Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Parties screwed without an Int-based PC?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 4751327" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Yeah, but when players focus their characters, by taking a 20, they WILL be a lot more narrow than if they take an 18 in their primary stat, or heaven forbid a 16 (which lets you really be a very generalist character and still capable at your main shtick). If you have a party of 5 specialists, then there is likely to be something that the party lacks in terms of expertise in some area. Probably someone will be OK at that thing, but not top notch.</p><p></p><p>If every weakness in every party is just house-ruled away, then you have nothing but 20 primary stat characters! Why WOULD a group of players ever build otherwise? INT is a key stat for knowledge in particular and any party that is short on having a 14 or 16 int character in it is going to have problems.</p><p></p><p>Now, the way to handle those problems IMHO is proper adventure design. In other words if the low int party misses the magic detection check then they simply miss an option they could have taken to make the adventure go down a different path. One that maybe relies on less combat and more skills. It isn't necessarily a BETTER option, but a different one that rewards a different type of focus.</p><p></p><p>If the low int party misses a magic item, then well, they will be short an item. Not a huge tragedy. In fact it is exactly the way things SHOULD be. They took awesome stats to be better in combat. The high int party instead found the nice magic item that gives them a similar (but maybe a bit lesser) combat edge. After all, both groups sooner or later are going to face boss man, and both will have to win a fight. So I actually see the "high int group can get some reward for it" as a feature, not a bug.</p><p></p><p>Of course it isn't a perfect example either, the group could be simply super optimized in INT and another group in WIS, etc. Where it really should be nice is the case where you need TWO characters that are reasonably good at something instead of one that is super good. Adventure design in 4e really is an art form!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 4751327, member: 82106"] Yeah, but when players focus their characters, by taking a 20, they WILL be a lot more narrow than if they take an 18 in their primary stat, or heaven forbid a 16 (which lets you really be a very generalist character and still capable at your main shtick). If you have a party of 5 specialists, then there is likely to be something that the party lacks in terms of expertise in some area. Probably someone will be OK at that thing, but not top notch. If every weakness in every party is just house-ruled away, then you have nothing but 20 primary stat characters! Why WOULD a group of players ever build otherwise? INT is a key stat for knowledge in particular and any party that is short on having a 14 or 16 int character in it is going to have problems. Now, the way to handle those problems IMHO is proper adventure design. In other words if the low int party misses the magic detection check then they simply miss an option they could have taken to make the adventure go down a different path. One that maybe relies on less combat and more skills. It isn't necessarily a BETTER option, but a different one that rewards a different type of focus. If the low int party misses a magic item, then well, they will be short an item. Not a huge tragedy. In fact it is exactly the way things SHOULD be. They took awesome stats to be better in combat. The high int party instead found the nice magic item that gives them a similar (but maybe a bit lesser) combat edge. After all, both groups sooner or later are going to face boss man, and both will have to win a fight. So I actually see the "high int group can get some reward for it" as a feature, not a bug. Of course it isn't a perfect example either, the group could be simply super optimized in INT and another group in WIS, etc. Where it really should be nice is the case where you need TWO characters that are reasonably good at something instead of one that is super good. Adventure design in 4e really is an art form! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Parties screwed without an Int-based PC?
Top