Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7071727" data-attributes="member: 996">Nod.  Not that consistently (there's gotta be some exaggeration for effect or observer effect or something going on), but it certainly happened that some races were perfect for some classes stat-wise, and some others got lavish feat support to make them better at a class their stats weren't so suited for (Dwarven fighters, for instance, not ideal stats, but great feat support).The impression I got from early 4e, that way, looking at the Ranger, for instance, an Elf is a perfect archer ranger.  That's a very intuitive concept, it's basically Legolas, something a new player might very well want.  Glance through the elven archer-ranger for a few minutes and you'll see powers that do stunts Legolas did in the movie.  So, yeah, you could min/max or optimize some in 4e, it was /very/ easy to do so.  The benefits for taking it to the next level and acquiring profound system mastery were a lot more muted, though.  IDK if that was intentional or just a happy accident, a result of prioritizing balance while retaining something close to 3.5 levels of player customization options.  :shrug: It allows you to choose between those two, as opposed to just giving you three 8s or no 8s to deal with if rolled randomly, or exactly the same one 8 as everyone else in array.  There's simply more choice with point buy, you can use that choice to get as close as possible to the character you actually want to play.  In the above example, you actually wanted to play a character with a 16, three 14s, and two 8s, more so than one with a couple of 10s and only a 14 con.  So you did.  Don't blame the tools that let you do it.  Blame yourself for not living up to your own standards.  ;P Why not all 18's while you're at it? The general population probably shouldn't be rolling 4d6.  For that matter, most NPCs, even if adventures, probably shouldn't be generated exactly like PCs.  So that's just silly.  It might 'make sense' to roll the general population on 3d6, but that's a lot of rolling to no particular purpose.  ;P Thus 'fairness,' yes.  Don't play an OP concept, don't play a gimped concept, as doing either is unfair to your fellow players (and to you, really).   That's only a weakness if you think 'min/maxing' is a sin.  Clearly, you do, and consider yourself a sinner, since you couldn't bring yourself to playing a character closer to the one you say you wanted, one with less dramatic weaknesses in the above example.  I'm sorry you feel that way, I hope you find salvation some day.  But for those who are able to either control or accept those impulses, or who don't view playing the game by the rules and trying to do so effectively abhorrent in any way, it's not a weakness (or a strength) it's just fair.  Which is something games should be, at a bare minimum.  No difference, really, other than the granularity.  Point buy is more customizable and better-balanced.  Random is more, well, random (it's really just as fair, since everyone has the same chance to roll a great or pathetic set of stats - at least, as long as everyone is stuck playing that one random-rolled character until the campaign ends). Exactly.  Your concept needn't call for a min/maxxed stat array, it could call for a generalist.  Because point buy is scaled, stats over 13 costing more per point, there is a benefit to going that way.  Consider a standard human who takes as many 13s as possible in point buy... I seem to remember that there was a limit of at most a single score under 10 in the point buy option. Rolling enable min-mining and max-maxing.  Play your character with two 18's and nothing under 12 alongside the guy with a high score of 13.  ;P Agreed.</blockquote>

Verification