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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dykstrav" data-source="post: 5146880" data-attributes="member: 40522">I, for one, am glad that random rolling isn't the standard any more. Not because I inherently dislike it or anything... I prefer for characters to be designed rather than left to chance. One player might get their highest score around 13 and another could have their lowest score be a 15, and that is sort of frustrating.I think the reason 4d6 became the standard in 3E is because of ability score requirements in 2E. During the 2E days, many classes required ability score minimums that made it tricky to get a favored class. For example, to play a ranger, you needed two scores at a minimum of 14 and two at a minimum of 13. Many DMs used the 4d6 method because they wanted to make it easier for players to get to play the "cool" characters. I think it's still debatable about whether or not those groups actually wanted their characters to be super-heroic, I think that the ability score requirements skewed this perception a bit.All that being said, I do miss random generation from time to time. It was another level of challenge that could be added to the game. For instance, I played a rogue in early 3E with a 7 in both Strength and Constitution. The DM gave me the option to reroll, but I didn't... It was fun trying to convince the other party members to carry all the loot while I pocketed the gems. ("Really guys, they're the only things light enough for me to carry!") I played him a bit like Kyle's cousin Kyle from South Park, where he was raised by a neurotic, overprotective mother and worried constantly that he might catch a disease from touching a doorknob and the like. That was far more entertaining to me than some of the characters I played with much higher stats.</blockquote>

Verification