Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6989191" data-attributes="member: 996">Uh-huh.&nbsp; So a stat getting short shrift is bad.&nbsp; And a stat being balanced is bad.&nbsp; ;PThe problem I had with the 4e approach to stats, which 5e has partially avoided (IMHO, mainly by resorting to a cap of 20), was that, while it did make each stat, individually, a viable thing to invest in, it made investing in both stats in a 'pair' sub-optimal, and really - /really/ - encouraged maxxing one or two stats.&nbsp; You could get away with keeping up three stats, but the 'well rounded' character was prettymuch out.&nbsp; Yeah, that fits some visions of 'hero' nicely, but it fails others.&nbsp; The inability of D&amp;D to do justice to the well-rounded sort of hero has been a perennial problem with it, for me.Because each stat can be a primary stat for some class, and primary stat means attack stat?&nbsp; Meh.&nbsp; Everything else the stat does is still different for each stat.So painfully true.&nbsp; One dump stat?&nbsp; You could almost unavoidably had at least three!&nbsp; GAK!The skill portfolio would've been pretty dramatically different, knowledge vs social.&nbsp; Also good REF vs good WILL.&nbsp; And, of course, they may each have viable attack rolls with their powers, but those powers will be from different classes, entirely, so unique in that way...But, just looking at the first bit, knowledge vs social, that's held throughout D&amp;D's history, even before there were skills.&nbsp; In the olden days it'd be languages &amp; later non-weapon proficiencies and the odd 'INT roll to see if you remember something' vs a nice Reaction bonus/loyalty base; latter which skills your best stat adds to.&nbsp; Nod.&nbsp; Which is why I initially didn't even bother going there.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; Having a preference is one thing, trying to justify it to someone with a very different preference tends to just spiral...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6989191, member: 996"] Uh-huh. So a stat getting short shrift is bad. And a stat being balanced is bad. ;P The problem I had with the 4e approach to stats, which 5e has partially avoided (IMHO, mainly by resorting to a cap of 20), was that, while it did make each stat, individually, a viable thing to invest in, it made investing in both stats in a 'pair' sub-optimal, and really - /really/ - encouraged maxxing one or two stats. You could get away with keeping up three stats, but the 'well rounded' character was prettymuch out. Yeah, that fits some visions of 'hero' nicely, but it fails others. The inability of D&D to do justice to the well-rounded sort of hero has been a perennial problem with it, for me. Because each stat can be a primary stat for some class, and primary stat means attack stat? Meh. Everything else the stat does is still different for each stat. So painfully true. One dump stat? You could almost unavoidably had at least [b][i]three[/i][/b][i][/i]! GAK! The skill portfolio would've been pretty dramatically different, knowledge vs social. Also good REF vs good WILL. And, of course, they may each have viable attack rolls with their powers, but those powers will be from different classes, entirely, so unique in that way... But, just looking at the first bit, knowledge vs social, that's held throughout D&D's history, even before there were skills. In the olden days it'd be languages & later non-weapon proficiencies and the odd 'INT roll to see if you remember something' vs a nice Reaction bonus/loyalty base; latter which skills your best stat adds to. Nod. Which is why I initially didn't even bother going there. ;) Having a preference is one thing, trying to justify it to someone with a very different preference tends to just spiral... [/QUOTE]

Verification