Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Humanophile" data-source="post: 181090" data-attributes="member: 1049">OK, this is a total non-sequitor.  I could have a character in my party with a 3 INT, the game should not give him that many options.  Penalty stats are, well, penalties, and appreciable ones should bother a character.  In a way, this reminds me of the people who think that the fighter should be able to slot a 6 in CHA, but still "role-play" the witty, charming leader of a nation.Second, I find it ironic that we have a "clerics have too few skill points" turning so soon into "everyone is shorted skill points, but spellcasters and items can mitigate it somewhat".  Clerics are spellcasters too, and items are factored into characters at higher levels.  I do think that this latter fact is part of the reason skill points are as low as they are, though...Third, I partways agree that a couple more skill points would be nice, but a couple of caveats.  The person who plays a fighter with minned INT and CHA probably won't be looking into background or social skills, it's all skills that have "real" effect, such as tumble, the stealth and perception skills, maybe craft for an archer.  (As an aside, Shadowrun has a cool mechanic for this.  You have a certain number of "skill points that do something" varying on how highly you prioritize them, and then "skill points that do nothing" to round out your character.  I've been thinking about instituting a similar "everyone gets one more skill point per level, but it has to be spent on a craft, profession, or knowledge skill" rule.)  And no game balanced "if you play with good players" really is.  So the guy who plays the character who sits in the corner, polishing his weapons, and can talk about nothing more than killing things will just have a few more skill points for spot and tumble, not "solving" anything.Fourth, social skills alone do not measure when you can deal with people, it just depends on when you do.  Kings and presidents have advisors for all matters, and those people can get by on the social acumen of your average adventurer.  If a fighter points out that a plan is tactically unsound, it's as much so regardless of the fighter's charisma and diplomacy/bluff, and any employer/patron would realize this unless they had an ulterior motive.  You only have the face step forwards when you want to bargain for more money.  Which is like real life, and pretty balanced.  (The fighter are the man to look to in combat, the rogue when you have a tough trap, and the socialite when you want the right word in the right person's ear.  You'd no more want the barbarian to help out smooth-talking the guard than you would want him helping you attend a poisoned character.)  Of course, spellcasters throw all that out of whack in a fantasy game, but we all already know they can beat anything they put their minds to.And finally, as a personal preference point, part of the appeal of intelligence and being a human is skill points.  Nerf that, and those will have to be pumped up to compensate.  INT might, just might, work out fine if everyone gets +2 skill points, but in a world where everyone has disposable skill points, half the benefit of being human goes down the tubes.  And those INT penalties will be less like a hit to any other noncharisma stat and be more like ...well, charisma, without the enforced penalties from some rabid groups.</blockquote>

Verification