Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 8386320" data-attributes="member: 23751">Yep.  Just very, very, very unlikely.  If those numbers were rolled, there's no problem.  I can't remember that ever happening, either, though.  It's almost as the more realistic method almost never results in the much more unrealistic arrays for everyone at the table.I play to have fun.  Arrays are not fun for me.  Result, either be one of the people that likes rolling or don't play at my table.  You should have fun, but not at my expense and vise versa.  It's simple courtesy, not dictatorship like your making it out to be.  If knowing that rolling is a problem for you, you agree to play in the game I run and then try to change it, YOU are the one being the problem person, not me.Ahh, the False Equivalence defense.  One person did it, so everyone who uses rolling as the only stat generation method are like him.You think I shouldn't enjoy the game I run.  Well, guess what else I do?  Big bad tyrant me will never run Eberron.  I dislike it as a setting.  I won't ever run any of the magic settings, either.  I'm such a dictator to refuse something that I dislike aesthetically. I'm purposefully taking away the players right to make Eberron and MtG characters, and as you've argued, I shouldn't ever be able to prevent them from making whatever PC they want!  I'm so horrible.I hate rogues cant and have never as a DM used it.  No player that I've played with since 1e or maaaaaaybe 2e has ever tried to use it to identify other rogues.  That and druidic are so lame that nobody uses them.  I haven't had to ban them, because players in multiple groups self-banned them. You've not demonstrated that at all.  You've certainly made the claim, though.The game doesn't care if your fighter has a 14 strength at 1st level or a 20. Beyond the math assumption of 14 or higher anyway.  The game assumes rolling and so it can't assume higher than that.Not once, no.  Have never forgotten that, ever.So you accuse me of forgetting that D&D isn't real life, then prove yourself wrong with the next sentence.  Nice!The differences between 14 and 20(starting assumed range of prime stat due to rolling being default) aren't little nuances.Um, yes, yes they do have the same strength.  The game says so.  They get identical abilities.  If your argument was correct, a +2 to strength would result in just another gradation of 16, rather than an actual increase to the number.  You're literally arguing that if two people go through the same training, they are both, regardless of build or individual effort during that training, going to come out with an identical strength score due to "realism"(in quotes because it's not realism), but somehow gaining 4 levels with identical, but far less training and activity is going to allow one to get a full +2 to strength and the other to gain +2 wisdom.How dare you dictate to me the player that my farmboy has to get training or experience before first level.  You can't control me.  I'm the player and only I get to say anything about my character.  He picked up his sword and walked out the door a 1st level fighter! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />And no, I can play a wizard savant who learned his magic by observing a wizard cast a few spells and practicing a little bit, like some real life savants are able to play the piano perfectly after just hearing it played and practicing a little bit..There's no apostrophe there.  It's Drizzt.[ATTACH=full]142956[/ATTACH]Never argued that those were not culturally learned SKILLS.  They are and I have said so.  This discussion is about racial ASIs.</blockquote>

Verification