|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say it's not so much a matter of "stupid by today's standards", but trying to apply an old mechanic to a very different game system.
Except there's a reason that the game systems today are very different. They're better, which is why they won.
And old mechanics like the one proposed are part of the reason why the newer systems are better. Getting rid of them made the game more fun. (That's not merely my judgment, but the marketplace's.)
Subjective and your opinion (which to me, is worthless).
By your logic McDonalds has the best food on the planet since they are the #1 fast food chain in the world. Avatar is the top grossing movie (of all time), do you think its the best? Because if you say it isn't then by your own (herd) logic you are wrong. BTW- Two Transformers movies are in the top 10 besides it (one is #7 and one is #10). I mean, all those people can't be wrong?
And if you disagree with these assessments then you are the stupid one (by your standards - using herd preferences as the deciding factor).
This is wholly a subjective issue of like or dislike that you are trying to bootstomp into a better vs. worse issue. The mods must be asleep on this one - but you really should stop already. You are coming off like a goon.
None of those ideas are stupid. They are wrong, but they did not turn stupid. The people who formulated them were basing them on what they knew.
... and the people who believe them today are basing them on.... what, exactly?
Because they should know a lot of things that weren't known then.
If the best information you have available to you suggests that the earth is flat, and you believe it to be flat, that's reasonable.
If the only way you could believe the earth to be flat is to ignore literally thousands of years of human knowlege,.... that's stupid.
Today, all of those ideas are stupid, precisely because today we know so much more than the people who formulated them did. Or we should. If we don't know more than those people today, we are stupid.
So does the four-humor theory of disease, geocentrism, the idea that the Earth is flat, and Aristotelian physics. That doesn't make those ideas not stupid by today's standards.
No, the ideas aren't stupid by ANY standards, they just happen to be the wrong answer to the question.
The OP stated something he considered a problem, roughly:
Rampant power gaming and class cherry picking is interfering with enjoyment of the game.
Then he posited a solution based upon methods used in the past.
He decided upon and constructed an organized solution to a problem.
Many people since have decided to poorly attack the idea, roughly:
That's dumb.
Rather than proposing a counter idea or a modification of the idea, the idea and the OP were attacked.
Continuing to restate that opinion does not move the converstion forward.
Others attacked his numbers, roughly:
That's dumb and here's a case where it is.
Those are better responses, they are attempting to interact with the concept - and in some cases did offer methods of modify the basic idea.
The concept of "Shed light, not heat" really isn't that hard.
There is no reason to be so polarized in your thought processes that you cannot accept that someone else has a different point of view than you do.
In this particular case, I disagree with the OP. That does not prevent me from considering his idea a proposing alternate ideas which may server his purpose better, such as:
If one or small level dips are a concern, there are perhaps other solutions, such as improving the benefit of Favored Class bonuses, but limiting them so that they do not begin to accumulate until after a character has obtained 5 (or some other number) levels in the class.
For my games, I dont see a reason to do this, but perhaps it is an alternate solution - reward the behavior you want to see as opposed to limit the behavior you dont want to see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of those ideas are stupid. They are wrong, but they did not turn stupid. The people who formulated them were basing them on what they knew.... and the people who believe them today are basing them on.... what, exactly?
Because they should know a lot of things that weren't known then.
If the best information you have available to you suggests that the earth is flat, and you believe it to be flat, that's reasonable.
If the only way you could believe the earth to be flat is to ignore literally thousands of years of human knowlege,.... that's stupid.
Today, all of those ideas are stupid, precisely because today we know so much more than the people who formulated them did. Or we should. If we don't know more than those people today, we are stupid.
I reject your comparison entirely.
The originally suggested rule does not work for me. It does not work for you. However I can conceive of people for whom it would bring a desired balancing factor to the game and therefor would work for them. In fact I can easily think of three people I know that would consider implementing it. It would be the right and correct rule for them.
Therefore it cannot be objectively wrong.
Subjectively wrong for the both of us, yes.
Objectively and provably wrong across the board such as the ideas you've presented in your argument. No.
- Torger
*edit* I can even conceive of people who would implement this rule on the ground that a fighter proficient in armor he's incapable of carrying is stilly. Your criteria for what makes an enjoyable (right) vs unenjoyable (wrong) addition to a game are not the same as everyone's. That's the very definition of subjective.
I do not think that improving the Favored Class bonus hampers players wanting to do interesting non-abusive things.
If I were to bring this idea to my table I might say something like:
"I would like to improve the value of the Favored Class bonus. At each level (or each level above 3, some other number) you can select two different of the favored class bonuses, such as +1 hp AND +1 skill point."
Nobody has had their cool idea made more difficult - feel free to dip if you want, but those who DON'T, will get some small extra perks.
Actually, given the power creep that new classes and archetypes have created, a little power creep for the single classed characters wouldn't be terrible.
Which is still amusing in the light of the many-times-pointed-out fact that in Pathfinder, Multiclassing is near-always a subpar option compared to staying single-classed, Prestige Classes are usually poorer quality options save SOMETIMES when they make you exceptionally good at a small number of limited scenarios, and all in all it's generally a weaker choice to not continue in a single class. Triply so with the addition of archetypes and hybrid classes.
Honestly even if I were of the mindset to want to limit mechanical options to reduce PC power, in Pathfinder that would take the form of encouraging multiclassing, not restricting or prohibiting it, for the vast majority of situations.
|
Which is still amusing in the light of the many-times-pointed-out fact that in Pathfinder, Multiclassing is near-always a subpar option compared to staying single-classed, Prestige Classes are usually poorer quality options save SOMETIMES when they make you exceptionally good at a small number of limited scenarios, and all in all it's generally a weaker choice to not continue in a single class. Triply so with the addition of archetypes and hybrid classes.
Honestly even if I were of the mindset to want to limit mechanical options to reduce PC power, in Pathfinder that would take the form of encouraging multiclassing, not restricting or prohibiting it, for the vast majority of situations.
Yeah, that's my thought too and why I consider the OP's idea to be one that doesn't meet his own goals.
Sure, I could multiclass 3 ways from sunday, but very few builds require such a thing and even they only require it so they can be useful at level 7 instead of level 19. (Prestige classes exempt, of course, since those always require shenanigans to make useful.) The rest require it to be useful at all (e.g. Cross-Blood Sorc 1 / Wizard [Admixture] 19)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my litmus test for if something is broken:
Is it more powerful than the Wizard or Cleric?
Yes? Then it is broken.
No? Then it is not broken.
Multiclassing MAY yield a design that is more powerful than the sum of the 2+ classes used to create it. This is almost never the case, however, and it's usually a one-trick pony that is godly at exactly one thing and suck at just about everything else.
Multiclassing USUALLY yields a design that is just about as powerful as a character of equivalent level of at least ONE of its base classes, but probably no more powerful; it's more of a specialization without losing power that's gained, vs the general versatility of going into a single base class.
Multiclassing EASILY can yield an awful, underpowered design that is basically just a giant waste of character levels.
Multiclassing NEVER yields anything as broken as a Wizard or Cleric. There is one glaring exception to this, and it's not even legal in Pathfinder, and wasn't even possible in 3.5 without your DM allowing access to literally every book with the D&D name attached to it: PUN-PUN.
Stat requirements won't stop powergaming. They'll just force players to play single classes, which defeats the entire purpose of a game that's about building your own unique character. Since nothing is more powerful than a lv20 Wizard or lv20 Cleric, your powergamers will just run to these classes if they absolutely want to "win" (which they probably will, anyway).
---
If you have requirements to enter into classes, and you have players rolling their stats, you're a jerk because they may roll bad stats and not be able to play the character they want to at all.
If you have requirements to enter into classes, and you have players choose their stats by point-buy, you're a jerk because you're forcing them to pay for stats they may never have wanted in the first place JUST to enter into the class they wish.
If you have requirements to enter into classes simply because you want players to play classes the way YOU think a class should be played (Barbarians and Paladins MUST be a melee beatsticks, Rogues MUST be Dex-mongers, etc.), then you're a jerk because you're punishing people who want to play interesting designs that are atypical.
In general, you're a jerk if you're shoving requirements down peoples' throats. The classes already have hidden stats requirements in the form of class abilities not functioning without sufficient Stats: low Con means little to no rounds of Rage; low Dex means low AC and VERY low AC if you're not allowed to wear armor; low Wis means no Ki or Grit; low Cha means no Panache and very weak Smites; low INT, WIS, or CHA means limited spellcasting for a lot of classes; etc., etc.
|
|
So does the four-humor theory of disease, geocentrism, the idea that the Earth is flat, and Aristotelian physics. That doesn't make those ideas not stupid by today's standards.
No, the ideas aren't stupid by ANY standards, they just happen to be the wrong answer to the question.
The OP stated something he considered a problem, roughly:
Rampant power gaming and class cherry picking is interfering with enjoyment of the game.
Then he posited a solution based upon methods used in the past.
He decided upon and constructed an organized solution to a problem.Many people since have decided to poorly attack the idea, roughly:
That's dumb.
Rather than proposing a counter idea or a modification of the idea, the idea and the OP were attacked.
Continuing to restate that opinion does not move the converstion forward.
Others attacked his numbers, roughly:
That's dumb and here's a case where it is.
Those are better responses, they are attempting to interact with the concept - and in some cases did offer methods of modify the basic idea.
The concept of "Shed light, not heat" really isn't that hard.
There is no reason to be so polarized in your thought processes that you cannot accept that someone else has a different point of view than you do.In this particular case, I disagree with the OP. That does not prevent me from considering his idea a proposing alternate ideas which may server his purpose better, such as:
If one or small level dips are a concern, there are perhaps other solutions, such as improving the benefit of Favored Class bonuses, but limiting them so that they do not begin to accumulate until after a character has obtained 5 (or some other number) levels in the class.
For my games, I dont see a reason to do this, but perhaps it is an alternate solution - reward the behavior you want to see as opposed to limit the behavior you dont want to see.
I think the reason he got such a profoundly negative response was how he framed the idea. It wasn't "power gaming is ruining the enjoyment of the game for my table" or even "power gaming is ruining my enjoyment of the game", it was "power gaming is ruining the game" as if every reasonable person should have the exact same outlook as him.
What then followed was a Rube Goldberg-esque solution that was complicated to implement, had severe negative side effects, and still didn't fix the problem. So here is an example of a post that I think could have generated a much more productive conversation:
"I have found that a minority of my players have been taking one level dips for purely mechanical reasons and its bumming me out. I prefer to run a more RP focused game, so when they make decisions that focus on pure mechanics, instead of decisions that make sense in game, I feal it detracts from the overall fun of the game. I've been considering proposing a rule that bans one level dips, characters can change careers if there is a good in-game reason for it but not dabble their toes in a class for an errant +1. Most of my players are hardcore RPers anyways, so it shouldn't be a big deal; I just had one or two that read the optimization board and decided to try to "beat the game". Do you guys see any major problem with this from a game play standpoint."
OPs idea is categorically dumb, because it actively worsens the problems it's supposed to fix.
It doesn't stop powergaming because a powergamer is going to make a straight classed character 95% of the time.
It doesn't improve roleplaying potential or player freedom, it effectively diminishes the number of flavor builds one can do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the reason he got such a profoundly negative response was how he framed the idea. It wasn't "power gaming is ruining the enjoyment of the game for my table" or even "power gaming is ruining my enjoyment of the game", it was "power gaming is ruining the game" as if every reasonable person should have the exact same outlook as him.
I dont know the OP, but anytime someone posts, there is a certain amount of implied "In My Opinion" tacked on the front of it. Nothing I read in the original post was terribly inflammatory, Just:
<Problem> <POV> <Solution>
His Solution is not one that I'd use, but neither is Gestalt characters (or any number of other ideas, just to pick an idea that I dont care for off the top of my head.)
His Point of View is a bit off base, but I certainly can see where he's coming from. I roll my eyes when I see nonsense like:
2 rogue (you could take poisoner rogue for theme points, but +1 vs. traps ain't terrible)
3 rogue
4 rogue
5 vanguard slayer (pick your favorite archetype, you can't afford the Survival skill)
6 sleepless detective (all those rogue levels let you qualify for pirate and detective both at level 6, take detective first for the extra +1 to Will)
7 inner sea pirate
8 martial artist monk (you could pick a different monk archetype, but you have to change your alignment first, inner sea pirate requires non-lawful)
9 snakebite striker brawler
10 martial artist monk
11 snakebite striker brawler (snakey feinting, not bad)
12 martial artist monk (+1 Stunning Fist DC, also a good capper)
<copied from some other thread>
His Problem, as you say is actually reasonable and one most people would agree to.
OPs idea is categorically dumb, because it actively worsens the problems it's supposed to fix.
But this kind of post is really just uncalled for.
"categorically dumb"?No. Wrong? Sure. Arbitrary? Sure.
Does it "actively worsen" the problem?
No, it just add a tiny bit of complexity without actually solving the problem. adding a little bit more the the maze traversed to game the system.
Gaming the OP's Stat Requirements really isn't that hard.
Using the OP's list, building the above mentioned nonsense build would have a requirement of (not taking into account prestige classes that he didn't list)
STR 13, DEX 11, CON 11, DEX 13, WIS 15 INT 9
Which really isn't that bad, the wisdom requirement is the only one that's even uncomfortable, and to me, if you're building such a tortured build just to stack benefits, having to make a small uncomfortable choice in character creation is not that bad of a penalty.
Is the concept so obnoxious that it would prevent me from playing in that campaign?
Nope, didn't prevent me from playing 1st edition with its constraining level limits on top of stat requirements.
Here's my litmus test for if something is broken:
Is it more powerful than the Wizard or Cleric?
Yes? Then it is broken.
No? Then it is not broken.
Hah! That is pretty much EXACTLY my mindset as well.
|
|
Before 3rd Edition, most, if not all, character classes demanded minimums in certain ability scores for a character to take them. I suggest these be reinstated. It helps preserve the integrity of what the class is supposed to be, and would be a good obstacle to power-gaming/system abuse.
Without further ado, my personal, rough suggestions as to what ability minimums I would require for the Pathfinder classes published to date (yes, of course I know it's kind of too late, but think of this as a model for the future, or home games of course):Antipaladin: STR 11, CHA 15
Fighter: STR 11, DEX 11
Gunslinger: DEX 15, INT 9, WIS 13
An Antipaladin needs STR and CHA only? Why not WIS for his spells?
Why not make it STR 15, DEX 15? Why can't I have a STR of 10 and a Dex of 18 and be a fighter that uses daggers?
What if I make a Mysterious Stranger Gunslinger? Then Wis doesn't mean jack to me.
Those are just three of the limits I see issue with.
There is no reason to 'preserve the integrity of what the class is supposed to be' and if you think you need to do this because of extreme power gaming/system abuse then... you need to get a new gaming group, not fundamentally change the system.
How is a fighter "supposed" to be strong? None of their class abilities scale with Strength. In fact, their armor training benefits from high Dex.
|
|
How is a fighter "supposed" to be strong? None of their class abilities scale with Strength. In fact, their armor training benefits from high Dex.Tradition.
And hitting things scales with strength.
Except when it scales with Dex instead!
For three feats and 5k gold, I can have Dex to damage TWF with any one-handed slashing weapon there is. Is there anyone who trades feats for capability better than the Fighter?
Yeah. Yeah. I get it. And even agree.
You can build fighters that don't need strength. (Though frankly he's going to suck hard for a bunch of levels until you can get that Agile weapon. And wouldn't you need two of them, which will cost quite a bit more than 5K? Or is there some other trick?) Therefore the OP is the most evil of all evil things ever.
And frankly, your fighter is still going to suck without an 11 strength, because he won't be able to carry the armor that he can use without penalty with his armor training. But I'm sure there's an answer for that too.
Mostly tradition and I needed something to say in between the other points. :)
I've said again and again that I don't actually like the idea and wouldn't use it in PF, but that I also don't think it's as bad as the attacks make it out to be.
My guess is that he was using Slashing Grace for dex-to-damage, which only works with one-handed slashing weapons, then using Effortless Lace to treat them as light so he could use Weapon Finesse and reduce the TWF penalties. Effortless Lace is 2.5k per weapon, so 5k total.
"exploits"
Hey this thing is actually pretty sweet. Use this on the sawtoothe sabres and TWF becomes real.
Good find, will be using.
EDIT: wrong thread, but still relevant.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because anti-paladins, like paladins, cast with Charisma.
Because fighters are supposed to be strong. And easy to qualify for, so the stats are low. They're sort of the default. (At least that's how I understood the AD&D limits.)
Archetypes are a problem. Mysterious Stranger isn't as bad as some of the full caster archetypes that swap out casting stats. Obviously the solution is to allow archetypes to swap out attribute limits as well.
I do agree that I doubt this approach will work to curb power gaming or even thematically weird builds, but I don't have anything against a game where the classes actually do have something they're "supposed to be". Turning game mechanics into actual things in the world rather than...
Yeah, I made a mistake on the antipaladin, but I stand on the Fighter and Gunslinger. As I said, if I go with a dex based fighter I could have a str of 7 and still do the same damage.
And no, it won't curb powergaming, it will just focus it. Instead of making a Dex based fighter as I want to, I will just go the cookie cutter STR based one and max out my STR. Actually, if I do it right I'll do even more damage than I could pull off with my Dex build because you can't use Dex with a scythe... STR 18 human means STR 20, pump all my attribute bonuses into STR, take all the right feats and welcome to my 19-20/x6 crit scythe. Even if I don't crit I'm still doing more damage than my Dex build would have.
Because, I'll be honest... when you reduce my character to just stats as this 'rule' does, that's when I start powergaming because that's all that's left for me to do when you kill my concepts that don't fit the cookie cutter mold.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The answer is always no.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have any real problem with it. It was just something I hadn't even heard of because I hadn't bought the book that came out a month or so ago.I'm honestly surprised that it hasn't made more of a splash than it did. When Slashing Grace dropped it seemed like there were a ton of posts about Dex to Damage TWF (mostly Sawtooth Sabres), now that it's actually realistic and downright easy... nothing.
The fact that it came in a Player Companion and was banned-at-release in PFS (grumble grumble) probably had a lot to do with that. You'd think the capacity for Drizz't jokes would've helped a bit.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose it's worth mentioning that someone else's comment to me about this thread is that there's a great deal of "frame of reference" disparity going on here - the pedigree, background, and length of one's gaming career can all have an impact on just how one feels about the prospect of ability score minimums.
Well, that someone else would be wrong, then.
Since I've played D&D variants in five different decades, and I thought the idea was terrible, even back when it was relatively new.1st Edition characters were already cookie-cutter clones of each other, having zero customisable class features (except spells known, cos, you know, MAAAAAAGic). Enforced stat minimums were just one more roadblock, in the way of trying to create a believable individual, or emulate a character from history or fiction.
"No sickly warrior-wizard monarch of a decadent almost-human kingdom, keeping himself alive with copious drug use FOR YOU! I, the GM, decree he must have a positive Con modifier. Oh, yes, and I racial-capped both his classes at level 6, for 'play balance', just for good measure!"
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yet somehow, we managed to play all sorts of different, memorable characters within those limits. Or at least I and the people I played with did. Builds were cookie-cutter, but characters weren't.
And a 7 is hardly a real con limit, or even a positive modifier. Nor was 6/6 a racial limit for fighter/magic-users in the actual rules, except for half-elves with particular stats.
But why must builds be cookie-cutter? Because that's easier for the lazy GM? That's really the only reason to enforce cookie-cutter characters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yet somehow, we managed to play all sorts of different, memorable characters within those limits. Or at least I and the people I played with did. Builds were cookie-cutter, but characters weren't.But why must builds be cookie-cutter? Because that's easier for the lazy GM? That's really the only reason to enforce cookie-cutter characters.Simplicity?
Cutting down on the power-gaming and the focus on build mechanics over actually playing the game? Locking down all of the features and possibilities in character build mechanics removes creativity and improvisation during play?The build game is one of the biggest attractions to PF/3.x for some people. It drives me away. I quite like actually playing the game and I get sucked into the build game, but it mostly frustrates me.
Builds aren't characters. You equate them again in that last line and I almost missed it, because in a game like PF, it's so easy to think of them as the same thing.
Stormwind fallacy.
Also, surely with fewer mechanical options, character build mechanics are even more locked down. By your own logic a game with fewer mechanical options should remove creativity and improv during play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But why must builds be cookie-cutter? Because that's easier for the lazy GM? That's really the only reason to enforce cookie-cutter characters.
The phrase "Lazy GM" really grinds my gears. The laziest of GMs still has exponentially more work to do than a player. If they want to impose limits that make the work more manageable for them that's their prerogative.
Not playing and running a game without those limits is on the flip side the player's prerogative.
- Torger
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I want to promote creativity, so I remove options from the game!"
Yeah... That makes sense...
No. Things like "A feat exists for this, therefore without the feat it, it can't be done". It moves the emphasis from doing things in game to preparing the right build beforehand.
This is not relevant to the thread. The OP and subsequent posts are talking about the introduction of new rules that limit options, not the removal of limitations to increase options. Stat prereqs to limit options are just like feats to limit options - they force certain builds. thus, it seems odd that you defend them.
Pathfinder does indeed have (serious) issues around pretending to be simulationist when it's actually gamist - but again, not really relevant here. You're probably also better off abandoning the system and going for a retroclone or narrative game if that grinds your gears too much, anyway.
If the options are all defined, but you don't let people use them, you're right. But that's not what I'm talking about.
What exactly is your contribution to this thread then? OP is explicitly wanting to limit options to 'reduce powergaming'. You yourself mention this. This thread is about limiting options by restricting build choices via stat prereqs.
Follow this thread backward. It's almost the reverse Stormwind: You can't roleplay unless you have mechanics behind it. Cookie cutter builds == cookie cutter characters. Which simply isn't true.
You're right, giving access to more builds doesn't mean roleplay will get any better. However, that wasn't the argument you were giving. Your argument is a standard stormwind:
"Cutting down on the power-gaming and the focus on build mechanics over actually playing the game? Locking down all of the features and possibilities in character build mechanics removes creativity and improvisation during play? "
IE focus on build mechanics removes creativity during play, which is basically the definition of stormwind.
When I look up the thread, I don't see people saying they can't roleplay with a cookie-cutter build: that would indeed be reverse stormwind. I see people saying that the cookie cutter builds limit their ability to represent a particular character concept mechanically.
For example, it isn't possible to play a stereotypical clumsy, bumbling wizard given the OP's restrictions and have the mechanics match the roleplay. If that was what you wanted to play you're out of luck, sorry - dextrous wizards only.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yet somehow, we managed to play all sorts of different, memorable characters within those limits. Or at least I and the people I played with did. Builds were cookie-cutter, but characters weren't.
There are many different personalities one can play, given the same statline, but at some point, you have to acknowledge that personality, and modus operandi of a character are informed and shaped by those stats, and you have a problem when the two don't match.
An example from the OP would be the INT requirement on a Rogue; why is that there? Because he sees the Rogue as 'the skills guy'?
The Rogue is always going to be a 'skills guy', by virtue of the class having a base of 8 skill points/level; it's explicit in the class writeup. There's no need to reinforce this with an INT barrier. A Rogue with 8 INT will have 7 skill points, 7 INT will net him 6 skill points, 7 if he's human, back up to 8 if he uses favored class to top up. He still qualifies as a skills guy, regardless of his INT, he still has 3, 4 times as many ranks to spend as the average Fighter/Cleric/Sorcerer. You could drop his INT to 3, the 'village idiot' level, and he'd still have more ranks than Joe Fighter.
I usually prefer to keep my PCs' INT up, so it wouldn't normally affect me, but that should be a matter of personal choice, if and only if, it matches the concept I am building toward. I shouldn't be forced to.
An INT threshold prevents the creation of Rogues who are street kids with no education, alcoholics who've destroyed their memory, goons who drifted into the shady underworld because they weren't very bright, and could be taken advantage of.
How about 'Donny' the dock-worker, used to box, 'coulda been a contender!', till he threw that fight, then he couldn't get booked. Fought in illegal bouts, where there were no timeouts and anything goes. Now he's a punch-drunk has-been, reduced to taking whatever work's offered on the waterfront each morning, and doesn't care if it's legal.
He can still do his job okay, because it's second nature, he can still pilot a boat, he still knows everyone who's anyone on the East Side, can recognise gang colours, can read when a situation's going to get nasty, and can tell you the best places to sell hooky goods. But he can't read for no more than a few lines at a time, not like he used to, cos the words just start movin around and crowdin him out, and he can't smell right with his broken nose to do the cooking which he enjoyed with his Momma, and he don't go to choir no more like he usedta, when Padre said he sang like an angel, before his throat got crushed by a lucky punch, and before the whiskey gave him that dry cough he can't shake. He usedta write poetry to his girl, but she upped and ran when his face got mashed, so he burnt it and never talks about her. All his old hobbies and interests, they fell by the wayside, they belong to another person, a naive kid who died in a pool of blood on a sawdust floor five years ago.
How about it? Can I play Donny?
No, cos he gotta have INT 11. Redo it all over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to point out that the ability score minimums given in the OP actually ban one of my favorite character concepts: she was a Drunken Master/Sensei Monk who dipped a level of Oracle for charisma-to-ac. She put dexterity as her lowest stat and was, of course, terrible at dexterity based things like Acrobatics and Stealth; with AC and Initiative being based on charisma, however, she was basically able to Jack Sparrow out of the way of anything trying to hit her. She was also suave as hell, which a more conventional Monk wouldn't have been able to do.
This character would be impossible under the OP's parameters.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, it isn't possible to play a stereotypical clumsy, bumbling wizard given the OP's restrictions and have the mechanics match the roleplay. If that was what you wanted to play you're out of luck, sorry - dextrous wizards only.
Fat Freddie 'Five-Bellies', a morbidly obese conjurer, who has become so accustomed to having unseen servants do everything for him, that the weight just piled on, and he has to use clairvoyance to aim at the lavatory.
He usually wears a bemused and forlorn expression on his syrup-glazed face, and huffs, puffs, and complains at every exertion, declaring he's about to die, despite the fact his legs barely move, as he's carried along via magical flight.
How about Fat Freddie?
NOOOOOO! Minimum Dex requirement! Back to the drawing board!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, it isn't possible to play a stereotypical clumsy, bumbling wizard given the OP's restrictions and have the mechanics match the roleplay. If that was what you wanted to play you're out of luck, sorry - dextrous wizards only.Fat Freddie 'Five-Bellies', a morbidly obese conjurer, who has become so accustomed to having unseen servants do everything for him, that the weight just piled on, and he has to use clairvoyance to aim at the lavatory.
He usually wears a bemused and forlorn expression on his syrup-glazed face, and huffs, puffs, and complains at every exertion, declaring he's about to die, despite the fact his legs barely move, as he's carried along via magical flight.
How about Fat Freddie?
NOOOOOO! Minimum Dex requirement! Back to the drawing board!
"filthy powergamer"