Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Barak" data-source="post: 2911797" data-attributes="member: 3028">My problem with this is the &quot;more uncommon and interesting.&nbsp; While the uncommon part is self-evident, I don't get the interesting part.&nbsp; How is having &quot;Skill Focus (diplomacy)&quot; or &quot;Quick Draw&quot; more interesting than having &quot;Power Attack&quot;?&nbsp; My character's stats/feats/skills don't determine my character's personality, they determine what he can do.&nbsp; And if you play long enough -everything- is done to death stats-wise.Here I'll be cheap and say &quot;Exceptions that prove the rule&quot;..&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> I actually hesitated before including Rand, since I hated that serie after a few books as well.&nbsp; And the Max/Max comment is well-taken, but the point was that despite that, they -still- had a story going, and in most cases an interesting one.&nbsp; And they weren't one-legged farmers!&nbsp; And I disagree that min-maxed characters have to be one-dimensional.&nbsp; As I said before, the numbers on the character sheet tell me what the character can do.&nbsp; The personality..&nbsp; That's something else entirely, and is not bound by numbers.&nbsp; That's where the roleplaying comes in.&nbsp; And sure, people define their characters on class/weapon/skillset, because that's the easy way that everyone who plays D&amp;D can relate to.&nbsp; It's much easier to say &quot;My 7th level human fighter killed that 9th level barbarian in a str8 up fight!&quot; than &quot;Well, my character, the third son of the house of Cumrath (that's a merchant house in my DM's custom world) was in the Salt Plains of Garumhet (that's like, that really deserted territory) where he met the tribe of Caluther.&nbsp; What?&nbsp; Oh, they're like, that tribe of orcs, but they also have humans and half-orcs.&nbsp; Anyway.&nbsp; So the leader was acting uppity, and he -did- look tough.&nbsp; But my character, Harold, has a high opinion of himself too!&nbsp; So..&nbsp; Well, we fought, and I killed him.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Barak, post: 2911797, member: 3028"] My problem with this is the "more uncommon and [i]interesting[/i]. While the uncommon part is self-evident, I don't get the interesting part. How is having "Skill Focus (diplomacy)" or "Quick Draw" more interesting than having "Power Attack"? My character's stats/feats/skills don't determine my character's personality, they determine what he can do. And if you play long enough -everything- is done to death stats-wise. Here I'll be cheap and say "Exceptions that prove the rule".. :lol: I actually hesitated before including Rand, since I hated that serie after a few books as well. And the Max/Max comment is well-taken, but the point was that despite that, they -still- had a story going, and in most cases an interesting one. And they weren't one-legged farmers! And I disagree that min-maxed characters have to be one-dimensional. As I said before, the numbers on the character sheet tell me what the character can do. The personality.. That's something else entirely, and is not bound by numbers. That's where the roleplaying comes in. And sure, people define their characters on class/weapon/skillset, because that's the easy way that everyone who plays D&D can relate to. It's much easier to say "My 7th level human fighter killed that 9th level barbarian in a str8 up fight!" than "Well, my character, the third son of the house of Cumrath (that's a merchant house in my DM's custom world) was in the Salt Plains of Garumhet (that's like, that really deserted territory) where he met the tribe of Caluther. What? Oh, they're like, that tribe of orcs, but they also have humans and half-orcs. Anyway. So the leader was acting uppity, and he -did- look tough. But my character, Harold, has a high opinion of himself too! So.. Well, we fought, and I killed him." [/QUOTE]

Verification