Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alnag" data-source="post: 4077699" data-attributes="member: 10087">That would be viable argument if the abilities would play a significant role. The problem is, they don't. Their effect is dwindling, because they are pretty much interchangeable. I can indeed create dexterous wizard or intelligent one or strong one for that matter... the problem is, the outcome would be (or it seems to me) just pretty much the same. The average attack, hit points, damage, defenses etc. would be in the pretty the same area (because of the balance) which means the concept doesn't project well into the outcome.The fact is, this is just my impression, which I can not confirm right now. So take it with appropriate amount of doubt as I do.This one is true and important part! The most significant difference I see as possible are in the area of skills and special non-combat possibilities. Which we do not know much about yet. The fact, that some skills are mandatory is bit well decreasing diversity again, although this has easy solution of house ruling, which is the first thing I will do (even if some powers are tied to those skills). Sorry designers, this I feel is too much restrictive. But back to the topic...Here, I agree partially. True is, that anyone optimizing character was following this approach at least with the primary ability for each class. (Although there were less incentive to do that than now if you have a chance to play in non-optimizing group). Now I feel pretty much like these are you three abilities - max them, these three you don't need at all, leave them alone. And on the other hand it doesn't matter that much which one you max or not, because their overall effect is not so high.A bit off-topic, I must admit, I haven't played D&D in the most common manner. As a DM I've used very few combat encouters because they seemed stereotypical for me. Now 4e does a good job because the combat sounds like the interesting option again. On the other hand playing lot of non-combat encounters make the players come with pretty weird concepts which might not be optimal for combat effectiveness but were pretty tempting for other interaction, which is why I feel the impact of the 4e paradigm somewhat limiting in some ways. But still, I think it is quite interesting. And of course I am prepared to reconsinder my opinion once I have a chance to see the whole picture.</blockquote>

Verification