Fighter to mage - the Str vs. Int/Cha trade-off is NOT equal

[Driddle]

(T)here is an in-character, non-metagaming reason for this, too. Half-Orcs are genetically predisposed toward being stronger, and not as bright ...

Mechanical balance in D&D revolves around combat, yes. That is only way to possibly compare apples to apples.

That said, I think that there is not necessity to hit the Half-Orc with the double whammy. If you are playing a Half-Orc as other than a melee specialist ....

A valid point, Torm, and right on the nose. Yes, the half-orc is designed as a package to be slightly uglier and dumber than the average. Gotcha; I agree.

But half-orc as a specific example aside ... I meant to address the underlying assumption in the DMG: That physical abilities in this game system are more valuable than non-physical abilities. (Nod to Rid.)

 

[Driddle]

With the exception of Henry's comment's ( ), which are TOTALLY off in left field, I'm actually a little disappointed at how reasonable everyone has been on this thread. I was halfway expecting catcalls about how silly I was being.

Not to say that I'm not silly. Because I am.

But thank you all (except Henry) for your thoughts. I'll be able to sleep soundly tonight.

 

[Negative Zero]

BAH! if it bothers you that much, add a DEX or CON penalty and you're all set!

 

[AuraSeer]

Strength, in an "Average Gaming Session" - as in, one that involves a good mix of combat, roleplaying, and other challenges - will modify more rolls than any other ability.

That's only true if you lump the entire party's rolls together, which makes no sense unless everyone is forced to be the same race. For a comparison like this to be worth anything, you need to consider each attribute of each PC separately.

In an "average gaming session," a wizard will affect a vastly higher percentage of rolls with his Intelligence than with his Strength. (Many of those rolls will be made by the DM, for saving throws, but they still depend on the caster's attribute.) Ditto for a sorcerer's Charisma. Many times, the average session won't require a mage to use his Strength stat at all.

I played a sorcerer from level 1 up to 20, and over his entire career, he made perhaps a dozen rolls that required his Strength score. Most of those were checks to escape from grapples; ranks in Escape Artist would have made them unnecessary. He attacked in melee exactly three times, total, and never in a serious combat. Encumbrance was no issue because the strong PCs carried all the heavy loot. Giving this character a Strength bonus would have been of precisely zero benefit, but a Charisma hit would have been a serious drawback.

Long story short, the importance of every attribute depends on your character class. For some characters Strength is the most important; for others, it's the least important; usually it falls someplace in between. There simply is no universal formula.

When somebody wants to play some suboptimal race/class combination, I've got a house rule to make it easier. As long as they pick a Medium race of LA +0, they may remove all positive and negative attribute modifiers, and use exactly what the pointbuy generates. This makes the half-orc mage an unusual but viable character choice, rather than an intentional self-screwage.

 

[Elric]

AuraSeer- can I play an Elan (XPH) in your campaign?

Silly examples like that aside, it's a great idea. Players will select their race such that the ability scores increased by their race matter more than the ones decreased by their race. Allowing players to play unusual race/classes by ignoring those scores is a great way to increase variety without increasing power.

 

[Torm]

As long as they pick a Medium race of LA +0, they may remove all positive and negative attribute modifiers, and use exactly what the pointbuy generates. This makes the half-orc mage an unusual but viable character choice, rather than an intentional self-screwage.

I like this idea! Seems like I've heard it somewhere before, though, and I'm trying to remember what sage, almost omniscient, source I saw it from last...

I guess great minds think alike. Probably mediocre ones, too. Wonder which we are.....

 

[Doug McCrae]

Strength is very important for fighters, barbarians, rangers (even archer rangers), paladins, rogues, clerics and monks. It's somewhat important for druids and bards, and not very useful for wizards and sorcerers.

 

[Klaus]

Strength is very important for fighters, barbarians, rangers (even archer rangers), paladins, rogues, clerics and monks. It's somewhat important for druids and bards, and not very useful for wizards and sorcerers.

I'd put clerics and rogues into the "somewhat important" group. Rogues rely more on Sneak Attack than Str for damage. Clerics can rely on spells to increase their combat power and damage output (divine might, bull's strength, etc).

 

[AuraSeer]

AuraSeer- can I play an Elan (XPH) in your campaign?

Sure! Unfortunately my world doesn't include psionics. You're a human with no bonus feat, no bonus skill points, and a favored class that you can't take levels in. Have fun.