said, it probably wouldn't hurt if the Guides said something like "you might want to defocus a build slightly to make your character more versatile, to cover gaps in your party's abilities, to adapt to the particular situations of the campaign, or simply for improved roleplaying potential, and here are some ways you can do it without shooting yourself in the foot . . .". I have seen a couple of examples of this in numerous Guides -- that is, most don't even mention this apart from mention of things that might be useful in certain types of campaign, and on the rare occasions that they do they pretty much gloss over it (even giving the situationally useful things rather short shrift).
That's the inevitable consequence of needing to make a general purpose guide. The authors aren't writing guides specifically for you in your Saturday game with the guys. It's not exactly realistic to expect all kinds of advice on how to fit in with your party and fill gaps when the author doesn't know one thing about your party.
It's the same for situationally useful things. In general, they're not all that useful. If you're in a campaign that focuses on them, they become a lot better. The guide writer does not know that your GM is building a campaign that will feature lots of encounters with undead in dimly lit rooms. The author just knows that's a fairly narrow ability, generally speaking.
Simply put, any guide that tried to even start addressing all the possible corner cases that can crop up in a campaign would be woefully incompletely even if it was several thousand pages long. Since that's obviously impractical, they stick to general guidelines.
Optimization is about efficiency, not specialization (although those two attributes often walk side by side).
<3
It also shouldn't need to be said. Anyone with any sense looks at a guide and says, "Okay, I don't particularly want to follow this to the letter because of personal preference/my group's houserules/etc." and then uses it as a guide and not a pair of shackles.
I wish I had your faith in the good sense of humanity, old boy. Unfortunately it does need to be said because, at the end of the day, the average gamer is, like the average person, just not all that bright. I don't know what sorts of people you game with (maybe you're lucky like Jiggy and don't run into the hard cases), but I've seen plenty of folks follow the guides more-or-less to the letter, to include gratuitous stat-dumping, initiative-cheezing, gory dipping shenanigans (more a disease that attacked 3.5 than PF, but it's making a comeback...), and so on.
Also, when did "guide" and "optimization guide" become self-identical terms? Most guides treat their subject as "this is how you build an X", not as, "this is how you build a cheezed-out, barely functional outside of the murder-hobo olympics X", which is what they actually are. A few sober disclaimers wouldn't have killed Treantmonk, but they weren't on offer, and so the ultimate product ended up being a munchkin's manifesto for the strongest class in the game. Why this is bad for the community, at large, shouldn't be hard to grasp.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It also shouldn't need to be said. Anyone with any sense looks at a guide and says, "Okay, I don't particularly want to follow this to the letter because of personal preference/my group's houserules/etc." and then uses it as a guide and not a pair of shackles.I wish I had your faith in the good sense of humanity, old boy. Unfortunately it does need to be said because, at the end of the day, the average gamer is, like the average person, just not all that bright. I don't know what sorts of people you game with (maybe you're lucky like Jiggy and don't run into the hard cases), but I've seen plenty of folks follow the guides more-or-less to the letter, to include gratuitous stat-dumping, initiative-cheezing, gory dipping shenanigans (more a disease that attacked 3.5 than PF, but it's making a comeback...), and so on.
Also, when did "guide" and "optimization guide" become self-identical terms? Most guides treat their subject as "this is how you build an X", not as, "this is how you build a cheezed-out, barely functional outside of the murder-hobo olympics X", which is what they actually are. A few sober disclaimers wouldn't have killed Treantmonk, but they weren't on offer, and so the ultimate product ended up being a munchkin's manifesto for the strongest class in the game. Why this is bad for the community, at large, shouldn't be hard to grasp.
I think that people who go around saying "Your way of having fun is bad and wrong and ruining Pathrinder" are far worse for the community than optimization.
It also shouldn't need to be said. Anyone with any sense looks at a guide and says, "Okay, I don't particularly want to follow this to the letter because of personal preference/my group's houserules/etc." and then uses it as a guide and not a pair of shackles.I wish I had your faith in the good sense of humanity, old boy. Unfortunately it does need to be said because, at the end of the day, the average gamer is, like the average person, just not all that bright. I don't know what sorts of people you game with (maybe you're lucky like Jiggy and don't run into the hard cases), but I've seen plenty of folks follow the guides more-or-less to the letter, to include gratuitous stat-dumping, initiative-cheezing, gory dipping shenanigans (more a disease that attacked 3.5 than PF, but it's making a comeback...), and so on.
Also, when did "guide" and "optimization guide" become self-identical terms? Most guides treat their subject as "this is how you build an X", not as, "this is how you build a cheezed-out, barely functional outside of the murder-hobo olympics X", which is what they actually are. A few sober disclaimers wouldn't have killed Treantmonk, but they weren't on offer, and so the ultimate product ended up being a munchkin's manifesto for the strongest class in the game. Why this is bad for the community, at large, shouldn't be hard to grasp.
All guides are optimization guides if they are worth reading. What exactly do you think a non-optimization guide would look like?
"Ok now on your Cleric, you want to really pump your INT so that you can make up for only getting two skill points. In fact, make sure it's a 16 or higher."
"Don't forget to take Piranha Strike on your Greatsword using Barbarian in case he has to fight with a light weapon, so you can always trade extra to hit for damage. Sure it requires you take Weapon Finesse, but you need DEX for AC anyway."
It also shouldn't need to be said. Anyone with any sense looks at a guide and says, "Okay, I don't particularly want to follow this to the letter because of personal preference/my group's houserules/etc." and then uses it as a guide and not a pair of shackles.I wish I had your faith in the good sense of humanity, old boy. Unfortunately it does need to be said because, at the end of the day, the average gamer is, like the average person, just not all that bright. I don't know what sorts of people you game with (maybe you're lucky like Jiggy and don't run into the hard cases), but I've seen plenty of folks follow the guides more-or-less to the letter, to include gratuitous stat-dumping, initiative-cheezing, gory dipping shenanigans (more a disease that attacked 3.5 than PF, but it's making a comeback...), and so on.
Also, when did "guide" and "optimization guide" become self-identical terms? Most guides treat their subject as "this is how you build an X", not as, "this is how you build a cheezed-out, barely functional outside of the murder-hobo olympics X", which is what they actually are. A few sober disclaimers wouldn't have killed Treantmonk, but they weren't on offer, and so the ultimate product ended up being a munchkin's manifesto for the strongest class in the game. Why this is bad for the community, at large, shouldn't be hard to grasp.
All guides are optimization guides if they are worth reading. What exactly do you think a non-optimization guide would look like?
"Ok now on your Cleric, you want to really pump your INT so that you can make up for only getting two skill points. In fact, make sure it's a 16 or higher."
"Don't forget to take Piranha Strike on your Greatsword using Barbarian in case he has to fight with a light weapon, so you can always trade extra to hit for damage. Sure it requires you take Weapon Finesse, but you need DEX for AC anyway."
That's still an optimization guide. Just a bad one.
I wonder what is so bad about having a concept and then designing that concept to be good at its job?
That is all optimization is in my opinion, trying to create a character that believably would excel at their role.
I have two questions for you "the secret fire".
1.) What do you consider an acceptable amount of optimization?
An example first level character would be great.
2.) How weak of a character could reliably survive the games you play and not harm the fun of the other players?
Again, an example first level character would be great.
I am not trying to attack you, I would just like to understand your viewpoint and I believe that environment shapes viewpoint quite a bit.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder what is so bad about having a concept and then designing that concept to be good at its job?
That is all optimization is in my opinion, trying to create a character that believably would excel at their role.
I have two questions for you "the secret fire".
1.) What do you consider an acceptable amount of optimization?
An example first level character would be great.
2.) How weak of a character could reliably survive the games you play and not harm the fun of the other players?
Again, an example first level character would be great.
I am not trying to attack you, I would just like to understand your viewpoint and I believe that environment shapes viewpoint quite a bit.
Seconding this request.
I'd like to see exactly why you believe you're so much more enlightened and morally superior because you don't optimize, and the kind of character that leads to.
I would also like to mention that while I have the same request, Covent and I are asking for very different reasons.
It also shouldn't need to be said. Anyone with any sense looks at a guide and says, "Okay, I don't particularly want to follow this to the letter because of personal preference/my group's houserules/etc." and then uses it as a guide and not a pair of shackles.I wish I had your faith in the good sense of humanity, old boy. Unfortunately it does need to be said because, at the end of the day, the average gamer is, like the average person, just not all that bright. I don't know what sorts of people you game with (maybe you're lucky like Jiggy and don't run into the hard cases), but I've seen plenty of folks follow the guides more-or-less to the letter, to include gratuitous stat-dumping, initiative-cheezing, gory dipping shenanigans (more a disease that attacked 3.5 than PF, but it's making a comeback...), and so on.
Also, when did "guide" and "optimization guide" become self-identical terms? Most guides treat their subject as "this is how you build an X", not as, "this is how you build a cheezed-out, barely functional outside of the murder-hobo olympics X", which is what they actually are. A few sober disclaimers wouldn't have killed Treantmonk, but they weren't on offer, and so the ultimate product ended up being a munchkin's manifesto for the strongest class in the game. Why this is bad for the community, at large, shouldn't be hard to grasp.
I am not Treantmonk nor have I spoken with them, but I'd think that they were expecting people reading it and people reviewing the characters made to use common sense and a judicious "No."
People can use the guides as you are worried about to make some sort of nightmare uber character, and you as the GM can say "No, I think not. Ramp it back." As a fellow player you can also ask the player and the GM to dial down Superman if that is a fear.
The guides are just that, guides to what one or a group of people think on the matter. They may be right, they could even be mistaken. It's a bunch of opinions and should be taken as such.
in any case, if the guides are damaging your game somehow ask the people using them to self-moderate. Communication within your group is the beginning of solving these problems rather than being mad at the guy who wrote something on the Internet.
1.) What do you consider an acceptable amount of optimization?
An example first level character would be great.
Ok, it's a valid question; I'll take the bait. I think one needs to strike a balance between mechanical efficiency and meaningful character concept. This means being good at whatever you're supposed to be good at, and having a personality at the same time. If your idea is for a warrior with a forceful personality (like an Aragorn-type), then build one. No, optimized stats will not fit any concept, no matter how super a role player you think you are; the mental stats, especially, set the rough boundaries of character personality.
It's actually difficult to give an example of a "build" that I find good because we don't use point buy anymore. Back when we did live in the world of point-buys and "builds", I basically demanded that the players build characters who were honest to their concept. Our rule of thumb for point buy was that you shouldn't spend more than half of your net points in any single stat without a good reason for it (not unlike the common rules for buying magic items with starting gold). Dumping was looked at skeptically, but permissible if the background backed it up.
A rough sketch of how a 1st level toon in my world might have looked under point-buy:
1st level Human Alchemist - a "bomber", I guess - (15 point buy):
STR: 7
INT: 17
DEX: 14
CON: 12
WIS: 10
CHA: 14
Something like that. Bonuses in the right places for the most part, but not all that hyper-optimized, and with some sort of meaningful weakness (won't have a great Will save).
2.) How weak of a character could reliably survive the games you play and not harm the fun of the other players?
Again, an example first level character would be great.
Character death is not all that uncommon in my games. They're pretty lethal for a variety of reasons, so the facile answer is that no characters can reliably survive my games, muhaha.
I'd like to note that the players are on-board with this style, and it is done not to kill their fun, but to make success and failure meaningful. A character who is weak in his primary role would be a liability and could certainly get people killed, but this is rare. It's happened a couple of times that new guys entering a game where the party was already leveled have run afoul of the system (mostly the feat system) and ended up with toons that were a menace to themselves and others in combat. This is part of the story, too. Full disclosure: the longtime players have gotten annoyed on occasion about it...they tend to be pretty invested in the PCs who have survived for a long time. The worst "incompetent new guy" was actually murdered "in self defense" by another PC halfway through his first adventure. It was an act of mercy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, it's a valid question; I'll take the bait. I think one needs to strike a balance between mechanical efficiency and meaningful character concept. This means being good at whatever you're supposed to be good at, and having a personality at the same time.1.) What do you consider an acceptable amount of optimization?
An example first level character would be great.
This is called the "Stormwind fallacy." Not an auspicious beginning.
Back when we did live in the world of point-buys and "builds", I basically demanded that the players build characters who were honest to their concept.
And if my concept is an irascible wizard who doesn't spend a lot of time in the weight room, that seems to justify dumping literally every stat except intelligence. Hell, I work with people like that on a daily basis. Turn almost any flat rock near a university faculty club.
1st level Human Alchemist - a "bomber", I guess - (15 point buy):STR: 7
INT: 17
DEX: 14
CON: 12
WIS: 10
CHA: 14Something like that. Bonuses in the right places for the most part,
What do you mean "the right places"? Why are we expecting an alchemist -- a person who spends far too much time in the presence of boiling mercury -- to have a warm and winning personality?
I understand the dexterity -- alchemy is tricky stuff and dropping vials of boiling acid is bad. I can even understand the constitution, if you look at it in a survival-of-the-fittest way and assume that if he didn't have a high constitution, he'd be dead by now.
It seems to me that Sheldon, from the Big Bang Theory-- or practically any of the core characters, for that matter -- is a good example of an actual character with a personality, who is nevertheless optimized for high intelligence and nothing else. Sheldon's lack of wisdom and lack of social graces are key points in the humor of the show, and I don't remember him spending a lot of time on the Nautilus machines. He's extremely good at what he's supposed to be good at, and he's got a very strong personality.
*implying that Sheldon is not a fountain of wisdom
Wait, you don't want PCs to optimize but you literally killed a character for being incompetent?
|
|
Wait, you don't want PCs to optimize but you literally killed a character for being incompetent?
It's okay, because his group did it. But when other people build strong characters so they don't die horrifically (apparently at the hands of their supposed comrades, even), it's not okay.
Which, I suppose, makes perfect sense when you believe that you can't build a mechanically strong character without him losing all of his personality.
I'm curious, was it the new player (who had his character murdered by the group) who sought out the optimization guides that started your whole diatribe?
*implying that Sheldon is not a fountain of wisdom
Yeah, I'll stand behind that one.
Wait, you don't want PCs to optimize but you literally killed a character for being incompetent?
What I am getting is he does not like the idea of perfectly optimized characters to the point that every character of a class will have basically the same stats.
He is also implying that stats somehow affect roleplaying and that mechanics are essential in differing characters.
In his mind then, guides lead to perfectly optimize cookie cutter characters, sense they will have similar stats.
But heaven forbid your character is incompetent. You'll need to die for that. He is perfectly content with killing PCs until they stumble into a build that works, he doesn't want people to cheat to that build through guides, because if characters are mechanically similar then they can't be meaningfully different.
Am I getting that right?
It's easy to pick apart his argument, but I can understand it from the angle of seemingly every magus being a devish-dance dex clone. Seems like they all depend on a non-PRD gimmick (one I would argue is inferior to just running a strength magi).
Or seemingly all "optimal" fighters dumping int and cha to highlight their already glaring weaknesses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, you don't want PCs to optimize but you literally killed a character for being incompetent?What I am getting is he does not like the idea of perfectly optimized characters to the point that every character of a class will have basically the same stats.
He is also implying that stats somehow affect roleplaying and that mechanics are essential in differing characters.
Well, I do believe that stats should affect roleplaying (and it's a mark of a poor roleplayer if they don't.) But I also believe that one of the big things that defines character (in the sense of roleplaying) are the dump stats, and there are many ways to play dump stats that will make unique and memorable characters.
To paraphrase Tolstoy, "Intelligent characters are all alike; every stupid character is stupid in his own way."
I like charisma in particular as a dump stat, in particular, because it can be played in so many ways:
* the person who is cripplingly shy and can't walk down the lingerie aisle without blushing
* the person who says aloud what everyone else is thinking but is too polite to say
* the person who can't effin' say a sentence without at least one g.d. expletive in it
* the person who misutilizes gigantuous lexicographic items
* da geezer what can't rabbit widout cant
* the bombastic Miles Gloriosus whom no one takes seriously
As a result, I can have a whole college of wizards with identical stats, all of whom dumped charisma, but still with recognizably different personalities. I'd claim some sort of genius for doing that, but I fear that Pterry Pratchett got there first.....
I'd actually go so far as to say that this makes for stronger characters, because it's easier to actually role-play a semi-comedic Large Ham than it is to create a subtle and believable humanistic character, and it also makes it easy to work with the group, because the wizard is comedy relief, and not necessarily the lead in the spotlight.
*implying that Sheldon is not a fountain of wisdomYeah, I'll stand behind that one.
Discussing Sheldon in depth here may cause us to again run afoul of the moderators, for reasons which should be obvious. It also proves my point rather well.
Well, I do believe that stats should affect roleplaying (and it's a mark of a poor roleplayer if they don't.)
So how does one roleplay low strength, low con, or low dex outside of purely mechanical restrictions?
Why should raw mental metrics affect the soul or agency of my character?
Did every legendary warrior need high INT to master complex tactics or intricate sword play?
Well, I do believe that stats should affect roleplaying (and it's a mark of a poor roleplayer if they don't.) But I also believe that one of the big things that defines character (in the sense of roleplaying) are the dump stats, and there are many ways to play dump stats that will make unique and memorable characters.
To paraphrase Tolstoy, "Intelligent characters are all alike; every stupid character is stupid in his own way."
I couldn't agree more. Good roleplayers at least attempt to represent their characters' stats, both good and bad, in their behavior. If this calls for dumping a stat, or even two, for a certain concept, then by all means. Making the character someone memorable is what's important.
Good roleplayers can find a variety of ways to act out the same set of stats, no doubt, but playing with optimal stats is ultimately limiting if one is honest about what those stats actually represent. It's not the Stormwind fallacy, but rather a recognition that there is an interplay between the mechanics and the role-playing aspects of the game, and that if too much focus is put on the one half, the other will suffer.
Ah I see so if I was a level 20 fighter with 7 strength, then I should roleplay not being able to kill a CR 3 ogre because I am obviously too weak to attempt such a thing, even though my BAB alone would let me easily handle such a foe.
Well, I do believe that stats should affect roleplaying (and it's a mark of a poor roleplayer if they don't.)So how does one roleplay low strength, low con, or low dex outside of purely mechanical restrictions?
Low strength can simply mean you're complaining about how heavy your backpack is, or trying to avoid heavy manual labor ('I'll make the fire, while YOU get the water from the stream.") Low constitution means you tire easily and can continually be asking for a breather after exertion. ("Okay, yeah, we can go on to the next room. But let me just catch my breath first.")
I had a character a number of years ago who I role-played low constitution as "REALLY not a morning person." Didn't get up well unless there was an emergency and the adrenalin kicked in, always trying to find a decent supply of coffee and complaining bitterly about the lack in the field, et cetera. It seemed to work.
Why should raw mental metrics affect the soul or agency of my character?
I have no idea what this even means, but I suspect the answer is "yellow" or something equally vague and portentious.
Why should raw mental metrics affect the soul or agency of my character?
In some languages, "mind" and "soul" are actually the same word. German, for example, has only one word for this concept, "Geist" (which also means "spirit" and occasionally "ghost"). Why shouldn't your mental faculties be seen as at least a rough representation of your soul? What else are they there for?
As far as agency goes, we all know well enough that a person's choices in life are very much constrained by their mental faculties.
Ah I see so if I was a level 20 fighter with 7 strength, then I should roleplay not being able to kill a CR 3 ogre because I am obviously too weak to attempt such a thing, even though my BAB alone would let me easily handle such a foe.
No, but you might be talking about how the important thing is technique and not "brute strength" when discussing combat tactics. As you point out, you can kill an orc with your bare hands. I could easily see such a fighter sneering at low-level "overmuscled brutes" who don't understand "the true art that is fighting."
Or play it another way, because there are lots of ways to play dump stats.
Why should raw mental metrics affect the soul or agency of my character?In some languages, "mind" and "soul" are actually the same word. German, for example, has only one word for this concept, "Geist" (which also means "spirit" and occasionally "ghost"). Why shouldn't your mental faculties be seen as at least a rough representation of your soul? What else are they there for?
As far as agency goes, we all know well enough that a person's choices in life are very much constrained by their mental faculties.
The way I see it, INT is just your ability to retain, recall, and process information. Wisdom is effects how well you can interpret information and the accuracy of your intuition. Cha is the force of your personality or natural presence.
You don't need a high mental stat to make up clever ideas, these can just be the culmination of your experience. You don't need a high wisdom to be able to perceive your environment (perception), or even to be able to get a hunch (sense motive). And you most certainly don't need it to make good decisions (player agency). You don't need high cha to be skilled diplomat(diplomacy), to lie well (bluff), or even look pretty (disguise). You also most certainly don't need it to be a leader (leadership feat leadership score).
As much as we may avoid 7s, they are really nothing more than a -2 that can easily be overcome with experience. There is far more to your character than their stats. You can even infer that the 3 mental stats do not even convey all of consciousness. The players and the GM brings something to every PC and NPC.
Why should raw mental metrics affect the soul or agency of my character?In some languages, "mind" and "soul" are actually the same word. German, for example, has only one word for this concept, "Geist" (which also means "spirit" and occasionally "ghost"). Why shouldn't your mental faculties be seen as at least a rough representation of your soul? What else are they there for?
As far as agency goes, we all know well enough that a person's choices in life are very much constrained by their mental faculties.
The way I see it, INT is just your ability to retain, recall, and process information. Wisdom is effects how well you can interpret information and the accuracy of your intuition. Cha is the force of your personality or natural presence.
You don't need a high mental stat to make up clever ideas, these can just be the culmination of your experience.
That's what "recall" means. Everyone has experiences, but not everyone retains and recalls them well enough to apply them to new situations.
Why should raw mental metrics affect the soul or agency of my character?In some languages, "mind" and "soul" are actually the same word. German, for example, has only one word for this concept, "Geist" (which also means "spirit" and occasionally "ghost"). Why shouldn't your mental faculties be seen as at least a rough representation of your soul? What else are they there for?
As far as agency goes, we all know well enough that a person's choices in life are very much constrained by their mental faculties.
The way I see it, INT is just your ability to retain, recall, and process information. Wisdom is effects how well you can interpret information and the accuracy of your intuition. Cha is the force of your personality or natural presence.
You don't need a high mental stat to make up clever ideas, these can just be the culmination of your experience.
That's what "recall" means. Everyone has experiences, but not everyone retains and recalls them well enough to apply them to new situations.
And yet I knew people dumber than rocks who were state wrestling champions because of their technique and strategy, not their physical prowess.
You don't have to be able to consciously recall experiences to benefit from them.