Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7555206" data-attributes="member: 6880599">He is however, he is also stealthy, smart, tough, and throws Batarangslevel 1: 16str 16dex 16con 16Int 10Wiz 10cha would be 38/27 point buy using standard human +1 to allSo the closest you could get as a level 1 D&D character would be:level 1: 11str 16dex 14con 16Int 10Wiz 10cha would be 27/27 point buy using standard human +1 to allWith all of Batman's abilities his key features is that he is sneaking/disappearing (often breaking into their house or office if your Commissioner Gordon), he is the "great detective", and he is good in fight. I would say he is likely a rogue thief archetype stealing clues and evidence instead of valuables. So if your looking to make a character like that all I am saying is you end up dropping strength and constitution because dex and intellect are more crucial to the concept. This is not a max/min optimizer build which is the OPS stated problem but a reflection of a narrative desire. That said, it is also not sub optimal under the rules as is and if your want to play Batman you may not be trying to optimize but Batman is not considered a sub optimal person... he is a hero. Its fair for players to want to play a hero and reflect that with skills and abilities. That's why point by is 27 points instead of 6 which would allow for a straight 10 average person or skill variation in the net range of average.So are you keeping the Dex requirement for AC since monk have no armor and rogues light? Then Rogue/two weapon fighting fighter or ranger/bard/gish wizard/Druid require you fill strength and dex to be able to fight and not die... which is the tax I am talking about as with the exception of the rogue a dex fighter is not optimal, so the result is you discourage narrative dex builds. Strength fighters only need strength since it allows them to have Plate armor and its their attack stat. The result of this change is all the players a the table who are playing a narrative type that uses dex will be nerfed and all the min/max players will play strength. This does not help the OPS real problem in that he wants a variety of characters all for Narrative reasons. Making strength more useful mechanically and in narrative can be done by using the rules that already exist. Encumbrance makes a huge difference so do athletics checks, shove, grapple, and the use of strength as an intimidation ability. This will add the variety the OP wants with no homebrew. The issue of players building to narrative or max/min optimizing is a matter of perspective. I have been accused of max/min design many times but when I pointed out other ACTUAL mas/min designs it was noted that I chose a path less taken but wanted to be good and heroic at it. I play warlock scout... who is good at scouting. If I wanted to max/min I would have played a rogue scout with double expertise and all the skills I need by default, instead of burning feats to get them. But GMs see my character and yell "MAX/MIN'er!!!" or "Munchkin!!" as if I am infringing on the rogue... we planned the group.. I chose to take the "rogue scout" party role and everyone agreed to it. I did not build a character that steps on the rogues toes, I am "the rogue player" I just did it from a more interesting narrative prospective. So why the name calling? Why the attacks? Because my GM wanted to ambush the party and I was able with good roles to spot the ambush and put the party in a better static advantage multiple times. As a Warlock I use eldritch blast (CHA) ranged attack, Shocking Grasp (pact of the tome, Cha) for melee, and dex 16 for AC16 (+1 studded leather). I don't use dex to fight. I void your design arguement entirely and yet I still get the same arguments from my GM. Its not about dex or players designing a heroic character in my opinion, it tends to be stealth character concepts that can attack at range and melee being successful against GM attacks because they are versatile and hard to catch off guard where strength based characters tend to be week vs ambushes with ranged attacks. Oddly, we have a paladin in our group our GM can't hit 99% of the time with his 23AC (Plate armor, Shield +1, Shield of faith) who kills pretty much anything the touches with smite including bosses and the GM has not problem with it. The GM literally counts him as 2 party members for battle calculations. Why is their no issue with him or the Wizard, the barbarian? Because they don't scout and GMs plan on ambushes succeeding or being difficult for story reason. Its often not that the players character is not narrative enough, or that the players character is too powerful that GMs don't like. It is that the players character defies the narrative plan the GM set forth. That is usually the scout but I have seen mages do it too by casting the right spell at just the right time. So the perspective issue is that GMs often call out characters as min/max or optimized when they break the narrative the GM wants because the GM is story telling by themselves and not letting players tell their own part of the story and adjust accordingly. They will not call out characters when they don't or if they simply had no expectation plans for the out come. My GM has consistently said, its hard to learn to not to fight players decisions when they don't go the way you planned everything in your head. We through some serious curve balls and it can really change a lot of work for him but at the same time we can feel it when we pick a direction he did not plan for. (Usually because the "right path" is the path of least resistance and all other paths become very rough road as a "deterrent". Its not just this one GM I see it all the time in the comments about min/maxing vs GMs usually you will hear something about GM work or a player making it so hard for them, or they just don't care about the narrative... but who's narrative? Well, the GMs narrative in their head that the player doesn't know of course.</blockquote>

Verification