Have These Basic Questions been answered yet?

[EATherrian]

I mentioned it before but I'll mention it again as a counter balance to some of the philosophy being espoused here. My favorite character was a half-elf fighter/cleric. We rolled 3d6 in order. Since his best scores (13s I believe) were in STR and WIS I decided that this was the best class for him. He also had a 5 for CON, so I believe I got a -1 or -2 to hit points. Until I was 3rd level, I never rolled anything but a 1 for hit points. Although many of you would have just thrown this character away because he wasn't a quasi-deity I played him and it was a blast. I had to figure out ways to avoid being hit, because I was always out in one hit. It led to some very creative playing was he is still one of my favorite characters. I don't understand power-gaming. If you want a super hero, play a super hero game. But to each their own I guess.

 

[Dragonblade]

As for always having at least 2 18s? Pure munchkinism. I allow a player to toss an array if there aren't at least 3 12 plus scores. I also make them toss the array if there are more than 3 16s or higher.

No, munchkinism, is simply try to "beat" the game by breaking the rules. Wanting to play an exceptional character is not munchkinism. Our game is just as lethal as any other. But we have more fun because we don't feel like our PCs are gimped from the very beginning.

My players love my DMing. Just like any other game, they have to play smart or they could die. I don't pull punches if they get in over their heads. But I want their success or failure to result purely from their actions and choices. Of course, randomness in combat should be a factor as well and it is. But you should never feel like you failed because your character stats weren't good enough. I have found that my stat system provides a nice balance between letting characters be exceptional without breaking the game.

 

[Dragonblade]

Actually, I think that a group of adults whining about the results of a randomized game is lame. If you think your character has gotten hosed by the dice then kamikaze him and roll up a new one. Don't sit around whining about it and trying to get the DM to hand wave the die rolls.

Huh? So wanting to adjust your hitpoints to a reasonable amount is immature, but trashing a character entirely because of bad rolls is not?

 

[Dragonblade]

Given that Mearls is the lead designer on 4E. . . I wouldn't be at all surprised to see HPs rolled in the Iron Heroes fashion. . .

d4 + remainder of HD + con

d4 + 8 for d12 HD
d4 + 6 for D10 HD
etc.

Its actually a really good system that allows for a little bit of randomness while preventing people from getting screwed on HPs.

It is a good system. We still use this in some of our games. Its just recently that we decided as a group to just give max HP just for the heck of it. We figured 3.5 is winding down and everyone in my group is converting to 4e so we figured we might as well go all out.

 

[Dausuul]

Honestly, the chances of a fighter rolling five 1s in the whole course of 20 levels are really slim.

If by "really slim," you mean, "just over 15%."

The only reason we still have hit point and ability score rolls is that that's how they did it in the days of Gygax, and when 3E came out no one at WotC had the cojones to stick a knife in that particular celestial bovine. It's a silly system.

I really, really hope 4E does away with it. The fact that they talked about Hit Dice being gone gives me hope that they meant that for PCs as well as monsters.

 

[beverson]

Actually I do recall them saying point buy is the default (in a podcast IIRC), but the DMG will have other options.

Actually, in this thread from December http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=214430, Scott Rouse stated that there are 3 methods for determining attributes, all in the PHB, and NONE of them is a default...

Opens draft of PHB, goes to chapter 1, page six, and looks at last paragraph regarding Determining Your Ability Scores and low and behold you can still roll dice to determine ability scores. It says so on page 7 in the third paragraph. But if you like to use the Standard Ability Array you can do that too, it says so on page 7. Not happy? Wait there is more. If you want to use a Customized Array you can do that as well, it says so. Where you ask? If you guessed it is on page 7

There are three methods to generating Ability Scores as mentioned before. When referring to a Ability Scores in the Racial Traits section it refers when you assign your scores not how you derived them. In the basics of describing character creation it just says you "Generate Your Ability Scores". There is no default from what I can see as there are three options

edit: modified for clarity

 

[Lanefan]

Why roll for hit points and not feats, skills, number of spells known, etc? Oh no, wait, if you rolled for number of spells known there would be a possibility of creating an unplayable wizard. Can't have that.

Go to a spell-point system with random-rolled spell points...leads to just as much variety among the casters as the warriors.

I've been using such a system for decades...I'm only moving away from it now due to power issues at higher levels, but the new quasi-sorceror system I'll be using still has a random component (though not as swingy as before).

I'm a big fan of random...it reflects reality. Take a class full of computer science students, for example. Each will in theory be exposed to the same information during the class, and each will take in a certain amount of it. But there will still be a *wide* variety on the final test scores, in part due to innate ability to learn and in part due to other factors. Now, make that a class full of neophyte Wizards or acolyte Clerics, with the "final test" being life in the field, adventuring. Doesn't it just make sense there'll be some variance in ability?

Lanefan

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm a big fan of random...it reflects reality. Take a class full of computer science students, for example. Each will in theory be exposed to the same information during the class, and each will take in a certain amount of it. But there will still be a *wide* variety on the final test scores, in part due to innate ability to learn and in part due to other factors. Now, make that a class full of neophyte Wizards or acolyte Clerics, with the "final test" being life in the field, adventuring. Doesn't it just make sense there'll be some variance in ability?

Why stop there if you want to reflect reality?

d100 roll:
1-90 - Commoner
91-95 - Warrior
96-98 - Expert
99 - Aristocrat or Adept
00 - PC class

 

[Dragonblade]

I'm a big fan of random...it reflects reality.

That is exactly why I don't like it.

 

[Gloombunny]

I'm a big fan of random...it reflects reality. Take a class full of computer science students, for example. Each will in theory be exposed to the same information during the class, and each will take in a certain amount of it. But there will still be a *wide* variety on the final test scores, in part due to innate ability to learn and in part due to other factors. Now, make that a class full of neophyte Wizards or acolyte Clerics, with the "final test" being life in the field, adventuring. Doesn't it just make sense there'll be some variance in ability?

If you want a realistic simulation of what life would be like with wizards and clerics, maybe. I prefer a fun simulation of sword-and-sorcery adventures.