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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="n00b f00" data-source="post: 6793930" data-attributes="member: 6795700">I guess this example sorta cuts to what we were talking about when it comes to literary characters. I don't think Robin Hood is any more than a lvl 4 character. It's been a bit since I read one of the books, and I hardly watch the movies on the reg. But while he wins some tournies and is pretty chill with a bow. I don't imagine him shooting dragons 120 feet away, flying, in the eye, every time. His specific tourney based skills in this system can easily be written off, to me, as double proficiency performance. That's what a +9 possibly at 4? He's going to win a lot against opponents that have a +3, which is what his opponents usually had. To me he was always better than other mundane people, not supernaturally good.The other part of that is more meta which I think is the more important part of the discussion right. Some people think that fictional characters need to be min maxed, that way they can be as successful in a normal game as they are in a scripted story. Which to me is folly. Those characters are represented oftentimes as barely succeeding at their encounters, which to me means that they roll unusually well. Even if he makes most of his attack rolls Conan can't have 20 strength, because I don't think Conan can choke an elephant to death with his hands. I think where you fall on that divide is sorta telling of how you generally feel about this subject in a bunch of ways.</blockquote>

Verification