Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 7673967" data-attributes="member: 92511">Oh no. No no no. I was just following what someone else said about Int = Dex. I think the lot of this line of thinking is rubbish. I've never felt Str-to-Cha., Int-to-Dex. etc... That's a load of fabricated nonsense. There's Str/Dex/Con...they cover, mostly, the body. There's Int/Wis/Cha...they cover the, mostly, the elements of a person that are not physical. That's all they are. There is no correlation, whatsoever, that I have ever seen defined or expected from the game. For me, the Brawn=Str. vs. the Brain=Int., the Warrior vs. the Wizard, is a classic fantasy trope from the dawn of the genre. Swords and [where &quot;and&quot; was almost always &quot;vs.&quot;] Sorcery. So, in the spectrum of archetypes, which interests me far more than trying to categorize and define abstractions of the game, the &quot;Strong guys[Fighters]&quot; are faced off by the &quot;Smart guys[Mages]&quot;. Str. opposes Int....again, as far as I am concerned. So the sub-/specific-Fighter archetype that is the Barbarian is Str. &amp; con. focused. So why not let the Mages have a &quot;+ Con.&quot; guy too? but since they're mages, it's Int. instead of Str. that's the primary... My POINT is, through all of these recent posts, that these declarative &quot;this is what is/defining things as I think make sense to me&quot; statements mean NOTHING in D&amp;D...because the next guy at the next table [or laptop, in this case] can come up with their own &quot;definitions&quot; of things that make [more] sense...to them... and that &quot;making sense&quot; trumps your [general &quot;you&quot;] &quot;making sense&quot; (and certainly trumps &quot;branding&quot;) and adds to their enjoyment of their game.So, as I said, what &quot;works/makes sense/is the&nbsp; 'right way'&quot; for my psychic class/PCs/powers...will remain an Int.=based class. Thanks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 7673967, member: 92511"] Oh no. No no no. I was just following what someone else said about Int = Dex. I think the lot of this line of thinking is rubbish. I've never felt Str-to-Cha., Int-to-Dex. etc... That's a load of fabricated nonsense. There's Str/Dex/Con...they cover, mostly, the body. There's Int/Wis/Cha...they cover the, mostly, the elements of a person that are not physical. That's all they are. There is no correlation, whatsoever, that I have ever seen defined or expected from the game. For me, the Brawn=Str. vs. the Brain=Int., the Warrior vs. the Wizard, is a classic fantasy trope from the dawn of the genre. Swords and [where "and" was almost always "vs."] Sorcery. So, in the spectrum of archetypes, which interests me far more than trying to categorize and define abstractions of the game, the "Strong guys[Fighters]" are faced off by the "Smart guys[Mages]". Str. opposes Int....again, as far as I am concerned. So the sub-/specific-Fighter archetype that is the Barbarian is Str. & con. focused. So why not let the Mages have a "+ Con." guy too? but since they're mages, it's Int. instead of Str. that's the primary... My POINT is, through all of these recent posts, that these declarative "this is what is/defining things as I think make sense to me" statements mean NOTHING in D&D...because the next guy at the next table [or laptop, in this case] can come up with their own "definitions" of things that make [more] sense...to them... and that "making sense" trumps your [general "you"] "making sense" (and certainly trumps "branding") and adds to their enjoyment of their game. So, as I said, what "works/makes sense/is the 'right way'" for my psychic class/PCs/powers...will remain an Int.=based class. Thanks. [/QUOTE]

Verification