Should adventurers be "better"?

IT 100% depends on your style of play, and it doesn't affect it a whole lot.

By the book, everyone has a base of 10 or 11 for their stats, and only racial modifiers push it anywhere beyond those.

These common folk can become heroes, no problem. They're just heroes that have to try a bit harder, be a bit more lucky, perhaps be more favored by chance and happenstance. Sam'd be one of these types. He's not an exceptional being in any way, but he's caught up in big circumstances, pulls together, and uses the few skills he does have to their biggest advantage. They're uncommon because of the things around them, and because of non-mechanics-related personality quirks, not because of what they can do. They're unimpressive stat-wise, with a lot of levels.

Then there's the heroes who are NEVER common. Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, heck, even Boromir and Frodo. They do things no Sam could ever pull off...slaying goblins, resisting the pull of the One Ring, being special and magical since birth itself. They're impressive stat-wise, and usually with a good chunk of levels to boot.

There's also those who are 'heroic' in stats but who don't do anything with their lives. These basically don't exist in D&D, unless they're special NPC's (the strong man at the circus, the wise sage, etc.). They're powerful in their own right, but don't go out and DO anything with it. Like, say, Elrond. These guys might have wondrous stats and lots of levels, but they never come out of their dusty towers, so they never use it.

What stats your PC's have will basically define if they're 'average joes caught up in things' (10's, 11's, etc.) or 'uncoomon uncommoners who are different always' (18's, 16's, etc.). And neither way is really any more justified than any other way.

Why do PC's have to be mighty in comparison to the rest? So that the players feel that their characters are special in some tangible way. Anybody can take any set of 10's and 11's and say 'he's descended from an elven prince!' but it makes something a bit more effective if he's got a Cha and an Int and a Dex to back that claim up.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Valiantheart said:


Each of these are men who are simply better than those around them. They were born stronger or posses the inherent discipline and desire to be better than everyone else.

You have missed the point.

I defined "better" in this thread as "having better stats".

The "inherent discipline and desire" are qualities inherent in being a PC. Regardless of stats.

Originally posted by Synicism

Because the 25 point characters probably won't survive in the Planar game and the 40 point characters probably won't be challenged in the more mundane game. You cross them up, and nobody will have fun.

My D&D games tend towards placing the fate of worlds in the PC's. There comes a point where courage and cleverness simply cannot overcome the monumental odds that I like to throw at my groups. Throw ground-shaking power into the mix, and they stand a fighting chance.

Yeah. I like superheroes. I think D&D is made for world-shaking heroes. So that's what I use it for.

Yet I use 25-point buy and my campaigns are so world-shaking that I have to rewrite large portions of my setting after every campaign.

You do realise that the majority of a PCs power comes from levels rather than ability scores, do you not?
 

I maintain that if Drow, Tieflings, and Half-celestials have to pay ECL, so do characters with high point values.

It's only fair... if not, then toss it out the window, and give people the equivalent of d3 ECL to play with. Why not?
 

Originally posted by Snoweel You do realise that the majority of a PCs power comes from levels rather than ability scores, do you not?

Ability scores are the potential that helps heroes get to those high levels. As GM's go, I'm fairly ruthless. If the players mess up, I make them fight their way out of their own holes. The odds I stack against them are made for characters who are truly exceptional in all senses of the word.
 

Celtavian said:


You are seriously misinterpreting what is being said. It isn't that genetics is the primary determinant of being a hero, but the very best heroes have the combination of all things.


The "best" heroes will have genetics on their side, or the most "effective" heroes?


Two entirely different things. Is the greater hero the prophesied warrior of legend who kills three orcs with every swing of his blade or the common man who struggles on against challenges which he is ill equipped to come through, yet still does. Is heroism about attitude or deeds? Probably a bit of both, but if two "heroes" perform equal deeds, then I would suggest that the greater hero is the one who has done more according to his ability.
 
Last edited:

Kamikaze Midget said:

By the book, everyone has a base of 10 or 11 for their stats, and only racial modifiers push it anywhere beyond those.

I thought those numbers reflected racial averages. If the average member of a race has 10s or 11s, that works out to a straight 3d6 for each stat.

If every NPC in a town had the same stats, it would be a pretty strange place. A place where everybody was truely created equal...
 

Remove ads

Top