I just dont want to commit 100+ hours to a character that isn't good due to poor stats and a class I didnt want to play.
Playing based on Stats and Class isn’t playing a “character” it’s playing an archetype. The enjoyable part was finding the fun in that PC anyway. A Character isn’t Stats and a Class. That’s what they have, not who they are.
I just dont want to commit 100+ hours to a character that isn't good due to poor stats and a class I didnt want to play.
Playing based on Stats and Class isn’t playing a “character” it’s playing an archetype. The enjoyable part was finding the fun in that PC anyway. A Character isn’t Stats and a Class. That’s what they have, not who they are.
I am no where near the point where I consider a random class/stat combination to be fun...sounds like a horrible experience to me but to each their own.
The thing is, if everyone is playing with sub-optimal stats (a near certainty if you randomly roll and "find the character" like Colville has his players do) the DM knows it, and the DM will adjust for it so the game is still enjoyable and the players can still have fun. On top of that they get the satisfaction of knowing that they overcame a little bit of adversity along the way. They also get the added verisimilitude of playing a sub-optimal character because, as Sposta points out, real people are (often extremely) sub-optimal. No, this isn't real life, but if you want to have a realistic, believable character rather than a cartoon-cut-out, the more you mimic real life with the character, the more believable and relatable it will be.
If you play with a party of all optimized characters (a near certainty if you go with point buy, the optional rules for moving racial bonuses around, and so forth), and the DM knows it, the DM will have to adjust for that too. The monsters will have to have more hp, hit harder, etc. The end result of that experience may be fairly similar to the players, in the sense that the challenge will be approximately the same, but they won't have any sense of overcoming adversity, because they started out with perfection on day 1. Their characters will be more cartoonish and less realistic because they won't have any flaws to overcome as they grow and develop.
And to make matters worse, because they played a campaign optimized, and the DM upped the DCs of all the traps and persuasion checks, upped the stats of all the monsters, to compensate, these players will think (incorrectly) that having optimized characters is necessary to survive combat and to have a good time playing D&D. When, in fact, exactly the opposite is the case. DMs scale adventures to the party in front of them (most of the time), so optimizing to the nth degree is a self-defeating exercise. All you're doing is forcing the DM to scale everything up. And you get to lose the verisimilitude you might have had along the way into the bargain (along with getting a very warped perception of what is "necessary" in D&D to have a good time).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
In my first 5E game, I wound up with a character that had absurdly high stats (my lowest was a 15, and I rolled in front of the group) due to the way the GM had us roll for them. While this was very useful at first, I found that by 5th level it had largely ceased to matter since I never needed to do anything with my dump stats except make the occasional ability check.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Rolling the dice and making what you can from it isn't Old And Outdated. It's Hard Core.
There's nothing wrong with a little Hard Core gaming. Many people enjoy that. You know the kind of people who always play their video games on the max difficulty setting? Yeah. Hard Core. Some folks like more of a challenge. When you take the random stats you probably won't get a nice, optimized set of numbers that works perfectly with your conception. You'll have to think hard about what to do with those Ability Score Increases as you level up. Your character may be surprisingly charismatic or remarkably wise for a Fighter and you choose to take skills that reflect this, leading to an entirely different roleplay experience than if you're just another min-maxed Fighter.
Rolling the dice and letting them dictate what you play also works quite nicely for new players who don't know the game well enough to know in advance what they want to play. It gives them a place to start. It narrows down what can be a bewildering number of options for them.
Rolling the dice and making what you can from it isn't Old And Outdated. It's Hard Core.
There's nothing wrong with a little Hard Core gaming. Many people enjoy that. You know the kind of people who always play their video games on the max difficulty setting? Yeah. Hard Core. Some folks like more of a challenge. When you take the random stats you probably won't get a nice, optimized set of numbers that works perfectly with your conception. You'll have to think hard about what to do with those Ability Score Increases as you level up. Your character may be surprisingly charismatic or remarkably wise for a Fighter and you choose to take skills that reflect this, leading to an entirely different roleplay experience than if you're just another min-maxed Fighter.
Rolling the dice and letting them dictate what you play also works quite nicely for new players who don't know the game well enough to know in advance what they want to play. It gives them a place to start. It narrows down what can be a bewildering number of options for them.
HARD disagree on the new player route.
You should likely follow the PHB guide and just pick a class that seems to match an interest. If you want to go random then just roll randomly for a class and follow the guide on stats using standard array.
Random stats and random class on a new player is asking for a bad time.
For hardcore players I agree this is a decent option for a challenge though. Not my cup of tea as it sounds terrible to me but I can see the appeal.
I'm mildly amused by the fact that if I took a hard position in any of these character generation methods with my game, my table would consist of just two people either way...
I'm mildly amused by the fact that if I took a hard position in any of these character generation methods with my game, my table would consist of just two people either way...
Yes, each table is different.
My feeling is, the char gen method is largely irrelevant. I have played in many, many systems over the years, and the only one that ever let me come close to making "whatever I wanted" was Champions. Yet I didn't abandon all those other systems for Champions permanently (though I did play it a lot, because it is an awesome game). And I played tons of far more restrictive RPGs (especially MMOs and CRPGs) and had fun in all of them. I guess it just depends on what you like.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Multiple comments and sub-threads I see were spawned from my original comment.
To summarize my position:
1. 4d6 is a ridiculous system because of the inevitable variation in original strengths in each player's char. Whether the player cheats, or actually gets lucky with their rolls, their character has an innate advantage over another char who rolled poorly. And as DM, eventually one of a number of options happens: a. The weaker char is killed or marginalized as the DM builds encounters to challenged the most powerful or median char in the group. b. The more powerful chars get bored/ dominate if the DM caters to the lowest common denominator. c. The more powerful chars get annoyed as the DM designs encounters to challenge the most powerful char's weaknesses.
2. The game is about challenges and tradeoffs, not this newest generations' worldview of "I want everything now, and I won't have any fun if I don't get what I want." Suck it up buttercup. Real life is hard. So was D&D, from the beginning, and should continue that way today.
3. I would only allow Colville's method, if the dice were rolled in front of all, and the stats were applied in sequential order to abilities, and then each player would then work with creating a char with those stats. But even I think that is too draconian. (even with I said in statement #2). New players to the game would really struggle with it, while highly experienced players might enjoy the challenge. I would enjoy it, but I am betting I am in a tiny minority.
4. The 27 point buy (or some variation of it) is the only logical method of ensuring all players start with the same baseline options. How a player applies those points and therefore their abilities, will define a good player's char development strategy and equally, a bad player's (or whiny player's) strategy. Like in everything, including all games, there are good players, and bad players. This ensures that gameplay over the long haul is based on player ability, not some random dice roll that was done in session 0 that haunts, or benefits, a player for the entire life of that char.
Multiple comments and sub-threads I see were spawned from my original comment.
To summarize my position:
1. 4d6 is a ridiculous system because of the inevitable variation in original strengths in each player's char. Whether the player cheats, or actually gets lucky with their rolls, their character has an innate advantage over another char who rolled poorly. And as DM, eventually one of a number of options happens: a. The weaker char is killed or marginalized as the DM builds encounters to challenged the most powerful or median char in the group. b. The more powerful chars get bored/ dominate if the DM caters to the lowest common denominator. c. The more powerful chars get annoyed as the DM designs encounters to challenge the most powerful char's weaknesses.
2. The game is about challenges and tradeoffs, not this newest generations' worldview of "I want everything now, and I won't have any fun if I don't get what I want." Suck it up buttercup. Real life is hard. So was D&D, from the beginning, and should continue that way today.
3. I would only allow Colville's method, if the dice were rolled in front of all, and the stats were applied in sequential order to abilities, and then each player would then work with creating a char with those stats. But even I think that is too draconian. (even with I said in statement #2). New players to the game would really struggle with it, while highly experienced players might enjoy the challenge. I would enjoy it, but I am betting I am in a tiny minority.
4. The 27 point buy (or some variation of it) is the only logical method of ensuring all players start with the same baseline options. How a player applies those points and therefore their abilities, will define a good player's char development strategy and equally, a bad player's (or whiny player's) strategy. Like in everything, including all games, there are good players, and bad players. This ensures that gameplay over the long haul is based on player ability, not some random dice roll that was done in session 0 that haunts, or benefits, a player for the entire life of that char.
Like I said few posts above, class and subclass choice introduces far more variance in players power level than few points in stats can, definitely in the long haul you mention in #4
A player who chose to play a Beastmaster may think that they have the same power and possibilities as the player who chose a Divination Wizard becaue they have the same stat pool but that is a false sense of equality.
People have used games to teach children and prepare them for life for thousands of years. Specifically because of the way D&D used to work, I can now play any character at any time with no problem. I was educated to “make it work” in part by D&D, as were many others.
I don’t want to do what I do for a living. So why should I? Why not just drop it and go be a baseball player? Oh, that’s right, because I’m old and out of shape and was never a fast runner to begin with.
It isn’t a matter of “the best possible,” that’s the whole point. It was a matter of taking a character, finding their strengths, and making what they could do into something greater than their stats. That’s why I have a job that requires one to be able to store vast amounts of highly technical data in one’s head, access it readily at any time, and communicate it it effectively to others who don’t have those skills in a way that will let them learn it well enough to not kill anybody. Because that’s what I’m good at.
So I teach instead of play baseball. It doesn’t matter one iota if I wanted to be a “Fighter” (athlete), in the womb I rolled stats for a Wizard/Bard (teacher), so that’s what I am, and I make the best of it.
Isn’t it a good thing for me personally that I was able to learn that lesson playing D&D? I think so. 🤷♂️
I can RP the shit out of anything you throw at me as well, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't enjoy playing MY OWN specific character concept more.
The rest of your post is real life, that isn't what I was talking about. In that case, yes, you DO have to make the best of what you got. And, yes, it is a valuable skill. Playing D&D could be a way to "build real world skills and learn how to overcome shortcomings" but, I feel you are reaching a little here. For those Hardcore folk out there, nobody is impressed, go flex somewhere else.
If they had a long and satisfying character arc then it seems a bit odd to play them again (at least the same background).
If it's your favourite playstyle and your character died before they could even do anything with their backstory, remaking them for a different campaign seems understandable imo.
Additional reminder: The thread is derailing heavily again. Bashing other folks' preference for character generation isn't really a discussion of which one change people would make in 5e.
There's no reason to bash someone's choice of character generation. Much like all the Tasha's Cauldron rules everybody is constantly herneating over, one's choice of how to play is a table-by-table decision. Colville's method is not bad; it works for him and his table. The fact that some players would rather scrape their nipples off with sandpaper than be forced to roll stats/species randomly and 'play what you're given' does not invalidate his method, it simply means the method is not universal. Just as many players balk at the generic sameyness of Standard Array and choose to roll for stats because their souls shrivel at everybody having the exact same identical stats all the time.
This introduces intra-party imbalance, yes. Some tables consider that a worthwhile sacrifice for more unique character generation. Others do not. That is a table decision, not a book decision. There's a reason the book includes three separate 'Official' methods of stat generation.
Finally, a somewhat more personal note as I cannot help myself: please ******* stop assuming that people who build/play "optimal" characters do not ever 'Role Play', or create characters with recognizable weaknesses, or all that other awful shit everybody keeps accusing players of. For many players, optimization of build is simply representative of their character being trained and proficient in their chosen class, which is important for someone who regularly risks their life for money. The idea that it's somehow more 'real' for one's character to be an almost completely nonfunctional pile of mucus that's only just barely able to get their own clothes on in the morning is fallacious; such individuals would not only never risk their bumbling moron selves as an adventurer, but if they did they would swiftly be killed.
Rather than assuming players are being Evil Eugenicists who're hand-forging an unrealistic avatar of perfection? Assume instead that the player is selecting the option to play that one fortunate individual in the thousands of pointless Colvillian plebs around him who was born with precisely the required gifts to rise as an adventurer. That individual must exist, after all - authors have been writing stories about him for centuries. What is so awful about wanting to play the story of the well-trained and competent adventurer, rather than the village idiot who somehow manages to bumble**** his way to level 3 before getting eaten by a harpy and replaced by the next village idiot in line?
Constantly assuming we're just trying to skip the story because we play competent characters is fallacious, disingenuous, and honestly just seriously ******* tiresome. I'm an almost completely nonfunctional ****-up disaster of a human being in real life, I have no desire to play the 'Nothing above 12 and the 12 in the wrong place' bumble**** moron who has no business leaving his village in my recreational time. I want to be an awesome, highly trained and competent adventurer who gets shit done, being challenged by equally competent adversaries. If you're more into playing the bumble****, be my guest - but please stop telling me my fun is wrong just because you can't get over your desire to sabotage yourself to the point of inevitable failure.
We have a player that has played the same Druid in 3 different campaigns. He likes it and he is happy. What is the problem?
It's only a problem if the campaign doesn't support the existence of that character. Maybe there are no druids in the world in question, but assuming that is not the case, there isn't a problem objectively speaking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
You pay a set amount per month and get all content digitally. Updates/Errata would be instantly updated. This would also allow little bits of new content to be added every so often alongside bigger books.
You could still buy books and in the book could be a code for a free month of the subscription service to check it out.
I would hate that. Subscription based system always feel so parasitic to me, even when you math it out and you aren't actually paying that much money. If you could still buy physical books it would be okay, but I feel like a lot of content might be accelerated just to feed subscribers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Additional reminder: The thread is derailing heavily again. Bashing other folks' preference for character generation isn't really a discussion of which one change people would make in 5e.
There's no reason to bash someone's choice of character generation. Much like all the Tasha's Cauldron rules everybody is constantly herneating over, one's choice of how to play is a table-by-table decision. Colville's method is not bad; it works for him and his table. The fact that some players would rather scrape their nipples off with sandpaper than be forced to roll stats/species randomly and 'play what you're given' does not invalidate his method, it simply means the method is not universal. Just as many players balk at the generic sameyness of Standard Array and choose to roll for stats because their souls shrivel at everybody having the exact same identical stats all the time.
This introduces intra-party imbalance, yes. Some tables consider that a worthwhile sacrifice for more unique character generation. Others do not. That is a table decision, not a book decision. There's a reason the book includes three separate 'Official' methods of stat generation.
Finally, a somewhat more personal note as I cannot help myself: please ****ing stop assuming that people who build/play "optimal" characters do not ever 'Role Play', or create characters with recognizable weaknesses, or all that other awful shit everybody keeps accusing players of. For many players, optimization of build is simply representative of their character being trained and proficient in their chosen class, which is important for someone who regularly risks their life for money. The idea that it's somehow more 'real' for one's character to be an almost completely nonfunctional pile of mucus that's only just barely able to get their own clothes on in the morning is fallacious; such individuals would not only never risk their bumbling moron selves as an adventurer, but if they did they would swiftly be killed.
Rather than assuming players are being Evil Eugenicists who're hand-forging an unrealistic avatar of perfection? Assume instead that the player is selecting the option to play that one fortunate individual in the thousands of pointless Colvillian plebs around him who was born with precisely the required gifts to rise as an adventurer. That individual must exist, after all - authors have been writing stories about him for centuries. What is so awful about wanting to play the story of the well-trained and competent adventurer, rather than the village idiot who somehow manages to bumble**** his way to level 3 before getting eaten by a harpy and replaced by the next village idiot in line?
Constantly assuming we're just trying to skip the story because we play competent characters is fallacious, disingenuous, and honestly just seriously ****ing tiresome. I'm an almost completely nonfunctional ****-up disaster of a human being in real life, I have no desire to play the 'Nothing above 12 and the 12 in the wrong place' bumble**** moron who has no business leaving his village in my recreational time. I want to be an awesome, highly trained and competent adventurer who gets shit done, being challenged by equally competent adversaries. If you're more into playing the bumble****, be my guest - but please stop telling me my fun is wrong just because you can't get over your desire to sabotage yourself to the point of inevitable failure.
Screw. That. Noise.
Ummm...no.
Talking about mechanics of stat generation for chars runs to the core of this game, and many other games. Discussing how some methods are utterly broken is indeed germane. I know what you want to see in 6e. You have made that explicitly clear. I am stating what I want removed in 6e, and by that any I mean any mention of 4d6 rolling, even as "optional", because the 4d6 method is nothing but trouble.
Additional reminder: The thread is derailing heavily again. Bashing other folks' preference for character generation isn't really a discussion of which one change people would make in 5e.
There's no reason to bash someone's choice of character generation. Much like all the Tasha's Cauldron rules everybody is constantly herneating over, one's choice of how to play is a table-by-table decision. Colville's method is not bad; it works for him and his table. The fact that some players would rather scrape their nipples off with sandpaper than be forced to roll stats/species randomly and 'play what you're given' does not invalidate his method, it simply means the method is not universal. Just as many players balk at the generic sameyness of Standard Array and choose to roll for stats because their souls shrivel at everybody having the exact same identical stats all the time.
This introduces intra-party imbalance, yes. Some tables consider that a worthwhile sacrifice for more unique character generation. Others do not. That is a table decision, not a book decision. There's a reason the book includes three separate 'Official' methods of stat generation.
Finally, a somewhat more personal note as I cannot help myself: please ****ing stop assuming that people who build/play "optimal" characters do not ever 'Role Play', or create characters with recognizable weaknesses, or all that other awful shit everybody keeps accusing players of. For many players, optimization of build is simply representative of their character being trained and proficient in their chosen class, which is important for someone who regularly risks their life for money. The idea that it's somehow more 'real' for one's character to be an almost completely nonfunctional pile of mucus that's only just barely able to get their own clothes on in the morning is fallacious; such individuals would not only never risk their bumbling moron selves as an adventurer, but if they did they would swiftly be killed.
Rather than assuming players are being Evil Eugenicists who're hand-forging an unrealistic avatar of perfection? Assume instead that the player is selecting the option to play that one fortunate individual in the thousands of pointless Colvillian plebs around him who was born with precisely the required gifts to rise as an adventurer. That individual must exist, after all - authors have been writing stories about him for centuries. What is so awful about wanting to play the story of the well-trained and competent adventurer, rather than the village idiot who somehow manages to bumble**** his way to level 3 before getting eaten by a harpy and replaced by the next village idiot in line?
Constantly assuming we're just trying to skip the story because we play competent characters is fallacious, disingenuous, and honestly just seriously ****ing tiresome. I'm an almost completely nonfunctional ****-up disaster of a human being in real life, I have no desire to play the 'Nothing above 12 and the 12 in the wrong place' bumble**** moron who has no business leaving his village in my recreational time. I want to be an awesome, highly trained and competent adventurer who gets shit done, being challenged by equally competent adversaries. If you're more into playing the bumble****, be my guest - but please stop telling me my fun is wrong just because you can't get over your desire to sabotage yourself to the point of inevitable failure.
Screw. That. Noise.
Ummm...no.
Talking about mechanics of stat generation for chars runs to the core of this game, and many other games. Discussing how some methods are utterly broken is indeed germane. I know what you want to see in 6e. You have made that explicitly clear. I am stating what I want removed in 6e, and by that any I mean any mention of 4d6 rolling, even as "optional", because the 4d6 method is nothing but trouble.
Quite frankly, this would still not stop anyone from using the 4d6 method for stat generation even if they removed it as an optional rule, so it’s rather irrelevant regardless of what Wizards does when the next edition comes out. My group has always used the 4d6 drop the lowest one and put stats wherever method, and we have a blast regardless of what we each roll.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
I would hate that. Subscription based system always feel so parasitic to me, even when you math it out and you aren't actually paying that much money. If you could still buy physical books it would be okay, but I feel like a lot of content might be accelerated just to feed subscribers.
Thats a fair concern. I feel like it could be done right as I see one of the biggest complaints from diehard 5e fans is slow content release in this edition.
However, you are right to worry about bloat as we saw in previous editions. It would need to be done right to work correctly.
It might offer the best of both worlds as DMs could just buy the books and ignore the subscription material. One other positive I can think of is UA could be utilized and feedback directly submitted with build information included.
It has potential but I do agree there could be issues.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Playing based on Stats and Class isn’t playing a “character” it’s playing an archetype. The enjoyable part was finding the fun in that PC anyway. A Character isn’t Stats and a Class. That’s what they have, not who they are.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I am no where near the point where I consider a random class/stat combination to be fun...sounds like a horrible experience to me but to each their own.
The thing is, if everyone is playing with sub-optimal stats (a near certainty if you randomly roll and "find the character" like Colville has his players do) the DM knows it, and the DM will adjust for it so the game is still enjoyable and the players can still have fun. On top of that they get the satisfaction of knowing that they overcame a little bit of adversity along the way. They also get the added verisimilitude of playing a sub-optimal character because, as Sposta points out, real people are (often extremely) sub-optimal. No, this isn't real life, but if you want to have a realistic, believable character rather than a cartoon-cut-out, the more you mimic real life with the character, the more believable and relatable it will be.
If you play with a party of all optimized characters (a near certainty if you go with point buy, the optional rules for moving racial bonuses around, and so forth), and the DM knows it, the DM will have to adjust for that too. The monsters will have to have more hp, hit harder, etc. The end result of that experience may be fairly similar to the players, in the sense that the challenge will be approximately the same, but they won't have any sense of overcoming adversity, because they started out with perfection on day 1. Their characters will be more cartoonish and less realistic because they won't have any flaws to overcome as they grow and develop.
And to make matters worse, because they played a campaign optimized, and the DM upped the DCs of all the traps and persuasion checks, upped the stats of all the monsters, to compensate, these players will think (incorrectly) that having optimized characters is necessary to survive combat and to have a good time playing D&D. When, in fact, exactly the opposite is the case. DMs scale adventures to the party in front of them (most of the time), so optimizing to the nth degree is a self-defeating exercise. All you're doing is forcing the DM to scale everything up. And you get to lose the verisimilitude you might have had along the way into the bargain (along with getting a very warped perception of what is "necessary" in D&D to have a good time).
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
In my first 5E game, I wound up with a character that had absurdly high stats (my lowest was a 15, and I rolled in front of the group) due to the way the GM had us roll for them. While this was very useful at first, I found that by 5th level it had largely ceased to matter since I never needed to do anything with my dump stats except make the occasional ability check.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Rolling the dice and making what you can from it isn't Old And Outdated. It's Hard Core.
There's nothing wrong with a little Hard Core gaming. Many people enjoy that. You know the kind of people who always play their video games on the max difficulty setting? Yeah. Hard Core. Some folks like more of a challenge. When you take the random stats you probably won't get a nice, optimized set of numbers that works perfectly with your conception. You'll have to think hard about what to do with those Ability Score Increases as you level up. Your character may be surprisingly charismatic or remarkably wise for a Fighter and you choose to take skills that reflect this, leading to an entirely different roleplay experience than if you're just another min-maxed Fighter.
Rolling the dice and letting them dictate what you play also works quite nicely for new players who don't know the game well enough to know in advance what they want to play. It gives them a place to start. It narrows down what can be a bewildering number of options for them.
<Insert clever signature here>
HARD disagree on the new player route.
You should likely follow the PHB guide and just pick a class that seems to match an interest. If you want to go random then just roll randomly for a class and follow the guide on stats using standard array.
Random stats and random class on a new player is asking for a bad time.
For hardcore players I agree this is a decent option for a challenge though. Not my cup of tea as it sounds terrible to me but I can see the appeal.
I'm mildly amused by the fact that if I took a hard position in any of these character generation methods with my game, my table would consist of just two people either way...
Yes, each table is different.
My feeling is, the char gen method is largely irrelevant. I have played in many, many systems over the years, and the only one that ever let me come close to making "whatever I wanted" was Champions. Yet I didn't abandon all those other systems for Champions permanently (though I did play it a lot, because it is an awesome game). And I played tons of far more restrictive RPGs (especially MMOs and CRPGs) and had fun in all of them. I guess it just depends on what you like.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Multiple comments and sub-threads I see were spawned from my original comment.
To summarize my position:
1. 4d6 is a ridiculous system because of the inevitable variation in original strengths in each player's char. Whether the player cheats, or actually gets lucky with their rolls, their character has an innate advantage over another char who rolled poorly. And as DM, eventually one of a number of options happens: a. The weaker char is killed or marginalized as the DM builds encounters to challenged the most powerful or median char in the group. b. The more powerful chars get bored/ dominate if the DM caters to the lowest common denominator. c. The more powerful chars get annoyed as the DM designs encounters to challenge the most powerful char's weaknesses.
2. The game is about challenges and tradeoffs, not this newest generations' worldview of "I want everything now, and I won't have any fun if I don't get what I want." Suck it up buttercup. Real life is hard. So was D&D, from the beginning, and should continue that way today.
3. I would only allow Colville's method, if the dice were rolled in front of all, and the stats were applied in sequential order to abilities, and then each player would then work with creating a char with those stats. But even I think that is too draconian. (even with I said in statement #2). New players to the game would really struggle with it, while highly experienced players might enjoy the challenge. I would enjoy it, but I am betting I am in a tiny minority.
4. The 27 point buy (or some variation of it) is the only logical method of ensuring all players start with the same baseline options. How a player applies those points and therefore their abilities, will define a good player's char development strategy and equally, a bad player's (or whiny player's) strategy. Like in everything, including all games, there are good players, and bad players. This ensures that gameplay over the long haul is based on player ability, not some random dice roll that was done in session 0 that haunts, or benefits, a player for the entire life of that char.
Like I said few posts above, class and subclass choice introduces far more variance in players power level than few points in stats can, definitely in the long haul you mention in #4
A player who chose to play a Beastmaster may think that they have the same power and possibilities as the player who chose a Divination Wizard becaue they have the same stat pool but that is a false sense of equality.
I can RP the shit out of anything you throw at me as well, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't enjoy playing MY OWN specific character concept more.
The rest of your post is real life, that isn't what I was talking about. In that case, yes, you DO have to make the best of what you got. And, yes, it is a valuable skill. Playing D&D could be a way to "build real world skills and learn how to overcome shortcomings" but, I feel you are reaching a little here. For those Hardcore folk out there, nobody is impressed, go flex somewhere else.
We have a player that has played the same Druid in 3 different campaigns. He likes it and he is happy. What is the problem?
If they had a long and satisfying character arc then it seems a bit odd to play them again (at least the same background).
If it's your favourite playstyle and your character died before they could even do anything with their backstory, remaking them for a different campaign seems understandable imo.
Additional reminder: The thread is derailing heavily again. Bashing other folks' preference for character generation isn't really a discussion of which one change people would make in 5e.
There's no reason to bash someone's choice of character generation. Much like all the Tasha's Cauldron rules everybody is constantly herneating over, one's choice of how to play is a table-by-table decision. Colville's method is not bad; it works for him and his table. The fact that some players would rather scrape their nipples off with sandpaper than be forced to roll stats/species randomly and 'play what you're given' does not invalidate his method, it simply means the method is not universal. Just as many players balk at the generic sameyness of Standard Array and choose to roll for stats because their souls shrivel at everybody having the exact same identical stats all the time.
This introduces intra-party imbalance, yes. Some tables consider that a worthwhile sacrifice for more unique character generation. Others do not. That is a table decision, not a book decision. There's a reason the book includes three separate 'Official' methods of stat generation.
Finally, a somewhat more personal note as I cannot help myself: please ******* stop assuming that people who build/play "optimal" characters do not ever 'Role Play', or create characters with recognizable weaknesses, or all that other awful shit everybody keeps accusing players of. For many players, optimization of build is simply representative of their character being trained and proficient in their chosen class, which is important for someone who regularly risks their life for money. The idea that it's somehow more 'real' for one's character to be an almost completely nonfunctional pile of mucus that's only just barely able to get their own clothes on in the morning is fallacious; such individuals would not only never risk their bumbling moron selves as an adventurer, but if they did they would swiftly be killed.
Rather than assuming players are being Evil Eugenicists who're hand-forging an unrealistic avatar of perfection? Assume instead that the player is selecting the option to play that one fortunate individual in the thousands of pointless Colvillian plebs around him who was born with precisely the required gifts to rise as an adventurer. That individual must exist, after all - authors have been writing stories about him for centuries. What is so awful about wanting to play the story of the well-trained and competent adventurer, rather than the village idiot who somehow manages to bumble**** his way to level 3 before getting eaten by a harpy and replaced by the next village idiot in line?
Constantly assuming we're just trying to skip the story because we play competent characters is fallacious, disingenuous, and honestly just seriously ******* tiresome. I'm an almost completely nonfunctional ****-up disaster of a human being in real life, I have no desire to play the 'Nothing above 12 and the 12 in the wrong place' bumble**** moron who has no business leaving his village in my recreational time. I want to be an awesome, highly trained and competent adventurer who gets shit done, being challenged by equally competent adversaries. If you're more into playing the bumble****, be my guest - but please stop telling me my fun is wrong just because you can't get over your desire to sabotage yourself to the point of inevitable failure.
Screw. That. Noise.
Please do not contact or message me.
It's only a problem if the campaign doesn't support the existence of that character. Maybe there are no druids in the world in question, but assuming that is not the case, there isn't a problem objectively speaking.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
One change I might be behind:
Subscription based system.
You pay a set amount per month and get all content digitally. Updates/Errata would be instantly updated. This would also allow little bits of new content to be added every so often alongside bigger books.
You could still buy books and in the book could be a code for a free month of the subscription service to check it out.
I would hate that. Subscription based system always feel so parasitic to me, even when you math it out and you aren't actually paying that much money. If you could still buy physical books it would be okay, but I feel like a lot of content might be accelerated just to feed subscribers.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Ummm...no.
Talking about mechanics of stat generation for chars runs to the core of this game, and many other games. Discussing how some methods are utterly broken is indeed germane. I know what you want to see in 6e. You have made that explicitly clear. I am stating what I want removed in 6e, and by that any I mean any mention of 4d6 rolling, even as "optional", because the 4d6 method is nothing but trouble.
Quite frankly, this would still not stop anyone from using the 4d6 method for stat generation even if they removed it as an optional rule, so it’s rather irrelevant regardless of what Wizards does when the next edition comes out. My group has always used the 4d6 drop the lowest one and put stats wherever method, and we have a blast regardless of what we each roll.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
Thats a fair concern. I feel like it could be done right as I see one of the biggest complaints from diehard 5e fans is slow content release in this edition.
However, you are right to worry about bloat as we saw in previous editions. It would need to be done right to work correctly.
It might offer the best of both worlds as DMs could just buy the books and ignore the subscription material. One other positive I can think of is UA could be utilized and feedback directly submitted with build information included.
It has potential but I do agree there could be issues.