NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9019067" data-attributes="member: 7026594">I think there's a bit of a chicken or the egg thing going on here.  Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms novels presumably exemplify the sorts of adventures players are expected to want to emulate, and the kind of heroes they want to play.Do the stats of novel characters reflect that they are supposed to just be better than the ones we get to play? Or were they indeed meant to be for us to emulate? Or are they merely based on what the authors think the characters need to qualify as heroic and to do the things they do based on the ability score tables and other game rules? I agree that if I show up to a new DM's table with a character with a crazy stat array (nevermind special extra critical hit rules like Drizzt got in the Hall of Heroes book) he'll likely ask me to roll in front of the group.  But the more common situation IME was tables as a whole looking at the rulebooks and published characters and agreeing together "Ok, that's the kind of thing we want to play, so clearly we need some house rules for ability generation", so we could play characters more like Drizzt and less like Rath.  Even if we agree that Drizzt is overpowered, and we don't want to go quite that far.Does some special virtue attach to only playing a character with high stats, say, one out of every six characters you roll up? Does a culture of expecting that to be the norm result in players scoffing or looking askance at a given player when he gets lucky and gets a Sturm-esque statline?</blockquote>

Verification