Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 5811632" data-attributes="member: 3192">1. I like all of 'em. I don't see D&D getting away with changing these without some uproar, so I can live with "the big six".2. Each could mean something different at each table. I'm okay with that. I like the 3-18 bell curve point spread as Haliver mentioned. I like rolling scores not picking them. Classes have SAD and MAD already built in. Being able to play any core class with any score would be beneficial.3. I don't think they define the character absolutely, but they should have an effect. 3 STR means you are weaker than normal, 18 STR means you are at the top end of human ability. How this affects your class actions depends on the class. Increases could be via training, but I think that should be weighted towards a non-adventuring NPC option rather than a PC one. Magic is the way to go here. I don't have a problem with magical increases, but they should be weighted to how powerful they are too.As an aside, SAD & MAD (single or multiple ability dependance) were built into minimums for sub-classes in AD&D. I could see that again. If a Ranger really does need 4 scores of a specific levels to capably be a ranger, than those should be requirements. I don't have a problem with rolling more than once for this class or picking from a list of pre-rolled stats to get 'em.</blockquote>