Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7796574" data-attributes="member: 7006">Yeah, you have to okay with the slight possibility of someone starting with an 18 or 19 if they select a race that takes advantage of where their cards landed.&nbsp; I myself did not have any issues in that I think for my 14 players in both campaigns, only two of them drew the 8-9 combo for a 17, and the one who took advantage of it was a new player who got the 17 in CON and then selected Dwarf, giving them a total of 19.&nbsp; And in that case... having this new player playing a Dwarf Fighter with a +4 CON modifier helped offset his inexperience and lack of really optimized combat tactics.&nbsp; So it hasn't been an isuse at all.&nbsp; The other player also drew the 17 in CON but really wanted to play a half-elf, so they kept the +3 CON as-is, which matches many other players who started with +3s in their primary stat.I myself probably wouldn't want to do three-card decks with numbers from 1-6 or 2-6, because I would want to eliminate the possible 5s and 6s that could come up as someone's ability scores.&nbsp; My method made the single minimum as 8, and only a couple chances of 9s, which is what I preferred.&nbsp; Also, if I was doing three-card piles... at that point I might as well just use the dice as normal.To reduce the possible high end numbers in a 12-card deck you could go something like: two 4s; three 5s &amp; 6s, two 7s &amp; 8s, which would still give the possibility of that illusive 16 to start with (allowing for the rare +4 modifier at the start of the campaign), but usually will result in lots of 13s and 14s and occasion 15s for those who are lucky (and the ones who get the 15 will usually end up with an 8 or 9 to balance it.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7796574, member: 7006"] Yeah, you have to okay with the slight possibility of someone starting with an 18 or 19 if they select a race that takes advantage of where their cards landed. I myself did not have any issues in that I think for my 14 players in both campaigns, only two of them drew the 8-9 combo for a 17, and the one who took advantage of it was a new player who got the 17 in CON and then selected Dwarf, giving them a total of 19. And in that case... having this new player playing a Dwarf Fighter with a +4 CON modifier helped offset his inexperience and lack of really optimized combat tactics. So it hasn't been an isuse at all. The other player also drew the 17 in CON but really wanted to play a half-elf, so they kept the +3 CON as-is, which matches many other players who started with +3s in their primary stat. I myself probably wouldn't want to do three-card decks with numbers from 1-6 or 2-6, because I would want to eliminate the possible 5s and 6s that could come up as someone's ability scores. My method made the single minimum as 8, and only a couple chances of 9s, which is what I preferred. Also, if I was doing three-card piles... at that point I might as well just use the dice as normal. To reduce the possible high end numbers in a 12-card deck you could go something like: two 4s; three 5s & 6s, two 7s & 8s, which would still give the possibility of that illusive 16 to start with (allowing for the rare +4 modifier at the start of the campaign), but usually will result in lots of 13s and 14s and occasion 15s for those who are lucky (and the ones who get the 15 will usually end up with an 8 or 9 to balance it.) [/QUOTE]

Verification