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="John Quixote" data-source="post: 4553338" data-attributes="member: 694">In 0D&D, player characters' stats were determined by a simple, organic method.  Roll 3d6, and that's your STR.  Do it again, that's your INT.  So on down the line for WIS, DEX, CON, and CHA.  AD&D made an odd change, but apparently one warranted because it was how players and DMs actually ran their games, of introducing multiple methods for generating characters.  "Method I" was the organic method, described above.  All the other methods involved either rolling more stats and selecting the better numbers, rolling all of one's stats and arranging to taste, adding up "points plus dice" (an unusal method where all stats started at 8, and the player distributed 7 separate d6 rolls among these stats, and one that actually served my own group very well during our happy 2nd edition days), and of course the famous 4d6-drop-lowest that became standard for 3e.  It was the AD&D 2nd edition rules that actually described the method and philosophy behind having different rules for character creation: if the DM wanted to keep his campaign in line with traditional swords and sorcery tropes, heroes weren't special.  They were just braver or more foolhardy than the ordinary peasant.  Characters would then be rolled under Method I.  Each subsequent method pushed the player characters closer and closer to high fantasy super-heroes, the rationale being that adventurers were among the more talented (stronger, smarter, generally better than ordinary) people in the world. As if already being a fighter or a magic-user weren't enough.This latter rationale became standard in 3rd edition.  Sure, the old methods were there in an obscure section of the DMG, but players expected their characters to be above average, in relation to that "commoner average" that the 3e game designers touted, where the average commoner had stats of all 10s and 11s (and therefore mods of +0).  PC heroes also got to maximize their first hit die, whereas all the past incarnations of D&D rolled HP at 1st level (though, again, the change was clearly warranted here, since most DMs had either a max hp or a "kicker" house rule already).Now we have 4th edition, and it doesn't even pretend that the player characters are on the same plane as mortals.  Triple hit points, set ability scores that guarantee high numbers, and that's before we even start dealing with powers.  Actually, I think powers are cool---the best aspect of 4e that I've seen.  What turns me off are the baseline assumptions.  You can't have PCs rise from obscurity anymore.  They practically have to start the game at what D&D used to call 4th level.  They begin as heroes without even having earned that much.So, here's my question: from what I've seen of 4e, all of the combat encounters are pretty tightly balanced, and the word on the street is that the game can be unmercifully lethal if the players aren't prepared to think tactically.  Okay, fine.  But what would a game of 4e look like where ability scores are rolled on 3d6 down the line, and hit points are actually determined at random, without a 1st level kicker?  Can it be done, or will the PCs just have their backsides handed to them by the first orc minion they run across?</blockquote>

Verification