Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="lichmaster" data-source="post: 8573717" data-attributes="member: 6683330">I was using the term &quot;disfigured&quot; to indicate a potential in game explanation for an exceptionally low cha score. It could also be due to the character being impossibly obnoxious, or whatever, it really doesn't matter.10 is average simply because it doesn't give any bonus or malus, there's no coincidence. Ordinary people shouldn't have a bonus or a penalty because they are, well, average. Better then average people get a mod bonus, resulting in higher chances of success, and vice versa for lower than average. Int scores lower than 3 indicate animal like intelligence, and around 5 could be reached by primates or particularly brilliant animals (heralds mounts and similar). Even a char with 7 int would be severely impaired by these standards.What were once racial bonuses to attributes (now no longer part of the game), were included to give both a mechanical and in game description of better than average human. In a5e that is partially recovered by the background bonus, which explains why a character from that background can perform slightly better than average. Of course, if the said character starts with a lower than average, that modifier only puts it &quot;on par&quot;. Instead, if the character started already better than average, the additional modifier coming from the background would put it in the &quot;elite&quot; tier.Honestly, I don't see a points for further discussions here: you're proposing a system which is heavily different from what's there, tried to justify the reasoning behind it, and coming up with something that personally I don't think makes sense from a numeric or gaming pov (results in characters way too boring or extreme that very few players would like to play). Let's agree to disagree and call it a day.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="lichmaster, post: 8573717, member: 6683330"] I was using the term "disfigured" to indicate a potential in game explanation for an exceptionally low cha score. It could also be due to the character being impossibly obnoxious, or whatever, it really doesn't matter. 10 is average simply because it doesn't give any bonus or malus, there's no coincidence. Ordinary people shouldn't have a bonus or a penalty because they are, well, average. Better then average people get a mod bonus, resulting in higher chances of success, and vice versa for lower than average. Int scores lower than 3 indicate animal like intelligence, and around 5 could be reached by primates or particularly brilliant animals (heralds mounts and similar). Even a char with 7 int would be severely impaired by these standards. What were once racial bonuses to attributes (now no longer part of the game), were included to give both a mechanical and in game description of better than average human. In a5e that is partially recovered by the background bonus, which explains why a character from that background can perform slightly better than average. Of course, if the said character starts with a lower than average, that modifier only puts it "on par". Instead, if the character started already better than average, the additional modifier coming from the background would put it in the "elite" tier. Honestly, I don't see a points for further discussions here: you're proposing a system which is heavily different from what's there, tried to justify the reasoning behind it, and coming up with something that personally I don't think makes sense from a numeric or gaming pov (results in characters way too boring or extreme that very few players would like to play). Let's agree to disagree and call it a day. [/QUOTE]

Verification