"'Kill it before it grows'...he said 'Kill it before it grows'..."

[Wormwood]

Well, saying "that game is not D&D" is not rational.

This is D&D

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yes, I'm going to have to live with that. I do hold out hope that there's a chance we'll get rid of the meaningless number that represents the actual bonus.

Well, FWIW, I'm sure no one will make you use ability scores, if you just want to use the bonus. In fact, I'd be a little surprised if 5e didn't mention it right there along with all the other house rules and options for ability score generation. It's bound to be a popular option, since it's quite simple.

 

[Felon]

Well, FWIW, I'm sure no one will make you use ability scores, if you just want to use the bonus.

Your response here is basically a slight variation of what you posted over in the "what has to be save-or-die" thread. I hope this isn't a trend, as it leaves the impression that you find that "do whatever you want in your game" represents a simple, overlooked insight that remedies any need for further discussion.

People know about rule zero. However, its existence does not render discussion of future design moot. It does not prevent people from wanting to see things in the official rules handled well so they can keep the house rules to a minimum. And this is the appropriate forum for such discussions.

 

[Felon]

Double-post

 

[I'm A Banana]

Your response here is basically a slight variation of what you posted over in the "what should be save-or-die" thread. I get the impression that you find that "do whatever you want in your game" represents an all-remedying insight.

People know about rule zero. However, its existence does not render discussion of future design moot. It does not prevent people from wanting to see things in the official rules handled well.

The thing to understand, I think, is that "handled well" varies for different groups, and that no one solution is The Best Solution For Everyone.

Of course its obvious that anyone can do whatever they want in their own games, but what might not be as obvious is that WotC seems interested this time around in embracing that as a fundamental design philosophy of the next iteration. In that environment, I think it's important to include the context of most of the rules elements.

If there's no One Way It Is To Be Done, it seems kind of odd to me to say you are forced to accept the ability score numbers alongside bonuses, when that doesn't have to be true. Yeah, they'll probably be in there in some form, but there's also options (even officially printed in actual ink on real dead trees!) to take them out.

In your context, +1 instead of 12 or 13 is boffo. In Billy's context three towns over, 12 or 13 instead of +1 provides a valuable tool (perhaps, forex, Billy uses ability score damage to represent things like paralysis or poison). One isn't necessarily superior to the other. It depends on the context.

The same is true of save-or-die, or myriad other rules elements. If the core element of 5e design philosophy is modularity, there is every reason to expect the design team to embrace that by not assuming you are using any particular rule except in certain contexts (forex, a particular module or campaign setting). That probably can include numerical ability scores.

It's a little bigger than just "you can house rule it!" It is more like "Your own version of D&D is D&D, however you do it."

If house rules are the only rules, there's little in the way of absolutes for the game.

 

[Lanefan]

People in real life are random entities, rarely if ever exactly alike. Rolling for stats merely reflects this in the game.

Ability scores are highly relevant if a roll-under check mechanic comes back - which I very much hope it will.

And if you don't like save-or-die/suck because you might have to sit out a while then either a) play more than one character so when one is down the other can still keep you entertained, or b) remind yourself that D+D is not like other games in that by its very nature not everyone is constantly doing something on a regular basis; and that is part of what makes it interesting.

That said, I game with friends. If I've been run out of the game for a while due to bad luck (common) or my own stupidity (more common) I still get to hang around with my friends; and in the end isn't that the point of the exercise anyway?

Lanefan

 

[Raith5]

And no save or die/suck/lose. I want to PLAY D&D. Not fail a die roll and watch my friends play. As someone else posted, if the only action I can take for ten minutes is to go get another beer, the game has failed me.

If they want to put an old school style lethality option in the rules, cool. But I think its something that should be left to advanced players.

Agree with all of Dragonblade's points but this point is most important at the table for me. But the option for a 'hardcore' mode needs to be there. But I want to play and see these death effects as being an actual in game challenge that the group needs to confront rather than simple perfunctory dice roll.

 

[billd91]

Your response here is basically a slight variation of what you posted over in the "what has to be save-or-die" thread. I hope this isn't a trend, as it leaves the impression that you find that "do whatever you want in your game" represents a simple, overlooked insight that remedies any need for further discussion.

People know about rule zero. However, its existence does not render discussion of future design moot. It does not prevent people from wanting to see things in the official rules handled well so they can keep the house rules to a minimum. And this is the appropriate forum for such discussions.

True, but since we're discussing making a D&D that unifies, you have to take into account that there are a lot of people out there with a very particular opinion of what is D&D. Substantial changes, like removing the ability scores, from how D&D has always worked are the ones that have to bear the burden of proof that the changes are definitely better or you end up with some of the same problems 4e has - too different, people seek a game more in tune with their criteria of what D&D is.

You don't have that problem with using rule 0 at your own table.

 

[Ainamacar]

People in real life are random entities, rarely if ever exactly alike. Rolling for stats merely reflects this in the game.

From the perspective of real life (i.e. assuming people's "ability scores" are drawn from some random distribution) rolling is not necessarily better or worse than point buy. They do have different premises, however.

Rolling is creating a person drawn from that distribution. Point buy is selecting a person from the population with particular characteristics.

Rolling is more like our experience, having not chosen our own stats. If the resonant idea for a player is to see what a random guy can make of his life, this is perfect. See what talents you have and run with them.

Point buy is more like hiring someone for a job: the applicant sees if they want to work there, and hirer sees if the applicant fits what the company wants. If the resonant idea for a player is to play a specific concept, this is perfect. Half-seriously stretching the analogy further: The people with ability scores worse than that allowed by the point buy system either never applied or were dismissed out of hand. The ones who are better are both fundamentally rarer, and if they're that good they probably have sweet NPC jobs anyway. Either way, point buy merely reflects the self-selection and other-selection aspect of jobs in real life.

One might object that point buy is still artificial: after all, what in the fictional world is equivalent to the "job interview"? If nothing (which I think is likely unless you play the "chosen one"), that would make it a conceit solely for the game, and thus less like "real life". I don't think this is a valid argument, however, because the rolling method makes a similar conceit: whomever we roll turns out to be an adventurer. Picking a random person and getting an adventurer is vanishingly unlikely, barring a truly gonzo setting.

So my point is that both methods represent something from "real life" and both also make a conceit for the sake of the game (though at different times), while serving different inclinations. I think that's wonderful.

I personally enjoy the roll 4d6 drop 1 six times and rearrange method. I've still selected from the random population (which resonates with me), albeit only from the higher ability people who are much more likely to self-select as adventurers. (I'll be embracing the conceit eventually, so why not do it now?) But I also have a lot of freedom to explore various character concepts (as with point buy) to help me scratch my character-building itch. At other times I've randomly selected a valid point buy to fulfill my enjoyment of random with my DM's desire to avoid wide disparity in ability scores. Good times.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't mind point buy and rolling options existing side by side. Either way I just hope the "gotta have" attitude of having certain bonuses to have a viable character goes away.

Whatever mechanics make it into the game, I want the game to focus on what the PCs do instead of being all about what the PCs mechanically CAN do.

If 5E ends up being just another build a better mousetrap edition of character creation mini-gaming then I'm out.