Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadence" data-source="post: 6269910" data-attributes="member: 6701124">Definitely agree about wanting a point of reference.Ability scores seem a lot like level in that the baselines each GM chooses can really change things.&nbsp; Whether 1st level is an apprentice or a beginning journeyman or a veteran (who would be a serjeant in 1e) seems like a huge difference that should ripple down through the campaign world and affect how the characters act and are treated. For ability scores, if stats did work as independent 3d6's, then the median array (median of the order statistics) is a 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 in some order and a full 16% of people would have a 14 or higher strength.&nbsp; Well over a 1/3rd of people would have a 12.&nbsp; &nbsp; (Although seems debatable that they should all be independent). Taking anything above 11 be &quot;strong&quot; seems like it gives a totally different world feel than saying an 11 is just in the top 37.5%. Or maybe 12 is high in the sense of being good enough to pursue a career based on that stat, but not high in the sense of people generally using that adjective to describe you.I'm cool with whatever the GM wants to use, but I always like to know how the campaign world shakes out in those two areas so that I can picture how my character fits in among everyone else.&nbsp; I find it a bit boggling that the points of reference are generally buried somewhere late in the rules (in the chapter on NPCs?)&nbsp; and not discussed more right up front.&nbsp; (If it's too limiting to put it there, why isn't it too limiting to put in the NPC chapter?)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadence, post: 6269910, member: 6701124"] [FONT=Verdana] [/FONT] Definitely agree about wanting a point of reference. Ability scores seem a lot like level in that the baselines each GM chooses can really change things. Whether 1st level is an apprentice or a beginning journeyman or a veteran (who would be a serjeant in 1e) seems like a huge difference that should ripple down through the campaign world and affect how the characters act and are treated. For ability scores, if stats did work as independent 3d6's, then the median array (median of the order statistics) is a [COLOR=#333333]7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 in some order and a full 16% of people would have a 14 or higher strength. Well over a 1/3rd of people would have a 12. (Although seems debatable that they should all be independent). Taking anything above 11 be "strong" seems like it gives a totally different world feel than saying an 11 is just in the top 37.5%. Or maybe 12 is high in the sense of being good enough to pursue a career based on that stat, but not high in the sense of people generally using that adjective to describe you.[/COLOR] I'm cool with whatever the GM wants to use, but I always like to know how the campaign world shakes out in those two areas so that I can picture how my character fits in among everyone else. I find it a bit boggling that the points of reference are generally buried somewhere late in the rules (in the chapter on NPCs?) and not discussed more right up front. (If it's too limiting to put it there, why isn't it too limiting to put in the NPC chapter?) [/QUOTE]

Verification