Even Steven Array

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's a great game! I like that kind of stuff. The issue is, you're not really giving up much or anything thereof by playing a combat-focused character. There are several low-level items in AV alone (for instance) that pretty much make linguist superfluous. For that matter, many characters get to pick a free language; you can often cover most languages without linguist.

Any DM I know, if you dramatically try to save the day by communicating and roleplaying, they're going to let you do that regardless of minor details like feats that you have. A good bit of roleplaying is going to be worth more that any stat on paper - and you can get those stats cheaply too.

Finally in which game would failing to know the language be "you die (no save)?" Seriously, that's just a pretty killer DM.

I'm not saying roleplaying's worthless and combat is all that counts, I'm just trying to be honest here and my impression is that for roleplay stats&feats rarely matter, and so you should pick most stats&feats for combat purposes. It's an intentional design choice to make it hard to trade-off combat prowess for role-playing skill. WotC succeeded; it's generally unwise to try and gain out-of-combat advantage with combat-oriented stats and vice versa.

This isn't an absolute, but it's common enough to conclude a general principle.

Linguist is a trap ;-).

Maybe you need to play with a higher grade of DMs, lol. I don't mean that too seriously but essentially this argument is the same as someone assuming that if they have a character weak in combat ability that the DM will be nice to them and only throw weaker monsters at them. By that logic Weapon Expertise is no more valuable than Linguist and in fact it shouldn't matter at all what feats you take because the DM will never challenge your character to be the best, he'll just let you slide with whatever you have.

More realistically of course DMs generally aren't interested in playing out doomsday scenarios with their players where lack of a specific skill, feat, or level of combat prowess spells instant and irrevocable failure. Instead DMs generally throw a mix of challenges at a party where in some cases one thing is helpful and in another case a different thing is helpful.

The linguist may avoid combat and gain treasure through other means at times. The combat specialist will likely slog through the combat encounter and may achieve the same (or better, or worse) rewards in the long run. Thus we see that Weapon Expertise, Linguist, Skill Focus, a high starting primary ability score, a more diverse set of ability scores, etc are all essentially equally viable options in principle. Some games will in fact value one or another more or less in all probability but a really good DM will not reward one path excessively and punish others unless his players are only interested in one subset of the game.

 

[Nifft]

Maybe you need to play with a higher grade of DMs, lol. I don't mean that too seriously but essentially this argument is the same as someone assuming that if they have a character weak in combat ability that the DM will be nice to them and only throw weaker monsters at them. By that logic Weapon Expertise is no more valuable than Linguist and in fact it shouldn't matter at all what feats you take because the DM will never challenge your character to be the best, he'll just let you slide with whatever you have.

In my experience, it's a sad truth that, despite the fact that DMs have utter power over every aspect of the game, and could customize all of it to suit their players (or their play-style), most only actually customize only a few things.

For many DMs, crafting custom critters is a chore, so they go with what WotC has published. Thus, the mechanical difficulty of monsters is often standardized.

On the other hand, social encounters have few such pre-made templates.

These two dimensions of challenge are technically equally customizable, but D&D discourages innovation in one of them, and requires it in the other. So: in practice, they tend to be unequal.

- - -

IMHO, Linguist isn't a trap. That overstates the case. IMHO, Linguist is a hint to the DM: "this is the kind of spotlight time my character would like to receive".

Cheers, -- N

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Linguist is *potentially* a trap. It's nice that you speak Common, Elven, Dwarven, Goblin, Giant and Infernal, but these are bug creatures with their own language -- "Squeamish" -- and to you it just sounds like licorice whips falling into lava.

 

[Turtlejay]

DM's have been doing this kind of thing for years. Mandating point buys or other stat generation methods. They also choose which books you can use, eliminating classes, races powers, feats, and other options.

This is all part of a DM's perogative. Whether he does it to maintain balance or because he wants to set a tone (I'm the boss), it has been done and will continue to be done.

As long as your stat arrays take into account both A and V shaped classes, I see no problems.

Jay

 

[Herschel]

Nope.

Excellent counter-argument, you're clearly worth my attention.

Nobody said they were. I'm trying to help you figure out a counter-example, because I'm a sporting sort of guy.

Once more: good luck.

-- N

Yes, you did:

Again, I'm open to counterexamples.

Name-calling doesn't qualify as an argument, let alone a counterexample.

Good luck, -- N

So take your passive-agressive trolling and try understanding basic concepts. I pointed out a general example you gave that refutes your assertion about a "feat tax". I've no reason to sit and write out numerous characters because either you won't or can't understand it.

 

[keterys]

Herchel. You said '"feat tax" garbage.' and Nifft said name-calling wasn't helpful. You didn't call him a name, but you did call something a name.

And not in a particularly helpful way. You're also accusing someone of trolling, as far as I can tell because they don't agree with you.

You don't have to believe it's a feat tax. It bugs me when people talk about music or software "piracy" when I'm pretty sure it's not "robbery on the high sea" but people pick names for new concepts that resonate with their argument and somehow "feat tax" was chosen. You can't really make an argument against the language because tax doesn't fit - I mean, what, that'll make it switch to feat theft? Or possibly feat decimation - another word that no longer bears resemblance to its intention.

So if you want a counterexample to Nifft, you need to show feats (and more than 3 for any one particular character) that are more valuable than Expertise in a mathematically demonstrable way. I actually listed several above that are comparable, though I imagine no character will have more than three of them. But it's a start, hmm?

 

[Nifft]

LoL (...) your "feat tax" garbage.

It's obvious you won't listen to anyone who doesn't agree with you as you don't even acknowledge/understand what "viable" means.

(...) try understanding basic concepts. (...) either you won't or can't understand it.

I'm not partial to this sort of toe-inside-the-rules incivility.

Insults aren't counter-arguments, and being wrong about rules minutiae isn't worth you getting so steamed. You're wrong, you're rude about it, and I'm done talking to you.

Ciao, -- N

 

[eamon]

For many DMs, crafting custom critters is a chore, so they go with what WotC has published. Thus, the mechanical difficulty of monsters is often standardized.

On the other hand, social encounters have few such pre-made templates.

These two dimensions of challenge are technically equally customizable, but D&D discourages innovation in one of them, and requires it in the other. So: in practice, they tend to be unequal.

- - -

IMHO, Linguist isn't a trap. That overstates the case. IMHO, Linguist is a hint to the DM: "this is the kind of spotlight time my character would like to receive".

This is exactly what I meant ;-)

The issue with the availability of combat vs. non-combat templates and DM laziness is a little more subtle than just the amount of work, however. It's also about balance: In combat, D&D is finely balanced. There's a real expectation that a certain level party can deal with a certain level threat regardless of party composition and threat (only an expectation, not a guarantee, of course). This creates a frame of reference within which we can judge power. A small power shift can still be statistically significant because the rest is fairly precisely balanced.

On the other hand, out-of-combat, even if the DM has a phenomenal sense of balance and honesty, there simply is much much more inherent variability. It's very hard to find an effect that matters significantly due to this noise - and this noise pretty much forces a DM to tailor the story somewhat to the PC's. Not that this is bad thing, but it means that the notion of balance is entirely different in combat than out of combat - so different that you are encouraged not to mix the two.

On a more specific level, linguist happens to be reproducible (even overshadowed) by items such as the Gem of Colloquy (level 2 speak+understand), Ioun Stone of Perfect Language (level 22 understand and effectively speak all languages), Reading spectacles (level 2, read any language!), Polyglot Gem (level 6, wondrous so no slot, full fluency incl. writing for one language), Stylus of the Translator (level 7, write one language).

Now, maybe it's a shame that it's so cheap to be able to play universal translator, but a feat is a high price to pay compared to a set of gems of colloquy and some reading spectacles. And if your shtik is languages, well, you probably want these items anyhow, just for even more...

 

[Dan'L]

FWIW, personally I have MUCH more control over what feats I take in comparison to what items I end up with, and costs considerably less, too. Linguist is extremely more reliable than getting three separate gems, etc.

Playing in a "wish list" game is no more reliable than playing in a game where a DM values combat over RP or vice-versa. So it all comes down to knowing what kind of game is played at your own table. What is really useful in one may not be so much in another.

As for the OP question, I would consider that while an array with a top stat of 15 could certainly be "playable," you'll probably find that this guarantees limiting race/class combos to only those with a stat bump in the primary. In this way, it would be more limiting than freeing to player builds.

-Dan'L

 

[eamon]

FWIW, personally I have MUCH more control over what feats I take in comparison to what items I end up with, and costs considerably less, too. Linguist is extremely more reliable than getting three separate gems, etc.

It's also reliably less attractive: unlike linguist, a simple pair of 2nd level spectacles will let you at least read all languages - sure you'll need more than that, eventually, but it's a good start.

Playing in a "wish list" game is no more reliable than playing in a game where a DM values combat over RP or vice-versa. So it all comes down to knowing what kind of game is played at your own table. What is really useful in one may not be so much in another.

Being second level items, they'll be spare change in late heroic and later - you can try to acquire them by buying them. Certainly by paragon, I presume you've come across a large number of cities, towns and villages and will have manages to acquire a few low-level items - particularly since these items (unlike most other AV items) aren't actually so specialized as to only be useful to adventurers. If you're in a game where you can't buy items, then indeed you'll need to look further. I don't know how common that is; FWIW I've never played or DM'd a game where that was the case (and the absence of any sort of magic-item market leads to consistency issues; what happens to all the items people sell?).

In any case, if you cannot get the items, linguist is the only means (I know of) to achieve the goal of mastering multiple languages, and as such would retain some value. For the reasons outline in earlier posts, I believe that it's inherent in the D&D system (and intentionally so) that small out-of-combat boosts aren't something you should be trading with combat benefits, so I still think linguist is a poor feat, even if the aforementioned unusability of magic items holds. Of course, that's in general - to each his own!