Recent content by Lanefan

Whoever is saying this probably cut their teeth on 3e or 4e, which were way harsher on in-party level variance than is 5e.

Point-buy and standard array are also by default removing the worst end of the curve as well. You simply can't start with anything lower than an 8, where with rolling 7s and (less so) 6s are relatively common. The difference is that they also remove the best end of the curve, which rolling...

Yes, a very very poor design choice. Even point-buy tends to bell-curve the stats - the higher the stat, the more points it costs - which doesn't mesh with a linear bonus system. If it's only the first or second step, who cares? You've lost a minute or two, tops. Now if it was the 30th step...

3e by RAW had a cutline: if either (or both) of... a - all your rolls are 13 or lower b - your total aggregate bonus is less than +1 ...is true, you [can] reroll. I don't remember if it was 'may' reroll or 'must' reroll, though. 1e had a vague suggestion somewhere that characters needed two...

This should be SOP for rolling any player-side dice for any reason in the game (though not everyone else has to watch, just the DM). "Roll on the board where we can see it" has been a hard-line player rule here since forever.

Sure. I'm fine with this. Most of the bell curve's population is in what I call the mushy middle; and the question is how to game-mechanically deal with the extremes on either end of the curve. The problem in game terms is that the WotC editions assume linear rather than bell-curve...

Hell, maybe this guy is the Wasted Wench; and if that don't give some inspiration for backstory and roleplay, nothing will. :)

That's fine. Flip side: if just one player doesn't want to roll then that player can use a point-buy tweaked to give numbers vaguely-equal to the average provided by the rolling system being used (I put it this way as there's so many different rolling systems out there). Agreed, though...

You gain a more variable - and thus, both more realistic and believable - set of characters. Your second sentence disagrees with your first, in that you are saying I shouldn't roll unless everyone else actively wants to. That implies (to the point of almost outright saying) that one non-roller...

Based on a bunch of ghost stories and examples too numerous to list, common sense would tell me this rule is wrong; and that the spectre (or whatever) can move through other creatures and objects as if those obstacles were not present. That they take damage if they remain inside an object seems...

So, yet again, it's the roller who has to compromise rather than the point-buyer. Got it.

Except that in most cases we're not talking about that scenario. Instead we're talking about scenarios where there's a wide range of competencies and abilities that may or may not be in different aspects of the game. So you might have the football player who is really good at getting in the...

Some would call that spotlight sharing: everyone gets their moments. Meh, if the players want to split the party I'm fine with that as it means they're willing to do some waiting; and if the party gets split by a game effect then so be it*. I take it as an accepted fact of life that...

I really like the spell-draining idea. Yoink! :)

The chooseable options are the basics; if you want something special you have to roll for it and may or may not get it...this time. I do it this way for various elements of character creation, not just class. This allows rare-in-theory to be and remain rare-in-practice.