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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8386279" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Congratulations. That doesn't mean it is impossible, and I'm also curious why it must be the same 6 numbers? Having two people with 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 is a problem, but having two people one of whom has 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 and the other 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9 isn't a problem? Why not, why is your sense of what abstract numbers players can have on their sheets this highly tuned?Ah yes, the classic "I make all the rules, and only problem people don't like them" combined with "If you don't like it my way, leave" Guess what? That's exactly what I said my friends did. Had a DM who refused anything other than rolling. They tried it out, found the guy was a tyrant, and left. And know we have you, who when pressed about why this is a house rule has admitted it is only because you personally find the array to be unappealing on an aesthetic level, therefore no one is allowed to use it. I'm not even talking about if anyone has to except your rules, I'm talking about if they should. And since your only reasoning is personal taste being enforced at your table under the belief that your rules shall always go unchallenged unless the player wishes to be kicked from the game, then no, I don't think they should.Talking about 5e, not other editions. Talking about strength fighters because the point is that a character who is choosing to emphasize a stat in class and build, generally makes it a higher number. And therefore, the combos do matter, because a character with a 15 strength is different than a character with a 15 charisma.Your issue is that you find it unrealistic that people share a similar range of abilities. Which I put forth is a terrible reason to exclude an option. It is equally unrealistic that every Rogue knows theives cant, where did they learn it? But I don't remove it from the game just because I don't find it terribly realistic. And your issue is even more egrgious, because I've demonstrated that with a small sample size like what you have, with a small slice of the potential population who pursue the career of adventuring..., then yes, it is perfectly realistic to find people with a similar range of abilities.Or the +1 from human. And yes, that will result in all strength based fighters having a very similar level of strength. Exact as far as the game is concerned. But, here is the issue Max, you see it as "exact" but you are forgetting that DnD isn't real life. I can't demonstrate a fighter with a 16.32 strength compared to one with a 16.754 strength. We've already shown that to model real life we would need a scale from somewhere around 0.0001 to 200 strength, and instead we are left with a scale from 1 to 30 for the world, and 3 to 20 for the characters. Obviously little nuance differences are going to be lost when you abstract the math to this degree. So, no, your two 16 strength fighters don't "actually" have the same strength, they just have the same representation of that abstract concept, because we can't model it accurately.Except it isn't neccessary. You just have to fast forward the farmboy a few years later, after he has either gotten some training or self-taught himself. Yes, you are skipping some of the story, but that is "backstory" anyways, just like you had to skip all the training the wizard did, because the wizard absolutely requires training.Fine, but the point was never that he was. I just used the term Lancer to talk about how archetypes are easily recognized, and you went on this side rant about how Driz'zt was always the main character.And what was her role before good drow were in print? Also, let us say Driz'zt never existed, would she have been put in the game as a goddess of the good rebel drow when there were no good rebel drow? We can argue the exact order of all this, but the point is if I go to someone even vaguely familiar with the realms and DnD, and I say "good rebel Drow" they are very very likely to say "like Driz'zt?" or "like that one dark elf ranger?" And that means that it is an archetype.facedeskYou understand how archetypes work, don't you? Of course he went against the archetype originally. THEN he became popular enough to make a new archetype. This is how it happens. You can't get new archetypes without someone first going against the mold and breaking the archetype. This is like saying "trees are against type for plants, because plants were algea first". You aren't wrong about what came first, you are just ignoring the evolution of the idea.After I put forth my character concept. None of the rest of your statement matters, because you were changing my concept to try and disprove my point. That isn't how this works. So which physicality or mental ability led to all dwarves learning to use axes and hammers? Or learning blacksmithing, brewing, or masonry? Where is the lore that makes it clear that these were absolutely not culturally learned traits?</blockquote>

Verification