Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 12, 2022, 01:20:14 AM
Nothing is more bland to a rpg or game when everyone is equal.  No one wants to play a game where an average halfling can beat an average orc at arm wrestling 50% of the time.  Having demi-humans having different stats than humans for instance, helps to break up munchkinism.  If a species gets a certain bonus that is useful but would be a bit broken for a class and they have bad stats for said class, it helps to work as a counter.  I personally like asymmetric  races.

I'm not following your explanation here about it breaking munchkinism. Can you give an example?

My premise from the original post is that racial attribute bonuses in D&D tend to encourage power optimization. If I've got a high Strength and am planning on making a fighter, then I'm highly motivated to take a race with +2 Strength rather than a race with +2 Intelligence.

If I'm playing in a game where there is random-roll race and random-roll attributes in order, then 30% of half-orcs will have a higher Intelligence than Strength. However, because of power optimization, this tends to be much more rare in player choice. Players choose half-orc to boost an already-high Strength. That's my observation from experience, as well as from sources like the D&D Beyond data.

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 11, 2022, 09:49:18 AM

Quote from: jhkim on October 11, 2022, 01:07:43 AM
In modern point-buy D&D, though, stats don't have linear cost -- which is good, because they shouldn't if 16->18 is worth more than 10->12. In principle, the point cost of a high stat should reflect its utility.

WotC D&D on the other hand, the benefits are evenly distributed. Every two points. Like clockwork. It's not clear that 16->18 is intrinsically worth more than 10->12 the way it is in AD&D.

I'm at a loss as to why you believe so strongly that mid-strength fighters don't work in D&D.

I never said that mid-strength fighters don't work. I've repeatedly said that they *do* work.

However, I disagree to say that 16->18 isn't worth more, to the point that it seems disingenuous. Ask anyone who has a 16 Strength, 10 Intelligence fighter which one they'd take -- +2 Strength or +2 Intelligence? Can you really honestly say that you think most players would say that there's no difference?!?

The issue is that one's prime stat is rolled far more frequently for much greater consequences than a tertiary stat. A wizard will constantly roll with Int bonus, and a fighter will constantly roll with Str bonus. The extra +1 isn't game-breaking, but the optimal choice is extremely obvious to almost all players, in my experience.

Correct, an extra +1 in a stat you're barely going to use is basically worthless compared to a +1 in a stat you use all the time.

And another aside about halfling paladins.

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 11, 2022, 09:49:18 AM
Here's the upshot. If you're playing a Paladin, and you have to be lawful good, there's two loyalty bonuses right there. And then you're only allowed to associate on the regular with other good characters. There's another bonus for alignment similarity. Another big loyalty bonus for having at least a 17 Charisma. There's a loyalty bonus if at any time you heal one of your men. Paladins got that daily lay on hands. Easy bonus to grab right there. And a bonus for treating your men well and fairly. There are also racial preference modifiers. And humans get the most favorable overall preference ratings on the race preference table.

It all stacks, and it adds up to the fact that a 1E Paladin can very quickly gain henchmen and retainers who are fanatically loyal, and will even remain fanatically loyal--their morale having no chance of breaking--even after they witness the Paladin himself die in combat. They remain fanatically loyal well beyond the grave.

You don't get that when you allow Paladins of all alignments. You don't get that when you allow paladins of all races. You don't get that when you swap out the good guy heal power for the bad guy hurt power. You don't get that from a Paladin who is mean because he was touched by the god of meanie-heads.

1) Evil leaders do have fanatically loyal followers who are loyal to death and beyond, both in fantasy fiction (Thulsa Doom) and sadly also in real life (Jim Jones).

2) Chaotic good can also be truly virtuous and attract fanatically loyal followers (Robin Hood), and pursue virtue just as whole-heartedly in the face of tyranny.

3) In the D&D cosmology, there's nothing unique about Lawful Good compared to the other alignments. The good gods are often Neutral Good or Chaotic Good, with no superiority shown to Lawful Good. D&D is not Judeo-Christian. In a Judeo-Christian cosmology game like Ars Magica, then I think some of these paladin qualities would make more sense. But in a pagan game-world with gods of mixed alignment, it doesn't fit.

4) You claim that humans get the most favorable racial preference rating, which is simply false. In the AD&D table, halflings have equal or better relations in the race table than humans with all the other races. The other races have different mixes, with poorer relations with half-orcs but often better relations with the others. Better racial relations with half-orcs seems like an odd requirement for a paladin.

None of this seems to get to the essence. Non-humans can be virtuous, pious, brave, and charismatic - and have fanatically loyal followers. There is nothing described about humans as described that they are more capable in any of these qualities. If other-race paladins were allowed, they could rack up those loyalty bonuses just as easily.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on October 12, 2022, 01:44:04 AM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 12, 2022, 01:20:14 AM
Nothing is more bland to a rpg or game when everyone is equal.  No one wants to play a game where an average halfling can beat an average orc at arm wrestling 50% of the time.  Having demi-humans having different stats than humans for instance, helps to break up munchkinism.  If a species gets a certain bonus that is useful but would be a bit broken for a class and they have bad stats for said class, it helps to work as a counter.  I personally like asymmetric  races.

The other thing to think of, this whole stink about stats for species came about by people who would look you square in the eye and tell you that you are a bigot for stating the Homo Sapiens were more intelligent while Neanderthals were stronger.  Those same nimrods does the exact same thing for D&D "races" because TSR removed the term demihumans and used race.  Race is not the proper term for the species in D&D.  If someone looks you in the eye and tells you a Tortle and a human are the same Species, please get them tested for Alzheimer's.

There isn't anything human about a tortle though, demi or otherwise.

WotC twitter editors would call you racist if you said that though.  We are looking at losing Half-Orc and Half-Elf with how they are doing the new race rules for D&D One.  I guarantee you the twitter editors will get WotC to admit that yes half-tortles do exist and here is art for them and boy are they super special, if they so chose to display their power over WotC.  It doesn't impact core game mechanics, so far that is what WotC will cede ground to with any outcry.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on October 12, 2022, 12:40:32 AM
Hey, I remember that list!

I know a few people that you described who basically play themselves. Honestly I prefer it because the attempt to play other things end up painful and it's pretty funny half the time when they are themselves.

What about these "casual" players though? The ones you describe as Sulus. To me those are the ones that are there to play the game, but only want to put the bare minimum of investment to engage -- how do you make THEM engage more? I've tried a variety of tactics and strategies and they actively resist me, as if they literally come to play but don't want to play. All I can end up doing in the end is just playing "around" them, investing in the other players and letting them engage as much as they want while the rest of us get on with the game.

You can't make those players (or any player) do anything.  Lead a horse to water ...  What you can do, is think about what they want, then see that they get more of it when they do something useful to the dynamics of the table, and less of it when they don't.  Be careful that this doesn't lead to being pushy or outright manipulation, though.  You give them opportunities, that they can either take or not.  If they don't, then better luck next time. 

If they never take opportunities and things out of the desired behavior don't work--well, usually I find that person gets bored and stops showing up.  That works with out of control power gamers that just want to burn the game down for their own giggles, but it also works for people who aren't contributing at all and aren't trying, too.  Occasionally, you'll get a person that is bored but sticks around for the social aspects. Keep trying.  Sooner or later, you'll hit on something that causes them to dip their toe in the water.  Just accept that the person is probably never going off the high dive, but if you stay with it they will eventually be in the game some of the time. 

I suspect you keep asking for tricks that you can blindly do that will solve these issues, but there aren't any.  Instead, you have techniques that you can apply by thinking about each person as an individual, try the techniques, see what happens, refine, and so on. 

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on October 12, 2022, 12:40:32 AM
What about these "casual" players though? The ones you describe as Sulus. To me those are the ones that are there to play the game, but only want to put the bare minimum of investment to engage -- how do you make THEM engage more? I've tried a variety of tactics and strategies and they actively resist me, as if they literally come to play but don't want to play. All I can end up doing in the end is just playing "around" them, investing in the other players and letting them engage as much as they want while the rest of us get on with the game.

Engagement comes from communication. You as the GM have to know what you're after. And even that may be the "starting ceiling" that can rise to higher stakes as a campaign progresses. The question is are your players driven to those levels of play. And you simply can't tell until you get there. This is why at Session Zero I tell everyone the What, Where, Why, When, How of the starting location (usually I write up a primer) but I DEFINITELY talk with the group to set some starting expectations.

Things like - 'This is the frontier, everyone is armed with at least a dagger. If you get into a fight in town and draw a weapon it's assumed you're trying to kill your opponent. And murder is murder, so you better have a good reason.' Or 'Certain colors of clothing are reserved for certain people in this culture' blah blah blah. And you contextualize as much as possible to establish the social order. Which obviously can change if the PC's move from place to place. That's part of the game. Just like I make players who are city-dwellers and correctly didn't put any points into Survival (or whatever floats as such in the game) to be ****MISERABLE**** when doing overland travel if they're not on a conveyance.

This is why having Power-gamers and Min-Maxers are not a bad thing. Those are players that DO stuff because they're driven to "win" - that provides immediate tension for you to play off. Sure they may be engaging in single-minded shallow manners - but it's easy to deepen your game by putting in consequences to their actions to curtail the behavior to bring them into line with the setting conceits.

In other words if you have that brutal player that loves killing the shit out of people - suddenly murders someone in a friendly bar, and I give them every opportunity to kill their way out - or get captured. But I also consider based on their circumstances, that not necessarily every situation is cut-and-dry. And what if they're in the dungeon awaiting trial (are their trials here?) and the local Thieves Guild recruits him and ferries him out, and has some dupe replace him for the corrupt Magistrate to hang in his stead? Deeper. Now, yes, you're feeding the beast, but there is a psychological reality that will wear down even the hardest of murderhobos as they suddenly realize they're creating a legacy for their character beyond "bash the thing take the loot." Yes they might have AWESOME RIDCONCULOUS stats, and *someone* in-game will put that to use for their own ends.

Conversely... the deeper down that road they go... *someone* will see them for the monster they are and try to kill them eventually... *unless* the player reigns it in.

Sulus are a journeymen players that are not committed necessarily to anything but appear to "want" to be. Again, I call these casual players for my games. But they might be considered more than that for others. You simply never know with a Sulu. If a Sulu gets passed my Session Zero... I usually sit with them privately during the week to talk about simple stuff, fleshing out what they want with their backgrounds, or contextualizing things like friends/family/contacts and grounding them into the game so they feel "connected" from the start. Giving them detail (but not too much) is important. When the game starts I use all the ideas we established to draw them into the game and have them make decisions. Even simple interactions that determine what their gear-layout for a journey can be useful.

My goal for Sulus is have them establish their Modus Operandi for as much as possible. And where such things exist in the context of the setting, I give them guidance on what their character would know, based on their background and skills, what they would know that the player may not, so the player may make an informed choice (even if it's incorrect). And I'm always trying to get my Sulus to move on their own accord to make decisions with and for the party. I call it "Paving the Road" for the PC's. If I have a player that into Pit Fighting - I will create opportunities for him to engage with that (especially in places where it might be illegal). I'm blessed with good improvisational instincts in play (but that's probably because I've been doing this for a long time)  - between sessions I'm always considering different angles to feed my players. ESPECIALLY my Sulus, because they're works in progress.

It's time and pressure. I provide the pressure aplenty. They have to just stick it out and provide the time. If we do it right, we get diamonds. That murderhobo becomes a more thoughtful, though still aggressive party leader. That social player comes to enjoy not only social interplay, but becomes deadly at weaving political traps by drawing in NPC allies to commit to helping them in places other PC's would have to fight their way out of. I'm always thinking of interesting in-game scenarios that would be of interest and contextualizing it in play. Sulus are a bit of a crapshoot until you can get them moving of their own accord, in order to do that you have to feed them, and knock them around in game with choices and scenarios (not necessarily lethal ones - but challenging things), until they figure out they're the captains of their own ship.

Less experienced GM's can spend some time each week considering and notating their PC's and the current situation and where it can go based on your in-game possibilities. It makes your games run much smoother because you're taking those notes and putting them into action. They can be totally open-ended - and let your PC's react and do their thing. And you then react accordingly. Letting your PC's get away with shennigans is GOOD. But tuck that all away in case in can become a plot-point for another adventure later.

Quote from: jhkim on October 12, 2022, 02:11:15 AM

The issue is that one's prime stat is rolled far more frequently for much greater consequences than a tertiary stat. A wizard will constantly roll with Int bonus, and a fighter will constantly roll with Str bonus. The extra +1 isn't game-breaking, but the optimal choice is extremely obvious to almost all players, in my experience.

I would say you've hit the nail on the head there. As I see it, the race-modifier question is just a symptom of the fact that the core design of D&D encourages min-maxing. The issue is present to varying degrees in the different editions, but as far as I've seen, a specialist PC is far more effective than a generalist in every version of D&D.

Small distinction, but I think your point would be better phrased as "racial modifiers provide one more avenue for min-maxing in a system that already encourages it".

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 12, 2022, 08:55:55 AM

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on October 12, 2022, 12:40:32 AM
Hey, I remember that list!

I know a few people that you described who basically play themselves. Honestly I prefer it because the attempt to play other things end up painful and it's pretty funny half the time when they are themselves.

What about these "casual" players though? The ones you describe as Sulus. To me those are the ones that are there to play the game, but only want to put the bare minimum of investment to engage -- how do you make THEM engage more? I've tried a variety of tactics and strategies and they actively resist me, as if they literally come to play but don't want to play. All I can end up doing in the end is just playing "around" them, investing in the other players and letting them engage as much as they want while the rest of us get on with the game.

You can't make those players (or any player) do anything.  Lead a horse to water ...  What you can do, is think about what they want, then see that they get more of it when they do something useful to the dynamics of the table, and less of it when they don't.  Be careful that this doesn't lead to being pushy or outright manipulation, though.  You give them opportunities, that they can either take or not.  If they don't, then better luck next time. 

If they never take opportunities and things out of the desired behavior don't work--well, usually I find that person gets bored and stops showing up.  That works with out of control power gamers that just want to burn the game down for their own giggles, but it also works for people who aren't contributing at all and aren't trying, too.  Occasionally, you'll get a person that is bored but sticks around for the social aspects. Keep trying.  Sooner or later, you'll hit on something that causes them to dip their toe in the water.  Just accept that the person is probably never going off the high dive, but if you stay with it they will eventually be in the game some of the time. 

I suspect you keep asking for tricks that you can blindly do that will solve these issues, but there aren't any.  Instead, you have techniques that you can apply by thinking about each person as an individual, try the techniques, see what happens, refine, and so on.

... annnnnnd Steven says it in one tenth of the words I used...

Quote from: ForgottenF on October 12, 2022, 11:37:42 AM

Quote from: jhkim on October 12, 2022, 02:11:15 AM
The issue is that one's prime stat is rolled far more frequently for much greater consequences than a tertiary stat. A wizard will constantly roll with Int bonus, and a fighter will constantly roll with Str bonus. The extra +1 isn't game-breaking, but the optimal choice is extremely obvious to almost all players, in my experience.

I would say you've hit the nail on the head there. As I see it, the race-modifier question is just a symptom of the fact that the core design of D&D encourages min-maxing. The issue is present to varying degrees in the different editions, but as far as I've seen, a specialist PC is far more effective than a generalist in every version of D&D.

Small distinction, but I think your point would be better phrased as "racial modifiers provide one more avenue for min-maxing in a system that already encourages it".

Thanks. I'd agree with that phrasing, with the caveat that in my opinion, most other RPGs also encourage min-maxing, so it isn't a distinctive issue of D&D. That doesn't mean I like it - just that it's a common problem to struggle with in many systems.

Quote from: jhkim on October 12, 2022, 03:58:13 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on October 12, 2022, 11:37:42 AM

Quote from: jhkim on October 12, 2022, 02:11:15 AM
The issue is that one's prime stat is rolled far more frequently for much greater consequences than a tertiary stat. A wizard will constantly roll with Int bonus, and a fighter will constantly roll with Str bonus. The extra +1 isn't game-breaking, but the optimal choice is extremely obvious to almost all players, in my experience.

I would say you've hit the nail on the head there. As I see it, the race-modifier question is just a symptom of the fact that the core design of D&D encourages min-maxing. The issue is present to varying degrees in the different editions, but as far as I've seen, a specialist PC is far more effective than a generalist in every version of D&D.

Small distinction, but I think your point would be better phrased as "racial modifiers provide one more avenue for min-maxing in a system that already encourages it".

Thanks. I'd agree with that phrasing, with the caveat that in my opinion, most other RPGs also encourage min-maxing, so it isn't a distinctive issue of D&D. That doesn't mean I like it - just that it's a common problem to struggle with in many systems.

I'd go yet another step and say that it is impossible to avoid the possibility of min/max in a system that has any degree of complexity to it at all.  Heck, Toon has the possibility to min/max, and it's got 4 attributes, a handful of skills, everything is useful, and no one can die.  If it can happen in Toon, it can happen anywhere. 

Where the differences lie between systems is where the min/max is encouraged, allowed, etc., and not just from the mechanics perspective.  Take, for example, the idea of spotting people trying to ambush you.   That's something that many players care about, even the ones that aren't prone to min/max merely for the sake of min/max.  That is, it's a concern that a player with a character could legitimately have even if their motivations and means were totally in the mindset of the character concept. 

A. In D&D 3E, spotting an ambush is a mix of high Wisdom attribute, the Perception skill, maybe some feats (depending on your slant on it), picking the right race and/or class to get those.  You can chunk skill points in Perception right up to the max all you want, as along as they last.  There's really no good reason not to.

B. In Dragon Quest 3E, spotting an ambush is a mix of the Perception attribute, race bonuses to it as a package of other extreme up and down changes, buying the attribute up with big chunks of experience, having a skilled Ranger (profession) in the party who gets better at ambush on a fixed schedule based on his profession rank.  There's a ton of opportunity costs to everything that boosts spotting an ambush, and you will feel those costs often during play.

DQ has chosen to put heavy incentives to not min/max Perception.  D&D 3E encourages you to do so.  On the other hand, if you want to play a mix of a arcane type caster and a warrior there are limited options in D&D 3E with their own costs, whereas in DQ it's practically given to you for free for many concepts (though not all).  So the tables have flipped as soon as she switch the question of what and how much.

Quote from: tenbones on October 12, 2022, 11:37:14 AMConversely... the deeper down that road they go... *someone* will see them for the monster they are and try to kill them eventually... *unless* the player reigns it in.

Sulus are a journeymen players that are not committed necessarily to anything but appear to "want" to be. Again, I call these casual players for my games. But they might be considered more than that for others. You simply never know with a Sulu. If a Sulu gets passed my Session Zero... I usually sit with them privately during the week to talk about simple stuff, fleshing out what they want with their backgrounds, or contextualizing things like friends/family/contacts and grounding them into the game so they feel "connected" from the start. Giving them detail (but not too much) is important. When the game starts I use all the ideas we established to draw them into the game and have them make decisions. Even simple interactions that determine what their gear-layout for a journey can be useful.

My goal for Sulus is have them establish their Modus Operandi for as much as possible. And where such things exist in the context of the setting, I give them guidance on what their character would know, based on their background and skills, what they would know that the player may not, so the player may make an informed choice (even if it's incorrect). And I'm always trying to get my Sulus to move on their own accord to make decisions with and for the party. I call it "Paving the Road" for the PC's. If I have a player that into Pit Fighting - I will create opportunities for him to engage with that (especially in places where it might be illegal). I'm blessed with good improvisational instincts in play (but that's probably because I've been doing this for a long time)  - between sessions I'm always considering different angles to feed my players. ESPECIALLY my Sulus, because they're works in progress.

It's time and pressure. I provide the pressure aplenty. They have to just stick it out and provide the time. If we do it right, we get diamonds. That murderhobo becomes a more thoughtful, though still aggressive party leader. That social player comes to enjoy not only social interplay, but becomes deadly at weaving political traps by drawing in NPC allies to commit to helping them in places other PC's would have to fight their way out of. I'm always thinking of interesting in-game scenarios that would be of interest and contextualizing it in play. Sulus are a bit of a crapshoot until you can get them moving of their own accord, in order to do that you have to feed them, and knock them around in game with choices and scenarios (not necessarily lethal ones - but challenging things), until they figure out they're the captains of their own ship.

Less experienced GM's can spend some time each week considering and notating their PC's and the current situation and where it can go based on your in-game possibilities. It makes your games run much smoother because you're taking those notes and putting them into action. They can be totally open-ended - and let your PC's react and do their thing. And you then react accordingly. Letting your PC's get away with shennigans is GOOD. But tuck that all away in case in can become a plot-point for another adventure later.

This is what I do, and it usually ends up backfiring -- because the player ends up not wanting to be involved in this much effort and inevitably drops out or says they will if everything isn't scaled back, at which point all of that game tied up around them is wasted.

If we were going to quantify it at some arbitrary number, some players only want to try, say, 20% effort, and nothing will shake that and if they ever have to go over it they are dipping out.

Have you ever had those players still get sucked in and go beyond that with your efforts?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on October 12, 2022, 06:05:52 PM
This is what I do, and it usually ends up backfiring -- because the player ends up not wanting to be involved in this much effort and inevitably drops out or says they will if everything isn't scaled back, at which point all of that game tied up around them is wasted.

If we were going to quantify it at some arbitrary number, some players only want to try, say, 20% effort, and nothing will shake that and if they ever have to go over it they are dipping out.

Have you ever had those players still get sucked in and go beyond that with your efforts?

What exactly are you doing that is "game tied up around them" and why is that "wasted"?

My result is that no one tries an ultimatum on me.  For some people it just isn't there thing, and they go.  Whatever I was putting out there that they were experiencing to find out if they wanted to continue was being enjoyed by the rest of the group.  At worst, I'm out helping them make a character and maybe a little slowdown in the game getting them going. 

Are you tying "plots" to these characters?

Yes. I'll bring in parts of their backstory and make the current quest about them in some way, that sort of thing.

Or I'll make it easier to handle a lot of the mechanical stuff, but get excuses about why it's too much even though I'm now handling it for them so it doesn't even make sense.

I've tried offering in-game rewards (more XP, etc) for getting more involved and had them dig in their heels and practically go out of their way to not seek it.

Often they will SAY they want to be in the game, that they feel unengaged and there isn't anything really grabbing them, but they will resist every step of the way trying to get them more engaged. I will offer to let them drop but they will say they want to stay in the game. But they'll stay and then refuse to do the rest.

Some just have very clear desires and know what they want; like one player that just says they want D&D to just be the time they show up and turn their brain off, hang out, and leave. And he resists attempts to make it more than that. At least he's conscious of it though. Others, go through the song and dance I described above. I just don't see any chance of any of these types to "evolve", but if you guys somehow did it I want to know.

I think we need a whole new topic on dealing with passive players.  I'm a little pressed at the moment, but I'll start one up in a day or two if someone doesn't beat me to it.

Quote from: jhkim on October 12, 2022, 02:11:15 AM
However, I disagree to say that 16->18 isn't worth more, to the point that it seems disingenuous.

Well, if you think disagreeing on this point seems disingenuous, that seems like an admission that you can't even fathom an opposing position. Which suggests you aren't aware of information to the contrary. So if it turns out that there is in fact information to the contrary, it would make it seem like you never had any idea what you're talking about to begin with. I am not saying that is the case. I am not calling you clueless. But I am about to present said information. So carefully consider where you want to go with this. The degree to which you stand by the disingenuous remark is the degree to which you are outing yourself as not knowing the subject matter.

QuoteAsk anyone who has a 16 Strength, 10 Intelligence fighter which one they'd take -- +2 Strength or +2 Intelligence? Can you really honestly say that you think most players would say that there's no difference?!?

To quickly address the latter question first. A few posts back I was talking about the nature of choice, and you might recall I said something about it being necessary for one option be perceived as better than the others. So it's either a very badly worded question or else an entirely irrelevant one.

So on to the first one. I volunteer to answer.

When will I ever use STR? Maybe kicking in doors? But do I really need to min-max that? I mean if I fail, the door just kind of stands there waiting for me to kick it again. So what we're really talking about is fighting.

Fighting sounds dangerous. Do I have a high DEX to get hit somewhat less and CON to be able to better take a hit? If so, sign me up for STR. The high DEX especially will mean I'll do well at two-weapon fighting meaning I can double-dip on the STR. That would clearly make it disproportionately advantageous and Strength wins hands down.

But if not, if I don't have good Dex and Con scores, I'm not 100% sold on making fighting my go to solution. Don't get me wrong. As a last resort, I'm still happy to be a fighter and really good at fighting. Because this is the thing that might stand between me and death, I don't regret for one second being a fighter. I'm just not sure I want to be the poster child for He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. So let me at least explore my other options.

What's my charisma? If I have very high Charisma, negotiation seems like a good, healthy go to solution. Or even if it's just moderately high, getting on the track to command fighting men rather than having to fight everything myself seems like a good idea given my Dex and Con aren't as high as I'd like them to be. In either case, having a 12 INT instead of a 10 INT means knowing an extra language. That's one additional race or creature I am able to negotiate or command with in their native language. I'd love to have some dwarfs in my army. Apart from their obvious rep as stalwart fighters, having a dwarf blacksmith would more efficiently maintain my men's equipment. Dwarf sapper/miners are more effective than humans.

By the way, is this a high magic or a low magic world? Because if it's a low magic world, that extra +1 to hit/+1 damage from having the extra Strength, that's highly appealing since I can't count on just finding ye olde magick sworde that will do it for me.

But if it's a high magic world and magic swords grow on trees, then that +1 to hit/+1 damage is not so big a deal. I can find better combat bonuses on the side of the road. On the other hand, I have to worry about those intelligent swords trying to control me with their egos. The +2 to Intelligence is like being 2 levels higher. Nay, it's better. Because +2 Int holds up better than +2 levels when I'm losing hp.

Next question. Are we doing skills or proficiencies or anything like that? How does that work? Like do I get my Int bonus in extra skill points each and every level where I can use those points for whatever skills. Like including that one Str-based skill I really want. Such that after 2 levels, I'm already outpacing what I would have had if I went with Str instead? Because that seems like some sweet ass min-maxing potential. Or does it only make me better at Int-based proficiencies. Like craft skills. Maybe be better at creating my own weapons of exceptional quality.

Is this going to be one of those campaigns where the main bad guy is always scrying on us and sending invisible spies? Because the extra INT will make me better at detecting that stuff.

QuoteThe issue is that one's prime stat is rolled far more frequently for much greater consequences than a tertiary stat.

I think that's an assertion. I've acknowledged it long ago. I understand your reasons for concluding that. But it's also an extremely generic theoretical statement that is not at all self-evident once the details start trickling in.

QuoteA wizard will constantly roll with Int bonus,

Ironically, in 1E, where the benefits are legit stacked on the extreme ends, and so there actually is blatant prima facie favoritism towards upping your best score, this statement doesn't hold.

Quoteand a fighter will constantly roll with Str bonus. The extra +1 isn't game-breaking, but the optimal choice is extremely obvious to almost all players, in my experience.

What's that? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of my trebuchet.

Quote from: jhkim on October 12, 2022, 03:05:57 AM
1) Evil leaders do have fanatically loyal followers who are loyal to death and beyond, both in fantasy fiction (Thulsa Doom) and sadly also in real life (Jim Jones).

2) Chaotic good can also be truly virtuous and attract fanatically loyal followers (Robin Hood), and pursue virtue just as whole-heartedly in the face of tyranny.

I never said otherwise. Loyalty increases over a long period of time. Especially in the face of success, sharing wealth with your underlings, saving their lives, and so on. What I said is a Paladin can hit those insanely high levels of loyalty in almost no time flat. That every one of their restrictions serve to stack these bonuses, and if you compromise on race, alignment, powers, etc you're always going to lag behind. And I think that undermines the "god touched" interpretation of Paladins and the Paladins of all alignment motif.


Incidentally, Thulsa Doom was a supernatural being. In the book version, he was supernatural undead. And it's not clear bands of fanatics joined him while he was living and remained with him after he "died." The movie version of Thulsa Doom, right after Conan used his head to pick up the 7-10 split, every one of his fanatical followers one by one extinguished their torches and abandoned his cult. Understand what I am saying. A wet behind the ears first level Paladin can have people a LOT more loyal than that, and it doesn't take a thousand years to build up to that.

As for Jim Jones, I legit don't know the answer to this. Is there anyone who followed him fanatically, did not die on that day, and remained fanatically loyal afterwards? If no, then you're citing Bush league second rate icons that do not measure up to the thing I'm describing as far as what comes with all those Paladin restrictions.

Quote3) In the D&D cosmology, there's nothing unique about Lawful Good compared to the other alignments.  The good gods are often Neutral Good or Chaotic Good, with no superiority shown to Lawful Good.

I pointed out that alignments are not just arbitrary team jerseys. There's a behavioral component to them. And that good and evil are not simply mirror images of each other. Good upholds human rights. That doesn't mean evil goes out of their way to violate them. Evil goes out of their way for their purpose, which sometimes can even be a noble one. The key is that they are indifferent to human rights. Not necessarily contrary to them. This is not me. This is what the book says.

I thought it was worth noting that there are differences that are not arbitrary and introduce asymmetries. I don't think that was the same thing as saying there's something unique about Lawful Good. But if you think it does mean that, well, again, what I'm saying comes straight from the book, so you're going to have to re-evaluate your claim that this isn't built into the cosmology. Because I am not speaking out of turn on this.

QuoteD&D is not Judeo-Christian. In a Judeo-Christian cosmology game like Ars Magica, then I think some of these paladin qualities would make more sense. But in a pagan game-world with gods of mixed alignment, it doesn't fit.

You can say all you want "but non Christian", the fact is, if I buy your god-touched interpretation and Paladins of all flavors, the game mechanics I was citing regarding loyalty and fanaticism suggest that every other alignment has second-rate gods. Which is a hell of a lot closer to one true Lawful Good god than anything I'm saying.

Quote4) You claim that humans get the most favorable racial preference rating, which is simply false. In the AD&D table, halflings have equal or better relations in the race table than humans with all the other races. The other races have different mixes, with poorer relations with half-orcs but often better relations with the others. Better racial relations with half-orcs seems like an odd requirement for a paladin.

Yeah, I see a lot of positives about Halflings on this front. As I've been saying repeatedly, I am not 100% opposed to the idea of halfling paladins. Humans and Halflings are the only races without negative (Antipathy/Hatred) ratings for any of the races. I think those negative ratings knock the other races out of the running. Keep in mind, there's more racial preference data in the core books than just what appears in the PHB table. Lizardmen, for instance, will serve a human master out of either fear or religious awe. That's in the DMG. Flipping an enemy to something that has serves you out of religious awe is pretty big. But hands down the biggest advantage humans have is the P-rating for other humans, which are the most numerous race and the most likely to be encountered.