Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6412644" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't find that stat values are a very significant determiner of PC personality and distinctiveness in and of themselves.I have had PCs be memorable because they had high stats, and hence were effective; and have had PCs be memorable despite relatively low stats because of other steps taken in PC build to mitigate those low stats; but neither of these cases strikes me as an arguments in favour of rolling for stats.I don't see any false equivalency.Gaining a level can boost proficiency bonus, hit points, number of attacks (= damage output) and stats. Plus grant some special abilities.Having better stats is equivalent to a better proficiency bonus, if it's CON will grant more hit points (and 1d8+3 is better hit points than 2d8-2 - 1st level with 16 CON vs 2nd level with 8 CON), and if it's on an attack stat will boost damage. And obbviously better stats are strictly equivalent to gaining stat points from levelling.In fact, in a game that equates +2 to a stat to +1 feat, it woud make as much sense to roll for starting feats as it does to roll for starting stats.This is why I don't think rolling for starting level (say, 1d2) is wildly different from rolling for stats. It doesn't put any greater stress on the game's tolerances.That strikes me as far from covering the field of possible player motivations. What if you're the sort of player who wants to shape the story of the game, and recognises that in a system like 5e action resolution (and hence the stat modifiers that drive it) is key to doing so?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6412644, member: 42582"] I don't find that stat values are a very significant determiner of PC personality and distinctiveness in and of themselves. I have had PCs be memorable because they had high stats, and hence were effective; and have had PCs be memorable despite relatively low stats because of other steps taken in PC build to mitigate those low stats; but neither of these cases strikes me as an arguments [I]in favour[/I] of rolling for stats. I don't see any false equivalency. Gaining a level can boost proficiency bonus, hit points, number of attacks (= damage output) and stats. Plus grant some special abilities. Having better stats is equivalent to a better proficiency bonus, if it's CON will grant more hit points (and 1d8+3 is better hit points than 2d8-2 - 1st level with 16 CON vs 2nd level with 8 CON), and if it's on an attack stat will boost damage. And obbviously better stats are strictly equivalent to gaining stat points from levelling. In fact, in a game that equates +2 to a stat to +1 feat, it woud make as much sense to roll for starting feats as it does to roll for starting stats. This is why I don't think rolling for starting level (say, 1d2) is wildly different from rolling for stats. It doesn't put any greater stress on the game's tolerances. That strikes me as far from covering the field of possible player motivations. What if you're the sort of player who wants to [I]shape[/I] the story of the game, and recognises that in a system like 5e action resolution (and hence the stat modifiers that drive it) is key to doing so? [/QUOTE]

Verification