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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hillsy7" data-source="post: 7161095" data-attributes="member: 6689191">Sure - if that's the way you play the game, then cool. I mean honestly, it's totally valid - no snark, no sarcasm, no judgement, no nothing. Really. It doesn't put barriers through excessive role-play, people roll dice and get involved in stuff, and the more dice rolled = more nat 20s which everyone loves. And a good time is had by all....great!The entire argument I've been trying to make all along is that, for a decent chunk of people who play D&D, foregoing CON in order to boost their mental attributes so that they provide character validation to reinforce motivation, is not a "sub-optimal" choice. Sticking with the "Fighter and Sorcerer are confronted with a bogus point of Law" scenario.....In some games, you don't bother with the roll because the Sorceror is there and it's not your job.In some games, you roll anyway because, hey, 2 rolls is like advantage, right?In some games, you roll, but the GM assigns very different DCs based on your character's "experience"In some games, the GM says it's an auto-fail unless you can frame the roll in a way that better reflects the character's attributes (e.g you have 6 INT, you can't read)In some games, the player themselves doesn't roll because he thinks "My character wouldn't have a clue what he's on about"In some games, the player simply punches the guy in the face because, well, with 10 INT, WIS, and CHA and 18 STR, what else is he going to do?.....the point is, all these possible actions (and the hundreds more - that's the beauty of D&D) all put different valuations on the need and desirability of the mental stats. And they are all totally valid, depending on what type of game you want to play. And saying "Well, half of those are stupid because you could just......" is belittling to the people who play the game in precisely that way.....And ok, my defence of those alternate ways of playing may come across as "THIS IS THE ONE TRUE WAY OF PLAYING D&D!!!!".....and for that I apologise (forums, febrile atmospheres, incorrect context, and overkill are basically four cheeks of the same demonic arse). My intention is simply to fight back against the notion that these ways of playing the game are somehow pointless or lesser. They aren't - they are just as valid and power-gaming, kicking down doors, non-combat political intrigue, epic rags to riches narrative, or goofy who-give's-a-basilisk's-ass farce......and the player's priority of stats differ to.Which - looping back to the original post - is why I said that the poster should really be checking what type of game he and his players were wanting to play before knee-capping CON in the name of greater player diversity. 14+ Con as standard is almost necessary for some games.</blockquote>

Verification