D&D (2024) 4e design in 5.5e ?

[Hussar]

A rolling system that I've never known of anyone using, other than maybe one person on ENWorld who might have mentioned it.

Whereas I've never known an AD&D group that didn't use it.

Funny how the plural of anecdote isn't data.

 

[Hussar]

It's not a bother, it's just a different mindset. One that is more interested in seeing what the dice give you, and making the best out of those results. And as a player, not having to worry about builds is pretty nice instead I can focus on "building" my character through the items, knowledge, and adventures they experience.

I totally get that. That's fine.

But why do you care when I do it? If you don't want to, that's fine. But, @Lanefan is arguing that no one should be allowed to build their character. That everyone should be forced to play the way he wants to play.

If someone in my group wanted to die roll their character, I certainly wouldn't stop them. More power to them. And, frankly, I adore those people who think point buy means three stats of 8. Their nickname is always some variation of "victim" because they're going to really, really suck at a lot of things. Watching players take 8 Str so they can make those Dex monkeys just makes my heart sing because you can guarantee that there's going to be lots of athletic checks in their future.

Makes it really, really easy to challenge the party when players make one trick ponies.

 

[Hussar]

Ah - you're assuming it'll survive for that hundred hours.

Put it another way then. Why are you forcing me to play a character I don't want to play? What's in it for you? As you said, if I roll the minimum, I have to play one of the basic characters. Which means I'm going to spend several hours, at least until I can fall on my sword, playing something I don't want to play.

Who is this benefiting?

 

[Mordhau]

Put it another way then. Why are you forcing me to play a character I don't want to play? What's in it for you? As you said, if I roll the minimum, I have to play one of the basic characters. Which means I'm going to spend several hours, at least until I can fall on my sword, playing something I don't want to play.

Who is this benefiting?

The player who rolled well and gets to play something special.

I've always felt that early D&D is really premised on the idea that you play the game an awful lot. (By all accounts Gygax did). So it all evens out in the wash. (In theory anyway).

 

[Hussar]

The player who rolled well and gets to play something special.

I've always felt that early D&D is really premised on the idea that you play the game an awful lot. (By all accounts Gygax did). So it all evens out in the wash. (In theory anyway).

Yeah, I've never really been a big believer in the "over time" approach to balance. It's false. What "over time" actually means is that you have basically imbalanced points all the way along.

It's like no one in the world actually has 2.4 children and 1.2 dogs. Yes, that's the average, but, you never actually see it in the real world. Same with die rolled. I'm being forced to play characters I don't want to play just so I can, potentially, play a character I do want to play? On what planet is that good game design?

 

[Tallifer]

(To add my two cents as if anyone cared, I also much prefer Point Buy both as a dungeon master and as a player.)

What I loved about 4E was the clear and concise presentation of the rules, most especially spells (whether Powers, Rituals, Martial Practices, magic item Properties ). I hate wading through the paragraphs of purple prose to find the actual effect of some of the 5E spells.

 

[Nefermandias]

Nice try! But I am not a fan of the cancel process!
Put back boing buy as a legitimate method,
add more sample of popular point buy results, like 4ed did,
Keep rolled stats as an method for experimented players.
Still people like to « beat the game », so it would be nice to add a softer way to improve a score without too much risk.

I thought the "c" word was banned from the forum?

 

[Lanefan]

I totally get that. That's fine.

But why do you care when I do it? If you don't want to, that's fine. But, @Lanefan is arguing that no one should be allowed to build their character. That everyone should be forced to play the way he wants to play.

Not quite.

I'm more arguing that the game shouldn't force an elaborate character-build phase; that char-gen should by default be quick and easy to allow the table to get it done and get on with the campaign.

If someone in my group wanted to die roll their character, I certainly wouldn't stop them. More power to them. And, frankly, I adore those people who think point buy means three stats of 8. Their nickname is always some variation of "victim" because they're going to really, really suck at a lot of things. Watching players take 8 Str so they can make those Dex monkeys just makes my heart sing because you can guarantee that there's going to be lots of athletic checks in their future.

Makes it really, really easy to challenge the party when players make one trick ponies.

Another different philosophy: your last sentence implies you're tailoring your challenges to suit (or hose) the PCs being played. Me, no matter what PCs the players bring along I try to run the adventure the same as I would with any other mix of PCs.

Put it another way then. Why are you forcing me to play a character I don't want to play? What's in it for you? As you said, if I roll the minimum, I have to play one of the basic characters. Which means I'm going to spend several hours, at least until I can fall on my sword, playing something I don't want to play.

Flip this question around and ask why are you so hung up on playing this character, right now? What's wrong with some flexibility of thought/plan when arriving at roll-up night? And don't you (as many do) decide what character to roll up and-or play based in some part on what other people are playing, which you all might not even learn until roll-up night?

And yes, rolling the minimum does force your hand somewhat; no sugar-coating that. Good thing it doesn't happen very often, eh? (I can't think of an occasion when a player's had a character with a highest starting stat of 13; I can recall one that started with a high of 14, and it did OK)

 

[Aldarc]

I'm more arguing that the game shouldn't force an elaborate character-build phase; that char-gen should by default be quick and easy to allow the table to get it done and get on with the campaign.

So standard array it is then.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, I've never really been a big believer in the "over time" approach to balance. It's false. What "over time" actually means is that you have basically imbalanced points all the way along.

Depends how much one cares about those individual points, I guess.

Personally, I'm all about long-term balance and don't really care much about balance in any given moment, as long as the in-the-moment imbalances tend to cancel out in the long run or at least have clear opportunity to do so.

My usual example: Illusionists are historically* rather hopeless against low-grade undead, constructs, and other non-intelligent (or extremely intelligent) foes. Flip side is they can be absolute superstars against low-intelligence foes, and that's the long-term balance: you-as-Illusionist can be the star of the show in this adventure but in the next adventure you might be playing second fiddle. For this and other reasons I intentionally try to run a mix of adventure types such that each class gets a chance to shine now and then (though whether that class is in fact present in the party at the time is up to chance).

* - as in, pre-4e. Illusionists since then are hopeless, period, due to all the nerfing of illusion effects.