Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="random user" data-source="post: 1815195" data-attributes="member: 16581">I chose a poor example when I used an int 8 and just mentioned a trap.  I should have called it a "MacGyver" trap.  I don't remember the specifics, but it definately something where the average person would have had quite a problem solving, let alone a person with below average intelligence.  In the same vein, I wouldn't have a character with a strength of 8 attempt on his own initiative try to break down a door.  I think I in real life probably have around an average strength, and I'm pretty sure I would never try to break down a stout door even if there was a 5% chance I could break it open -- it's just something that wouldn't occur to me.  But maybe I just play my characters weird.  I just think that after years of being weak, the thought of using strength to solve a situation just wouldn't occur to you, no matter how intelligent or wise you may be (now if you were pumped on adrenaline, that's a different story, but I'm just talking about a non-imminently lethal situation).I didn't want to get hung up on actual stats.  My contention is, munchkin possibilities aside, that higher stats gives you more options.  Some players find that in tactical situations they like to have more options.  I definately think that some people would take their extra stats and just min-max them; but not everyone falls into that camp.Personally I've played low stat characters and I'm fine with it.  But then my emphasis is more on roleplaying and less on tactics, as usually I'm reduced to a "one trick pony" tactically.   I can just "fire and forget" in combats, and I don't pay much attention to them since I can't really influence them.  Note that's different than having a single low stat, which I'm also fine with (and find very interesting) where you have some handicaps but can otherwise still have multiple viable options.Imagine playing in a campaign where you could choose one of 10 or so templates for characters.  One of the sample templates is:- you have all been cursed and if you don't find [insert object] within a year you will all die- you are an orphan and loner and not had any friends while growing up- you grew up in an orphanage which has since burned down.  You haven't had a chance to make any potential allies or mentors.  No one knows about you.- you may not have any physical or mental scars, or dismemberments etc- you must be of average height and weight- you must be human- while in the orphanage you weren't able to learn anything of substance.The others are similarly limiting.  Can you have a good D&D campaign with such restrictions? Many can.  Others would find it oppressive to be locked into such a paradigm, irritated that their character seems to be such a blank slate and lacking in personal history.Now I'm not saying that there is a direct correlation here, and that you can call one as bad as the other (I don't believe it is).  But the advent of 3.x has brought some people to the table whose main delight is in tactics.  And for those people, a low stat campaign is similar in some ways as that template would feel to someone who loves coming up with good backgrounds and interesting characters.</blockquote>

Verification