D&D 5E A simple questions for Power Gamers, Optimizers, and Min-Maxers.

[dave2008]

Eliminate how? Not compared to other games.

Well you would have to provide what games you want to compare it against. Regardless, as I have mentioned you should discuss this with CapnZapp and/or Hemlock, or read some of their threads or posts. They can build you a PC or group (and do it in many different ways I might add) that will accomplish the job. I only DM and don't have players that behave like that, so it is not my strong suit (that is why I started this thread after all). Ask the experts, not me They regularly press the I win button through good builds and tactics.

 

[dave2008]

The tough part is trying to build a fun game around it. Maybe some kind of dynastic thing where you know the PC is going to die sooner or later (as soon as a fight breaks out) but you're trying to ensure that your offspring will someday be in a better position than you were at their age.

Or revenge based. You have to get revenge before you die - like the movie Crank (and others)

 

[dave2008]

You could make a still-fun version of 5E that didn't have any attack rolls or damage rolls. All you need is fractional HP and a way to calculate the expected value of an attack (so you can reduce the HP by the correct fraction). There would still be randomness in the form of saving throws and skill checks (Athletics especially), and eliminating that would be more difficult, but I can imagine ways to do it (especially leveraging information-hiding). Then you're left with a game where only decisions exist, not die-rolling: do I attack the Chasme or try to grapple it first? Do I hide and bide my time until nightfall, knowing that reinforcements might arrive but I'll have more success at night, or do I attack the guards right now?

That actually sounds kinda fun.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

It's also why I refuse to play almost all low-Int characters--because I usually can't stand roleplaying a simpleton and making suboptimal decisions. (The exception is certain kinds of hermit Moon Druids who don't talk very much and behave more like animals than humans, and rage-filled antisocial BBEG-wannabe necromancers for whom being simultaneously dimwitted and arrogant is funny to me.) Mental stats are extremely important to my fun because they control how much I like and respect the PC that I'm playing. A PC whose player dislikes him is usually headed for trouble, unless the player also finds the PC amusing.

It's not exactly a good thing; it's not entirely a bad thing; but it is definitely an observation about a playstyle.

Why should a player with a low INT PC be forced to not contribute as a player at the game table? His PC already has mechanical deficiencies due to that low INT, but now he's expected to not play his character the best way he can in order to accomplish his goal? Does any other low stat make a player feel like he has to knowingly make bad gaming decisions or not contribute at the table? "Oh Bill the Elf only has a 7 INT so I will just keep this good plan to myself and not really engage myself at the table with my fellow players who are trying to figure out a way around an obstacle so we can complete our goal...". He's already a minus to INT based rolls, but I don't expect a player to not be involved in planning or what not. Maybe the PC is just not educated, or is stupid but has a lot of cunning, whatever. But as a DM I'm not going to expect player to play sub-optimally.

 

[smbakeresq]

That actually sounds kinda fun.

There is a war game from many years ago, Storm over Arnhem, that did exactly that in a different way. You had chits with numbers on them that correlated to a IIRC 2d6dice roll, except you choose when to play them and they were limited in number just like the range of 2d6 rolls. So you could choose a perfect roll this time, but then later had to play a terrible roll. You mitigate randomness by choosing when to be very lucky and when to get screwed. The rolls were opposed in the same way by the other player. It worked out ok

 

[Caliban]

I mainly play point buy in 5e. The lowest Int you can have is an 8, and that's only slightly below average. It doesn't mean your retarded or a barely verbal idiot.

It just means you are a bit slow and probably bad at math. You may not even come off as slow, but rather as someone who makes bad decisions quickly.

Also keep in mind that Int score only rates one kind of intelligence (generally considered memory/math/logic skills). You may still have a high social intelligence (Charisma) or be able to make good decisions based on intuition and empathy (Wisdom).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why should a player with a low INT PC be forced to not contribute as a player at the game table? His PC already has mechanical deficiencies due to that low INT, but now he's expected to not play his character the best way he can in order to accomplish his goal? Does any other low stat make a player feel like he has to knowingly make bad gaming decisions or not contribute at the table?

There's Charisma, for one. Most people would consider it bad form if you play your Charisma 4 half-orc barbarian as a smooth-talking con man, even if you accept the -3 to checks.

When it comes to Intelligence (or Wisdom), most of the traits associated with the stat aren't even things you would roll for, so you can get away with behavior that's even more out-of-line than that. The mechanical deficiencies are insufficient to describe the in-game reality associated with what those stats mean.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That actually sounds kinda fun.

Honestly, that's how I play 5E already. I "see" the probability curves, not the individual die rolls. So critical hits and high or low damage rolls, for example, barely register on my consciousness. I'm way more conscious of battlefield geometry (distance between individuals, size of tunnels, which terrain is rough, where the chokepoints are) than I am of attack rolls.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Why should a player with a low INT PC be forced to not contribute as a player at the game table? His PC already has mechanical deficiencies due to that low INT, but now he's expected to not play his character the best way he can in order to accomplish his goal? Does any other low stat make a player feel like he has to knowingly make bad gaming decisions or not contribute at the table? "Oh Bill the Elf only has a 7 INT so I will just keep this good plan to myself and not really engage myself at the table with my fellow players who are trying to figure out a way around an obstacle so we can complete our goal...". He's already a minus to INT based rolls, but I don't expect a player to not be involved in planning or what not. Maybe the PC is just not educated, or is stupid but has a lot of cunning, whatever. But as a DM I'm not going to expect player to play sub-optimally.

Where did "forced" come from?

I like to roleplay my PCs, and I like to play in a sophisticated way with intelligent tactics. Therefore I like playing PCs with high Int. Where does the "forcing" come from?

And to answer your question, I also roleplay Wisdom and Charisma to the best of my ability.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Where did "forced" come from?

I like to roleplay my PCs, and I like to play in a sophisticated way with intelligent tactics. Therefore I like playing PCs with high Int. Where does the "forcing" come from?

And to answer your question, I also roleplay Wisdom and Charisma to the best of my ability.

Its just a phrase I wouldn’t get too hung up on it like I think a brute squad enforces it at the able. I role play my PC as well but when me and my fellow players are planning actions or whatnot I don't purposely hold back from engaging the game due to a PC being below average intelligence. If I as a player have a pretty good idea of what the best possible course of action is to get around an obstacle I know the people I play with would want to slap me if I talked them into something I knew was a bad idea and it screwed everything up.