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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 7274840" data-attributes="member: 6787503">I think it's more accurate to say you're picking one of sixty-five arrays of numbers that are considered to be equal to each other. Point-buy doesn't involve setting your own power level in any meaningful way. Dice-rolling, on the other hand, can produce widely divergent levels of power. A point-buy analog of dice-rolling that replaces the randomness of the dice with player choice would allow you to choose the number of points you can use within some reasonable range, say from 13 up to 41 points.Well, to quote Einstein: God does not play dice with the universe.Also, you're shifting the goalposts. I was addressing the problem with immersion that arises from making decisions in director stance, not the problem with using point-buy and standard array for world building. These are two separate issues, and shifting from one to the other does nothing to move the debate forward. To address that issue, however, and assuming that by "everyone" you mean everyone in the party (rather than everyone in the world), we all have different strengths and weaknesses, and I think standard array (or point-buy) represents that just fine once the scores have been assigned to different abilities. It just depends on the level of abstraction with which you're comfortable. Adventurers are considered to be at a certain power-level as defined by 4d6 drop lowest. The standard array approximates that power-level by giving you the most likely result that isn't above average. As an alternative, point-buy lets you swap scores within the limits set by the standard array. It's all pretty much the same if you squint.Sure, if DMs want to use 4d6 drop lowest whenever they roll-up an NPC in their campaign, there's no rule that says they can't. That's a long way from your claim that when the DMG says you can roll that it's telling you to use only the method in the PHB. True, it only gives a system for rolling the scores of adventurers. The reason, as others have speculated, is probably because 5e is meant to be a flexible edition that allows you to play in the style you want. AD&D, 1e says to roll 3d{2,3,3,4,4,5} for general characters. 3e says to roll 3d6 if you want. 5e avoids settling disputes between editions and allows individual DMs to run the game the way they prefer and/or in the style of their favorite edition. The default is that rolling for NPC scores is completely optional, as is the method used, if any.The reason the word adventurer is used in the citations I provided is because they're from a chapter that is a step-by-step guide for creating an adventurer! If you follow all the steps in that chapter, including generating your character's abilities by one of the methods provided in step 3, the resulting character will be an adventurer or its equivalent.Agreed. The DM is welcome and explicitly empowered by the DMG to create an NPC adventurer by following the steps in Chapter 1.Commoners are not adventurers. Commoners do not generally venture into dungeons or the untamed wilderness. Therefore, the items described are not "of paramount importance" to them because their lives don't depend on said items. I think that's all quite clear from the context.Do you realize that assertion doesn't support your claim in the slightest? No one has said the DM can't use that rolling method. That isn't part of my argument.So... no citation? I thought not.</blockquote>

Verification