Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Zsig" data-source="post: 8089136" data-attributes="member: 56809">It's a mixed bag for me.I had some really bad experiences with min-maxers on tables I DM/played, even lost a friend because this dude wouldn't stop pestering other players for not building/playing their characters optimally. So, today, every time I see the potential for that sort of stuff to creep up, I get a bit wary. All the tables I play have casual players or just players that don't care about making non-optimal decisions in favor of concept (we had, for instance, an Aerenal elf, that was a warlock with the undying pact, and he had a charisma score of 14, and he was totally fine with that... but the other dude couldn't accept it).Today, I'd be perfectly fine to get that character my player wanted to play (the aerenal warlock) and make it so that instead of getting a +1 to Int he'd get a +1 to Cha. Or maybe, on the next campaign we're about to start, if anyone decides to play a talenta halfling barbarian, to change the +1 Con from the stout halfling into +1 Str.Guess what I'm trying to say is that when it makes sense culturally on a case by case basis, I'm ok with that. Now, just offering &quot;blanks&quot; so that the players fills the way they want, just gives the opportunity for the min-maxers to resurface, and I'm not ok with that. Not to mention that some races were designed with being versatile part of what they are (half-elves) conceptually, and when you change that, they lose a lot of their appeal (at least to me). I know what people will say &quot;but half-elves are super popular&quot;, I know that, and it's by design, they are made to be versatile.So in order for that rule to be made right, they'd need to employ it right from the start, on the design stage for each race.That being said, these rules are very interesting to use as a tool when designing a setting, and I'll certainly keep them in mind whenever I decide to make one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Zsig, post: 8089136, member: 56809"] It's a mixed bag for me. I had some really bad experiences with min-maxers on tables I DM/played, even lost a friend because this dude wouldn't stop pestering other players for not building/playing their characters optimally. So, today, every time I see the potential for that sort of stuff to creep up, I get a bit wary. All the tables I play have casual players or just players that don't care about making non-optimal decisions in favor of concept (we had, for instance, an Aerenal elf, that was a warlock with the undying pact, and he had a charisma score of 14, and he was totally fine with that... but the other dude couldn't accept it). Today, I'd be perfectly fine to get that character my player wanted to play (the aerenal warlock) and make it so that instead of getting a +1 to Int he'd get a +1 to Cha. Or maybe, on the next campaign we're about to start, if anyone decides to play a talenta halfling barbarian, to change the +1 Con from the stout halfling into +1 Str. Guess what I'm trying to say is that when it makes sense culturally on a case by case basis, I'm ok with that. Now, just offering "blanks" so that the players fills the way they want, just gives the opportunity for the min-maxers to resurface, and I'm not ok with that. Not to mention that some races were designed with being versatile part of what they are (half-elves) conceptually, and when you change that, they lose a lot of their appeal (at least to me). I know what people will say "but half-elves are super popular", I know that, and it's by design, they are made to be versatile. So in order for that rule to be made right, they'd need to employ it right from the start, on the design stage for each race. That being said, these rules are very interesting to use as a tool when designing a setting, and I'll certainly keep them in mind whenever I decide to make one. [/QUOTE]

Verification