I think this is arguing semantics. You could call it entitled or punishment or argue that those aren't the appropriate terms. That's not what I'm arguing here.
The game expects each character to have a certain amount of 'oomph' to them. That could be a Barbarian's accuracy/damage with a greatsword, or a wizard's Spell DCs with their spells. Either way, if your character doesn't have enough oomph, the enemy will make all their saves, you'll never be able to hit anything, and people will kill you quickly. That isn't fun. So call it what you want, but if your wizard doesn't have enough oomph because their spells can't do anything due to their 15 intelligence (Highest a RAW dwarf can start with using point buy), then that isn't a very viable character.
I am on the side of letting the player who wants to make a Dwarf wizard make a dwarf wizard. If you say "You get to play what the dice say you get to play," I feel you are going to have players playing characters they aren't happy about because they didn't happen to get the stats they wanted for what they were excited to play.
If your game is spoiled because you don't have an extra +1 to attack and damage at level 1, you have fundamentally misunderstood the game of Dungeons and Dragons.
It's not an MMORPG.
Characters with low stats are as valid as characters with high stats.
The DM can toss you free ability score improvements any time they feel like it.
Your character can die to rocks falling from a clear sky at any moment the DM wills it.
You cannot be powerful, or weak.
Whether you have a starting 10 or 16 in STR isn't going to matter if the DM throws a Lich at you on day 1. The stats are there only to help you tell a story. You cannot win in this game, because there is no victory condition other than having a good time with your friends.
"Power levels" are an illusion only. Your character, whatever their stats, is just a means to tell the story.
If you worry so much about "fair" initial stats, then fate help you when one of the party members finds a magic weapon and you don't have one.
I think this is arguing semantics. You could call it entitled or punishment or argue that those aren't the appropriate terms. That's not what I'm arguing here.
The game expects each character to have a certain amount of 'oomph' to them. That could be a Barbarian's accuracy/damage with a greatsword, or a wizard's Spell DCs with their spells. Either way, if your character doesn't have enough oomph, the enemy will make all their saves, you'll never be able to hit anything, and people will kill you quickly. That isn't fun. So call it what you want, but if your wizard doesn't have enough oomph because their spells can't do anything due to their 15 intelligence (Highest a RAW dwarf can start with using point buy), then that isn't a very viable character.
I am on the side of letting the player who wants to make a Dwarf wizard make a dwarf wizard. If you say "You get to play what the dice say you get to play," I feel you are going to have players playing characters they aren't happy about because they didn't happen to get the stats they wanted for what they were excited to play.
It's kind of my point. The conversation is about trying to figure out a mechanical method in D&D to address the "feeling" of fairness and equality in the game. It can't do that for anyone, no matter what method you choose, it will be unfair to someone playing the game or something in the game. There is no method of generating ability scores, even if you give everyone the exact same scores and end up with an equal and/or balanced game.
There is an old saying: 'do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good'. No, you can't perfectly balance the game, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing anything at all.
The fact that this devolved into a discussion like that again... people, remember:
We all are different, like different things, and that's OK.
If you like fixed AS, go for it. If you don't, it's your game. No one can ever say that something is objectivelly better on something for YOUR fun.
No one is forcing you to play together and you're not gonna change each others mind, so, just stop wasting energy on those arguments, PLEASE.
I for one love pedantic arguments over the meaning of words, so I'm having a great time!
:P
On topic: to me, what matters is not seeing players have a bad time. You can say stats don't matter, but if one has a 13 in their primary and someone else has a 20, or if the poor ol Wizard rolled a 7 for CON, then I can see people feeling a bit useless in their party. I can balance things to a whole team of low stats, but not so much if it's just one abysmally unlucky player in the group. As soon as you're in the realms of the statistically likely, though, it's all good - and if people want to play the underpowered character, then it's even better.
I'd cheerfully play a character with nothing over 13. Just got to recognise, as a DM, that some other people won't enjoy that so much.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think this is arguing semantics. You could call it entitled or punishment or argue that those aren't the appropriate terms. That's not what I'm arguing here.
The game expects each character to have a certain amount of 'oomph' to them. That could be a Barbarian's accuracy/damage with a greatsword, or a wizard's Spell DCs with their spells. Either way, if your character doesn't have enough oomph, the enemy will make all their saves, you'll never be able to hit anything, and people will kill you quickly. That isn't fun. So call it what you want, but if your wizard doesn't have enough oomph because their spells can't do anything due to their 15 intelligence (Highest a RAW dwarf can start with using point buy), then that isn't a very viable character.
I am on the side of letting the player who wants to make a Dwarf wizard make a dwarf wizard. If you say "You get to play what the dice say you get to play," I feel you are going to have players playing characters they aren't happy about because they didn't happen to get the stats they wanted for what they were excited to play.
If your game is spoiled because you don't have an extra +1 to attack and damage at level 1, you have fundamentally misunderstood the game of Dungeons and Dragons.
It's not an MMORPG.
If you worry so much about "fair" initial stats, then fate help you when one of the party members finds a magic weapon and you don't have one.
But you can already make a perfectly good Dwarf Wizard. See; (I even dumped Str and used non-rolled stats for you): (https://www.dndbeyond.com/characters/71810843)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There is an old saying: 'do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good'. No, you can't perfectly balance the game, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing anything at all.
I for one love pedantic arguments over the meaning of words, so I'm having a great time!
:P
On topic: to me, what matters is not seeing players have a bad time. You can say stats don't matter, but if one has a 13 in their primary and someone else has a 20, or if the poor ol Wizard rolled a 7 for CON, then I can see people feeling a bit useless in their party. I can balance things to a whole team of low stats, but not so much if it's just one abysmally unlucky player in the group. As soon as you're in the realms of the statistically likely, though, it's all good - and if people want to play the underpowered character, then it's even better.
I'd cheerfully play a character with nothing over 13. Just got to recognise, as a DM, that some other people won't enjoy that so much.