D&D 5E I am perfectly fine with WoTC producing D&D 5th Edition

[Hassassin]

Ability scores serve the function of making characters inherently better at certain things. I for one like that, but then again, I also like to roll abilities and use them to determine which character type I should play. I'd probably be interested in rolling in-order if it would generate equally powerful characters.

 

[Reynard]

Ability scores serve the function of making characters inherently better at certain things. I for one like that, but then again, I also like to roll abilities and use them to determine which character type I should play. I'd probably be interested in rolling in-order if it would generate equally powerful characters.

They all support the "immaterial" aspects of play. When you look at that set of stats you rolled, you *create* a character out of it, rather than *build* one.

Of course, I never adopted nor will I adopt, in D&D anyway, a point buy system. Rolling stats is far superior, even if you do it in such a way (better odds, minimum bonus levels, etc...) as to make more powerful characters.

There's nothing quite like that random super smart fighter or brawny as a boar thief.

 

[Felon]

Ability scores serve the function of making characters inherently better at certain things. I for one like that, but then again, I also like to roll abilities and use them to determine which character type I should play. I'd probably be interested in rolling in-order if it would generate equally powerful characters.

Well, I can either be profoundly disappointed or grateful for providing a great example of exactly what I was talking about above. Even though I explained the reality clearly, I immediately got a response that speaks as if the removal of ability scores would leave an unfillable void. Q.E.D.

Since there are RPG's that don't have ability scores, and still manage to have characters that are strong as an ox or fast as a cat, that's evidently not the case.

 

[cavalier973]

It was my understanding that the VTT was to incorporate the rules of all previous editions, so players could put together a 1e game, a 3e game, etc. if they wanted to; it was not limited to 4e.

That should hold true now that 5e has been announced. I expect that WoTC is as interested in keeping their current customers (and winning back former customers) as they are in bringing in new ones; providing access to other rulesets would be a big step in accomplishing both goals.

 

[Hassassin]

Well, I can either be profoundly disappointed or grateful for providing a great example of exactly what I was talking about above. Even though I explained the reality clearly, I immediately got a response that speaks as if the removal of ability scores would leave an unfillable void. Q.E.D.

Since there are RPG's that don't have ability scores, and still manage to have characters that are strong as an ox or fast as a cat, that's evidently not the case.

I didn't actually see your post before replying, I think. In any case, *anything* can be removed if it is replaced by something superior that still offers everything the removed mechanics did. (The cows aren't sacred to me.)

That doesn't mean everything should be replaced, just the parts that are problematic or have no use. I don't think ability scores are either, so there are probably more important things to change.

 

[Aldarc]

They all support the "immaterial" aspects of play. When you look at that set of stats you rolled, you *create* a character out of it, rather than *build* one.

Of course, I never adopted nor will I adopt, in D&D anyway, a point buy system. Rolling stats is far superior, even if you do it in such a way (better odds, minimum bonus levels, etc...) as to make more powerful characters.

There's nothing quite like that random super smart fighter or brawny as a boar thief.

You mean there's nothing quite as dissatisfying if you are a player who wanted to play a different sort of character than what they were "stuck" with.

 

[Hassassin]

You mean there's nothing quite as dissatisfying if you are a player who wanted to play a different sort of character than what they were "stuck" with.

Pretty much every DM out there is going to give you some kind of out from that situation. Such things can be codified into the rules.

 

[Felon]

Pretty much every DM out there is going to give you some kind of out from that situation. Such things can be codified into the rules.

That's a signifcant presumption. I've played with plenty of DM's over the years who don't have the empathy or pragmatism to give a player an out. To their mind, with their love of one-armed bandit character generation, you play what fate has chosen to give you. After all, there's a flipside to Reynard's comment: there's also nothing like seeing a fighter have to cope with being weak or a thief have to cope with being a clumsy clod. Hey, that's some awesome role-playing right there.

But more to the point, why are you randomly rolling a character just to get an out when it's not what you want to play? Why not go ahead and build the character you want?

 

[Hassassin]

But more to the point, why are you randomly rolling a character just to get an out when it's not what you want to play? Why not go ahead and build the character you want?

That's why there is point buy, but some people (including me) do like to roll. I don't have *a* character I want to build, I could list an endless number of them.

I'm not saying they should get rid of the point buy, just don't get rid of rolling.

 

[Reynard]

You mean there's nothing quite as dissatisfying if you are a player who wanted to play a different sort of character than what they were "stuck" with.

Adventuring is dangerous business. You're probably not "stuck" with the character for long.