Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 5749194" data-attributes="member: 3887">Good comparison. With regard to classes like Oracle and Sorcerer, D&D Charisma is more like RQ's Power stat.  Sure... but the way I play her, she gets more dislike than like, and my position is that's totally congruent with her CHA 22. She's also got DEX 22 and maxed Stealth!You don't need rules for disadvantages to do that in D&D... all you need to do is accept that each mental stats represents an average of a group of related abilities -- which is how they're described in the rules! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />In other words, the solution to this problem is: stop making in into a problem for yourself (and your PC!)The real issue is to what extent the actual play at the table influences the in-game results. Everything is just silly conjecture about how D&D ability scores translate into behavior -- a topic the rules themselves have been silent on for the past 35 years. Here's a question: what percentage of a PC's imaginary life is actually played out at the table? A very small percentage, I should think. Couldn't then everything done during play be the sum of their "flashes of brilliance"?If we're going to deploy dubious rationalizations about out characters capabilities, shouldn't we at least do so in ways that lead to smart and clever play, not legions of bland protagonists who have to choose between being competent or interesting as the stars of homemade fantasy fiction? Or plans of any sort, really. Or rules for characterization. Why do people keep ignoring this excellent point?</blockquote>

Verification