Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4984201" data-attributes="member: 4937">This is an entirely tangental issue.&nbsp; Saying this neither disagrees nor agrees with the points I've raised here.&nbsp; I can fully agree with &quot;I want characters to be combat balanced regardless of their roleplay&quot; without in the slightest changing my position.&nbsp; (In fact, I don't fully agree with it, but I'm very sympathetic to the concern and if I was allowed to agree or disagree in a 'fuzzy' way I'd say I 80% agreed with the statement.)&nbsp; If I can fully agree with something without any fear, how is it a point of argument against me?The statement also doesn't support the one you made that immediately proceeded it except in a limited way.&nbsp; We may or may not choose to tie roleplay to mechanics and class archetypes without really effecting their combat balance.&nbsp; Combat balance is probably the area of the game least effected by the personality of the character, and at least in 3e, int, wis, and chr only impact most character's combat ability in very indirect ways.&nbsp; It's not like 4e where you can use mental attributes almost interchangably with physical ones provided you are of a particular class, and conversely virtually all classses are 'forced' to particular builds emphasising one or the other attribute ('brawny' rogue vs. 'trickster' rogue, for example) (at least until we get builds for every attibute).Which is an odd statement to make considering how little the roleplaying influences the issue you raise.&nbsp; If you don't want to limit your mechanical effectiveness with a low attribute, you will need to play these classes but not other ones for far more tangible and unavoidable reasons than roleplaying.&nbsp; If you want to play Wizard, you are pretty much forced not to be Int 6 because the mechanics strongly enforce the flavor of wizard which is, &quot;You must be really smart to do this.&quot;&nbsp; If aesthetically you prefered that not to be true, your bone of contention would not seem at all to be with how you roleplayed Int 6.&nbsp; Afterall, if the rules allowed you to base your Wizard spells off of Wisdom or Strength, you could be a mighty wizard while simultaneously roleplaying your character in a way that conveyed 'not too bright upstairs'.So again, I'm not at all seeing the connection between what you say is the source of your disagreement with me and your disagreement with me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4984201, member: 4937"] This is an entirely tangental issue. Saying this neither disagrees nor agrees with the points I've raised here. I can fully agree with "I want characters to be combat balanced regardless of their roleplay" without in the slightest changing my position. (In fact, I don't fully agree with it, but I'm very sympathetic to the concern and if I was allowed to agree or disagree in a 'fuzzy' way I'd say I 80% agreed with the statement.) If I can fully agree with something without any fear, how is it a point of argument against me? The statement also doesn't support the one you made that immediately proceeded it except in a limited way. We may or may not choose to tie roleplay to mechanics and class archetypes without really effecting their combat balance. Combat balance is probably the area of the game least effected by the personality of the character, and at least in 3e, int, wis, and chr only impact most character's combat ability in very indirect ways. It's not like 4e where you can use mental attributes almost interchangably with physical ones provided you are of a particular class, and conversely virtually all classses are 'forced' to particular builds emphasising one or the other attribute ('brawny' rogue vs. 'trickster' rogue, for example) (at least until we get builds for every attibute). Which is an odd statement to make considering how little the roleplaying influences the issue you raise. If you don't want to limit your mechanical effectiveness with a low attribute, you will need to play these classes but not other ones for far more tangible and unavoidable reasons than roleplaying. If you want to play Wizard, you are pretty much forced not to be Int 6 because the mechanics strongly enforce the flavor of wizard which is, "You must be really smart to do this." If aesthetically you prefered that not to be true, your bone of contention would not seem at all to be with how you roleplayed Int 6. Afterall, if the rules allowed you to base your Wizard spells off of Wisdom or Strength, you could be a mighty wizard while simultaneously roleplaying your character in a way that conveyed 'not too bright upstairs'. So again, I'm not at all seeing the connection between what you say is the source of your disagreement with me and your disagreement with me. [/QUOTE]

Verification