The point of rolling is to get something I wouldn't think to do normally. I like building characters, and like having new things to solve. Trying to assign stats through point buy such that it puts me at a novel starting point is incredibly unnatural and artificial.
Look, if a DM wants to use a standard pt allotment or array, more power to them. I do sometimes, but I am quite a bit more generous to my players. And no 27 pts is just not enough. Kinda weak, and not my cup of tea. And ya, I like higher powered stuff, so that's my bias. That said, I see a lot saying 4d6 roll, drop lowest and if its crap you can always select the standard array. Hell, game I am starting to play in did 4d6 no drop and man that is TASTY, but its meant to be a very high powered game, so this will hell of a lot of fun. Different types for different stripes right??
No it doesnt. And you know it. People dont play the game to be mike the weak ass fighter who can barely pick up a short, is out of breath in two steps and has the intelligence of a tangerine. DnD, even old school 3d6 roll in order, was still about power fantasy. Yes the stats really did direct the class you would want to play cause if you went with something else it was pretty terrible and you were likely to die. And hint...the pt of the game is to survive the adventure, not die to a slip on a rock at the entrance.
If you want to play low powered games, or if you want to have some enforced balance, fine. Not my cup of tea, but fine. But its perfectly legit to want to actually have customization, power, and you know escapism in your roleplaying game....
This "hate" on power reminds me so much of how people have hated rich folks...it used to be the thing we wanted, collectively, but more and more, success, status, power, etc all getting a bad rep....lol. Anyway, you do your table...and others will enjoy in their own way.
"Look, if a DM wants to use a standard pt allotment or array, more power to them. I do sometimes, but I am quite a bit more generous to my players. And no 27 pts is just not enough. Kinda weak, and not my cup of tea. "
Well, if standard point buy is "weak" that would suggest you are dm'ing far above and beyond the recommended encounter balance formulas. My current campaign is point buy, and based off even thr "dangerous" encounter formula in the dmg, my players are rocking it.
And you know it. People dont play the game to be mike the weak ass fighter who can barely pick up a short, is out of breath in two steps and has the intelligence of a tangerine.
Well, ignoring the third point because some people do choose to play that, if you think 17 strength/14 con is weak ass, can barely pick up a short sword, and gets out of breath in two steps... you have an odd perspective on what stats actually mean.
The point of rolling is to get something I wouldn't think to do normally. I like building characters, and like having new things to solve. Trying to assign stats through point buy such that it puts me at a novel starting point is incredibly unnatural and artificial.
That's completely the opposite way I come up with characters, lol. Stats are the least important part of character creation for me. They're not something to "solve", because there's no right answer
There are some ideas I have that are fairly MAD that I wouldn't be able to make with some spreads, but otherwise if I'm looking to make (consults list of unused character concepts) Orlop, a kobold bladesinger with a nautical background whose bladesong is a cross between a haka and a frilled lizard's threat display, I'm not going to sweat exactly what his INT is at 1st level, just so long as it's decent
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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)
If you are using 4d6 drop highest, the stats will be terrible. And ya I think 27 pt buy is incredibly low. I know it feeds into this idiotic, modern, notion of oo its great to have a ton of flaws and weaknesses and shitty stats so I can be all sensitive....but man no. Just doesnt appeal to me in the least. And sure, that might make me a filthy power gamer to some...dont care. Also, by having the opportunity for more generous stats, whether a much greater number of pts OR rolling OR a more generous array, you open up builds that might not have been really viable. For instance, a Paladin/Monk build could be great, but its going to be severely limited if the stats cant support it. BUT if you can reasonable stats across all those attributes you'd need, well, that could make for a very nice build over time.
That said, I also hate the ASI/Feats tied to class levels..so I toss that and give a feat at 1, 3, 6, etc, and ASI at 4, 8, 12, 16, 19 CHARACTER levels. This way you get more optimization/customization AND not penalized for multiclassing. And people seem to dig it. Plus I run a LOT of encounters in a day, and rests are hard to come by and the players need every advantage they can get cause I dont fudge dice and people die. Glorious. None of the real house dwarves crap...lol.
The monsters in 5e are weak as crap and the encounters are terribly calculated. So ya, I toss that. I tend to run a lot of older modules, and allow them to keep some of their more powerful features, but I havent put back in Level Drain ..... I thought about, but even though my players are better than average on their attitude I just dont think they could handle it well...lol. Still, maybe one day....hahaha....your players are rockin it cause 5e is a very very easy game on the players, very forgiving. Doesnt make it powerful. In fact, I find 5e to be super weak, its just that they put in features/mechanics that basically stop the players from failing...like Death Saves...man I hate them. Tossed those a long time ago. Worst mechanic, with Attunement right there as second worst...
The point of rolling is to get something I wouldn't think to do normally. I like building characters, and like having new things to solve. Trying to assign stats through point buy such that it puts me at a novel starting point is incredibly unnatural and artificial.
That's completely the opposite way I come up with characters, lol. Stats are the least important part of character creation for me. They're not something to "solve", because there's no right answer
There are some ideas I have that are fairly MAD that I wouldn't be able to make with some spreads, but otherwise if I'm looking to make (consults list of unused character concepts) Orlop, a kobold bladesinger with a nautical background whose bladesong is a cross between a haka and a frilled lizard's threat display, I'm not going to sweat exactly what his INT is at 1st level, just so long as it's decent
When we rolled back in the day stats helped me make my characters, but I rolled down the line and whatever that spread ended up being needed an explanation. Now, its still somewhat important. Like in the game where I am playing, not DMing im playing a monk with a 10 endurance. Not because I wanted that but because I was giving him a solid intelligence for his background, and I just ran out points. Your stats, background, class choice create a story.
The monsters in 5e are weak as crap and the encounters are terribly calculated.
Um... if you think 5e is too easy, why are you giving the players monty haul stats to make it even easier? Give them an NPC array of 13/12/11/10/9/8, make it a real challenge.
If you are using 4d6 drop highest, the stats will be terrible. And ya I think 27 pt buy is incredibly low. I know it feeds into this idiotic, modern, notion of oo its great to have a ton of flaws and weaknesses and shitty stats so I can be all sensitive....but man no. Just doesnt appeal to me in the least. And sure, that might make me a filthy power gamer to some...dont care. Also, by having the opportunity for more generous stats, whether a much greater number of pts OR rolling OR a more generous array, you open up builds that might not have been really viable. For instance, a Paladin/Monk build could be great, but its going to be severely limited if the stats cant support it. BUT if you can reasonable stats across all those attributes you'd need, well, that could make for a very nice build over time.
That said, I also hate the ASI/Feats tied to class levels..so I toss that and give a feat at 1, 3, 6, etc, and ASI at 4, 8, 12, 16, 19 CHARACTER levels. This way you get more optimization/customization AND not penalized for multiclassing. And people seem to dig it. Plus I run a LOT of encounters in a day, and rests are hard to come by and the players need every advantage they can get cause I dont fudge dice and people die. Glorious. None of the real house dwarves crap...lol.
Interesting take. I do not feel like making this some kind of argument, but imo the more modern take is less weaknesses. Like your racial choice used to have a stat it was good in but one where it also was weaker in like halflings would lose strength. And when you roll, sure you will average a decent spread but you will also frequently get a 6 or something, even with roll 4 drop lowest. I've been gaming since the 70s, and in my experience weaknesses have been getting phased out. And not just in gaming but in books, manga, anime etc. The entertianment I grew up on mostly was about people succeeding despite being weaker than the enemy due to perseverance, wit, hard work etc Now everything seems to be they think he is weak but he is actually a level 99 SS class wizard. Which I am not a fan of as I think weaknesses define your character as much or more than your strengths.
That being said I at least sort of agree with your ASI/feat point though I would not give that many out as feats are stronger than 3e. But I think they should have balanced it and multiclassing around it being based on character level not class level. But I also think they should have done more to weaken dips, like make sure some ow level abilities scaled on class level not character level.(eldritch blast)
"If you are using 4d6 drop highest, the stats will be terrible."
Stasitically speaking, 4d6 has a average high score of 16 and a 10% chance of rolling an 18. Point buy cant get above 15.
"levels..so I toss that and give a feat at 1, 3, 6, etc, and ASI at 4, 8, 12, 16, 19 CHARACTER levels."
Ok. Nothing you are doing as dm is stamdard. So the efficacy of point buy or 4d6 in that world is itrelavent.
"cause I dont fudge dice and people die. Glorious. None of the real house dwarves crap...lol."
. Being a powerbuilder dm who kills players doesnt make some folks "tough" and others "real house dwarves". In the end its just a bunch of people having fun nerding out over rules and rolling dice. Usually in airconditioned rooms. I dont think anyone is connecting in from some actual front lines warzone somewhere.
Pretty much every where ive played we get uber eats to deliver pizza. At least where we play, we"ve got iy pretty easy.
"monsters in 5e are weak as crap and the encounters are terribly calculated. So ya, I toss that. "
So you changed to homebrew for ability score generation, how characters access feats, and all the encounter math.
Great. Its just that none of your advice or opinions apply to folks who are still following the basic rules for all that.
"your players are rockin it cause"
Nope. You have no idea how i run my games.
"5e is a very very easy game on the players, very forgiving. Doesnt make it powerful."
I mean, "powerful" here means rolling dice and looking at papers witb bigger numbers on them. Its all made up. Its not like throwing a tarrasque at a level 1 party does anything real to the players.
Ite just a game we play with notebooks snd dice. It is easily the least tough and least powerul pastime out there.
Even thr pickleball people at least break a sweat now snd then.
"The point of rolling is to get something I wouldn't think to do normally. I like building characters, and like having new things to solve."
Question: what would you think of
Roll 4d6, discard lowest, add remainder. If total is greater than 15, discard score and roll over.
If you truly arent interested in 4d6 to get stats higher thsn point buy (which maxes out at 15) , would you accept a rule from dm that said you cant roll higher than a 15?
Because I try to solve two problems: 1. I want the characters to be powerful. I do this in several ways. 2. I want to run the game at the level of danger its intended to have. So, yes the players do have powerful stats and customization options. On the other hand, no safety net of Death Saves, and the monsters are back to old school variety...they hit hard hard, have REAL suck or save abilities, lots of encounters between rests, and resource management is a real part of the game. The result is a game where players can have their power fantasy, but they are far from invincible and as my players continue to prove, being dumb leads to bad results.
I am not that interested in "weakness" but I AM a fan of choices have consequences...The whole generic racial features, put stats where you want them is kinda blah to me. And I am totally 180 on your take with dips. Shit, I think subclasses should come on line at 1 not 3rd. To be fair, I think we both have "gripes" just each have the opposite side of what we would prefer....and hey that's cool. And that's why I have no issue changing shit for my games where I can within the tool limits, cause sadly I play online and for ease of everyone some things I am not willing to change cause the tools dont support...(Like Subclasses being at 1...lol.) Still, to each their own.
We are talkning about people sitting around looking at papers or computer screens, right? It isnt inherently "tough" to make a game harder to win, and then buffung players to keep up with all your homebrew.
".The whole generic racial features, put stats where you want them is kinda blah to me. And I am totally 180 on your take with dips."
So, to be clear, you arent using any of the core rules f9r dnd so your experiemce with ability score gemeration wont apply to anyone here using most of the core rules.
"Intentionally being less, just a weird concept."
You mean intentionally having a number on a paper start at 15, where you homebrew that your players start at, say, 18?
Again, There is nothing "weak" or "strong" about players rolling dice and playing make believe. Why would i be offended if my pc's strength is only a 14? Its not real. We're playing make believe. No meed to be offemded by some stat my pc has.
And in the end, the dm can do whstever they want, tpk or go easy on us. If my pc "dies" it doesnt make me stronger or weaker. I just roll a new character and roll initiative.
Thats the fallacy of dnd. People have to forget that the dm does whatever they want. Therr is no guarantee of thr dm being "fair". There are general rules for charavter builds, leveling uo, feats, balancing combat anf so on. And you said you threw all that out.
In the end, if you throw too much at thr party, we die no matter what we do. Why would i feel "weak" about that? Thats on you as dm. Im just looking at papers and rolling dice according to various rules, and you as dm are unshackled by rules, if my pc "dies" i just roll a new and im looking at forms and rolling dice again
This isnt the military, right? Its not bootcamp or combat, right? Its all make believe, yes? No one is "tough" or "weak: based on their pc stats. You arent making your players "tough" by throwing a tarrasque them at level 1. You homebrewed everything, so players havr to trust that you are folliwing some sense of "fair" or else if the numbers on my form that say "hp" go to zero, thats the outcome of choices the dm made. Not me. Why would i feel "weak" if your tarrasque killed me at level 1? Its just a badly designed encounyer. Why would i feel "strong" ig i defeat your tarrasque because you homebrewed enough bufs for me to survive. Thats something you did, not me.
Your games arent "hazing" anyoe and making them "tough". We just put some whacky numbers on some forms, and we roll dice to decide a lot of outcomes. If i have the perfect powerbuild, but i still roll a 1 on the climatic fight with the bbeg, and i die, im not weak or strong for that. I just got a bad roll. A roll i have literally zero control over. Why would i think my die roll makes me 'weak' about something completely out of my control?
Do you not understand context. When talking about characters, not players, tough is relative to their stats. When I want to talk about how "weak" players are, I refer to their whining need to have every encounter handed to them or want shit like "fail forward" thinking, that is fail the roll still get a reward. But the context I was using in the above thread was the CHARACTERS are incredibly weak and uninteresting (mostly due to lack of customization options and the basic trend to make everything bland and so called balanced).
Seriously, you need to stop trying to twist what people are saying...doesnt make for a good discussion. Also note that the DMG, and other editions, provided LOTS of ways to generate stats over the years. Hell, I believe one option I saw was roll 5d6 and drop TWO lowest. If you want to play on easy mode, sure basic 5e 2024 is fine. But I think its kinda boring, no real threat but also not a whole of good power fantasy either. Its limited in what you can realistically make, and every character (ESP in 2024) is more or less a carbon copy of features as every other one. The races are pretty pathetic. And the monster manual is a joke, from the lack challenge, the lack or complete rewrite of lore, the tossing of powerful or unique abilities, rewriting monsters for some idiotic sensitivity mindset....
So ya, I got issues with the base game of 2024, and I make the changes required to make it DnD. I want the players to be able to have the space to make competent builds that many might say wont work because of stat needs, and also to face challenges that are not paper tigers. And that choices have consequences and death, esp in low levels before resurrection type spells are on the table, is a real threat which is why I tossed Death Saves. This approach might not work for you, fine. But it might, or at least some elements might, be of interest to others.
I was taught way back in the 70s that characters are heroic. 10 is absolute normal. Drop to 8 being at the bottom range of normal, and 12 being the upper range of normal.
Back then if you had 18 strength you included percental numbers to become even stronger. So a 18(55) strength may be 20+ in the current system? 19 strength was definitely in the upper 20s compared to today. There was no point buy and max of 15. All last century I only had roll dice. I was used to that and comfortable with that method. I leave the game for a few decades and comeback and find out there is a point buy that maxs at 15? That is fine, if the monsters are easier.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The point of rolling is to get something I wouldn't think to do normally. I like building characters, and like having new things to solve. Trying to assign stats through point buy such that it puts me at a novel starting point is incredibly unnatural and artificial.
Look, if a DM wants to use a standard pt allotment or array, more power to them. I do sometimes, but I am quite a bit more generous to my players. And no 27 pts is just not enough. Kinda weak, and not my cup of tea. And ya, I like higher powered stuff, so that's my bias. That said, I see a lot saying 4d6 roll, drop lowest and if its crap you can always select the standard array. Hell, game I am starting to play in did 4d6 no drop and man that is TASTY, but its meant to be a very high powered game, so this will hell of a lot of fun. Different types for different stripes right??
No it doesnt. And you know it. People dont play the game to be mike the weak ass fighter who can barely pick up a short, is out of breath in two steps and has the intelligence of a tangerine. DnD, even old school 3d6 roll in order, was still about power fantasy. Yes the stats really did direct the class you would want to play cause if you went with something else it was pretty terrible and you were likely to die. And hint...the pt of the game is to survive the adventure, not die to a slip on a rock at the entrance.
If you want to play low powered games, or if you want to have some enforced balance, fine. Not my cup of tea, but fine. But its perfectly legit to want to actually have customization, power, and you know escapism in your roleplaying game....
This "hate" on power reminds me so much of how people have hated rich folks...it used to be the thing we wanted, collectively, but more and more, success, status, power, etc all getting a bad rep....lol. Anyway, you do your table...and others will enjoy in their own way.
"Look, if a DM wants to use a standard pt allotment or array, more power to them. I do sometimes, but I am quite a bit more generous to my players. And no 27 pts is just not enough. Kinda weak, and not my cup of tea. "
Well, if standard point buy is "weak" that would suggest you are dm'ing far above and beyond the recommended encounter balance formulas. My current campaign is point buy, and based off even thr "dangerous" encounter formula in the dmg, my players are rocking it.
Well, ignoring the third point because some people do choose to play that, if you think 17 strength/14 con is weak ass, can barely pick up a short sword, and gets out of breath in two steps... you have an odd perspective on what stats actually mean.
That's completely the opposite way I come up with characters, lol. Stats are the least important part of character creation for me. They're not something to "solve", because there's no right answer
There are some ideas I have that are fairly MAD that I wouldn't be able to make with some spreads, but otherwise if I'm looking to make (consults list of unused character concepts) Orlop, a kobold bladesinger with a nautical background whose bladesong is a cross between a haka and a frilled lizard's threat display, I'm not going to sweat exactly what his INT is at 1st level, just so long as it's decent
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)
If you are using 4d6 drop highest, the stats will be terrible. And ya I think 27 pt buy is incredibly low. I know it feeds into this idiotic, modern, notion of oo its great to have a ton of flaws and weaknesses and shitty stats so I can be all sensitive....but man no. Just doesnt appeal to me in the least. And sure, that might make me a filthy power gamer to some...dont care. Also, by having the opportunity for more generous stats, whether a much greater number of pts OR rolling OR a more generous array, you open up builds that might not have been really viable. For instance, a Paladin/Monk build could be great, but its going to be severely limited if the stats cant support it. BUT if you can reasonable stats across all those attributes you'd need, well, that could make for a very nice build over time.
That said, I also hate the ASI/Feats tied to class levels..so I toss that and give a feat at 1, 3, 6, etc, and ASI at 4, 8, 12, 16, 19 CHARACTER levels. This way you get more optimization/customization AND not penalized for multiclassing. And people seem to dig it. Plus I run a LOT of encounters in a day, and rests are hard to come by and the players need every advantage they can get cause I dont fudge dice and people die. Glorious. None of the real house dwarves crap...lol.
The monsters in 5e are weak as crap and the encounters are terribly calculated. So ya, I toss that. I tend to run a lot of older modules, and allow them to keep some of their more powerful features, but I havent put back in Level Drain ..... I thought about, but even though my players are better than average on their attitude I just dont think they could handle it well...lol. Still, maybe one day....hahaha....your players are rockin it cause 5e is a very very easy game on the players, very forgiving. Doesnt make it powerful. In fact, I find 5e to be super weak, its just that they put in features/mechanics that basically stop the players from failing...like Death Saves...man I hate them. Tossed those a long time ago. Worst mechanic, with Attunement right there as second worst...
When we rolled back in the day stats helped me make my characters, but I rolled down the line and whatever that spread ended up being needed an explanation. Now, its still somewhat important. Like in the game where I am playing, not DMing im playing a monk with a 10 endurance. Not because I wanted that but because I was giving him a solid intelligence for his background, and I just ran out points. Your stats, background, class choice create a story.
Um... if you think 5e is too easy, why are you giving the players monty haul stats to make it even easier? Give them an NPC array of 13/12/11/10/9/8, make it a real challenge.
Interesting take. I do not feel like making this some kind of argument, but imo the more modern take is less weaknesses. Like your racial choice used to have a stat it was good in but one where it also was weaker in like halflings would lose strength. And when you roll, sure you will average a decent spread but you will also frequently get a 6 or something, even with roll 4 drop lowest. I've been gaming since the 70s, and in my experience weaknesses have been getting phased out. And not just in gaming but in books, manga, anime etc. The entertianment I grew up on mostly was about people succeeding despite being weaker than the enemy due to perseverance, wit, hard work etc Now everything seems to be they think he is weak but he is actually a level 99 SS class wizard. Which I am not a fan of as I think weaknesses define your character as much or more than your strengths.
That being said I at least sort of agree with your ASI/feat point though I would not give that many out as feats are stronger than 3e. But I think they should have balanced it and multiclassing around it being based on character level not class level. But I also think they should have done more to weaken dips, like make sure some ow level abilities scaled on class level not character level.(eldritch blast)
"If you are using 4d6 drop highest, the stats will be terrible."
Stasitically speaking, 4d6 has a average high score of 16 and a 10% chance of rolling an 18. Point buy cant get above 15.
"levels..so I toss that and give a feat at 1, 3, 6, etc, and ASI at 4, 8, 12, 16, 19 CHARACTER levels."
Ok. Nothing you are doing as dm is stamdard. So the efficacy of point buy or 4d6 in that world is itrelavent.
"cause I dont fudge dice and people die. Glorious. None of the real house dwarves crap...lol."
. Being a powerbuilder dm who kills players doesnt make some folks "tough" and others "real house dwarves". In the end its just a bunch of people having fun nerding out over rules and rolling dice. Usually in airconditioned rooms. I dont think anyone is connecting in from some actual front lines warzone somewhere.
Pretty much every where ive played we get uber eats to deliver pizza. At least where we play, we"ve got iy pretty easy.
"monsters in 5e are weak as crap and the encounters are terribly calculated. So ya, I toss that. "
So you changed to homebrew for ability score generation, how characters access feats, and all the encounter math.
Great. Its just that none of your advice or opinions apply to folks who are still following the basic rules for all that.
"your players are rockin it cause"
Nope. You have no idea how i run my games.
"5e is a very very easy game on the players, very forgiving. Doesnt make it powerful."
I mean, "powerful" here means rolling dice and looking at papers witb bigger numbers on them. Its all made up. Its not like throwing a tarrasque at a level 1 party does anything real to the players.
Ite just a game we play with notebooks snd dice. It is easily the least tough and least powerul pastime out there.
Even thr pickleball people at least break a sweat now snd then.
"The point of rolling is to get something I wouldn't think to do normally. I like building characters, and like having new things to solve."
Question: what would you think of
Roll 4d6, discard lowest, add remainder. If total is greater than 15, discard score and roll over.
If you truly arent interested in 4d6 to get stats higher thsn point buy (which maxes out at 15) , would you accept a rule from dm that said you cant roll higher than a 15?
Because I try to solve two problems: 1. I want the characters to be powerful. I do this in several ways. 2. I want to run the game at the level of danger its intended to have. So, yes the players do have powerful stats and customization options. On the other hand, no safety net of Death Saves, and the monsters are back to old school variety...they hit hard hard, have REAL suck or save abilities, lots of encounters between rests, and resource management is a real part of the game. The result is a game where players can have their power fantasy, but they are far from invincible and as my players continue to prove, being dumb leads to bad results.
I am not that interested in "weakness" but I AM a fan of choices have consequences...The whole generic racial features, put stats where you want them is kinda blah to me. And I am totally 180 on your take with dips. Shit, I think subclasses should come on line at 1 not 3rd. To be fair, I think we both have "gripes" just each have the opposite side of what we would prefer....and hey that's cool. And that's why I have no issue changing shit for my games where I can within the tool limits, cause sadly I play online and for ease of everyone some things I am not willing to change cause the tools dont support...(Like Subclasses being at 1...lol.) Still, to each their own.
Why? Just why would you want to? See that thinking never makes sense to me. Intentionally being less, just a weird concept.
"I am not that interested in "weakness""
We are talkning about people sitting around looking at papers or computer screens, right? It isnt inherently "tough" to make a game harder to win, and then buffung players to keep up with all your homebrew.
".The whole generic racial features, put stats where you want them is kinda blah to me. And I am totally 180 on your take with dips."
So, to be clear, you arent using any of the core rules f9r dnd so your experiemce with ability score gemeration wont apply to anyone here using most of the core rules.
"Intentionally being less, just a weird concept."
You mean intentionally having a number on a paper start at 15, where you homebrew that your players start at, say, 18?
Again, There is nothing "weak" or "strong" about players rolling dice and playing make believe. Why would i be offended if my pc's strength is only a 14? Its not real. We're playing make believe. No meed to be offemded by some stat my pc has.
And in the end, the dm can do whstever they want, tpk or go easy on us. If my pc "dies" it doesnt make me stronger or weaker. I just roll a new character and roll initiative.
Thats the fallacy of dnd. People have to forget that the dm does whatever they want. Therr is no guarantee of thr dm being "fair". There are general rules for charavter builds, leveling uo, feats, balancing combat anf so on. And you said you threw all that out.
In the end, if you throw too much at thr party, we die no matter what we do. Why would i feel "weak" about that? Thats on you as dm. Im just looking at papers and rolling dice according to various rules, and you as dm are unshackled by rules, if my pc "dies" i just roll a new and im looking at forms and rolling dice again
This isnt the military, right? Its not bootcamp or combat, right? Its all make believe, yes? No one is "tough" or "weak: based on their pc stats. You arent making your players "tough" by throwing a tarrasque them at level 1. You homebrewed everything, so players havr to trust that you are folliwing some sense of "fair" or else if the numbers on my form that say "hp" go to zero, thats the outcome of choices the dm made. Not me. Why would i feel "weak" if your tarrasque killed me at level 1? Its just a badly designed encounyer. Why would i feel "strong" ig i defeat your tarrasque because you homebrewed enough bufs for me to survive. Thats something you did, not me.
Your games arent "hazing" anyoe and making them "tough". We just put some whacky numbers on some forms, and we roll dice to decide a lot of outcomes. If i have the perfect powerbuild, but i still roll a 1 on the climatic fight with the bbeg, and i die, im not weak or strong for that. I just got a bad roll. A roll i have literally zero control over. Why would i think my die roll makes me 'weak' about something completely out of my control?
I'm exttemely confused by what youre saying here.
None of this is real.
Do you not understand context. When talking about characters, not players, tough is relative to their stats. When I want to talk about how "weak" players are, I refer to their whining need to have every encounter handed to them or want shit like "fail forward" thinking, that is fail the roll still get a reward. But the context I was using in the above thread was the CHARACTERS are incredibly weak and uninteresting (mostly due to lack of customization options and the basic trend to make everything bland and so called balanced).
Seriously, you need to stop trying to twist what people are saying...doesnt make for a good discussion. Also note that the DMG, and other editions, provided LOTS of ways to generate stats over the years. Hell, I believe one option I saw was roll 5d6 and drop TWO lowest. If you want to play on easy mode, sure basic 5e 2024 is fine. But I think its kinda boring, no real threat but also not a whole of good power fantasy either. Its limited in what you can realistically make, and every character (ESP in 2024) is more or less a carbon copy of features as every other one. The races are pretty pathetic. And the monster manual is a joke, from the lack challenge, the lack or complete rewrite of lore, the tossing of powerful or unique abilities, rewriting monsters for some idiotic sensitivity mindset....
So ya, I got issues with the base game of 2024, and I make the changes required to make it DnD. I want the players to be able to have the space to make competent builds that many might say wont work because of stat needs, and also to face challenges that are not paper tigers. And that choices have consequences and death, esp in low levels before resurrection type spells are on the table, is a real threat which is why I tossed Death Saves. This approach might not work for you, fine. But it might, or at least some elements might, be of interest to others.
I was taught way back in the 70s that characters are heroic. 10 is absolute normal. Drop to 8 being at the bottom range of normal, and 12 being the upper range of normal.
Back then if you had 18 strength you included percental numbers to become even stronger. So a 18(55) strength may be 20+ in the current system? 19 strength was definitely in the upper 20s compared to today. There was no point buy and max of 15. All last century I only had roll dice. I was used to that and comfortable with that method. I leave the game for a few decades and comeback and find out there is a point buy that maxs at 15? That is fine, if the monsters are easier.