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

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm not totally sure, he's a mess of contradictions. But we roll stats and he wanted to play a fighter so the 7 went to INT. He doesn't complain about it, I find it annoying when he doesn't seem to be pulling his weight at the table outside of combat situations where he is a beast admittedly. I just find it puzzling when we spend a half hour trying to plan out how to accomplish something and he sits there and acts like he can't give us his two cents.

Some people find it fun to be a different person occasionally. I might do exactly the same thing as your brother. The whole time your tactical discussion is happening, I'd be thinking, "Hur hur hur, that's a pretty rock."

It would get old eventually, but could be fun for a while.

In terms of the Eight Kinds of Fun, this would be Fantasy.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not totally sure, he's a mess of contradictions. But we roll stats and he wanted to play a fighter so the 7 went to INT. He doesn't complain about it, I find it annoying when he doesn't seem to be pulling his weight at the table outside of combat situations where he is a beast admittedly. I just find it puzzling when we spend a half hour trying to plan out how to accomplish something and he sits there and acts like he can't give us his two cents.

Personally, I wouldn't find that puzzling at all: he's playing his character in character. (one thing he might want to try now and then is a roll-under mechanic; once per idea he tries to roll under his Int on a d20 and if he succeeds then his character managed to think of it and he can present his idea)

If I've got a low stat wandering around looking for a place to hide I'll often drop it into Wisdom, just so I can do crazy things now and then (and thus get things moving) when I get bored with all the planning and talking.

Lan-"roll-under can be an extremely useful mechanic in many situations provided the game system sticks mostly within the 3-18 stat range"-efan

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If I've got a low stat wandering around looking for a place to hide I'll often drop it into Wisdom, just so I can do crazy things now and then (and thus get things moving) when I get bored with all the planning and talking.

On the flip-side, I might be entirely put off from playing certain character classes, if I'm not feeling up to the RP challenge. If I just want to relax and take things as they come, instead of throwing everything I have into playing a super-brain, then I'm more likely to play a fighter or ranger instead of a wizard or cleric.

It was much worse in Pathfinder, though, where spellcasters would inevitably end up with a 30 or higher in one stat. Playing an Intelligence of 30 is an entirely different experience from playing Charisma 30.

 

[Lanefan]

It was much worse in Pathfinder, though, where spellcasters would inevitably end up with a 30 or higher in one stat. Playing an Intelligence of 30 is an entirely different experience from playing Charisma 30.

Heh...not for me, as I'd likely prove utterly incapable of playing either one.

 

[TwoSix]

There is a fine line, here. You don't want "Simple Jack" (Tropic Thunder). You also need to respect player choices. But I think that (for some people) there is a certain lack of respect for other parts of the game when people dump stats because there is a lack of any concrete mechanical disadvantages without thinking about what it really means. If a person wants to be the brains and strategic planner for the party, perhaps they shouldn't choose an 8 intelligence.

I don't really agree, but after the "Geniuses with Int 5" thread a few months back, it's not something I want to get into (again), believe me.

 

[smbakeresq]

It actually played very well, and you would set up attacks and defenses to mitigate the bad ones but also you could try a high risk because you "knew" that you could get lucky on it. It encourages risk taking, which D&D needs more of TBH.

People complain about randomness but its what makes games. What they really complain about is the time they got screwed, ask anyone and they remember all the fails but none of the 20's. Its human nature.

I also think a lot of this comes from new players. I played 1st edition when it came out, the deadliness was amazing. It was simply impossible to get through 1st level without someone dying, as you went up the save or dies where always around, not to mention level drains, etc. The later editions had this also, but toned down in some cases, in others turned up to 11. How about Dragotha in Age of Worms? A male wyrm red dragon dracolich with death wind breath, 22d10 (Dc44 save for half) of negative energy that blows away large or smaller creatures (no save) knocking them prone, creatures killed are disintegrated, and BTW clings to you so you take half damage next round also? In addition, if killed, you arise as a dread wraith one round later?

While fun, it was over the top some.


The whole key is to get players to play as their characters would act, not as a military simulation. As DM you have to reward that heavily, sometimes with a raise dead for reckless but in character play. Otherwise the table becomes filled with the raging barbarian who decides its too risky to attack something, the cleric of life who shows no mercy, the evil hating neutrals, the good paladins that slaughter prisoners, the ranger who sacrifices his animal companion at will, the 8 wisdom thieves who act like professional safe crackers and not reckless thieves, etc.

Otherwise no build causes problems.

 

[smbakeresq]

I'm not totally sure, he's a mess of contradictions. But we roll stats and he wanted to play a fighter so the 7 went to INT. He doesn't complain about it, I find it annoying when he doesn't seem to be pulling his weight at the table outside of combat situations where he is a beast admittedly. I just find it puzzling when we spend a half hour trying to plan out how to accomplish something and he sits there and acts like he can't give us his two cents.

First off, if the group took half an hour trying to plan something I would roll a wondering encounter every 5 minutes after the first 5 minutes. Move along!!!! That's what emails are for.

Second, he can put in his piece, but it should be something direct and straight forward with an occasional stroke of genius. 7 Int is Forrest Gump.



For this reason we roll scores. The ability by method is forcing balance on players for no reason, the DM can easily balance out stuff. I get the need for it with AL, but outside of that it makes no sense. The game was different then, but in the greatest adventure of all time, Against the Giants, here are the pre-generated ability scores, as an example:

S D C I W CHR
10 15 16 16 12 13 wizard
12 18 15 14 11 15 rogue
16 12 16 10 18 17 cleric
15 17 18 14 16 16 ranger
16 17 15 18 17 12 Wizard!!


The rest the characters were along the same lines, and at that time I remember looking at them and said "No was they rolled with these with 4d6 (drop lowest.) That's the characters they gave to people to play at the tournament. Now to me those are hero's, and the DM can balance those easy with a little effort.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The whole key is to get players to play as their characters would act, not as a military simulation. As DM you have to reward that heavily, sometimes with a raise dead for reckless but in character play. Otherwise the table becomes filled with the raging barbarian who decides its too risky to attack something, the cleric of life who shows no mercy, the evil hating neutrals, the good paladins that slaughter prisoners, the ranger who sacrifices his animal companion at will, the 8 wisdom thieves who act like professional safe crackers and not reckless thieves, etc.

Otherwise no build causes problems.

When it comes to risk-taking, I find that the opposite is true: you have to supply reasons to the characters to act in non-cautious ways. Otherwise it becomes like Shadowrun, the game where PCs routinely risk their lives for a month's rent, a.k.a. cognitive dissonance galore.

In a casual game where roleplaying doesn't happen much and players aren't concentrating on acting as character advocates (i.e. "what would Ralph want to do here?"), it's much easier to persuade players to make a PC stick his head in a mysterious hole in the ground just to see what happens. But no sane human being would actually behave that way, because sane human beings don't expect to reincarnate immediately with a new set of stats and all relationships intact if "killed."

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

First off, if the group took half an hour trying to plan something I would roll a wondering encounter every 5 minutes after the first 5 minutes. Move along!!!! That's what emails are for.

Second, he can put in his piece, but it should be something direct and straight forward with an occasional stroke of genius. 7 Int is Forrest Gump.

Well if parts of the game are there to challenge the players, rather than just challenging the scores on the character sheets or their theatre chops then some players are pretty much going to be left out of the game depending on the mental scores of the character. Parts involving solving puzzles, riddles, etc. And nobody in my group is emailing each other about what to do in the game, game stuff is for game night so sometimes when they hit a block they have to think it out as players. A 7 INT may be stupid or uneducated, but could also have moments of brilliance. Its quite easy to rationalize in game. In any event I realize my approach to playing D&D is not the more modern storytelling approach.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*