NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 6628722" data-attributes="member: 463">The question is whether it adds to, or detracts from, the game when the PCs have significant variation in mechanical capability.</blockquote>I think this depends hugely on the campaign. Arguably the more linear the campaign, and the more encounter-centric, the more vital is mechanical balance, because in a typical linear AP that is the only way the players contribute. If everyone has to do the same thing, especially the same pre-written thing, then everyone needs to be able to contribute roughly equally.I'm finding that rolled stats work well in my Classic D&D game, which is pretty sandboxy. and I think Point Buy would hurt the tone. With 4e D&D I'd only ever consider point buy or array. My Pathfinder AP game uses 4d6-in-order-swap-one and that seems to work at least inasmuch as class imbalance vastly overshadows stat imbalance. Conversely I'm using default array in my 5e sandbox game, and that has worked great, especially as it gave me space to have different human races get different attribute modifiers.I don't think there is one right answer, but the 3e-5e system of attribute bonuses (+2 attribute = +1 bonus) makes stat numbers extremely important and disfavours rolling IME, whereas the older systems favour it - at least favour roll-in-order. The worst system IME is roll-then-arrange, this essentially is 'variable point buy'.Re complaints & compromise - if the rest of the group can accommodate the complainer without lessening their own fun, sure go ahead. If it will make the rest of the group less happy, they have no duty to accommodate the complainer.[/QUOTE]

Verification