D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Minigiant]

Or some other bloke who had equally gifted but didn't become famous. Your comparison is flawed as it implies the PCs are destined for greatness.

I didn't say anyone was destined for greatness.

What I said is Joe Average the Commoner won't make it to level 6. Only Harry Elite and Sandra Special can. And They could die on the path too. But Joe Average 100% will die if he don't retire by level 5.

No offense, but I have seen a level one wizard be taken out by a single hyena. A hyena! That is no more elite than a town guard. Which, by the way, I have seen a wizard get knocked out by one of those too!
I have watched two lizardfolk knock a group of five adventurers unconscious. (They were a little hurt, but still.) The point is, a 1st level PC is not elite.
Now 4th level, I would agree - they are on their way. At eighth, it's a done deal.

You are confusing level and potential.

The level 15 archmage started as a level 1 mage with 16 Intelligence. He was level 1 but had 16 INT.
16 INT is elite.

The basic common folk has 9, 10 and 11s before racials.
The eltit folk who become PCs have 16s, 15s, or 14s, before racials.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I didn't say anyone was destined for greatness.

That was the impression conveyed by using people who already made it as examples.

The basic common folk has 9, 10 and 11s before racials.
The eltit folk who become PCs have 16s, 15s, or 14s, before racials.

Yes, they're gifted. Not elite.

And at least in my game, NPCs with PC stats are not super uncommon. Sure, they're a minority, but still.

 

[Minigiant]

That was the impression conveyed by using people who already made it as examples.


Yes, they're gifted. Not elite.

And at least in my game, NPCs with PC stats are not super uncommon. Sure, they're a minority, but still.

Elite is the term D&D used back in 3e and 4e for their arrays.

Elite, Nonelite, and normal.

In 3e, 4e, and 5e, PCs are 2 steps above common folk of their race.

Special NPCs and sidekicks we're only one step above common folk.

The point is, if your PC was very frail or weak or dumb for his race, they would also be very agile, wise, or charismatic to counter it just out of the virtue of being a PC. Because PCs had 14s, 15s, 16s, 17s, and/or 18s

 

[Scott Christian]

I didn't say anyone was destined for greatness.

What I said is Joe Average the Commoner won't make it to level 6. Only Harry Elite and Sandra Special can. And They could die on the path too. But Joe Average 100% will die if he don't retire by level 5.


You are confusing level and potential.

The level 15 archmage started as a level 1 mage with 16 Intelligence. He was level 1 but had 16 INT.
16 INT is elite.

The basic common folk has 9, 10 and 11s before racials.
The eltit folk who become PCs have 16s, 15s, or 14s, before racials.

Thanks for clarifying, although, I must confess, I do not sculpt my NPCs that way. There are bouncers with 18 strength, librarians with 20 intelligence, con-men with 18 charisma, etc. But, I d get what you are saying, so thanks for clarifying.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Elite is the term D&D used back in 3e and 4e for their arrays.

Ah, I see.

The point is, if your PC was very frail or weak or dumb for his race, they would also be very agile, wise, or charismatic to counter it just out of the virtue of being a PC. Because PCs had 14s, 15s, 16s, 17s, and/or 18s

Is this still about the strength 8 orc wizard? I don't remember what we are talking about. If it is, it is not really a trad off. Ten is already basically giving up on doing anything useful with the stat, making it eight doesn't matter much, it's mostly flavour. But if you insist doing it so that you get to max your main stat beyond your species normally allowed levels, that's just min-maxing. Like if the player wanted to put the +2 from strength to somewhere else, but still not have int above 15 it would be different. Like perhaps having been runt of the litter in a macho orc society this weakling orc has become very observant and good at rereading moods of other, thus they put that +2 wisdom, so that they can be a wizard with good perception and insight. But that's not what anyone ever proposes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Thanks for clarifying, although, I must confess, I do not sculpt my NPCs that way. There are bouncers with 18 strength, librarians with 20 intelligence, con-men with 18 charisma, etc. But, I d get what you are saying, so thanks for clarifying.

Personally I wouldn't do that. To me such stats would indicate an exceptional individual and one (at least if human) who is already somewhat heroic (i.e. higher level.)

I actually have my starting minimum and maximum based stat generation system, and I use that as guideline for NPCs too, albeit with the assumption that most of them have less points in total than the PCs.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Because PCs in D&D now are all elite.

They're still chumps that will die in short order.

It's just that commoners are so poorly designed in every editions that they couldn't realistically survive day-to-day life just in general, especially not on a farm.

I doubt a commoner could live my life working at home at a computer and not die, much less on a farm filled with sharp or heavy objects, ornery horses, clumsy, man-crushing cattle, tiny pecking dinosaurs, delicious trash compactors made of bacon and or course, deadly, deadly cats.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Ultimately I would really want to see a discussion about how the game should be structured so that maxing your class' main stat wasn't always the obvious no-brainer choice. Even aside the species issue I find such homogeneity unfortunate.

You'd need to do at least two things:

1. Give every class enough options that don't require a to-hit roll the not working on that stat doesn't feel crippling. IE fighters need to have enough non-strength and non-dex maneuvers that you can fight well enough with only moderate numbers in those stats.

2. You need to give classes ways to use any stat, somehow. Which means there needs to be con, int, wis, and cha maneuvers for fighters.

(And spells and stuff for other classes)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You'd need to do at least two things:

1. Give every class enough options that don't require a to-hit roll the not working on that stat doesn't feel crippling. IE fighters need to have enough non-strength and non-dex maneuvers that you can fight well enough with only moderate numbers in those stats.

2. You need to give classes ways to use any stat, somehow. Which means there needs to be con, int, wis, and cha maneuvers for fighters.

(And spells and stuff for other classes)

I don't think it is absolutely necessary for all stats to be equally important for all classes, there just should be more flexibility. Fighter actually is one of the better cases, you can build a strength or dex fighter and either will work OK and they also tend to play at least a bit differently.

Analogous thing for casters that I once suggested was that casting stat wouldn't actually depend on the class, it would depend on the spell. (Though there could be some "finesse" spells that could use multiple stats.) But this would require a drastic redesign.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I don't think it is absolutely necessary for all stats to be equally important for all classes, there just should be more flexibility. Fighter actually is one of the better cases, you can build a strength or dex fighter and either will work OK and they also tend to play at least a bit differently.

Analogous thing for casters that I once suggested was that casting stat wouldn't actually depend on the class, it would depend on the spell. (Though there could be some "finesse" spells that could use multiple stats.) But this would require a drastic redesign.

Eh,

If barbarians are all strength-based (which I'm totally fine with), then maxing strength is always a no-brainer idea. You might be able to work out a weird build that can do okay with crappy strength, but that would either be an accidental or deliberate break in the design intent.

(Accident would be like discovering that rogue grapplers are sop awesome at grappling that not hitting with Sneak Attack isn't a problem, deliberate would be a Dervish barbarian who specifically uses dex instead of strength.)