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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5032452" data-attributes="member: 51942">This is in direct opposition with my experience.  Since 4e started, we've played the vast majority of games with the house rule that you may roll, and then choose point buy if you don't like the result.  Only few people actually roll attractive results anyhow.  One character had an 18/18/16.  The difference was not noticeable.  In practice, it's nice to meet those prereqs, but there's enough other options that you're not gimped for missing them.  The to-hit+damage of extremely high rolls will not be better than those of plain point-buy characters.  Some exceptionally MAD characters will greatly gain in strength - but generally, those were weak beforehand anyhow.The primary stat matters in actual gameplay.  The secondary is neat to have, and can matter a lot for some characters (particularly if it influences AC) - these will be the options chosen by those with lucky rolls).  The rest might as well be fluff.  High stats look cool.  They help only a little, however.There's a thread about whether an 18/19/20 is required - well, if you think it's not absolutely required then this kind of detail (a higher secondary/tertiary stat) is really lost in the noise.  At worst, you'll get a few novel builds that wouldn't have been possible otherwise; say, a two-weapon ranger with both dex+wis or whatnot.Balance stuff you do notice are things like having Iron armbands, and bloodclaw pre-errata.  At least one non-rolled character had those and noticeably outshone the mega-high-roll characters.Put if this way: If you think a 16 primary stat is playable compared to a 20, then those secondary/tertiary differences are trivial.</blockquote>

Verification