The best reason for rolling for stats as opposed to array/point buy is that rolling dice is fun
And on a one-shot that lasts three hours, that five minutes of fun might make up for the problems random stats cause later in the game, but when those five minutes have a major controlling effect on a hundred hours or more of gameplay...
The best reason for rolling for stats as opposed to array/point buy is that rolling dice is fun
And on a one-shot that lasts three hours, that five minutes of fun might make up for the problems random stats cause later in the game, but when those five minutes have a major controlling effect on a hundred hours or more of gameplay...
Then you can learn how to actually play with a character who's stats aren't 100% optimal.
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.
And on a one-shot that lasts three hours, that five minutes of fun might make up for the problems random stats cause later in the game, but when those five minutes have a major controlling effect on a hundred hours or more of gameplay...
I've been in a 5e campaign that went from level 1 to level 20. There were no such "problems" or "major controlling effect"
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It's not about being optimal, though. I think the Devs have recognised that too much depends on those stats, and have started to decouple them from abilities. Eg the Wizard used to prepare a number of spells boosted by their Int modifier, now the number is not affected by it.
If it were simply a case of "your spell fails in one in twenty rolls, which you otherwise would have succeeded on", it would be a case of "not being 100% optimal". I've not done a careful search on this with 2024e, but in 2014e, there was a lot of pressure to go for the highest score possible because of these extra tie ins to features. A 13 Int Wizard was a bad Wizard. Not only would their spells early work, but they had few spells to pick from in the moment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's not about being optimal, though. I think the Devs have recognised that too much depends on those stats, and have started to decouple them from abilities. Eg the Wizard used to prepare a number of spells boosted by their Int modifier, now the number is not affected by it.
If it were simply a case of "your spell fails in one in twenty rolls, which you otherwise would have succeeded on", it would be a case of "not being 100% optimal". I've not done a careful search on this with 2024e, but in 2014e, there was a lot of pressure to go for the highest score possible because of these extra tie ins to features. A 13 Int Wizard was a bad Wizard. Not only would their spells early work, but they had few spells to pick from in the moment.
I think that’s true but only to a point and really in theory. In practice, if you’re playing a 13 int wizard (even in ‘14), you’ve almost certainly made a conscious choice as part of your character concept to be a wizard who’s bad at wizarding, and you’ve gotten what you wanted.
I never said it was. Read the posts. I said it was easier to minmax with Point Buy - that's semantically very different to saying it is minmaxxing and vital to the discussion.
Except there isn't at least in how the base builder works. There is really no way to max over anyone else. Looking at the 'max' there is very little difference from an average character. Which isn't really min-maxing. And if anything will be more detrimental with the negatives. You are basically ignoring the examples I presented. You have a preference that is biasing you to actual data.
And on a one-shot that lasts three hours, that five minutes of fun might make up for the problems random stats cause later in the game, but when those five minutes have a major controlling effect on a hundred hours or more of gameplay...
Then you can learn how to actually play with a character who's stats aren't 100% optimal.
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.
I've been in a 5e campaign that went from level 1 to level 20. There were no such "problems" or "major controlling effect"
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It's not about being optimal, though. I think the Devs have recognised that too much depends on those stats, and have started to decouple them from abilities. Eg the Wizard used to prepare a number of spells boosted by their Int modifier, now the number is not affected by it.
If it were simply a case of "your spell fails in one in twenty rolls, which you otherwise would have succeeded on", it would be a case of "not being 100% optimal". I've not done a careful search on this with 2024e, but in 2014e, there was a lot of pressure to go for the highest score possible because of these extra tie ins to features. A 13 Int Wizard was a bad Wizard. Not only would their spells early work, but they had few spells to pick from in the moment.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I think that’s true but only to a point and really in theory. In practice, if you’re playing a 13 int wizard (even in ‘14), you’ve almost certainly made a conscious choice as part of your character concept to be a wizard who’s bad at wizarding, and you’ve gotten what you wanted.
Not sure I'd agree statistically.
Except there isn't at least in how the base builder works. There is really no way to max over anyone else. Looking at the 'max' there is very little difference from an average character. Which isn't really min-maxing. And if anything will be more detrimental with the negatives.
You are basically ignoring the examples I presented. You have a preference that is biasing you to actual data.