Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8085702" data-attributes="member: 16814">While not disagreeing that you could do a Sherlock with INT -5, I think it's treading into farcical territory and would require a game more on the non-serious side of things.&nbsp; This might be a large part of the pushback on the concept -- it's not really a serious approach to trying to model a Sherlock Holmes in the game mechanics in that it's certainly not leveraging those mechanics for the effect but instead fighting against them.&nbsp; Ultimately, for the concept to work, your GM has to agree with your interpretation of the difference between when WIS should be called for and when INT should be called for and you really need to work hard to make sure it's never INT that's called for.&nbsp; Sherlock does, indeed, eschew facts in some categories, but in others he's encyclopedic -- and those categories where he excels are ones in which are usually applicable to his chosen profession.&nbsp; It seems odd to avoid &quot;knowing things&quot; while playing a character that, canonically, knows quite a lot of things.As I said, though, I don't see a problem in trying to do so, but I do see an impediment in how the mechanics work and I also think the approach is too farcical for most.&nbsp; I'd allow a player to try, if the tone of the game works with it (this is session zero stuff, and agreed by the table), but I'd caution them that the actual results in play may be disappointing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8085702, member: 16814"] While not disagreeing that you could do a Sherlock with INT -5, I think it's treading into farcical territory and would require a game more on the non-serious side of things. This might be a large part of the pushback on the concept -- it's not really a serious approach to trying to model a Sherlock Holmes in the game mechanics in that it's certainly not leveraging those mechanics for the effect but instead fighting against them. Ultimately, for the concept to work, your GM has to agree with your interpretation of the difference between when WIS should be called for and when INT should be called for and you really need to work hard to make sure it's never INT that's called for. Sherlock does, indeed, eschew facts in some categories, but in others he's encyclopedic -- and those categories where he excels are ones in which are usually applicable to his chosen profession. It seems odd to avoid "knowing things" while playing a character that, canonically, knows quite a lot of things. As I said, though, I don't see a problem in trying to do so, but I do see an impediment in how the mechanics work and I also think the approach is too farcical for most. I'd allow a player to try, if the tone of the game works with it (this is session zero stuff, and agreed by the table), but I'd caution them that the actual results in play may be disappointing. [/QUOTE]

Verification