D&D 5E Humans RAW Can Start With multiple 18's

Yes please. I've hated that term since I first saw/heard it. (Course, it personally hasn't meant anything at our table EVER because the DM is the final arbiter of all rules; that's what we...or the players since I DM 90%+ of the time...agreed on a long time ago.)

And as for ability score generation. We never use point buy. Even when it was "RAW" or default or whatever. Always roll. We currently use "roll 3d6, reroll any 1's" and place on whatever ability score you choose. We change it sometimes, depending on the mood of the players or the DM and use the above method, 4d6 drop lowest, or even straight 3d6 arrange as desired.

Then stop giving Bowbe RAW arguments to throw at me! :p
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Surely if you're going to roll then any race could end up with multiple 18's?
Exactly. I'm kinda confused what this has to do with humans especially since, unless I'm missing something, in the original post NONE of the humans started with multiple 18's. If we are talking about rolling stats, then it's POSSIBLE that a human can start with all 19's, but it's also possible that a mountain dwarf could have 2 20's and 4 18's. I don't see what this has to do with human stats at all.
 

On the suicide thing if one of my players ever tried to get their character killed I would oblige them and then ask them to leave my game, I don't want or need that kind of attitude at my table. Is this a normal thing in games that use rolled ability scores?

Well in all fairness with random rolls occasionally you can end up with Lump, the adventuring toenail. He has no skills, strength, social graces, he can't cast spells, dress himself, or apparently bathe. The act of going adventuring is essentially that same as commiting suicide, and if the party tries too hard to save him he's probably going to get them all killed. It actually a valid question to wonder why they ever accepted him into the party to begin with.

Heh. That reminds me of a game I ran years ago in the Palladium FRP system. Two of the characters had met and had a goal, but they were both scholarly types and wanted someone strong to protect them on the road. So they went into a tavern to hire a mercenary, first they ran into an Orge merc at the bar who was a rude, crude and stupid NPC I put in to make the PC look good. Then they went to the PC who was so obnoxious they went back and hired the Ogre and left the bar. Apparently there are limits to the adventuring party social contract. :D
 

Check the PHB not RAW. He can house rule it for sure but that is not RAW. The player gets to chose to roll or stat array. If the DM makes you use the stat array and doesn't allow the variant human he is gimping the human and should not be surprised if he ends up with parties with 0 humans.
First, the rules specifically state that the DM has the option to have players use point buy. That's in the rules as written.

Second, the non-variant human sucks whether you're rolling for stats or not.
 

Check the PHB not RAW. He can house rule it for sure but that is not RAW.

Pretty sure you've missed one of the main points of 5e - that the idea of any importance of 'RAW' has died in a fire and had its ashes scattered at sea.

Good riddance to my mind too.
 

Pretty sure you've missed one of the main points of 5e - that the idea of any importance of 'RAW' has died in a fire and had its ashes scattered at sea.

Good riddance to my mind too.

But how will I publicly demonstrate my manifest genius without designing extremely literal rule interpretations that lend to some minor mechanical benefit that I can declare broken?

As the Acquisitions Incorporated game from this weekend showed the thing that makes a D&D game great is extremely precise rule observance without regard for narrative flow, good sportsmanship or fun.
 

I don't allow rolling for ability scores, everyone uses point buy. Humans are still a great race.

On the suicide thing if one of my players ever tried to get their character killed I would oblige them and then ask them to leave my game, I don't want or need that kind of attitude at my table. Is this a normal thing in games that use rolled ability scores?

Absolutely. There's the spirit and the letter of the rules; ignore the former in my campaign at your peril.

And, if the DM says you start with 3 in every stat, then you start with 3 in every stat (just an example; I wouldn't necessarily do this, but then again, if someone pulled the "character suicide" stunt...). You don't get to quote rules at him and force him to aquiesce. You don't have to like his interpretation of the rules, but if you want to play in his game, give his style a chance.

There seems to be a widely-held attitude on the net that players can hold DMs to the rules, and that "the DM has to allow this". I don't know when or why this sprung up, but it's not how D&D used to be played; rules lawyers were ridiculed in gaming magazines and official D&D products (e.g. 2e's Campaign Sourcebook). Hopefully 5e, with its emphasis on DM fiat, will change this, but sadly these attitudes seem pretty ingrained.

I was reading the other day about Dave Arneson used to DM. One of his players apparently whined that their character didn't get to roll dice in a particular encounter. He said "OK, give me a d6 roll every round". When asked what for, he said "that's the amount of damage you take". I thought it was harsh at the time, but I can see his point.
 

And the best part is RAW the DM can't chose to not let you roll.

Okay...

I'm inclined to allow...

The way to combat infintie dice rolling...

Ahem:

Check the PHB not RAW.

In 5e there is no provision for rerolls, even in the case of truly useless characters. If you roll the dice, you're stuck with what you get.

If you're going to use RAW to 'force' the DM to let you roll, expect to see the DM insist on using all of it.
 

Remove ads

Top