D&D 5E Characters are not their statistics and abilities

[The Crimson Binome]

Dunno. I'll grant that the Valenar blade master doesn't roll as many intelligence checks as the Wizard, but she rolls quite a few. She's got proficiency in smithing and animal handling, plus ancestor worship, so she's often the one who checks to see if she knows anything about weapons, tactics, critters, etc.

Sure, but like I said, taking a scholarly background is going to be an exception. If you build a character with a lot of Int-based skills, then you're going to make more Int-based checks than you would otherwise.

I would still wager that you make more checks with your attack stat than you make with your Int, though.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Still ...in my game. I'm pointing out that your assumptions are your own. To claim you are speaking for all tables is folly. And ill advised.

Also, are you trying to be demeaning and dismissive? Because that's bad form. Do you honestly believe those are the two most likely reasons a fighter will roll Intelligence checks?

If you're honestly trying to present a case that maybe the fighter will be making as many Int-based checks as they will be making with Strength or Dex, then I'm going to assume you're a troll and treat you accordingly. There's a significant degree of playstyle variation between tables, but that degree of variation would be so distant of an outlier as to not be worth consideration.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

I consider the notion of making a character purposefully inept to be in fundamental opposition to the co-operative nature of the game and also to the inherent concepts of heroism within the fantasy trope. To me, it's rude and inconsiderate to bring a character into a game that is incompetent and doesn't pull their weight as a team player.

But when calling a character inept many have a focus on combat.
But bringing a character that is adept doing other tasks ans at least capeble of keeping himselve out of truble might be something a adventuring party might consider.

 

[Willie the Duck]

You can say that they'll be making fewer Dex saves or Wisdom-based checks than they'll be making Strength-based checks, though. Even when you're talking about things that will come up fairly frequently for everyone, nothing compares to what you'll be doing with your attack stat in terms of frequency.

Granted, paladins are one of the better examples for having a lot of variety while remaining comparable in terms of efficiency, since they have one stat that can improve all of their saves and the saves of those nearby; but even then, there's generally very little reason to improve your Dex/Wis/Int directly, given that you get so much more out of Charisma.

Well, with my paladin above, and assuming point buy, putting a 13 modified to 14 instead of the 15 to 16 as starting Str, Cha and Con could turn the 8,8,8 in Dex, Int and Wis into 12,12,12, so there is an argument over efficiency. The example becomes more muddled if you are talking about (say) a ranger or barbarian or bard.

 

[Corwin]

If you're honestly trying to present a case that maybe the fighter will be making as many Int-based checks as they will be making with Strength or Dex, then I'm going to assume you're a troll and treat you accordingly.

Overtly ridiculous strawmen such as this should really come with warning labels! Did I ever say any such thing? Or even hint at such a ridiculous claim? Certainly not. Lest you can produce a quote?

To be clear, *you* began this tet-a-tet by making the obviously contentious statement, "And unless your fighter has a sage background, you might see a total of six or seven Intelligence checks over the course of twenty levels." That was you that said that. And you want to label *me* the troll? That's rich.

All I did was point out that such a statement can only be said to be true of your own games. Since that is all you are qualified to speak to. Certainly not *my* games. Where such a statement is clearly woefully ignorant and erroneous. Six or seven over 20 levels? How laughably implausible.

There's a significant degree of playstyle variation between tables, but that degree of variation would be so distant of an outlier as to not be worth consideration.

No. IMO, the only distant outliers not worth consideration are OneTrueWay propagandists who think their beliefs and philosophies apply to all players at all tables.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Overtly ridiculous strawmen such as this should really come with warning labels!

WARNING: May contain GMO straw, as well as conventional straw and straw dust. Do not use if you have had an alergic reaction to straw or straw-derived products in the past. Processed on equipment that may have been used to process nuts, tree nuts, alfalfa, and/or cattle.
FLAMABLE. Do not use this product near open flames or electrical devices.
AVERTISSEMENT: Peut contenir la paille des OGM, ainsi que la paille classique et de la poussière de paille. Ne pas utiliser si vous avez eu une réaction alergic à la paille ou des produits de paille dérivés dans le passé. Transformé sur les équipements qui peuvent avoir été utilisés pour traiter les noix, les noix, la luzerne, et / ou de bovins.
INFLAMMABLE. Ne pas utiliser ce produit près de flammes nues ou d'appareils électriques.
Chú ý: Có thể chứa rơm GMO, cũng như rơm thường và bụi rơm. Không sử dụng nếu bạn đã có một phản ứng alergic rơm hoặc các sản phẩm rơm có nguồn gốc từ trong quá khứ. Xử lý trên thiết bị mà có thể đã được sử dụng để xử lý các loại hạt, hạt cây, cỏ linh lăng, và / hoặc gia súc.
FLAMABLE. Không sử dụng sản phẩm này gần lửa hoặc các thiết bị điện.
ADVERTENCIA: Puede contener paja OGM, así como convencional paja y polvo de paja. No lo use si usted ha tenido una reacción alergica a la paja o paja productos derivados en el pasado. Procesado en equipos que pueden haber sido utilizados para procesar los frutos secos, nueces de árbol, alfalfa, y / o ganado.
FLAMABLE. No utilice este producto cerca de llamas o dispositivos eléctricos.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Overtly ridiculous strawmen such as this should really come with warning labels! Did I ever say any such thing? Or even hint at such a ridiculous claim? Certainly not. Lest you can produce a quote?

I said you might see six or seven. You could see ten times as many, and it would still be an order of magnitude less than the number of attack rolls you would make. If you're not arguing that the numbers are comparable, then you're not refuting my actual point, which is that your prime stat is used far more frequently than any other stats.

 

[jasper]

5th & 7th level spells like that became available at name level, so if you died at 1st, you probably stayed dead. Pretty rare item, but Monty Haul campaigns happend.

The DM had NPCs which could cast them. So did your dm limit these spells? And if your xp was games with no raises, do not consider than normal.
Rod of resurrection. Quick anyone with 1e DMG what is chance of getting one? And didn't some modules have a rod or raise dead scroll.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The DM had NPCs which could cast them. So did your dm limit these spells? And if your xp was games with no raises, do not consider than normal.

I don't consider anything about 1e AD&D 'normal,' 'normal' for you is what your DM did back in the day, and could have been anything. ;P
But, there were price lists for spellcasting services, and raise dead was well out of the price-range of 1st level PCs (at least, what they'd likely glean from typical 1st-dungeon-level monsters' treasure types - though, again, Monty Haul was a thing).
And there was the CON-based % chance you'd die anyway.

Rod of resurrection. Quick anyone with 1e DMG what is chance of getting one? And didn't some modules have a rod or raise dead scroll.

Rod/Staff/Wand not one of the more common results. You were a whole lot more likely to find a +1 longsword. That is, if you even got to the point of rolling for a magic item, in the first place.

 

[Corwin]

I said you might see six or seven.

Oh, I misunderstood your intent. I dind't realize you were just making vapidly meaningless random statements.

You could see ten times as many, and it would still be an order of magnitude less than the number of attack rolls you would make.

So now you are trying to bring attack rolls into what you originally claimed? And not even subtly. Tsk tsk.

If you're not arguing that the numbers are comparable, then you're not refuting my actual point...

I'm refuting more than just the (non-)point you (didn't) make. I'm refuting the entire concept of you making sweeping claims for all games of D&D being played.

...which is that your prime stat is used far more frequently than any other stats.

If only you had tried to make a statement anything like that...