Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Silverleaf" data-source="post: 2378272" data-attributes="member: 30790">Yeah, CoC.&nbsp; You're all going to die anyway, how strong/smart/fast you are is just an illusion to make you feel better.&nbsp; It won't help you though.&nbsp; Running away might, but by the time you think to do that you've already seen too much. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Anyway, I think AD&amp;D 1e started the min-maxing trend, because it veered away from the standard 3d6 chargen, and altered the stat bonus/penalty brackets so that one needed much better stats to get any kind of benefit, or in some cases simply to avoid getting a penalty (frex, clerics with only average WIS suffered a chance of spell failure).&nbsp; And then there were classes like paladin, ranger, illusionist, etc. that had some hefty prerequisites.&nbsp; The UA book went even further in that direction, and even proposed more &quot;heroic&quot; chargen methods, and some folks probably got accustomed to PCs with averages scores of 16.And that's all really bad news in my book, and it's one of the reasons I don't play AD&amp;D anymore.&nbsp; At least in Basic D&amp;D a PC with ability scores of 9/9/9/9/9/9 can be any of the four main classes and not incur any penalties (9-12 scores gave no adjustment).&nbsp; There is less incentive to min-max because you can have a competent character without doing so.&nbsp; People will still generally run a fighter if they rolled highest in STR, or a cleric if they rolled highest in WIS, but that's pretty much the extent of min-maxing that takes place, and it's not all that bad really.&nbsp; If some guy fights all day he's going to become strong.&nbsp; If he meditates/prays all day, he's going to become wise, etc.&nbsp; The reverse works too:&nbsp; he became a fighter because he was strong, or a cleric because he was wise.But although that works fine in broad strokes, it feels pretty artificial and contrived when you start tweaking your stats, feats, skills and everything else to obtain the most &quot;powerful&quot; character you can.&nbsp; Some might say that it's your duty to make the PC as powerful as possible or he will be a &quot;liability&quot; to the group.&nbsp; Frankly, those people don't belong at the same table as me as we have completely different ideas of what D&amp;D is about...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Silverleaf, post: 2378272, member: 30790"] Yeah, CoC. You're all going to die anyway, how strong/smart/fast you are is just an illusion to make you feel better. It won't help you though. Running away might, but by the time you think to do that you've already seen too much. :D Anyway, I think AD&D 1e started the min-maxing trend, because it veered away from the standard 3d6 chargen, and altered the stat bonus/penalty brackets so that one needed much better stats to get any kind of benefit, or in some cases simply to avoid getting a penalty (frex, clerics with only average WIS suffered a chance of spell failure). And then there were classes like paladin, ranger, illusionist, etc. that had some hefty prerequisites. The UA book went even further in that direction, and even proposed more "heroic" chargen methods, and some folks probably got accustomed to PCs with averages scores of 16. And that's all really bad news in my book, and it's one of the reasons I don't play AD&D anymore. At least in Basic D&D a PC with ability scores of 9/9/9/9/9/9 can be any of the four main classes and not incur any penalties (9-12 scores gave no adjustment). There is less incentive to min-max because you can have a competent character without doing so. People will still generally run a fighter if they rolled highest in STR, or a cleric if they rolled highest in WIS, but that's pretty much the extent of min-maxing that takes place, and it's not all that bad really. If some guy fights all day he's going to become strong. If he meditates/prays all day, he's going to become wise, etc. The reverse works too: he became a fighter because he was strong, or a cleric because he was wise. But although that works fine in broad strokes, it feels pretty artificial and contrived when you start tweaking your stats, feats, skills and everything else to obtain the most "powerful" character you can. Some might say that it's your duty to make the PC as powerful as possible or he will be a "liability" to the group. Frankly, those people don't belong at the same table as me as we have completely different ideas of what D&D is about... [/QUOTE]

Verification