Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Malhost Zormaeril" data-source="post: 3736403" data-attributes="member: 49669">If the player is really outgoing but has chosen to <s>play a barbarian</s> use CHA for a dump stat, they should sit by during any social interaction, just as the player who chose to <s>play a wizard</s> use STR for a dump stat should sit by when the characters are trying to bash doors open.&nbsp; Or, hey, they should, but shouldn't expect to be successful most of the time.In other words, if the character concept includes &quot;bad in social situations&quot; -- as indicated by low INT, WIS, and/or CHA -- then they should be relegated to a support role.&nbsp; The characters whose concept includes &quot;bad in combat situations&quot; -- as indicated by low STR, DEX and/or CON -- should be relegated to a support role in combat, as well.You're comparing two different things, here.&nbsp; The player who is more experienced at combat is the one who's better at understanding his options and deciding the best move for the situation, and not the one who's county champion in fencing.&nbsp; By a similar token, the player who is more experienced at social interaction should be the one who's better at understanding his options and deciding the best move for the situation, and not the one who's inter-school debate club champion.&nbsp; Do D&amp;D designers want to punish the fencing players by not allowing them to use their gifts for wielding a sword unless they make certain choices in character development?If social resolution was like 2e &quot;I hit.&nbsp; I hit again.&quot; combat, you'd have a valid point.&nbsp; On the other hand, if social combat rules end up at least half as tactically interesting as mêlée combat is in Bo9S (arguably a preview for the 4e mêlée system), there's plenty of space for players to become good social players, maximising their characters' abilities, just like regular combat does.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Malhost Zormaeril, post: 3736403, member: 49669"] If the player is really outgoing but has chosen to [S]play a barbarian[/S] use CHA for a dump stat, they [b]should[/b] sit by during any social interaction, just as the player who chose to [S]play a wizard[/S] use STR for a dump stat should sit by when the characters are trying to bash doors open. Or, hey, they should, but shouldn't expect to be successful most of the time. In other words, if the character concept includes "bad in social situations" -- as indicated by low INT, WIS, and/or CHA -- then they should be relegated to a support role. The characters whose concept includes "bad in combat situations" -- as indicated by low STR, DEX and/or CON -- should be relegated to a support role in combat, as well. You're comparing two different things, here. The player who is more experienced at combat is the one who's better at understanding his options and deciding the best move for the situation, [i]and not the one who's county champion in fencing[/i]. By a similar token, the player who is more experienced at social interaction should be the one who's better at understanding his options and deciding the best move for the situation, [i]and not the one who's inter-school debate club champion[/i]. Do D&D designers want to punish the fencing players by not allowing them to use their gifts for wielding a sword unless they make certain choices in character development? If social resolution was like 2e "I hit. I hit again." combat, you'd have a valid point. On the other hand, if social combat rules end up at least half as tactically interesting as mêlée combat is in Bo9S (arguably a preview for the 4e mêlée system), there's plenty of space for players to become good social players, maximising their characters' abilities, just like regular combat does. [/QUOTE]

Verification