Recent content by Maxperson

And as you mentioned, giving spell slots back to allies is huuuuge. Especially at low level.

If I'm playing a rogue, Sentinal is low on my list of feats to take. I don't want to be a front line fighter. What I want to do is get in, stabby stabby sneak attack, and then get back out again. Stopping the big bad scary monster right next to me is a bad idea, especially since it's likely...

Yes. It relies on someone in the party being able to cast spells. Now if only there was an edition of D&D where the overwhelming majority of classes and subclasses can cast spells. :unsure: I have yet to see a non-magical(with regard to spellcasting) party in 5e.

@Lanefan generally comes to these discussions from a 1e/2e perspective where bonuses didn't happen until 15+ anyway, and even then they weren't super high until 17 or 18. With racial bonuses(if any) you were lucky to get a +1 to a stat, so getting high numbers was uncommon. You kinda have to...

For who? Almost no one uses it like you want to portray it. There are exceedingly few DMs, even here, who want their players to be miserable. 🤷‍♂️

Who said anything about not wanting random results? Not accepting piss poor stats doesn't mean that the rolled stats that aren't piss poor aren't random. Me and virtually everyone else who rolls. If almost everyone is ignoring a rule, it's not really a rule that has anything to do with anything.

When I say stats mattered, it's with bonuses and penalties in mind. In 1e and 2e if you had bonuses, you were a lot better off than if you didn't. You got an XP bonus, and the other bonuses really helped out. If you had a penalty, you really felt it.

No it doesn't. The game is designed with the assumption that a character will go from 1 to 20. Will any specific character? Who knows, but that doesn't affect the mathematical average is.

In the games I've been in when DMs wanted PCs to have higher stats, they made it 5d6-2L.

Discussing the "rules" is fine, but it doesn't mean much when almost no one follows the rule. That's the issue with the adventuring day. The rule is 6-8 encounters per adventuring day, but almost no one does that, so they had to change it(not that it really changed) for 5.5e. Stat generation...

What you rolled isn't relevant. DMs don't force players to have a horrible time playing horrible stats, so those numbers just plain don't matter. The difference will typically at worst be the difference between the standard array +/- a few points and maaaaaybe that high roll you had. It's...

Sure, but typically there will little difference in the primary attack stat, which is where most of the difference that would matter happens. The rest are in secondaries, which are of little import since folks pick skills where they have bonuses, so the ones where they have penalties aren't...

Yes. You brought up this Strawman last time, too. My argument was never about scores written down on sheets. A difference of 14 and 16, or even 14 and 18, though, won't often be noticed, even if you do roll what you roll. The difference between a 14 and 16 is one more success every 20 rolls...

5 sessions is more of a single adventure or maybe two, but it's not a campaign. Campaigns last significantly longer than that. Random chance means that sometimes you won't do as well as you do at other times. This is true for everyone if that makes you(general you) unhappy, perhaps don't play...

This seems odd to me. Upthread a bit you were arguing that the guy with the 14 strength could outperform the guy with the 20 strength. You are arguing pretty hard with @AlViking that it's not going to be noticeable, but when I argued with you that a +1 difference wouldn't be noticeable, you...