D&D 5E Array v 4d6: Punishment? Or overlooked data

[FormerlyHemlock]

No. Because forcing a player to have a sub-standard experience or face ejection from play for no good reason isn't fair, no matter how unbiased the statistics of determination were.

That's one opinion, but it's not universally shared. Like every other assertion in this thread, it's a matter of taste.

I know, shocking right? I'm not even sure why people are still arguing.

 

[Sunseeker]

This thread makes me wonder how D&D would look if we simply removed base stats. Martial classes would get a proficiency-like bonus to physical damage damage that increases with level, caster classes would get the same applied to spells. We could take it one step further and remove damage dice, substituting half+1 for each weapon. All that would remain would be the d20 roll.

I don't think rolling has anything to do with optimizing or risk or enjoyment of randomosity. I just think it reflects on if people like rolling more or less dice.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I wish there was a laugh at thread option. But more productively... people have preferences.

Should I roll more stats and then mimic them with point buy? At least I found that interesting.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I know, shocking right? I'm not even sure why people are still arguing.

Because we can!

I mean, isn't a heated thread discussion a good Turing test?

 

[pemerton]

As long as all players are rolling with the same rules, there's no universal basis for calling it unfair.

But who has denied this? No one has tried to claim that rolling is a priori unfair. They have explained why it is unfair relative to a certain context and purpose. In my case, that purpose is the players being able to mechanically impact the shared fiction via their PCs, which I regard as core to FRPGing.

And, for many, using an array or point-buy might not save them from the power-disparity pitfall of rolled stats.

Sure. There are at least two options here. One is a uniform array. The other is that players help one another with PC building, therefore spreading the benefits of expertise.

This thread makes me wonder how D&D would look if we simply removed base stats.

I think 4e would look better with stats not being used for to-hit numbers, and perhaps not for defence either. Much of the wonkiness in the system's maths and related feat options comes from trying to make sure a stat-based system of to-hit and defence numbers reaches a mathematically desirable equilibrium. (Under this improvement of 4e, stats would still be used for damage, and more importantly as the core of the non-combat and skill system.)

 

[Campbell]

I don't like rolling for stats. The reason I don't like rolling for stats is because I view character creation as having a very specific role - it is the time in which players get the chance to tell the GM what they'd like play to be about. Your character is your chance to flag stuff you want to focus on. Rolling for stats doesn't help, so it's out. It doesn't hurt that with arrange to taste stats, but it doesn't help so it goes.

 

[Crothian]

I don't like rolling for stats. The reason I don't like rolling for stats is because I view character creation as having a very specific role - it is the time in which players get the chance to tell the GM what they'd like play to be about. Your character is your chance to flag stuff you want to focus on. Rolling for stats doesn't help, so it's out. It doesn't hurt that with arrange to taste stats, but it doesn't help so it goes.

I always found telling the DM what you want to the game to be about is better then building a character and having the DM use that to determine. In one of my current games there is a Paladin with a high Charisma. One might think that would mean he wants more social encounters and chances to use the Charisma. But that is far from the truth. He just wanted a high charisma and would be perfectly happy to never have to roll against it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I always found telling the DM what you want to the game to be about is better then building a character and having the DM use that to determine. In one of my current games there is a Paladin with a high Charisma. One might think that would mean he wants more social encounters and chances to use the Charisma. But that is far from the truth. He just wanted a high charisma and would be perfectly happy to never have to roll against it.

100% agree. There are times that people mean to do one thing but mistakenly do another. Heck if you can't openly talk about what you do and don't want it could mean a disaster for the game...

The spellfire 'one man party' I talked about up thread is a great example, in game he told everyone he just wants to be a farmer... on of the PCs didn't understand why I would want to play a farmer so bad... I didn't, I wanted to ply a reluctant hero...

 

[Umbran]

That's one opinion, but it's not universally shared.

I should start a poll.

Show of hands, folks! Who thinks making a random person at your table sit on tacks for the evening is fair!

Like every other assertion in this thread, it's a matter of taste.

Tongue partially in cheek here: Yes, but, "I make people suffer for no good reason," happens to be pretty much the standard definition of being Evil aligned, now isn't it? If you are Evil, do we care what you think?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's one opinion, but it's not universally shared. Like every other assertion in this thread, it's a matter of taste.

I know, shocking right? I'm not even sure why people are still arguing.

I should start a poll.

Show of hands, folks! Who thinks making a random person at your table sit on tacks for the evening is fair!



Tongue partially in cheek here: Yes, but, "I make people suffer for no good reason," happens to be pretty much the standard definition of being Evil aligned, now isn't it? If you are Evil, do we care what you think?

by the way the funny part is the [MENTION=6787650]emdw45[/MENTION] shows exactly why we are still argueing in the post he ask the question... because one side is so anti compromise that when asked if it would be fair to inflict real out of game pain they still wont give an inch...

in reality like most arguments on enworld nowadays (maybe every argument on the internet ever, or worse maybe every argument anywhere ever) we long ago stoped considering the other side and have firmly entrenched in our side...