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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Voadam" data-source="post: 8057718" data-attributes="member: 2209">How so?I'm advocating mechanical playstyle variability to be able to match variable playstyle preferences. Ideally most any concept would have an accompanying option to match their mechanical playstyle preference. So a smart character concept could be a difficult to play resource management intensive class with lots of little bits, or a mechanically easy to run one.I'm linking specifically similar character concepts to different styles of mechanical play. A fighter who has an expanded crit range and does big static bonuses is mechanically simple. One who has lots of expendable points to resource manage and spend on different optins and situational powers and modifiers is mechanically complex. Both are warrior character concepts that appeal to different playstyle preferences. So I'd say go with a house rule for an int based mechanically simpler sorcerer or warlock chassis instead of wizard if you want a mechanically simple smart guy spellcaster.It is just an artefact of D&D evolution that int in D&D generally only goes for wizard with high complexity and (at some mid to high level) great power. I'm also all for saying play your character as smart as you want for your concept regardless of your stats. Let the int dictate or guide your roleplay if you want, or let it simply dictate the mechanical numbers for your int-linked mechanics rolls as you prefer. If you want a smart character roleplay concept with a mechanical low int build that is easy to justify if you want to.</blockquote>

Verification