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

[OB1]

That's not a reasonable assumption, though. I'm not sure if it actually says that anywhere, but there's no way that they could not expect you to put your ability boosts into your main stat as soon as possible. They certainly didn't balance anything around the assumption that a fighter would throw their +2 into Intelligence.

I'd say based on the hundreds of threads on these boards talking about how the CR and encounter building math breaks down around Tier 3, it is a very reasonable assumption.

Having a 20 in a combat stat is the equivalent of having a +3 weapon, and we know those bonus's are meant to make the game inherently easier for the player.

So by Tier 3, players who race to 20 have given themselves a huge bonus over those who didn't. But the game math doesn't assume this is what a player will do. That's the whole bounded accuracy thing.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

If there's not enough commonality between games to even say that fighters get more from Strength (or Dex) than they get from Int, then discussion is meaningless, and there's no point in these boards even existing.

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

What did you think I was talking about, when I said that a fighter would make a lot of Strength-based checks and a wizard would make a lot of checks where their Int was involved? Actually, don't answer that. Whatever is wrong with you, I don't want to know about it. You can go hang out with the rest of the trolls. Say hi to Tony for me.

 

[Corwin]

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION],

Quoting someone and then immediately putting them on ignore is very bad form. Since I cannot read what you just said, I'm going to assume it was more indefensible rudeness.

 

[SamWolfeIVI]

To be clear, *you* began this tet-a-tet by making the obviously contentious statement

This conversation is far from a tête-à-tête.
I would however prefer you go that route.
This far more resembles a public rant.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So by Tier 3, players who race to 20 have given themselves a huge bonus over those who didn't. But the game math doesn't assume this is what a player will do. That's the whole bounded accuracy thing.

It's still not a reasonable assumption that a given player won't raise their prime stat, though. If your fighter actually had a choice between a +3 sword and a +0 magical sword that granted +1 to Int/Wis/Cha checks, a lot of people would take the +3 sword. Like, a lot.

Given what we know about cognitive science and decision theory, it seems pretty unreasonable to assume that they would forgo increasing their prime stat. I mean, I'm not saying that the game math actually does make that assumption; I'm just saying that, if it does, then it's acting unreasonably by doing so.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Given what we know about cognitive science and decision theory, it seems pretty unreasonable to assume that they would forgo increasing their prime stat. I mean, I'm not saying that the game math actually does make that assumption; I'm just saying that, if it does, then it's acting unreasonably by doing so.

I'm sorry, but what we know about cognitive science is that people quite often do 1) act unreasonably, and 2) forgo the choice which decision analysis would indicate that they should take. That's a rabbit hole that we probably should avoid, but if we do, are you prepared to roll up your sleeves on this?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm sorry, but what we know about cognitive science is that people quite often do 1) act unreasonably, and 2) forgo the choice which decision analysis would indicate that they should take. That's a rabbit hole that we probably should avoid, but if we do, are you prepared to roll up your sleeves on this?

"Believing men would act in their own interest was not cynicism, it turned out, but sheerest optimism; in reality men do not meet so high a standard." A fair point. And of course, the freedom of choice means freedom to make the wrong choice.

I'd rather take this back to the original point of this thread, which (I think) is about making a character that doesn't fulfill its role in the group. If you join some players at level 10, and you present your level 10 Fighter/Champion with Strength/Dex/Int 14, are the other PCs going to welcome you to their party? Or are they going to question your competence, given your lack of physical ability relative to what they expect of their peers? Are they going to trust you to do your job, knowing fully that a failure on your part could mean that they all die? That's the in-character question which needs to be answered.

The out-of-character question, which some other people might care about, is will the other players be happy to see you bring this character to their table? Do they care if this character is not as good at its role, knowing that you could get them all killed by your decision to play a character that is intentionally less powerful than they expect it to be? Would they be happy to see you choose +1 to Int/Wis/Cha checks, over +3 to hit and damage?

There's a difference between a character that is fully optimized with every point in the right place and every decision analyzed thoroughly, and baseline expected competency. Bothering to max out your main stat is where I (personally) draw the line for baseline competency; if you don't even do that, or do something at least as obviously useful, then it's like you're not even trying. It's like you don't care at all, and that's not going to go over so well at some tables.

I'd be interested in hearing where other people draw that line, but I'm not sure if this is the right thread for that. Or it might be; it's been kind of all over the place.

 

[Lanliss]

"Believing men would act in their own interest was not cynicism, it turned out, but sheerest optimism; in reality men do not meet so high a standard." A fair point. And of course, the freedom of choice means freedom to make the wrong choice.

I'd rather take this back to the original point of this thread, which (I think) is about making a character that doesn't fulfill its role in the group. If you join some players at level 10, and you present your level 10 Fighter/Champion with Strength/Dex/Int 14, are the other PCs going to welcome you to their party? Or are they going to question your competence, given your lack of physical ability relative to what they expect of their peers? Are they going to trust you to do your job, knowing fully that a failure on your part could mean that they all die? That's the in-character question which needs to be answered.

The out-of-character question, which some other people might care about, is will the other players be happy to see you bring this character to their table? Do they care if this character is not as good at its role, knowing that you could get them all killed by your decision to play a character that is intentionally less powerful than they expect it to be? Would they be happy to see you choose +1 to Int/Wis/Cha checks, over +3 to hit and damage?

There's a difference between a character that is fully optimized with every point in the right place and every decision analyzed thoroughly, and baseline expected competency. Bothering to max out your main stat is where I (personally) draw the line for baseline competency; if you don't even do that, or do something at least as obviously useful, then it's like you're not even trying. It's like you don't care at all, and that's not going to go over so well at some tables.

I'd be interested in hearing where other people draw that line, but I'm not sure if this is the right thread for that. Or it might be; it's been kind of all over the place.

Don't have too much experience under my belt yet, but right now I would draw the line at intentionally harming the other party members. Not something like "intentionally" taking +2 instead of +3 in your main stat, but something like selling your parties souls to a hag.

 

[Mercule]

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.

No scholarly background. She took Outlander, IIRC. Either way, that's a non-remarkable Fighter.

Even the Wizard makes more attack rolls than Int skill checks. He also causes more saves of various stripes.

 

[Mistwell]

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION],

Quoting someone and then immediately putting them on ignore is very bad form. Since I cannot read what you just said, I'm going to assume it was more indefensible rudeness.

View attachment 78077

Here you go. And yeah, that's pretty rude.

If there's not enough commonality between games to even say that fighters get more from Strength (or Dex) than they get from Int, then discussion is meaningless, and there's no point in these boards even existing.

What did you think I was talking about, when I said that a fighter would make a lot of Strength-based checks and a wizard would make a lot of checks where their Int was involved? Actually, don't answer that. Whatever is wrong with you, I don't want to know about it. You can go hang out with the rest of the trolls. Say hi to Tony for me.