Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hafrogman" data-source="post: 5903713" data-attributes="member: 8858">Put another one down strongly against rolling for hit points and ability scores.&nbsp; If you want ability scores to drive class choice rather than vice versa, that's still something that can be added in without allowing one character to vastly outshine the others.&nbsp; 4d6, drops lowest simply provides way too much discrepancy, even with rerolls for low scores.&nbsp; How many DMs will do the opposite (or get away with it), telling someone who rolled two (or three) 18s that they can't keep them and they'll need to reroll until they get lower scores?&nbsp; I've seen way more campaigns where ability rolling keeps getting bumped up to create even more powerful characters (multiple sets, reroll 1s, etc. etc.).&nbsp; In situations like that, you actually see lower scores coming out of point buy, where difficult decisions need to be made.But you say, &quot;Then every member of a class looks the same.&quot;?&nbsp; This is a fault of the prime requisite mentality that's been around since the very first iterations of the game.&nbsp; I want to see smart fighters and strong wizards not because there was an extra 18 floating around somewhere, but because there's actually some reason to WANT to be a smart fighter.&nbsp; Being smart or strong or fast should be a benefit whoever you are.&nbsp; Not just an 18 in your main stat and your next highest in constitution, king of all stats.There's a phrase &quot;system mastery&quot; where hidden traps lie in the game, seeking to make new players weak.&nbsp; Play a bard?&nbsp; Ooooh, bad choice.&nbsp; Rolling for stats is another trap, where however smart you made your choices up front, a few dice rolls in the first minute of a campaign can affect the character for months or years into the future.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hafrogman, post: 5903713, member: 8858"] Put another one down strongly against rolling for hit points and ability scores. If you want ability scores to drive class choice rather than vice versa, that's still something that can be added in without allowing one character to vastly outshine the others. 4d6, drops lowest simply provides way too much discrepancy, even with rerolls for low scores. How many DMs will do the opposite (or get away with it), telling someone who rolled two (or three) 18s that they can't keep them and they'll need to reroll until they get lower scores? I've seen way more campaigns where ability rolling keeps getting bumped up to create even more powerful characters (multiple sets, reroll 1s, etc. etc.). In situations like that, you actually see lower scores coming out of point buy, where difficult decisions need to be made. But you say, "Then every member of a class looks the same."? This is a fault of the prime requisite mentality that's been around since the very first iterations of the game. I want to see smart fighters and strong wizards not because there was an extra 18 floating around somewhere, but because there's actually some reason to WANT to be a smart fighter. Being smart or strong or fast should be a benefit whoever you are. Not just an 18 in your main stat and your next highest in constitution, king of all stats. There's a phrase "system mastery" where hidden traps lie in the game, seeking to make new players weak. Play a bard? Ooooh, bad choice. Rolling for stats is another trap, where however smart you made your choices up front, a few dice rolls in the first minute of a campaign can affect the character for months or years into the future. [/QUOTE]

Verification