I think the point that you are all dancing around, but failing to really talk about is the inherent problem with point-buy and standard-array. I know that no one wants to hear about inequality anymore, but character creation in 1st and 2nd editions didn't have these problems. Step one, roll 6 stats, in order, and write them down. Step two, pick a playable race and adjust stats accordingly. Step three, see what those stats allowed you to use as a class and roleplay. Min-maxing wasn't as big of a problem unless you had a really lucky day rolling, or your DM allowed you to modify your stats for some reason. Kind of like life, you played with the skills you came in with.
With newer versions of the game it seems like we're wronging all of humanity if every single lvl1 character isn't exactly the same. Nobles get more starting gold than urchins, boo hoo. I didn't go to some rules committee because my neighbor had better toys than I did growing up. Warlocks don't get as many spells as wizards, but wizards don't get to recover as well on a short rest. Ok, pick a class with the features you actually want; or multi-class if your randomly generated skills allow it. I do understand that this is supposed to be a fantasy game, and an escape from reality for short interludes, but I personally think we're just encouraging people to act like robots. We really have made there be only one "right" way to play each sub-class, and I personally think that sucks.
To tie in with where you are all going; everyone can try to be an engineer, some can't make it at all, and most will never be the best in their field. This modern 5e system where every character has to be the best at whatever they do has really killed the spirit of the game. Sometimes we try really hard and still fail. Sometimes success at a tact or skill is 100% not attainable for some people. They aren't any less for failing or being bad at something, but everyone has the ability to find something they are good enough at to get beyond the problem in front of them.
Encourage role-playing. Otherwise just boot up a video game and let the algorithms tell you what you can or can't do.
I think the point that you are all dancing around, but failing to really talk about is the inherent problem with point-buy and standard-array. I know that no one wants to hear about inequality anymore, but character creation in 1st and 2nd editions didn't have these problems.
True! It had entirely different sets of problems!
Step one, roll 6 stats, in order, and write them down. Step two, pick a playable race and adjust stats accordingly. Step three, see what those stats allowed you to use as a class and roleplay.
Thing is, many people who are not you were there too, and most of us agree that it wasn't all that. Roll in order is the single worst way of character generation. It leads to such fun outcomes as:
Unviable in any class
Killed if anyone looks at you funny
Nobody can play a wizard
Somebody else is just better than you. At everything.
And many more
Roll 6 stats and assign is better, but it's still not great.
We've learned a lot since the early days of D&D, and one of the things we've learned is that people generally have more fun if:
They can choose what they play
Everybody starts from the same baseline, and character differences are based on what they choose to do
And, despite your claim that your way encourages roleplaying, most would disagree. Personally, I find that people get much more into characters they designed, rather than "guess I'm playing a fighter."
To be fair, in the Editions of Yore, attributes were a bit... wonky. For many of them, there was a large spread from, like, 7 to 14 where it really didn't matter what your score was. Only if you rolled real high (15+) or real low (-6) did you actually start seeing real changes to your character.
That, and there just weren't a lot of choices to make when creating your character (nor when gaining levels, either...), or additional bonuses to account for. Rita the Fighter and Ralph the Fighter were pretty similar.
Rita: You went with battle axe and shield? Cool. Ralph: Ay-up. How are them dual footman's flails treating you? Rita: Eh. Not the best accuracy, you know? Specialised, though, of course. Ralph: Of course. That's our only damage bonus. It's not like either of us have percentile strength, right?
Numbers were overall way smaller. I remember looking through an old adventure (Dragonlance? level 7-ish, I think), and there's a dragon in there that had about 50 hp. Dealing 1-8/1-8/2-12 damage. Or something along those lines. Number inflation is real :)
Thing is, many people who are not you were there too, and most of us agree that it wasn't all that. Roll in order is the single worst way of character generation.
It does have the benefit of resulting in some characters you wouldn't have otherwise thought of, but my experience with random character generation is that it works best as "roll randomly for a concept, then throw out the numbers you rolled and build the character normally".
You are right, there is no perfect solution. We did lots of things back then, roll 4 dice and drop the lowest, roll 6 stats and assign, even roll 18 dice and group as desired. In the end they were all ways to make sure that if you really wanted that wizard you could at least make the minimum INT.
I guess where I was going is that I find it really boring when everyone is so cookie cutter. You will always have people who only want to metagame, powergame, min/max, whatever you want to call it. You'll also have people who will never make any attempt to roleplay. My college roomie (from long ago) is currently playing a dwarven artificer with an 18 INT, and he makes the guy sound and act like a complete dufus.
Maybe I'm a bad person because I ask my players to stretch a little and add uniqueness to each character they play instead of just min/maxing. The 10 year olds that I DM for really love being able to challenge themselves and enjoy less dice rolling and more thematic story elements. My adult group, on the other hand, is all about power gaming; hence the brilliantly dumb dwarf. You can probably tell which I prefer to prep for each week.
I still stand on the fact that we are encouraging a "right" and "wrong" way to play each class, and that numbs my soul. Maybe since we can't find a good system to allow everyone to be both equal and unique at the same time then we should probably turn to easier problems like solving world hunger or world peace.
Keep spreading those seeds, Halcyonesse, not all of them will die on the ground! Cheers!
Maybe I'm a bad person because I ask my players to stretch a little and add uniqueness to each character they play instead of just min/maxing.
My experience is that most of the people who insist on random characters somehow wound up rolling super high stats that wouldn't be possible on point build, so I generally consider rolling for stats to be powergaming.
I still stand on the fact that we are encouraging a "right" and "wrong" way to play each class, and that numbs my soul. Maybe since we can't find a good system to allow everyone to be both equal and unique at the same time then we should probably turn to easier problems like solving world hunger or world peace.
The is no right or wrong way to play this game as a whole or to roleplay your character, but there is a mechanically wrong way to play them. I give you two examples that are both mechanically wrong. Example 1: A Barbarian with S17 D14 C14 I10 W12 CH8 that is not proficient in persuasion checks, but constantly does them for the fun of failing. While that’s fun RP it’s mechanically bad. Example 2: A Barbarian with S8 D10 C12 I14 W14 CH17 that is proficient in persuasion checks playing this style because they love to RP a charming outlander, but the DM has to adjust the Combat because this build will not survive normal combat. It is mechanically wrong.
You are right, there is no perfect solution. We did lots of things back then, roll 4 dice and drop the lowest, roll 6 stats and assign, even roll 18 dice and group as desired. In the end they were all ways to make sure that if you really wanted that wizard you could at least make the minimum INT.
I guess where I was going is that I find it really boring when everyone is so cookie cutter. You will always have people who only want to metagame, powergame, min/max, whatever you want to call it. You'll also have people who will never make any attempt to roleplay. My college roomie (from long ago) is currently playing a dwarven artificer with an 18 INT, and he makes the guy sound and act like a complete dufus.
Maybe I'm a bad person because I ask my players to stretch a little and add uniqueness to each character they play instead of just min/maxing. The 10 year olds that I DM for really love being able to challenge themselves and enjoy less dice rolling and more thematic story elements. My adult group, on the other hand, is all about power gaming; hence the brilliantly dumb dwarf. You can probably tell which I prefer to prep for each week.
I still stand on the fact that we are encouraging a "right" and "wrong" way to play each class, and that numbs my soul. Maybe since we can't find a good system to allow everyone to be both equal and unique at the same time then we should probably turn to easier problems like solving world hunger or world peace.
Keep spreading those seeds, Halcyonesse, not all of them will die on the ground! Cheers!
I don't see how any of the problems you're claiming are connected to standard array/point buy and would be solved with rolling in order. People will play in ways that you don't want them to for as long as people are allowed to play at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I still stand on the fact that we are encouraging a "right" and "wrong" way to play each class, and that numbs my soul. Maybe since we can't find a good system to allow everyone to be both equal and unique at the same time then we should probably turn to easier problems like solving world hunger or world peace.
The is no right or wrong way to play this game as a whole or to roleplay your character, but there is a mechanically wrong way to play them. I give you two examples that are both mechanically wrong. Example 1: A Barbarian with S17 D14 C14 I10 W12 CH8 that is not proficient in persuasion checks, but constantly does them for the fun of failing. While that’s fun RP it’s mechanically bad. Example 2: A Barbarian with S8 D10 C12 I14 W14 CH17 that is proficient in persuasion checks playing this style because they love to RP a charming outlander, but the DM has to adjust the Combat because this build will not survive normal combat. It is mechanically wrong.
What do you mean by mechanically wrong here? Do you mean the player in (1) shouldn't try to persuade although they're bad at it or the dm in (2) should just let the Barbarian die? Or do you mean that the rules should somehow be different such that the Barbarian could be great both at persuasion and at fighting?
I still stand on the fact that we are encouraging a "right" and "wrong" way to play each class, and that numbs my soul. Maybe since we can't find a good system to allow everyone to be both equal and unique at the same time then we should probably turn to easier problems like solving world hunger or world peace.
The is no right or wrong way to play this game as a whole or to roleplay your character, but there is a mechanically wrong way to play them. I give you two examples that are both mechanically wrong. Example 1: A Barbarian with S17 D14 C14 I10 W12 CH8 that is not proficient in persuasion checks, but constantly does them for the fun of failing. While that’s fun RP it’s mechanically bad. Example 2: A Barbarian with S8 D10 C12 I14 W14 CH17 that is proficient in persuasion checks playing this style because they love to RP a charming outlander, but the DM has to adjust the Combat because this build will not survive normal combat. It is mechanically wrong.
What do you mean by mechanically wrong here? Do you mean the player in (1) shouldn't try to persuade although they're bad at it or the dm in (2) should just let the Barbarian die? Or do you mean that the rules should somehow be different such that the Barbarian could be great both at persuasion and at fighting?
This is a game of choices. You can be decent at combat and decent at Persuasion at the same time, S15 D14 C12 I10 W10 C14 with proficiency in persuasion but you can’t be great at both as a Barbarian. In (1) the player shouldn’t try to persuade in situations that would have real stakes. This is a team game and the party will be annoyed if they lose opportunities or favor with NPC because the Barb’s RP choices. You can’t win D&D but you can fail or succeed. The Barb’s choice to fail will only be fun or funny to others for a while. In (2) if a player dies because of their choices they die. I mean they can always run from combat and try to RP their way through D&D. Persuade a militia of tow folks to help clear out those kobolds. The dice will determine who lives and dies. Again they are fun RP choices (2) more so than (1), but they are mechanically wrong choices. Now looking beyond the mechanics of failure and success (1) as I described is actually a problem player who could hinder the enjoyment of the game for others. That not to say a Barbarian with that build should never attempt a persuasion check, but they shouldn’t be actively pursuing them at the detriment of their party. Where as (2) I would actually play and just let the party know I’m not going to be great in combat. If the party has a Bard their persuasion is likely to exceed mine without them really trying, which brings us back to the Barbarian being mechanically wrong for this build.
Ah I see. So you essentially you mean "Not optimized" with (1) being suboptimal regarding game choices and (2) being a suboptimal build.
While I agree about (2) I don't think there's anything wrong with (1). If said barbarian constantly creates problems for the party, then this is a great opportunity for RP and the characters (not the players) should discuss the issue in game.
Optimizing a build to fullfill a certain role better than the other party members ist one thing but I don't think one should optimize a characters behaviour to enhance the party's success.
Ah I see. So you essentially you mean "Not optimized" with (1) being suboptimal regarding game choices and (2) being a suboptimal build.
While I agree about (2) I don't think there's anything wrong with (1). If said barbarian constantly creates problems for the party, then this is a great opportunity for RP and the characters (not the players) should discuss the issue in game.
Optimizing a build to fullfill a certain role better than the other party members ist one thing but I don't think one should optimize a characters behaviour to enhance the party's success.
No, I mean mechanically wrong. You are intentionally doing something that is against the design. Not Optamized would be the example (3) were you can do both combat and persuasion decently. You aren’t optimized to do either great, but you can achieve successes. Example (1) is like I said is a player choosing to intentionally buck against the game mechanics for “RP purposes.” Option (2) is a player bucking against the system by optimizing a class to do something it’s not designed to do well at the cost of its ability to do what it’s designed to do well. It’s like me turning my refrigerator into a device that cooks food. It will never get as hot as an oven and it can’t keep food cold anymore.
Step one, roll 6 stats, in order, and write them down. Step two, pick a playable race and adjust stats accordingly. Step three, see what those stats allowed you to use as a class and roleplay.
Thing is, many people who are not you were there too, and most of us agree that it wasn't all that. Roll in order is the single worst way of character generation.
Agreed. I remember a lot of: Roll stat line and say “that guy becomes a farmer. I’m going to re-roll.” Then repeat it until you get what you want so you can play the character you want, or give up and just cheat a couple scores so you can play the character you want.
You are right, there is no perfect solution. We did lots of things back then, roll 4 dice and drop the lowest, roll 6 stats and assign, even roll 18 dice and group as desired. In the end they were all ways to make sure that if you really wanted that wizard you could at least make the minimum INT.
I guess where I was going is that I find it really boring when everyone is so cookie cutter. You will always have people who only want to metagame, powergame, min/max, whatever you want to call it. You'll also have people who will never make any attempt to roleplay. My college roomie (from long ago) is currently playing a dwarven artificer with an 18 INT, and he makes the guy sound and act like a complete dufus.
Maybe I'm a bad person because I ask my players to stretch a little and add uniqueness to each character they play instead of just min/maxing. The 10 year olds that I DM for really love being able to challenge themselves and enjoy less dice rolling and more thematic story elements. My adult group, on the other hand, is all about power gaming; hence the brilliantly dumb dwarf. You can probably tell which I prefer to prep for each week.
I still stand on the fact that we are encouraging a "right" and "wrong" way to play each class, and that numbs my soul. Maybe since we can't find a good system to allow everyone to be both equal and unique at the same time then we should probably turn to easier problems like solving world hunger or world peace.
Keep spreading those seeds, Halcyonesse, not all of them will die on the ground! Cheers!
Minmaxing and RP aren’t mutually exclusive? It sounds like you’ve had a bad experience with a particular group, who powergame and don’t RP, and have applied that to all of D&D; which a lot of people seem to do, to be fair. When I make a character, I roll stats (4d6dl, assign numbers), then I make a sheet, then I build the character/flavour around it. I like there to be a reason for all the stuff my character can do. That doesn’t mean I don’t RP - most of the fun of minmaxing is the thought experiment. How good can I get this? Just now I worked with someone else to make a sheet that could vertically jump 1350ft, or 100ft over the Empire State Building. It’s fun. It’s not exclusive from RP.
No matter how the rules are changed, there will always be better and worse. The only way to change that is to have only one way to play each class and subclass, which would most assuredly numb my soul.
At our table we ran one campaign using random abilities. One player rolled really lucky and consequently their character was way better than the rest of the group, especially at low levels. This didn't really seem fun, especially for the player who was most unlucky and had kind of crap stats.
Then we tried point-buy in our next game, and predictably all the character stats were boring and "just what you would expect".
Our most recent campaign is better than the others in this regard. We used an ability rolling system our DM found (I think it was from reddit).
- Roll 1d6 and you get two scores; 10+your roll, and 15-your roll - Roll 1d8 and get two more scores: 10+roll, 15-roll - Roll 1d10 and you get your last two scores: 8+roll and 17-roll
We had everyone roll up one array and then anyone could use any of the four arrays the group had generated (it was fine if arrays were reused). We liked this method best so far, as it feels like there is some variation and choice.
That said, the core issue with ability scores is that the bonuses are too damn high. I know this whole thread started with me throwing out a radical "get rid of them" but another approach would just be toning them way down (instead of -5,.+5 being the bonus range what if it was -2,+2 and PBs were a little higher?)
I know this whole thread started with me throwing out a radical "get rid of them" but another approach would just be toning them way down (instead of -5,.+5 being the bonus range what if it was -2,+2 and PBs were a little higher?)
Again, what's the point of ability scores at all at that point? Every character would get a +1 in their main stat and then forget about the whole system. At least with your previous suggestion, they mattered for skill checks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I know this whole thread started with me throwing out a radical "get rid of them" but another approach would just be toning them way down (instead of -5,.+5 being the bonus range what if it was -2,+2 and PBs were a little higher?)
Again, what's the point of ability scores at all at that point? Every character would get a +1 in their main stat and then forget about the whole system. At least with your previous suggestion, they mattered for skill checks.
That's a good point. I'm not totally sure it bothers me if skills become less ability dependent, but you are right that my quick thought above would have other implications.
I guess all of these options are "features not bugs" to me. I'd love to see ability scores be less important overall, so anything that moves in that direction is music to me. I realize you (and many others) don't share that view. Heck, there might even be folks that think they should be MORE important.
I know this whole thread started with me throwing out a radical "get rid of them" but another approach would just be toning them way down (instead of -5,.+5 being the bonus range what if it was -2,+2 and PBs were a little higher?)
Again, what's the point of ability scores at all at that point? Every character would get a +1 in their main stat and then forget about the whole system. At least with your previous suggestion, they mattered for skill checks.
That's a good point. I'm not totally sure it bothers me if skills become less ability dependent, but you are right that my quick thought above would have other implications.
I guess all of these options are "features not bugs" to me. I'd love to see ability scores be less important overall, so anything that moves in that direction is music to me. I realize you (and many others) don't share that view. Heck, there might even be folks that think they should be MORE important.
I mean, didn't you yourself say that point buy made every character feel predictable boring? Surely removing the importance of ability scores would just increase that issue that you seem to have.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I know this whole thread started with me throwing out a radical "get rid of them" but another approach would just be toning them way down (instead of -5,.+5 being the bonus range what if it was -2,+2 and PBs were a little higher?)
Again, what's the point of ability scores at all at that point? Every character would get a +1 in their main stat and then forget about the whole system. At least with your previous suggestion, they mattered for skill checks.
That's a good point. I'm not totally sure it bothers me if skills become less ability dependent, but you are right that my quick thought above would have other implications.
I guess all of these options are "features not bugs" to me. I'd love to see ability scores be less important overall, so anything that moves in that direction is music to me. I realize you (and many others) don't share that view. Heck, there might even be folks that think they should be MORE important.
So all characters just have +0 to all stats. Proficiency and Expertise become the min maxing in your system. Magic becomes even more prominent as it allows you to skip skill checks. Knock is incredible in this system since the rogues dex doesn’t help on the check. In combat an All fighters are eldritch knights with a longbow, a greatswords and magic since they can be just as effective with all three. Bladesinger is the premier WIzard. Honestly the new combat min max is choosing the subclass that is most versatile and would have been MAD.
At our table we ran one campaign using random abilities. One player rolled really lucky and consequently their character was way better than the rest of the group, especially at low levels. This didn't really seem fun, especially for the player who was most unlucky and had kind of crap stats.
Then we tried point-buy in our next game, and predictably all the character stats were boring and "just what you would expect".
Our most recent campaign is better than the others in this regard. We used an ability rolling system our DM found (I think it was from reddit).
- Roll 1d6 and you get two scores; 10+your roll, and 15-your roll - Roll 1d8 and get two more scores: 10+roll, 15-roll - Roll 1d10 and you get your last two scores: 8+roll and 17-roll
We had everyone roll up one array and then anyone could use any of the four arrays the group had generated (it was fine if arrays were reused). We liked this method best so far, as it feels like there is some variation and choice.
That said, the core issue with ability scores is that the bonuses are too damn high. I know this whole thread started with me throwing out a radical "get rid of them" but another approach would just be toning them way down (instead of -5,.+5 being the bonus range what if it was -2,+2 and PBs were a little higher?)
I have to agree with this and I have even more concern with the 1DD change to allow the level 19 ASI to cap out at 22 (+6).
I think the original idea is interesting though I’m not sure if this would be something I would care for. But, that being said, maybe stats could start at a flatter level then you use your background ASI (1DD) to boost them. And your class gives a boost as well. Skills/ability checks might get some bonus from stat (or not) but class would play a bigger role along with proficiency. Barbarians already get advantage on STR rolls when raging. Wizards could get a bonus to Arcana, etc.
In the end I do think you are on to something with the issue more about the bonuses on ability scores.
I think the point that you are all dancing around, but failing to really talk about is the inherent problem with point-buy and standard-array. I know that no one wants to hear about inequality anymore, but character creation in 1st and 2nd editions didn't have these problems. Step one, roll 6 stats, in order, and write them down. Step two, pick a playable race and adjust stats accordingly. Step three, see what those stats allowed you to use as a class and roleplay. Min-maxing wasn't as big of a problem unless you had a really lucky day rolling, or your DM allowed you to modify your stats for some reason. Kind of like life, you played with the skills you came in with.
With newer versions of the game it seems like we're wronging all of humanity if every single lvl1 character isn't exactly the same. Nobles get more starting gold than urchins, boo hoo. I didn't go to some rules committee because my neighbor had better toys than I did growing up. Warlocks don't get as many spells as wizards, but wizards don't get to recover as well on a short rest. Ok, pick a class with the features you actually want; or multi-class if your randomly generated skills allow it. I do understand that this is supposed to be a fantasy game, and an escape from reality for short interludes, but I personally think we're just encouraging people to act like robots. We really have made there be only one "right" way to play each sub-class, and I personally think that sucks.
To tie in with where you are all going; everyone can try to be an engineer, some can't make it at all, and most will never be the best in their field. This modern 5e system where every character has to be the best at whatever they do has really killed the spirit of the game. Sometimes we try really hard and still fail. Sometimes success at a tact or skill is 100% not attainable for some people. They aren't any less for failing or being bad at something, but everyone has the ability to find something they are good enough at to get beyond the problem in front of them.
Encourage role-playing. Otherwise just boot up a video game and let the algorithms tell you what you can or can't do.
True! It had entirely different sets of problems!
Thing is, many people who are not you were there too, and most of us agree that it wasn't all that. Roll in order is the single worst way of character generation. It leads to such fun outcomes as:
Roll 6 stats and assign is better, but it's still not great.
We've learned a lot since the early days of D&D, and one of the things we've learned is that people generally have more fun if:
And, despite your claim that your way encourages roleplaying, most would disagree. Personally, I find that people get much more into characters they designed, rather than "guess I'm playing a fighter."
To be fair, in the Editions of Yore, attributes were a bit... wonky. For many of them, there was a large spread from, like, 7 to 14 where it really didn't matter what your score was. Only if you rolled real high (15+) or real low (-6) did you actually start seeing real changes to your character.
That, and there just weren't a lot of choices to make when creating your character (nor when gaining levels, either...), or additional bonuses to account for. Rita the Fighter and Ralph the Fighter were pretty similar.
Rita: You went with battle axe and shield? Cool.
Ralph: Ay-up. How are them dual footman's flails treating you?
Rita: Eh. Not the best accuracy, you know? Specialised, though, of course.
Ralph: Of course. That's our only damage bonus. It's not like either of us have percentile strength, right?
Numbers were overall way smaller. I remember looking through an old adventure (Dragonlance? level 7-ish, I think), and there's a dragon in there that had about 50 hp. Dealing 1-8/1-8/2-12 damage. Or something along those lines. Number inflation is real :)
It does have the benefit of resulting in some characters you wouldn't have otherwise thought of, but my experience with random character generation is that it works best as "roll randomly for a concept, then throw out the numbers you rolled and build the character normally".
You are right, there is no perfect solution. We did lots of things back then, roll 4 dice and drop the lowest, roll 6 stats and assign, even roll 18 dice and group as desired. In the end they were all ways to make sure that if you really wanted that wizard you could at least make the minimum INT.
I guess where I was going is that I find it really boring when everyone is so cookie cutter. You will always have people who only want to metagame, powergame, min/max, whatever you want to call it. You'll also have people who will never make any attempt to roleplay. My college roomie (from long ago) is currently playing a dwarven artificer with an 18 INT, and he makes the guy sound and act like a complete dufus.
Maybe I'm a bad person because I ask my players to stretch a little and add uniqueness to each character they play instead of just min/maxing. The 10 year olds that I DM for really love being able to challenge themselves and enjoy less dice rolling and more thematic story elements. My adult group, on the other hand, is all about power gaming; hence the brilliantly dumb dwarf. You can probably tell which I prefer to prep for each week.
I still stand on the fact that we are encouraging a "right" and "wrong" way to play each class, and that numbs my soul. Maybe since we can't find a good system to allow everyone to be both equal and unique at the same time then we should probably turn to easier problems like solving world hunger or world peace.
Keep spreading those seeds, Halcyonesse, not all of them will die on the ground! Cheers!
My experience is that most of the people who insist on random characters somehow wound up rolling super high stats that wouldn't be possible on point build, so I generally consider rolling for stats to be powergaming.
The is no right or wrong way to play this game as a whole or to roleplay your character, but there is a mechanically wrong way to play them. I give you two examples that are both mechanically wrong.
Example 1: A Barbarian with S17 D14 C14 I10 W12 CH8 that is not proficient in persuasion checks, but constantly does them for the fun of failing. While that’s fun RP it’s mechanically bad.
Example 2: A Barbarian with S8 D10 C12 I14 W14 CH17 that is proficient in persuasion checks playing this style because they love to RP a charming outlander, but the DM has to adjust the Combat because this build will not survive normal combat. It is mechanically wrong.
I don't see how any of the problems you're claiming are connected to standard array/point buy and would be solved with rolling in order. People will play in ways that you don't want them to for as long as people are allowed to play at all.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
What do you mean by mechanically wrong here? Do you mean the player in (1) shouldn't try to persuade although they're bad at it or the dm in (2) should just let the Barbarian die? Or do you mean that the rules should somehow be different such that the Barbarian could be great both at persuasion and at fighting?
This is a game of choices. You can be decent at combat and decent at Persuasion at the same time, S15 D14 C12 I10 W10 C14 with proficiency in persuasion but you can’t be great at both as a Barbarian.
In (1) the player shouldn’t try to persuade in situations that would have real stakes. This is a team game and the party will be annoyed if they lose opportunities or favor with NPC because the Barb’s RP choices. You can’t win D&D but you can fail or succeed. The Barb’s choice to fail will only be fun or funny to others for a while. In (2) if a player dies because of their choices they die. I mean they can always run from combat and try to RP their way through D&D. Persuade a militia of tow folks to help clear out those kobolds. The dice will determine who lives and dies. Again they are fun RP choices (2) more so than (1), but they are mechanically wrong choices.
Now looking beyond the mechanics of failure and success (1) as I described is actually a problem player who could hinder the enjoyment of the game for others. That not to say a Barbarian with that build should never attempt a persuasion check, but they shouldn’t be actively pursuing them at the detriment of their party. Where as (2) I would actually play and just let the party know I’m not going to be great in combat. If the party has a Bard their persuasion is likely to exceed mine without them really trying, which brings us back to the Barbarian being mechanically wrong for this build.
Ah I see. So you essentially you mean "Not optimized" with (1) being suboptimal regarding game choices and (2) being a suboptimal build.
While I agree about (2) I don't think there's anything wrong with (1). If said barbarian constantly creates problems for the party, then this is a great opportunity for RP and the characters (not the players) should discuss the issue in game.
Optimizing a build to fullfill a certain role better than the other party members ist one thing but I don't think one should optimize a characters behaviour to enhance the party's success.
No, I mean mechanically wrong. You are intentionally doing something that is against the design. Not Optamized would be the example (3) were you can do both combat and persuasion decently. You aren’t optimized to do either great, but you can achieve successes. Example (1) is like I said is a player choosing to intentionally buck against the game mechanics for “RP purposes.” Option (2) is a player bucking against the system by optimizing a class to do something it’s not designed to do well at the cost of its ability to do what it’s designed to do well. It’s like me turning my refrigerator into a device that cooks food. It will never get as hot as an oven and it can’t keep food cold anymore.
Agreed.
I remember a lot of: Roll stat line and say “that guy becomes a farmer. I’m going to re-roll.” Then repeat it until you get what you want so you can play the character you want, or give up and just cheat a couple scores so you can play the character you want.
Minmaxing and RP aren’t mutually exclusive? It sounds like you’ve had a bad experience with a particular group, who powergame and don’t RP, and have applied that to all of D&D; which a lot of people seem to do, to be fair. When I make a character, I roll stats (4d6dl, assign numbers), then I make a sheet, then I build the character/flavour around it. I like there to be a reason for all the stuff my character can do. That doesn’t mean I don’t RP - most of the fun of minmaxing is the thought experiment. How good can I get this? Just now I worked with someone else to make a sheet that could vertically jump 1350ft, or 100ft over the Empire State Building. It’s fun. It’s not exclusive from RP.
No matter how the rules are changed, there will always be better and worse. The only way to change that is to have only one way to play each class and subclass, which would most assuredly numb my soul.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
At our table we ran one campaign using random abilities. One player rolled really lucky and consequently their character was way better than the rest of the group, especially at low levels. This didn't really seem fun, especially for the player who was most unlucky and had kind of crap stats.
Then we tried point-buy in our next game, and predictably all the character stats were boring and "just what you would expect".
Our most recent campaign is better than the others in this regard. We used an ability rolling system our DM found (I think it was from reddit).
- Roll 1d6 and you get two scores; 10+your roll, and 15-your roll
- Roll 1d8 and get two more scores: 10+roll, 15-roll
- Roll 1d10 and you get your last two scores: 8+roll and 17-roll
We had everyone roll up one array and then anyone could use any of the four arrays the group had generated (it was fine if arrays were reused). We liked this method best so far, as it feels like there is some variation and choice.
That said, the core issue with ability scores is that the bonuses are too damn high. I know this whole thread started with me throwing out a radical "get rid of them" but another approach would just be toning them way down (instead of -5,.+5 being the bonus range what if it was -2,+2 and PBs were a little higher?)
Again, what's the point of ability scores at all at that point? Every character would get a +1 in their main stat and then forget about the whole system. At least with your previous suggestion, they mattered for skill checks.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
That's a good point. I'm not totally sure it bothers me if skills become less ability dependent, but you are right that my quick thought above would have other implications.
I guess all of these options are "features not bugs" to me. I'd love to see ability scores be less important overall, so anything that moves in that direction is music to me. I realize you (and many others) don't share that view. Heck, there might even be folks that think they should be MORE important.
I mean, didn't you yourself say that point buy made every character feel predictable boring? Surely removing the importance of ability scores would just increase that issue that you seem to have.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
So all characters just have +0 to all stats. Proficiency and Expertise become the min maxing in your system. Magic becomes even more prominent as it allows you to skip skill checks. Knock is incredible in this system since the rogues dex doesn’t help on the check. In combat an All fighters are eldritch knights with a longbow, a greatswords and magic since they can be just as effective with all three. Bladesinger is the premier WIzard. Honestly the new combat min max is choosing the subclass that is most versatile and would have been MAD.
I have to agree with this and I have even more concern with the 1DD change to allow the level 19 ASI to cap out at 22 (+6).
I think the original idea is interesting though I’m not sure if this would be something I would care for. But, that being said, maybe stats could start at a flatter level then you use your background ASI (1DD) to boost them. And your class gives a boost as well. Skills/ability checks might get some bonus from stat (or not) but class would play a bigger role along with proficiency. Barbarians already get advantage on STR rolls when raging. Wizards could get a bonus to Arcana, etc.
In the end I do think you are on to something with the issue more about the bonuses on ability scores.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?