Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8379912" data-attributes="member: 6801228">So you mean as in goodly, saintly, kindly ect? No, I don't believe that the stats have anything to do with a good character. So, what do you mean by "how it is commonly used" because the word "good" is commonly used in about a dozen contexts, especially in gaming circles, especially when you get to different paradigms. Like I said, I'm using thinking in terms of meeting the expected baseline.Since you don't believe I can't prove it (likely because I have done so multiple times) I'll make this quick, especially since it is 1 AM and I am too tired. First reason I expect it is the baseline: Because of the basic math of the game. The standard array of stats has the highest stat as a 15. Baseline human is +1 in all stats, so their highest stat will be a 16. Proficiency bonus is a +2, meaning that the simplest and easiest character to make (A Human X with their prime stat as their highest) will have a 16 in their main stat. Second reason is the fairly well accepted math that has shown that a +5 at levels 1 thru 3 gives a 65% success rate against average ACs, DCs, ect, which then trails off and is bumped at various levels as we expect to get stat increases and proficiency increases. I've seen this mentioned in multiple places.Going back to the first reason, why would I expect that a character with a class would put their highest stat in their prime stat? Because the game tells you to. In the quick builds for every class it lists a primary stat which should be your highest. So, yes, a 16 in your prime stat is the expected baseline. You would have to either not put your highest stat in your prime, or actively choose a race that does not increase your prime stat to avoid it. Something the game subtly points to as not encouraged, not only from the quick builds, but also in the table that lists all of the ASIs for the various races, making them easy to reference, right in the same place that they demonstrate matching race and class to get your prime stats to 16 or 17.  So your explanation for why they felt someway is because they felt someway... In your mind are feelings utterly arbitrary and indicative of nothing? Because I don't understand how saying that their feelings are their feelings in anyway answers the question of why.No, I expect you to fight me tooth and nail and decry everything I say as a lie, a twisting of the truth or ignorance. But I hope you might actually listen to what I am saying. Would a +1 have made all the difference? Well, the game was 5 years ago and I didn't really make a log of every single roll ever made, so I can't say that with scientific accuracy. However, those two characters who had less than 16 in their primary attributes are the only two clerics and really the only two spellcasters I have seen in 9 years of this game to have this problem. Even other casters who missed quite often never felt so frustrating. To either me, or the other player. That +1 to hit and +1 to DCs and +1 spells prepared or known does make a difference. You can scoff at me all you want about how that can't possibly be true, and yet, two different characters with the exact same issue, years and tables apart, under two different DMs points to there being something to it.There weren't +1 items for cleric spell DCs at the time. I did end up with him having about 5 magic items to everyone elses two or three, and he still felt weaker than all of those other characters.You are assuming the items were giving him a +1 to spells, they weren't. And, maybe it is psychological more than mathematical, but two different people, years apart, at different tables with different DMs reporting the same psychological effect? Seems a stretch, unless there is something too it. And, considering that psychological effects are still real, at least real enough to move multi-million dollar enterprises, I wouldn't just dismiss them as something people should "get over" either.Third times the charm. Then what did you mean by saying "The baseline assumption should be 0." If you would explain yourself, this whole process could go a lot faster than me repeatedly asking you to answer the same question over and over again.Those are literally your words, from this post right here. Please Max, stop accusing me of fabricating things I can literally quote you saying. It is insulting.No, it doesn't change the flavor of them at all. No, it is not more realistic to lock them in to these bonuses.And can PCs learn the abilities of NPCs? No. Therefore just because it is a leanred ability doesn't mean everyone is capable of learning those abilities. Therefore, my previous answer stands. Some people are incapable of learning things that others can learn to do."With a slender body type" ie someone without a slender body type, who is born broader of shoulder or with a metabolism that leaves them husky can't learn it. So, exactly what I said. Yes, people can learn to be gymnasts and acrobats, but some people are simply not capable of the amount of flexibility they are required to learn.Sorry, but the feat doesn't require I get a teacher. And who says it can be learned at all. A lot of psychic stories involve it being something you are born with and must learn to use. A learned skill that is rooted in how you are born. Again.Actually I was referring the Dragon Hide feat, that says that the dragonborn who take it gain sharp retractable claws and tougher scales. Tell me, how did they learn to grow tougher scales than they were born with? What book did they study to pull that off? What did they learn to change their non-retractable claws into retractable ones, because that is a biological feature, you literally have to be born with that ability, that's why cats are one of the few species capable of retracting their claws, and most species aren't. It requires special muscles and a space to retract the claws into.Right, so how do you learn to be lucky? You are 100% confident that it is a learned skill, how do you learn it?Great, so even if the rules say Elves don't get a +2 to dex, and you say that means the rules are saying elves aren't graceful, you can recongize that is absurd and say that actually elves are graceful even without the +2 Dex. Rulings not rules Max, just like the game's mantra.</blockquote>

Verification