Search results

I mean, I don’t have a problem if a specific player wants to opt-in to having a weakness. But a truly random methodology isn’t going to assign that weaker set to that specific player.

Sure, but I feel like that’s just recapitulating the argument that you can use other techniques to endure the disparity. But there’s still no argument that the disparity is making the game better. If having some organic randomness required a level of disparity, I could see a stronger argument...

To me, the argument for rolling falls down because there’s no positive argument that having 2 players with characters with a wide disparity in stats is actually positive in play. At best, it can be endured, but there’s no argument it enhances your play. I can see valid arguments for more...

Anytime, anywhere.

Gotta say, I like warforged transformers on Mechanus way more than Modrons. Hmm...or maybe a factional split in Mechanus between the rational modrons and the irrational, radical warforged.

Which would you choose? A) 14-14-14-14-14-14 B) 18-14-14-14-14-3

Ironically, my actual preferred arrays doesn't follow the rules above; I prefer starting with a main stat 17 at level 1 so I can take a half-feat (or 2024 level 4+ feat) at level 4 to get to 18. 15,15,14,10,8,8 is my point buy go-to.

I'm shocked that a talented 3pp designer has a more cohesive design scheme than WotC; shocked, I tell you. :)

There are only 65 valid 27-point arrays, so it shouldn't be too difficult to determine which ones match those rules. I'll take a quick look. Edit: Of the 65 valid arrays, only 20 meet these rules. 1) No odd stats after racial/floating/background stat adjustments. Practically, this means...

Warforged, roll out!

Exactly. I think sometimes people forget that “serious D&D table” is an oxymoron.

In my experience, people don’t really care unless people are being egregious in their stat picks. 15,15,16,17,18,18 will get some pushback. 7,9,10,15,16,17 is totally fine.

If no one cares, was it really a rule to begin with? If one or more people at the table care, then you roll at the table in front of everyone.

Yep. You can definitely think of real people and fictional characters who embody the "hypercognitive" polymath trope of what we imagine a Int of 20+ might be like. (von Neumann and Euler would be two RL examples, and Kvothe (from Kingkiller Chronicles) would be a fictional one.) But there are...

<shrug> I start with the system, and I extract the setting fiction and concepts from the rules. Since I play a lot of systems, this is much easier than trying to hack a bunch of different systems to fit a certain baseline expectation of fantasy tropes. If I was in your position, and played...

Eh, it's less indigination (for me) than cynicism. Over the decades, I've seen a lot of setting concepts based around a specific milieu and limited player options, and they almost always seem way more attractive to GMs then they do players. As a player, I would always rather reskin my...

True, but balancing asymmetrical options is WAY harder.

I mean, isn't invalidating others and making it known your way is superior the best form of fun? (It is, this is unarguable.)

I feel like the fact that classes aren't balanced, races aren't balanced, spells aren't balanced, even the individual results on a d20 throughout the course of a session aren't balanced, is much more important than differing point buys within the same range not being balanced.

<pedantic> That doesn't seem quite right to me. The chance of all 1s on 4d6 (a 3 stat) is 6^4, or 1296. The odds of rolling all 1s twice in a row is only 1/1296^2, which is 1 in 1.680x10^6. The extra rolls would only increase the odds of getting getting more 3s, not decrease it. My quick...