Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="scourger" data-source="post: 1599689" data-attributes="member: 12328">unfulfilling yet interestingI believe I would find it ultimately unfulfilling based on past roleplaying experiences.  I find it is the limitations that make the choices fun.  It is more fun to have a character that is good or great at a couple of things but almost inept at most others.For instance, I had a 2e dwarf fighter/cleric with 3 18s (STR (18/76 or something), CON & WIS) and 3 10s (INT, DEX & CHA).  I rolled those stats with some sort of limited trading (I think I traded a 14 to a 16 then got +2 racial bonus on something or other).  Anyway, I cherry-picked the placement of the stats; and those choices were optimized for that game and that character.  He was fun to play, but it was difficult to be challenged after a time.  Similarly, I recently ran a half-orc ranger with 18 STR, 18 DEX, 16 CON, 11 INT, 13 WIS and 10 CHA.  He was very good at what he did, which was to scout around and attack twice a round with two thrown missile or melee weapons.  But, the power-gaming goodness wears off soon.  If he had been higher level, it might have been more fun with an animal companion and some spells.  By contrast, I've had more fun playing a current human cleric with 16 WIS and all other stats just being above average enough to have a +1 bonus.  He's got the knowledge & trickery domains, so I envision him as a sort of an arcane archaelogist.  He knows his limitations, so he focuses on figuring stuff out, turning undead and dispelling magic.  The latter two pulled some party fat out of the fryer last time.  Also, if the chips are really down, he uses a domain spell to turn invisible and runs away (which I've also done recently).  Overall, this is a much more enjoyable character to play for me.  Also, I have a mutant lizard with the Partial Action Only defect in an Omega World game.  I love that character.  Being able to only take one action per round is very defining.  Even when the DM presented me the option to get rid of the defect, I declined and got rid of one with much less "game effect" because the Partial Action Only was such an integral part of the character.  So, all 18s would probably get pretty boring to play for me.  It could be interesting if there was no multiclassing.  Then, the group would be a party of super-specialists instead of a bunch of super-generalists.  One of the problems I find in my current group is that the prevalent multiclassing makes individual characters stronger, i.e. better survivors individually, but the party is weaker because there are no specialists, particularly arcane spellcasters.  If the all-18 uber characters were restricted to one class forever, then that would force the players to be a strong group of specialists rather than a weaker group of generalists.  It's an interesting question, especially since I've been pondering how to do a Greek Heroes camapign.  The all-18s but no multiclassing may be a good solution.  Thanks for posting the question.</blockquote>

Verification