Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 9387015" data-attributes="member: 6777737">Sure. But what he said is largely edition agnostic:"[D&D's] premise is that each player character is above average — at least in some respects — and has superior potential. Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character’s survival to be exceptional. As [the game] is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow participants to generate a viable character of the race and profession they desire. [M]arginal characters tend to [...] discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can’t or won’t identify with."I think that sentiment very easily fits into 5e D&D (and both 3e and 4e). Indeed, I think it is quite a modern take.It certainly flies in the face of the 2e AD&D PHB telling people the default method is 3d6 straight with no adjustments, but also we should use AD&D's stat tables. Nevermind that the 2e AD&D DMG spends all of Chapter 1 telling DMs that they need to look out for and deal with "too-powerful characters" and that hopeless characters don't exist and are just "a roleplaying challenge." As I recall the suggestion for dealing with a player that wants to play a ranger but didn't roll the attributes for it is literally, "Don't increase his stats to allow him to be a ranger. That wouldn't be fair to people that did roll well. Instead, tell the player to play a fighter and roleplay them as an aspiring ranger that's allergic to trees." Cripes. They might as well call the chapter, "Dungeon Master, Fun Police." I don't know what happened between 1978 and 1989, but there are a lot of very bizarre choices in those 2e books.</blockquote>

Verification