Low ability scores -- more fun?

[Garthanos]

Wisdom as we tend understand it is a Jewish concept (although the Buddist concept is compatible). The Greeks didn't understand 'wisdom' to mean what we generally mean by 'wisdom' - although the Socratic school seemed to want to pull Greek culture in that differing direction (and Socrates got himself executed for his trouble)..

The game systems definition of wisdom ... focuses somewhat on perception (which is often in real world definitions the pervue of intellect) though it also incorporates concepts of discipline (when seen as an aspect of will). Which do not seem that incongruous with making some bad decisions...

Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
As for the rest of it...I'd say that is more about role-playing then mechanics.

We emphasize elements like liberal use of the DM's best friend on page 42 of the DMG ... so.... Every player is trying to find tricks and triggers in the environment the DM defines which gets there characters benefits. So yea the players can by role playing and planning get some real oomph.

However there is a lot of tricks featured in the mechanics... almost every martial forced move in the game is a deception exploiting the fog of war and I have my players describe how they apply it to this scene(though occasionally they can have it just be a coincidental happening too). In other words there are a lot of abilities that trick your enemy in to doing what you want them to do ... and quite a few of them are meat and drink for the Fighter but also the Warlord and the Rogue.

Focusing on those will build a character whos battle techniques feel like Odysseus even if your imagination doesnt always come up with that hoorah improvisation, the core element is defined in game terms.

I dearly want to try a Tactical Warlord.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Aye that it would, thank you, tis one of my favorite archetypes...

Combat engineer sounds interesting what's the definition?

Combat Engineers are the guys who design siege engines, battlements, trenches, tunnels, mobile bridges & so forth...and help figure out how to destroy or circumvent the enemies' versions of the same.

Think of it this way- a great general uses the environment to help his army achieve the desired results, but the combat engineer uses his mind to shape the environment to help the general & army achieve the desired results.

As for the rest of it...I'd say that is more about role-playing then mechanics.

We emphasize elements like liberal use of the DM's best friend on page 42 of the DMG ... so.... Every player is trying to find tricks and triggers in the environment the DM defines which gets there characters benefits. So yea the players can by role playing and planning get some real oomph.

However there is a lot of tricks featured in the mechanics... almost every martial forced move in the game is a deception exploiting the fog of war and

I was speaking only of 3.X, personally, so much of what you're talking about wasn't even on my radar.

 

[Garthanos]

Combat Engineers are the guys who design siege engines, battlements, trenches, tunnels, mobile bridges & so forth...and help figure out how to destroy or circumvent the enemies' versions of the same.

Think of it this way- a great general uses the environment to help his army achieve the desired results, but the combat engineer uses his mind to shape the environment to help the general & army achieve the desired results.

Ahh...interesting there is an archetype yet un built in 4e.. generic label .. the martial controller... it sounds like a combat engineer might be something of that sort hehe, this is a holy grail I think to the game hackers of 4e.

I was speaking only of 3.X, personally, so much of what you're talking about wasn't even on my radar.

Sorry I did use a bunch of jargon and focused references from 4e. I didn't end up getting back in the game until 4e... so I can miss 3e features periodically. My insomnia is wearing off and I am not sure how coherent what I explain would be right now though.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Ahh...interesting there is an archetype yet un built in 4e.. generic label .. the martial controller... it sounds like a combat engineer might be something of that sort hehe, this is a holy grail I think to the game hackers of 4e.

Well, in a fantasy game, it doesn't even need to be exclusively martial. But I hear you- in FRPGS (ALL FRPGS), controllers such as this are almost always spellcasters.

In 3.X, I've designed PCs who use spells, powers, alchemical & mundane weapons to subtly create clear paths down which I wish my foes to tread right into the heart of our party's offensive powerhouses or choke points that minimize party exposure while maximizing foe exposure.

What 4Ed lacked vis a vis 3.X- at least in the beginning- were some of the utility spells that could be used to create those paths or choke points. Grease was a classic, as were spells like Item or Enlarge/Reduce.

There was also the lack of a way to create man-traps (AFAIK- at the very least, its not immediately obvious to me looking through the 4Ed PHB), mundane or magical- that's essential for a combat engineer.

 

[Baz King]

The people who say this want to be playing games with character mechanics. D&D/d20 mechanics are heavily focused on what people can do, and almost nothing on what they are. Personally one of the reasons I don't care for it much any more. I make a D&D character and I feel like I don't know anything about them.

If they were playing a system that had disadvantages/quirks/traits, they wouldn't feel the need to do this.

As for making them interesting, I don't find that attribute scores make a character more or less interesting at all.

Just wanted to thank you. Your post has helped me cement something in my mind that has been bothering me for DECADES.
Well said mate.

 

[Umbran]

Asserting an unlikely improbability just because its possible for sake of argument?...no nobody ever ever does that <whistling and looking over shoulder /> taint lyin but taint exactly forthright or uncommon either.

Our Rule #1 is "Keep it Civil". Insinuations of dishonesty without actual evidence are insulting, and clearly not civil. This form of personal attack rhetoric is not acceptable around here. Please don't engage in such again. Thank you.

 

[Garthanos]

Exaggerating a point of view or even outright asserting a point of view you don't agree with - like playing devils advocate - for the sake of argument is common practice in debate - intimation that somebody is doing so is not insulting

Talk about blowing out of proportion... wow nobody should have been insulted or assumed it meant they were a "liar"

 

[billd91]

7-14 is just as average s 10 -11 and really isnt differentiated in game experience to be functionally different.... also We immediate used the method roll 4 take the highest 3 and put them where you want them so you could play what you wanted so 13 or 14 was an average of actual result rolls... even if it had no "functional" difference.

No functional difference in to hit and damage rolls. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have other functional differences. The strength tables in 1e-2e included values for opening stuck doors, bending bars/lifting gates, carrying capacity. And when you added in non-weapon proficiencies, the 14 was better than 10-11 for any proficiency based on strength. Use a stat check system of any sort for other issues, particularly rolling a d20 equal to or under the stat (very common back in the 1e-2e days), it again was a noticeable functional difference.

Focusing just on the issue of combat bonuses is a very narrow argument indeed.

 

[Garthanos]

No functional difference in to hit and damage rolls. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have other functional differences.

Focusing just on the issue of combat bonuses is a very narrow argument indeed.

Sorry saw it happen again and again ... anybody who didnt have the highest strength in the party virtually never needed to roll against it ... in practice it just wasnt common enough to notice and the combat uses applied again and again and again by the nature of it. Even in one combat multiple in your face usage repeated during most... not just many encounters trivializes the significance of the rare other occurance where you couldn't "let the big guy do it".

 

[Aus_Snow]

It's not the first time, Korgoth. One can only hope, I guess, that it's the last.

Anyway. . .

No functional difference in to hit and damage rolls. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have other functional differences. The strength tables in 1e-2e included values for opening stuck doors, bending bars/lifting gates, carrying capacity. And when you added in non-weapon proficiencies, the 14 was better than 10-11 for any proficiency based on strength. Use a stat check system of any sort for other issues, particularly rolling a d20 equal to or under the stat (very common back in the 1e-2e days), it again was a noticeable functional difference.

Focusing just on the issue of combat bonuses is a very narrow argument indeed.

Quoted for truth. I've found (as have many others) that a 7 or 8, say, is very different to a 13 or 14, in actual play.

And again - all else being equal - I enjoy having at least one or two low stats, more than I do not having any, for a given PC.