Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The tyranny of small numbers
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8679542" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Your hyperbole is showing. Since when does "getting a 16 in your main stat" equate to anything even <em>remotely</em> like "min/maxed to the point [one] can't contribute out of combat"? Particularly when that stat is, typically, Dex or Cha, the two stats <em>which have the most utility out of combat?</em></p><p></p><p></p><p>As a general rule, avoiding weaknesses is less effective than capitalizing on strengths. One should, of course, attempt to ameliorate weaknesses where they appear. But doing your best at the things you expect to do frequently, and trying where possible to make any weaknesses you possess be infrequent concerns, is a demonstrably and consistently superior strategy when compared to accepting lower performance on common tasks in order to avoid lower performance on uncommon ones.</p><p></p><p>----</p><p></p><p>Perhaps a better way to phrase some of my criticisms above: Why get mad about people doing the things the game rewards, and not doing the things the game doesn't reward? Many of the results being lamented in this thread are the direct (and entirely foreseeable) consequence of 5e's design. Making ASIs compete with feats, for example, pushes players toward viewing ASIs (and feats) in terms of getting the best benefit they can. Having stats with wildly divergent benefits (e.g. Intelligence is essentially useless to anyone that isn't a Wizard, Artificer, or Int-based skill-user, Strength is extremely important for Barbarians and mostly irrelevant for Rogues, and Dexterity and Constitution are valuable to essentially all characters) exacerbates this situation. Having significant power--both in terms of current state and in terms of future potential--locked in instantly with character creation pushes people toward preparing for the future long before it occurs, rather than rewarding players who allow their characters to grow organically in response to their journey or as they strive toward their (often-changing) goals.</p><p></p><p>It seems to me that there is a pattern, here, of people being annoyed, often to a particularly pitched degree, because players are looking at the rules of the game and trying to make smart decisions. It is, as both studies have shown and experience will show, completely pointless to try to oppose this impulse. Human beings will <em>try</em> to be smart and efficient with their resources when in an environment where they are motivated to succeed, and games are one of the most well-demonstrated examples of such an environment.</p><p></p><p>Instead of getting mad, or telling people off, or trying to present <em>not</em> following that natural and rational impulse as something <em>nobler</em> or <em>superior</em> or whatever, why not actually reward folks who choose differently? Why not grant benefits for folks who defy expectations? Obviously I'm not going to come up with brilliant flawless examples on the fly here, but why not do something like granting a bonus feat for characters who have no stat higher than 14, or who only put stats higher than 14 into "non-primary" stats (e.g. a Warlock with Strength 16, Cha 14)? Or perhaps giving out one cool magic item for folks who choose to play the "standard/expected" bonuses for a given race, while playing a class normally not associated with them, e.g. a Mountain Dwarf Wizard or a Dragonborn Monk?</p><p></p><p>I get a pretty strong fire-and-brimstone preaching vibe from all this. Trying to <em>scare the optimizers straight</em>. That will never work. I can promise you that. But the carrot, rather than the stick, actually has a chance of working.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8679542, member: 6790260"] Your hyperbole is showing. Since when does "getting a 16 in your main stat" equate to anything even [I]remotely[/I] like "min/maxed to the point [one] can't contribute out of combat"? Particularly when that stat is, typically, Dex or Cha, the two stats [I]which have the most utility out of combat?[/I] As a general rule, avoiding weaknesses is less effective than capitalizing on strengths. One should, of course, attempt to ameliorate weaknesses where they appear. But doing your best at the things you expect to do frequently, and trying where possible to make any weaknesses you possess be infrequent concerns, is a demonstrably and consistently superior strategy when compared to accepting lower performance on common tasks in order to avoid lower performance on uncommon ones. ---- Perhaps a better way to phrase some of my criticisms above: Why get mad about people doing the things the game rewards, and not doing the things the game doesn't reward? Many of the results being lamented in this thread are the direct (and entirely foreseeable) consequence of 5e's design. Making ASIs compete with feats, for example, pushes players toward viewing ASIs (and feats) in terms of getting the best benefit they can. Having stats with wildly divergent benefits (e.g. Intelligence is essentially useless to anyone that isn't a Wizard, Artificer, or Int-based skill-user, Strength is extremely important for Barbarians and mostly irrelevant for Rogues, and Dexterity and Constitution are valuable to essentially all characters) exacerbates this situation. Having significant power--both in terms of current state and in terms of future potential--locked in instantly with character creation pushes people toward preparing for the future long before it occurs, rather than rewarding players who allow their characters to grow organically in response to their journey or as they strive toward their (often-changing) goals. It seems to me that there is a pattern, here, of people being annoyed, often to a particularly pitched degree, because players are looking at the rules of the game and trying to make smart decisions. It is, as both studies have shown and experience will show, completely pointless to try to oppose this impulse. Human beings will [I]try[/I] to be smart and efficient with their resources when in an environment where they are motivated to succeed, and games are one of the most well-demonstrated examples of such an environment. Instead of getting mad, or telling people off, or trying to present [I]not[/I] following that natural and rational impulse as something [I]nobler[/I] or [I]superior[/I] or whatever, why not actually reward folks who choose differently? Why not grant benefits for folks who defy expectations? Obviously I'm not going to come up with brilliant flawless examples on the fly here, but why not do something like granting a bonus feat for characters who have no stat higher than 14, or who only put stats higher than 14 into "non-primary" stats (e.g. a Warlock with Strength 16, Cha 14)? Or perhaps giving out one cool magic item for folks who choose to play the "standard/expected" bonuses for a given race, while playing a class normally not associated with them, e.g. a Mountain Dwarf Wizard or a Dragonborn Monk? I get a pretty strong fire-and-brimstone preaching vibe from all this. Trying to [I]scare the optimizers straight[/I]. That will never work. I can promise you that. But the carrot, rather than the stick, actually has a chance of working. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The tyranny of small numbers
Top