Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6239548" data-attributes="member: 17106">This sounds like the point where the DM (and the rules) have to inform the player that he is not the guy from those &quot;most interesting man in the world&quot; commercials. On some level, you have to pick which things you want to be good at. Do you want to be clever and daring and smooth with the ladies, or do you want to be able to actually get stuff done? To some extent those are disparate concepts, and to some extent you do have to choose between them.That being said, with the array and mandate you've given, I see nothing preventing you from throwing an 18 into dex, two of those 14's into Int and Cha, and making a rogue or other character who is extremely effective at feinting and deals big SA damage whenever he fakes someone out, and is fairly effective at everything you describe. If that isn't enough combat effectiveness or enough charisma to satisfy, refer to the above.The basics are this. Swordplay, subterfuge, channeling divine power, researching arcane secrets, playing music, and so on and so on are completely disparate ideas. Characters defined by doing those things are apples and oranges and all sorts of other different fruits.If you have a system that allows for skill in basketweaving and skill at swinging swords (as 3e does), those will never be comparable, leaving one of three paths. Either accept that, or silo the different types of skills and balance within the silos, or simply eliminate the basketweaving part. To me, 3e does some of #2 and #3, and 4e does more. I'd rather just stick with option #1: acceptance. There's still a lot of room for playing around with how broad the categories are (is it skill with all weapons, just swords, just parrying with swords), and what the numbers mean (how much it costs to get a bonus, how DCs scale). But I don't feel the need to try and make unequal things equal.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 6239548, member: 17106"] This sounds like the point where the DM (and the rules) have to inform the player that he is not the guy from those "most interesting man in the world" commercials. On some level, you have to pick which things you want to be good at. Do you want to be clever and daring and smooth with the ladies, or do you want to be able to actually get stuff done? To some extent those are disparate concepts, and to some extent you do have to choose between them. That being said, with the array and mandate you've given, I see nothing preventing you from throwing an 18 into dex, two of those 14's into Int and Cha, and making a rogue or other character who is extremely effective at feinting and deals big SA damage whenever he fakes someone out, and is fairly effective at everything you describe. If that isn't enough combat effectiveness or enough charisma to satisfy, refer to the above. The basics are this. Swordplay, subterfuge, channeling divine power, researching arcane secrets, playing music, and so on and so on are completely disparate ideas. Characters defined by doing those things are apples and oranges and all sorts of other different fruits. If you have a system that allows for skill in basketweaving and skill at swinging swords (as 3e does), those will never be comparable, leaving one of three paths. Either accept that, or silo the different types of skills and balance within the silos, or simply eliminate the basketweaving part. To me, 3e does some of #2 and #3, and 4e does more. I'd rather just stick with option #1: acceptance. There's still a lot of room for playing around with how broad the categories are (is it skill with all weapons, just swords, just parrying with swords), and what the numbers mean (how much it costs to get a bonus, how DCs scale). But I don't feel the need to try and make unequal things equal. [/QUOTE]

Verification