Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I'm really hating Constitution right now
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hillsy7" data-source="post: 7159827" data-attributes="member: 6689191"><p>Note I didn't say anything about other ways of dying, only "Not dying" being your only measure (And therefore, Not Dying being your primary or sole concern). Now that may be Your opinion and preference, and that's totally fine, but for a large % of other players of the game, having a few HP less ranks lower on their measure of concerns than having high social stats. If your only available method of interacting with challenges is to get into a HP whittling contest, you are being penalised. Fact. The fact you might have absolutely no problems with this, and none of the players do, and you all bounce merrily along kicking down doors and beating up hobos is fortuitous. Other people disagree, therefore your not being hampered does not apply equally to them.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You know that as soon as you take the player level into account when designing an encounter, by your definition you're cheating?</p><p>Or you've got new players who aren't totally hot on the rules so you lob them some easy pitches - cheating right?</p><p>What about players who want to try cinematic and narrative things in combat (I want to try and disguise myself as a skeleton using this pile of bones and parlay with the Skeleton hoard) rather than get as close to maximum DPR as possible - would giving them more options in encounters to do just that be cheating?</p><p></p><p>Look - if that's the way you roll, knock yourself out. The game is <strong><em>fundamentally </em></strong>designed otherwise.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But based on your own arguments, if they want to engage with the word as a low CON character with high stats in WIS, INT, and CHA - they are weak. Fun, but ultimately weak. It's a second rate choice, an error, because "violence is regrettable...but effective".</p><p></p><p>The argument initially posited was that every character had no choice BUT to take high CON. You added to that saying taking CON had no drawbacks. I made the point that for many people, having low social stats IS a drawback. Now you're saying the players are free to engage with the world as they want - well if they want their character to focus on engaging with the world on a social level, their characters need social stats to reflect that (inasmuch as they NEED stats to do or approach anything - you're hulking brute may well prefer narratively to talk rather than fight, but with 8 CHA, he's more likely to just be ignored to be fair). Wanting to engage with the world socially, and dumping social stats in order to pump Con <em>Is A Drawback</em> by definition.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I addressed that in a later comment - I'd warrant that if you've a 10% lower chance (in non-trivial, non-impossible) situations you wouldn't notice because people don't record this stuff. Besides, a Bard with 10 CHA and training in deception is going to destroy a 20 CHA Fighter in bluffing midgame anyway - in fact the game would not be significantly different if you removed everything except +4 and 0 stat mods and kept the proficiency bonus. Stats though, as I said, very loosely represent the type of person you character is, and the experience they've gained, which in turn informs how that person approaches challenges. The comparison of INT 10 to INT 15 may mean little in terms of dice rolling success, but it's massive in terms of character.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, you're power gaming. Which is totally fine and many people enjoy many games doing just that. As long as you've got a Wizard, a Druid and a Bard/Sorceror, you've got all the social pillars covered. Everyone pumps CON and DEX as their 2nd and 3rd stats and dumps the rest. Cool.</p><p></p><p>However, more character and narrative driven games are messier. The Fighter I WANT to play has 16 Charisma, and himself is a suave charmer in the Han Solo mould (He can mix it, but he's fundamentally a chancer and a charlatan). The Bard is a court Bard, and has 20 charisma. So now my character can't have any social play? Why not? It's what he does - He sees opportunity and tries to cut deals. Why wouldn't he engage using his Charisma? Just cos the Bard has a better stat? No chance - would Han Solo stand by and let someone else negotiate on his behalf?</p><p></p><p>Again I reference Critical Role: The party could have Scanlan do ALL the Social work. They don't. Percy does Diplomacy, Vex does Haggling, and Scanlan does BS......FFS Scanlan's Persuasion is +18! +18!!! Vex's is +9! But guess what, their character's don't work that way. Percy has 20 INT, Vex has 17 Charisma. They are going to engage with the world/story socially. So they do - they don't defer to Scanlan in every social situation because he has INSANE Charisma. Those stats aren't "wasted" in the slightest - they are fundamental pillars of the characters.</p><p></p><p>And it's a false dichotomy to say the only <strong>value </strong>of stats is only the number of CHA rolls Vs HP close shaves. That's your valuation of those stats (and you're entitled to it, because we all value things differently)</p><p></p><p>For what feels like the <u>Billionth </u>time: If you don't want to play the game that way, that's cool. Each to their own, you know, and that applies to the original post lamenting about homogeneous CON scores. But to categorically state that something is "Broken" because you have a narrow value of things is like announcing a screwdriver is "Useless" because you've been trying to bang in a nail and it just won't do it. Preferences aren't bad or wrong, especially not in a system like D&D which has such a broad scope and fanbase - and generally speaking people get to play the games they want to play because of it. What is badwrongfunning is saying one value system is fundamentally better because: Reasons.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hillsy7, post: 7159827, member: 6689191"] Note I didn't say anything about other ways of dying, only "Not dying" being your only measure (And therefore, Not Dying being your primary or sole concern). Now that may be Your opinion and preference, and that's totally fine, but for a large % of other players of the game, having a few HP less ranks lower on their measure of concerns than having high social stats. If your only available method of interacting with challenges is to get into a HP whittling contest, you are being penalised. Fact. The fact you might have absolutely no problems with this, and none of the players do, and you all bounce merrily along kicking down doors and beating up hobos is fortuitous. Other people disagree, therefore your not being hampered does not apply equally to them. You know that as soon as you take the player level into account when designing an encounter, by your definition you're cheating? Or you've got new players who aren't totally hot on the rules so you lob them some easy pitches - cheating right? What about players who want to try cinematic and narrative things in combat (I want to try and disguise myself as a skeleton using this pile of bones and parlay with the Skeleton hoard) rather than get as close to maximum DPR as possible - would giving them more options in encounters to do just that be cheating? Look - if that's the way you roll, knock yourself out. The game is [B][I]fundamentally [/I][/B]designed otherwise. But based on your own arguments, if they want to engage with the word as a low CON character with high stats in WIS, INT, and CHA - they are weak. Fun, but ultimately weak. It's a second rate choice, an error, because "violence is regrettable...but effective". The argument initially posited was that every character had no choice BUT to take high CON. You added to that saying taking CON had no drawbacks. I made the point that for many people, having low social stats IS a drawback. Now you're saying the players are free to engage with the world as they want - well if they want their character to focus on engaging with the world on a social level, their characters need social stats to reflect that (inasmuch as they NEED stats to do or approach anything - you're hulking brute may well prefer narratively to talk rather than fight, but with 8 CHA, he's more likely to just be ignored to be fair). Wanting to engage with the world socially, and dumping social stats in order to pump Con [I]Is A Drawback[/I] by definition. I addressed that in a later comment - I'd warrant that if you've a 10% lower chance (in non-trivial, non-impossible) situations you wouldn't notice because people don't record this stuff. Besides, a Bard with 10 CHA and training in deception is going to destroy a 20 CHA Fighter in bluffing midgame anyway - in fact the game would not be significantly different if you removed everything except +4 and 0 stat mods and kept the proficiency bonus. Stats though, as I said, very loosely represent the type of person you character is, and the experience they've gained, which in turn informs how that person approaches challenges. The comparison of INT 10 to INT 15 may mean little in terms of dice rolling success, but it's massive in terms of character. Again, you're power gaming. Which is totally fine and many people enjoy many games doing just that. As long as you've got a Wizard, a Druid and a Bard/Sorceror, you've got all the social pillars covered. Everyone pumps CON and DEX as their 2nd and 3rd stats and dumps the rest. Cool. However, more character and narrative driven games are messier. The Fighter I WANT to play has 16 Charisma, and himself is a suave charmer in the Han Solo mould (He can mix it, but he's fundamentally a chancer and a charlatan). The Bard is a court Bard, and has 20 charisma. So now my character can't have any social play? Why not? It's what he does - He sees opportunity and tries to cut deals. Why wouldn't he engage using his Charisma? Just cos the Bard has a better stat? No chance - would Han Solo stand by and let someone else negotiate on his behalf? Again I reference Critical Role: The party could have Scanlan do ALL the Social work. They don't. Percy does Diplomacy, Vex does Haggling, and Scanlan does BS......FFS Scanlan's Persuasion is +18! +18!!! Vex's is +9! But guess what, their character's don't work that way. Percy has 20 INT, Vex has 17 Charisma. They are going to engage with the world/story socially. So they do - they don't defer to Scanlan in every social situation because he has INSANE Charisma. Those stats aren't "wasted" in the slightest - they are fundamental pillars of the characters. And it's a false dichotomy to say the only [B]value [/B]of stats is only the number of CHA rolls Vs HP close shaves. That's your valuation of those stats (and you're entitled to it, because we all value things differently) For what feels like the [U]Billionth [/U]time: If you don't want to play the game that way, that's cool. Each to their own, you know, and that applies to the original post lamenting about homogeneous CON scores. But to categorically state that something is "Broken" because you have a narrow value of things is like announcing a screwdriver is "Useless" because you've been trying to bang in a nail and it just won't do it. Preferences aren't bad or wrong, especially not in a system like D&D which has such a broad scope and fanbase - and generally speaking people get to play the games they want to play because of it. What is badwrongfunning is saying one value system is fundamentally better because: Reasons. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I'm really hating Constitution right now
Top