Search and taking 20: the problem

[Majere]

"Again you are assuming that my character has knowledge (basic physic) My point is that the ability of your player should never be used to decide the effectiveness and the results of their characters action. It doesn't matter if the ability is physical or intelectual or social. I don't understand why it is ok to roll dice for physical ability like combat, lifting, bending or for ability that cannot be reproduced in the real world like spell casting but for intellectual and social it's ok. I guess it comes from the old version were there was no clear rule to handle those situations. But with the new revision I don't understand why people still don't understand that their character is not a representation of themselves in a fantasy world."

Because its a game
I WANT my character to be a super powered me
I WANT to solve problems myself and not just roll dice and be told my character works it out
I WANT to roleplay the conversation and not just be told I roll high on my diplomacy check.
My character IS a representation of me in a fantasy world, thats the fun of the game. I get to be me but with a sword, or me with spells.

I will never understnad people who think the game is about following rules rather than having fun.

Majere

 

[DarkMaster]

"Because its a game
I WANT my character to be a super powered me
I WANT to solve problems myself and not just roll dice and be told my character works it out
I WANT to roleplay the conversation and not just be told I roll high on my diplomacy check.
My character IS a representation of me in a fantasy world, thats the fun of the game. I get to be me but with a sword, or me with spells.

I will never understnad people who think the game is about following rules rather than having fun.

Majere

We were playing like that when I was 10-15 years old, but I discovered how fun it is to play a more complex character, I would like to play a character that has no social skill, I like being limited and figuring out how to solve the different issue by other means that I would use in my life,physical, intellectual and social challenges. I probably have a good bluff skill but probably not the equivalent of 15, I would also really enjoy playing a guy who can sell anything to anybody. Why couldn't I be allowed to do that because I don't have a high enough bluff skill.

 

[Majere]

I get enough challenge from the game as it stands.
I dont need to clip my characters to be challeneged.
The last session we broke out group into a drow castle to rescue a noble who was captured, we had very limited resources and pulled it off with some luck and some outstanding gameplay from the whole party. I was challenged enough without being told by the DM "Im sorry your character couldnt possibly come up with that idea Im vetoing it"

I would also find it utterly frustrated if I was playing an Int3 fighter and was told that I basically could never contribute anything to the group except dice rolls in combat because my character was so stupid. Id probably kill the character in the first combat so that I could actually enjoy playing the game. I geuss we have different ideas of fun.
I like to be challenged and made to think, you like to play people who are less intelligent, so you have to think less. At least that is how I read it. I find it confusing that someone who clearly takes pleasure from getting in character to such an extent is happy to then let the game boil down to dice rolls. Why not just roleplay your characater as being stupid if you are ever forced into a social situation ?

Majere

 

[DarkMaster]

"
Because its a game
I WANT my character to be a super powered me
I WANT to solve problems myself and not just roll dice and be told my character works it out
I WANT to roleplay the conversation and not just be told I roll high on my diplomacy check.
My character IS a representation of me in a fantasy world, thats the fun of the game. I get to be me but with a sword, or me with spells.

I will never understnad people who think the game is about following rules rather than having fun.

Majere

The current system doesn't prevent you from doing that, Just put the ranks in social skill equals to what you think are your social skill. You will see how costly it becomes for a lawyer to play a wizard. As it should be, wizard spend contless hours in their lab having no time to develop their social skill, why all of a sudden the wizard should benefit from the fact that he his played by a lawyer?

 

[DarkMaster]

I get enough challenge from the game as it stands.
I dont need to clip my characters to be challeneged.
The last session we broke out group into a drow castle to rescue a noble who was captured, we had very limited resources and pulled it off with some luck and some outstanding gameplay from the whole party. I was challenged enough without being told by the DM "Im sorry your character couldnt possibly come up with that idea Im vetoing it"

I would also find it utterly frustrated if I was playing an Int3 fighter and was told that I basically could never contribute anything to the group except dice rolls in combat because my character was so stupid. Id probably kill the character in the first combat so that I could actually enjoy playing the game. I geuss we have different ideas of fun.
I like to be challenged and made to think, you like to play people who are less intelligent, so you have to think less. At least that is how I read it. I find it confusing that someone who clearly takes pleasure from getting in character to such an extent is happy to then let the game boil down to dice rolls. Why not just roleplay your characater as being stupid if you are ever forced into a social situation ?

Majere

What you are saying is that using a 32 point build in your group have could have something like a Fighter with 20 STR,CON,DEX and 3 in CHA, INT, WIS and suffer no consequence.

This extreme example show you how unbalanced your games become, especially with 3E where balance includes the social skill. In previous edition there was no strict rule for that and balance was in the hand of the DM, now they corrected that, but it seems you didn't evolve your game accordingly.

 

[Majere]

Why would you take less than 9 in a point build. You dont get points back for super low scores.
No fighter in my group would have int 3, they all want expertise
No fighter in my froup would have wis 3, their will saves are bad enough anyway
Cha 3? Yes I can see that, but cha has been the unloved bastard-stat for as long as D&D has been about.

Its much harder to min max under 3E because you usually need a score in at least 4 of the stats or your character is severely weakened.

Majere

 

[DarkMaster]

Why would you take less than 9 in a point build. You dont get points back for super low scores.
No fighter in my group would have int 3, they all want expertise
No fighter in my froup would have wis 3, their will saves are bad enough anyway
Cha 3? Yes I can see that, but cha has been the unloved bastard-stat for as long as D&D has been about.

Its much harder to min max under 3E because you usually need a score in at least 4 of the stats or your character is severely weakened.

Majere

I have my own point build were I allow more points if you go under 8, actually my point build starts at 3, but that is another story.

Concerning the rest of your post, why can't I take expertise with Int 3, my character has Cha 3 but can bluff his way around the dragon, I read a book on sword technique and perfectly understand defensive maneuver why should roll and number limit my experience of the super me in a fantasy world?

A balanced game and fun game start with the consistency of the DM.

 

[Majere]

No you cant
Ever seen a dragons sense motive skill ?
And you need int 13 to take the feat.
But I get the feeling your just being an arse now.
Which is a shame because for a moment there I was trying to treat your posts with a modicum of respect but it seems you cant do the same for mine.

Majere

 

[DarkMaster]

Cha 3? Yes I can see that, but cha has been the unloved bastard-stat for as long as D&D has been about.
Majere

That doesn't prove anything previous version were broken, 3.X allow CHA to shine in certain situation, I personnally started to really use it when I reached 16 years old, allowing player with high CHA to be better in their social interaction and since then I had a lot of thief who were playing high cha character and were not penalysed for that

 

[DarkMaster]

No you cant
Ever seen a dragons sense motive skill ?
And you need int 13 to take the feat.
But I get the feeling your just being an arse now.
Which is a shame because for a moment there I was trying to treat your posts with a modicum of respect but it seems you cant do the same for mine.

Majere

I am just trying to make you realise how unbalanced it becomes when you go that way. As a DM can you really play the sense motive skill of a dragon? No then you have to rely on dice roll for that but for other situation you can play you don't. That is why I say you are not consistent in your rulling.
I will try to be less sarcastic in my next posts.