Search results

In the context of feats being available, I like the idea a lot more. You just recontextualize 10s as being the broad spectrum of normal humanity, and use proficiencies, backgrounds, and skills to provide the character descriptors people usually derive from stats.

Just go to anydice.com, and put this in: output 15d2-12 output [highest 15 of 16d2]-12 output [highest 15 of 17d2]-12 output [highest 15 of 18d2]-12

I was assuming feats were off the table, since @CleverNickName said ASIs. But yes, feats being available every level would definitely impact the calculus.

I'm not saying it can't work. I'm just saying I'm not sure what in-game actions could happen that could cause people to make a deviation from their obvious path. If a flametongue greatsword drops at ,say, level 3, I'm sure somebody is going to use it. But realistically, the party will give it...

Ok, so more "sandbox-y", I suppose (at least how I normally use the term.) Player-directed, but not built around the characters.

Nah. Almost everyone thinking at least a little strategically will raise their main stat to somewhere between 16-20, then Con to a comfortable level (probably 14), and then usually Dex to at least 14 (unless they wear heavy armor), pretty much in that order.

Because that isn't the type of game the OP is talking about. I'm not assuming, I'm basing my response on the contents of the opening post.

Pretty similar to DMing, really.

Even in a player-driven game, it's still the GM's role to determine complications and to frame opposition to the player's goals. The idea is that the opposition and challenges will be directly relevant to the PCs' drives and desires. It's also a convention within fantasy that it's generally...

Romantasy is definitely a "know it when you see it" vibe. The primary romantic entanglement takes up a lot of "screen time", as it were, and the progression of the main character's magical abilities is often tied up with their emotional status and development.

To be fair, it's probably a little higher in context, since it was probably two players in a group of 4-6 making characters.

Chance of a 7- on 5d6k3 is 1.95%. So the chance for a 6 stat array to contain one value that is 7- is ~11.1%. (I know you can calculate it, just adding for the audience.)

That sounds like what the people working for the wizards WANTS you to think. :)

So basically, there's no reason to keep a numerical descriptor over just using free text, if the numbers aren't actually driving anything. "Herculean stevedore" paints a lot more of a picture than "Str 17".

"It's a fantasy world, Steve! You can't just name your character Tom! It breaks my verisimilitude!"

I liked that guy. Really focused on the dramatic stuff. Not much for combat or exploration, though.

So true. His original plans was to keep the setting to Tolkien races only. Never let your players buy the "Metaphors for Moral English Character" sourcebooks is the lesson here.

I would point out Dostoevsky also never used Tortles. Good company.

There are other emotions?

The obvious argument here then, is if the stats have such a limited impact that the difference between high and low isn’t noticeable at the table, why are we maintaining them in the first place? Freeform text descriptors of our characters would seem to do a better job of differentiating...