Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 5884444">Sure, the guys who actually go and come up with the stuff to begin with are very creative, and highly intelligent.  Two factors I want to see stay in the D&D audience.  Thing in, much like people who NetDeck in MTG circles, follwing CharOp instructions is not hard, it is not creative.  It's no more creative than following the instructions on an Ikea desk.  I've CharOp'ed before, mostly because I was in games with more than two power-players already(that in my experience seems to be the most any game can handle).  Sure, some CharOping is highly creative because it's trying to figure out how to even be effective in a general sense with a unique idea.  But this is more a result of the fact that in D&D, the game is designed to make certain choices more favorable than others, like how you get a +2 proficiency with some weapons, and a +3 with others, even though there are no other bonuses for using that +2 weapon.This, IMO, is a major design flaw, and is one of the leading causes of CharOping.  If wanting to feel cool is always going to make you statistically less effective, then people are going to favor being effective over cool.  Either the two need to come together(such as weapon tiers instead of individual weapon stats, getting rid of variable proficiency numbers, math tax feats, etc..) or being "cool" needs to be just as effective as being "effective"(which would effectively eliminate the need for the latter.)I don't think that's a design D&D can ever achieve, as long as things need to get hit and be avoided...True, but I think it's a fairly unrealistic burden and would inevitably  just punish players for something they can't achieve no matter what.   You're gonna get a bad roll eventually.  I would agree that all classes should derive some tangible benefit from every stat.  But each class should emphasize only three of them as core.  IE:Melee get their primary bonuses from Str, Dex, Con.Casters get their primary bonuses from Int, Wis, Cha(in descending order defined by the class in question).Hybrids(Paladin's, Bards, Druids, ect..) would have a mix, such as Str, Dex, Int; Dex, Wis, Cha, etc...I think it's realistic that players can pull out three good stats with most stat-generation methods.  While benefits would be gained from having stats outside your primary triad, you wouldn't be punished for lacking those numbers, as the game knows probability is against you in having good stats in 5+/6 stats.Problematically, we'd have to develop some serious benefits for melee classes picking up mental stats.  A Wizard with a 16 str and a 14 dex and a 14 con, is going to get 100% of the benefits that melee also get from those scores, in addition to their extra SPD, higher spell limits, and so on from their mental stats.  A Fighter with a 16 int, 14 wis, and 14 con is going to(as the game stands now) get some minor bonuses to skills, but that's about it.  So melee classes either need to get double bonuses from their physical stats or they need some kind of new feature to get from mental scores.[begin thinking out loud]Given the power of Bo9S classes, the love for combat maneuvers among players, perhaps mental stats would determine the number and effectivness of combat maneuvers.  Still, I think requiring 4 or more good stats is pushing at the edges of probability. I agree, and I do this in my own games.  My encounters becomes more and  more tailored as the campaign goes on to what the PC's can do within the realm of what I need  them to do.  I even adjust things in the middle of encounters(I have very fudgy math).  After reading some discussion on other threads about giving out free  math feats(within reason), I've been considering doing so in my upcoming  game as a way to allow players to be "good" while focusing their  character design on what they want to do instead of what they have to do.</blockquote>

Verification