Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pax" data-source="post: 621447" data-attributes="member: 6875">The thing you seem to be missing is, you are trading three 8's to get one 18.Yet you have expressed a desire for the rules to produce an incentive to do exactly that.There's no reason TO discourage you -- not in terms of rules.  The way it shoudl work is, teh group shoudl sit down, before teh campaign starts, and at various points during the campaign (every Nth session, or such) ... and decide what type of game do we want to play?There is the whole and absolute incentive needed.  The rules don't have to force one of us to conform to the expectations of the oteh (since hte rules cannot know which of our expectations to consider "right").  WE, as presumedly-mature roleplayers, should decide between us, our fellow players, and our GM, which "flavor" will be applicable to a given campaign.I've put not ONE owrd in your mouth.  I've read your posts directly and literally; I'm beginning to conclude Petrosian was right, and you're a troll....And no, not the kind with a CR."Very bad idea" ---> "causes a significant, even crippling, disadvantage".Where, other than combat, is a point or two on a die roll now and again, a "significant, even crippling, disadvantage" ... ?Apparently, you are lacking a clue.  12's aren't average.  12's are "slightly above average".  TEN, exactly and only, is "average".Not to mention; *AHEM* who isputting words in whose mouth now?  I've only EVER cited "a 16, maybe a 14, and a bunch of 10's" ... never "12's across the board".  Not once....the eau d'Troll is growing stronger. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />Yet, this entire side-issue began whens omeone (Spatzimaus actually) suggested EXACTLY that -- all 8's to get the best stats you can "where it matters" for powergaming purposes:That's what I objected to all along.  Of course, you cAN get an 18, have one weakened attribute, and be average everywhere else, with a 25-point buy.  IMO, you'd most often be BETTER off, in the long run, taking only a 16, and spending those 6 points to improve a secondary attribute (Charisma for clerics, for example).In response to the above bit, I posted two other point-buy spreads, stating they were what I woudl more likely choose for myself:</blockquote>

Verification