Rule-Of-Three 2-7-12

[Argyle King]

Some good stuff there, but I strongly disagree with some of the statements made in the third response.

"... so if we give one character two 1st-level at-will powers, and we give another eight 1st-level at-will powers, the latter character has a greater breadth of options in a given situation, but both characters have equivalent levels of output because each can only use one power at a time."

I understand the point he's trying to make, but I do not believe that comment to be true. Looking at it in a vacuum, yes, you can only use one power at a time. However, the guy with 8 powers is going to be able to cover a wider variety of situations. As such, there could potentially be 6 situations in which the guy with only 2 powers most certainly does have lower output.


A lot of the response to the first question sounded good, but -without more specifics- the answer doesn't really mean anything to me. It was kind of like listening to a political speech in which a leader claims a lot of things are going to be done, but doesn't offer any plan for how it will be done.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I understand the point he's trying to make, but I do not believe that comment to be true. Looking at it in a vacuum, yes, you can only use one power at a time. However, the guy with 8 powers is going to be able to cover a wider variety of situations. As such, there could potentially be 6 situations in which the guy with only 2 powers most certainly does have lower output.

As a practical manner, I agree that the numbers 2 and 8 are unlikely to produce the desired effect here. However, because of the "rule of lists", there are unequal numbers where this can work. Namely, if you have a list of, say, 10 things that you can successively pick from, some of them are likely to be better than others. "Better" can be "better for your character" or "more in tune with you as a player" or any number of such things, but the effect is likely to be there somehow. So by the time our hypothetical flexible guy has picked 4 or 5, he has already got the best ones for him. The others will rarely come up. Meanwhile, straight-forward guy with only 2 "enhanced" ones, gets 2 good ones.

If anything, the problem is likely to go the other way. The authors may over estimate the value of the 8 picks, assigning a linear value to each pick when the reality is that there is a diminishing value to each pick beyond N. So when enhancing simple guys' options, they go too far.

Complicating this vastly is the range of player cleverness when given options. I've known players that you could have given them a 3E sorcerer with access to every spell in the book, and they wouldn't have been over powered. And I've also known players that make McGuiver look like a piker when you give them unrestrained access to minor magic items.

 

[Snapdragyn]

I have to second the point made upthread, that if we disregard character stats for problem solving & rely on the player instead, then why do combat stats not get the same treatment?

I agree there are ways around limiting player contribution in both cases - let the dumb fighter have an 'idiot savant' moment, or ponder through just the right questions that lead the scholarly wizard (whose player perhaps isn't as good at puzzle solving) to the answer. But to deny the party a chance to solve a puzzle which the players are unable to solve, even with (a) high-INT character(s) in the party? I think this would be just as limiting as denying them the chance to break down a door because a player lacks the physical prowess to match her 18-STR fighter. Surely the rules (& community?) can support a happy medium along the lines of rolling for hints (& if someone has an 18-INT wizard, they're likely to get enough successful roles for a lot of hints, hopefully allowing the players to eventually solve the puzzle).

 

[Halivar]

But to deny the party a chance to solve a puzzle which the players are unable to solve, even with (a) high-INT character(s) in the party?

I believe in letting high-Int characters roll for clues if they are stumped. If even with clues, the puzzle cannot be solved by the party, then I would hazard to guess that the puzzle was poorly designed/thought out.

 

[Hassassin]

I have to second the point made upthread, that if we disregard character stats for problem solving & rely on the player instead, then why do combat stats not get the same treatment?

Most D&D editions include combat rules that reward tactical thinking or at least mastering those rules. Asking the Warlord's player make tactical choices is not really any different from asking the Wizard's player to solve a puzzle.

 

[Sammael]

To those who want to play low-Int, low-Cha characters and then do all the puzzle-solving and character interaction anyway:

You can't have your cake and eat it.

Unless everyone at the table does the same thing, you are basically cheating. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the game that forces your to use Int and Cha as your dump stats. Look at Roy from OotS: REALLY high Int and a very decent Cha score. Does that stop him from being an effective fighter? Nope.

When I play (which is rare, as I am usually the DM), I do my best to either have decent mental stats and put points into various knowledge skills regardless of the class I'm playing, or I work hard to roleplay my poor mental stats properly. It's not easy - I have to bite my tongue when I have a clever idea while playing a low-Int character; I have to be oblivious to danger while playing a low-Wis character; and I have to role-play odious personal habits or speak quietly (so that noone pays attention to me) when I play a low-Cha character. But guess what? Not only is this rewarding in and by itself, it also gives the other players a chance to shine when they play their high-Int, high-Wis, and high-Cha characters - they get to save my butt with clever ideas, awareness, and force of personality.

Deal with it.

 

[Halivar]

To those who want to play low-Int, low-Cha characters and then do all the puzzle-solving and character interaction anyway:

You can't have your cake and eat it.

And in the case where the high-Int wizard's player is not magically granted his character's own deductive reasoning? It's not a two-way street; you can't pretend to be smarter than you are. Chipping in on puzzles is part of player teamwork, and it can be done without being obnoxious about the metagaming.

 

[Sammael]

The high-Int character should get extra clues as a reward for his high Intelligence; it's up to the DM to provide those clues and then let the player interpret them.

 

[Halivar]

The high-Int character should get extra clues as a reward for his high Intelligence; it's up to the DM to provide those clues and then let the player interpret them.

Am I, as a player (assuming we are at your table), allowed to say, "Hey, your character would totally think of this."

 

[Sammael]

Am I, as a player (assuming we are at your table), allowed to say, "Hey, your character would totally think of this."

Generally speaking, no. It does happen sometimes, and I sometimes let it pass, because my players are likely to simply dismiss/ignore the out-of-character suggestion if they didn't come up with it themselves.

If you really persist, I will allow a stat check to see if you have a moment of brilliance. And you can always spend a Fate Point to do it (most players prefer to save those for combat situations, though).