Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Skyscraper" data-source="post: 5904390" data-attributes="member: 48518">One problem I see with 4E (sorry to come back to this one - I still play it and like it, but it's kind of an extreme in some respects so it makes for a good example), is how predictable the system is. In a game I'm DMing presently, all PCs at level 5 are within a 10% variation in HPs at most. The 4E combat mechanic is very elaborate and very nice in theory but the problem is that it comes down to the same thing all the time. PCs all have a same strong attribute, monster defenses are set at a same value (notwithinstanding whether the opponent is in plate mail or completely nude!) and consequently PCs and monsters have essentially excactly the same percentage of success on any given attack roll, in every combat, give or take a few rare variations. Also, 4E is obviously a game that is intended to be very battle-oriented, although you can of course customize it to your liking (I play with a couple of groups, and at least one is high-RP, low combat style - but even with that group we end up fighting a lot if only because battles last long).So, in this context, bringing in randomness is not a good idea because suddenly you risk that some PCs will simply not be as interesting than others because the game is all about being able to hit a set defense value that is always the same and that, as you level up, is always relatively the same with respect to your attack bonuses. So I fully agree that randomness in 4E is not desirable. We use point buy.However, if the game allows for some leeway in battles and other interactions, all of a sudden having +2 BAB instead of +4 is not that important. You won't necessarily be 10% less effective. Back in the days of 1E, a flesh golem, obviously a monster you did not encounter at level 1, had AC 9 (essentially the same as a level 10 monster having AC 10 in 4E: almost auto-hit). Then, you had spells that didn't key off an opponent's defense: some didn't even allow for a saving throw. A low level magic user with 14 intelligence was pretty much as effective as a low level magic user with 18 intelligence.I'm not advocating a return to 1E. I'm saying that the entire system influences whether you want to roll random ability scores, hit points, and generally use random values elsewhere in the game. If the game structure is very rigid like 4E, random ability score and HP determination can reduce fun for the unlucky players IMO. However, if the game structure is flexible (no uniformity in attack bonuses, defenses, no reliance on a single mechanic for all battle resolutions, allowance of actions that go beyond roll d20 and deal damage, etc...) then randomness is really a cool addition to the game.Also, I read people saying that they feel that a 18, 16, 12, 11, 10, 8 array includes strengths and weaknesses. This statement, in a vaccuum, makes no sense. Strength and weakness, by definition, is a relative question. If everyone has 18 STR, you are weak with a 16 STR. In 4E, your attack bonus is determined by your main stat. Therefore, by having 18 in your main stat, you are neither weak nor strong, you are just like everybody else because all PCs and all NPCs and monsters have an 18 in their main stat. The comparion to the 3-18 theoretical value is moot. And, if you were to compare the above array to the 3-18 theoretical value, then I contend that it includes no real weakness. Having one 8 in one stat is not weak. 10.5 is the average. I've seen people play PCs (and I've played PCS) with a value between 4 and 6 in one stat, that was clearly more evocative to me if I compare with values between 3-18, than having an 8. And 8 is a touch of weakness, a timid symbolic attempt to have a value below average simply to be able to state that you're not good all around. 8 is as much a weakness as 12 is a strength.</blockquote>

Verification