Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5779296" data-attributes="member: 2067">The thing to understand, I think, is that &quot;handled well&quot; 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 &quot;you can house rule it!&quot; It is more like &quot;Your own version of D&amp;D is D&amp;D, however you do it.&quot;If house rules are the only rules, there's little in the way of absolutes for the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 5779296, member: 2067"] 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 [B]is[/B] D&D, however you do it." If house rules are the only rules, there's little in the way of absolutes for the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification