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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5754437" data-attributes="member: 22779">So, you have no problem with the huge disconnect between how the player is portraying the character and what is actually happening at the table?  He's portraying himself as The Doctor - and all that that entails.  Yet, in play, he's failing all the time and is most certainly not The Doctor.  Not only that, but, he has less skills and whatnot than The Doctor as well, meaning that in play he actually cannot try the things that The Doctor could.  For example, any Trained Only skill will be entirely beyond his reach, like, say, Knowledge Sklls which are pretty part and parcel to any depiction of The Doctor.Despite the fact that in play, our Cliff Clavin character in no way actually resembles the Doctor, you have no problem with the player playing him as The Doctor?Considering that point has been laid to rest about ten pages ago, I'm not sure why you're bringing it up again.  Forced?  Nope.  Never.  Then again, it's like saying, "Should a DM be forced to never run a railroad campaign?"  It's completely unenforceable (sorry about the pun).  Yet, we'd mostly agree that a railroad campaign is something to be avoided.  What determines a railroad campaign and to what degree?  Certainly not the mechanics.  It's determined  by the tastes of the table.  Portraying character is no different.That's a bit trickier isn't it?  You're talking about a character with brain damage - an idiot savant.  The mechanics are certainly not designed to deal with something like that.  And, this way lies a LOT of powergaming.  I can simply dumpstat and then ignore any penalties because I'm a "savant".  After all, that's some pretty specific savant abilities.  He's dumber than a plank in all things except the two things that come up most often in an adventure.  See, the problem that I'm seeing here is that you're rejecting the definitions that are given for the stats.  Which is fine for your game.  Playstyles and all that.  But, I'm thinking that the system is not loving you here.  In a system which defines mental stats, they usually broadly define what those stats govern.  Problem solving is typically in D&D related to Int or perhaps Wis.  Tactical acumen is also directly linked to Int in D20 (Combat Expertise feat tree gives a pretty good example here - Int 13 required).  If you want to do more than just bash away at baddies, you need to have a pretty high Int in D20 D&D.  All of the improved maneuver feats are linked to Combat Expertise.In the same way if you want the big bashing maneuvers in D20 D&D, you need Power Attack - Str 13 required.  If you want Two Weapon Fighting and the related feats, you need a Dex of 15.  Stats will directly impact how your character operates.As far as the idiot-savant angle goes, I'm going to file that away under a pretty rare corner case.  I'd be taking a really hard look at any player that brought that to play because my first reaction is that the player is just powergaming the system - trying to get an advantage without paying the requisite weakness.</blockquote>

Verification