Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
The problem is that they are saying it's cheating even when the DM allows, which by definition makes it not cheating.
I also don't see what was so funny about that post you just laughed at. Mind letting me know?
D&D 5E Rolled character stats higher than point buy?
- Thread starter FrogReaver
- Start date
The problem is that they are saying it's cheating even when the DM allows, which by definition makes it not cheating.
I also don't see what was so funny about that post you just laughed at. Mind letting me know?
thecasualoblivion
First Post
That's why I make the distinction between fudging and cheating. If the DM is aware and is ok with it I call that fudging, not cheating.
ExploderWizard
Hero
I don't look down on such people, I laugh at them in their face.
I shouldn't have laughed. I should have told you straight out that I think the false-equivalency argument is balderdash. Is that better?
As far as cheating, sorry if that's not politically correct. You say toe-mae-toe I say toe-mah-toe. Point is, most people* who role for stats do not follow a straight roll 4d6 drop lowest.
I'm not doing very good on my no-snark rule today, so I bid you adieu.
*obligitory "in my experience"
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
I shouldn't have laughed. I should have told you straight out that I think the false-equivalency argument is balderdash. Is that better?
Yes, it's better. Enworld's owner [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] has stated that the Laugh functionality is intended to be used in a friendly way, and that using it to mock others is an abuse of the system.
Saying that you disagree with someone is fine.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
The problem is that fudging has a different accepted definition. Fudging is the DM secretly changing a roll or DC so that the result is changed from success to failure, or vice versa. What you are describing is a house rule changing how rolled stats work.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I shouldn't have laughed. I should have told you straight out that I think the false-equivalency argument is balderdash. Is that better?
Not much. You're going to have to explain to me how telling me that I should be using point buy or arrays instead of rolling because it's unfair to the players is A) not judgmental, and B) not telling me that I'm wrong to do what I do, because their way is better, AND how telling people that the aren't roleplaying as well over not playing low stats is A) not judgmental, and B) not telling you that you're wrong for not playing low stats, because their way is better.
It seems fairly equivalent to me.
And I agreed with you on that. You said 1% and I experienced 20%, but even if you average those two at 10.5%, the two of us experienced altered rolling rules the vast majority of the time. Heck, even if you go with my 20%, the altered rolling rules still happen the vast majority of the time.
House rules aren't cheating or even fudging, though.
No worries. Come back tomorrow and answer the above when you have less snark factor going on
Arial Black
Adventurer
I thought I despised point-buy enough already, and then I realised that every single one of my new AL CoS party had Int 8.
Every. Single. One.
Every. Single. One.
thecasualoblivion
First Post
Roll X and arrange the results to taste would have resulted in something similar, with everybody putting their lowest roll into Intelligence.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
And yet there would be very little chance of them all being 8. At least one of them would have been something better than Forest Gump.
