Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8371947" data-attributes="member: 29398">Or so you'd like to think.Depends on the lethality of one's game, I suppose, but I never assume any character is going to last all that long until-unless it surprises me, and does. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I've seen this too, and my stance on it has become steadily harsher as the years have gone by.The range is 3-18; skewing that range a bit toward the high end (e.g. by using 4d6k3) is fine.&nbsp; You'll never start with a 20 because the range just don't go that high; and sure, you might start with a 4 - but it's very unlikely.&nbsp; Even less likely once you apply racial adjustments and-or rearrangement.That said, I'll never use anything other than random rolling, as life's like that: some people are just intrinsically better at stuff than others.&nbsp; I do use a blanket low-end cutoff standard of &quot;if nothing's higher than 13 and the average is less than 10, start over&quot; to make sure a character is playable; this works out surprisingly similar to what 3e had (if the total of your six bonuses adds to less than +0, start over), though I was using this long before 3e arrived.That also said, I've run the numbers and found that starting stats don't predict nearly as much about the expected lifespan of a character as one might think.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8371947, member: 29398"] Or so you'd like to think. Depends on the lethality of one's game, I suppose, but I never assume any character is going to last all that long until-unless it surprises me, and does. :) I've seen this too, and my stance on it has become steadily harsher as the years have gone by. The range is 3-18; skewing that range a bit toward the high end (e.g. by using 4d6k3) is fine. You'll never start with a 20 because the range just don't go that high; and sure, you might start with a 4 - but it's very unlikely. Even less likely once you apply racial adjustments and-or rearrangement. That said, I'll never use anything other than random rolling, as life's like that: some people are just intrinsically better at stuff than others. I do use a blanket low-end cutoff standard of "if nothing's higher than 13 and the average is less than 10, start over" to make sure a character is playable; this works out surprisingly similar to what 3e had (if the total of your six bonuses adds to less than +0, start over), though I was using this long before 3e arrived. That also said, I've run the numbers and found that starting stats don't predict nearly as much about the expected lifespan of a character as one might think. [/QUOTE]

Verification