Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 7141671" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!I'm going with [MENTION=12608]Soul[/MENTION]Stigma above. I posted back in the beginning? Middle? Can't remember now.Anyway, I always find that at the tail end of these threads they devolve a &quot;bit&quot; into the theorycrafting side of things as each &quot;side&quot; tries to prove they are correct. In this particular thread, I always get a giggle out of watching someone try and back up their claim that random character gen is &quot;bad'ish&quot; by then continuing to use an example that only uses averages or absolutes.Sort of... &quot;Rolling 3d6 is dumb because it's average is 10.5! You can't *roll* 10.5, so right there the system is broken! Even if we say it's 9 to 11, that's still dumb, because now everything that is 8 or lower fails, and everything 12 or more succeeds. The DM has to basically ALWAYS have things be 9, 10 or 11, or else is is setting up all the players who rolled badly on some stat to fail...Every. Single. Time!&nbsp; It's madness!&quot;&nbsp; &lt;--and in so doing they completely leave out the fact that a random dice roll is used to get the starting number to succeed/fail to begin with.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I've seen characters with absolutely pathetic stats succeed and prosper time and time again. Barkus, the 11th level fighter...with a Strength of 4 and a Constitution of 7; or Mort, the 4th level &quot;begger-archer&quot; with a Strength of 6, Constitution of 9, and Charisma of 4; or Jose Jojoba, the mutant jojoba plant with a chicken head who had stats so low you would have though he should have died as a seedling...all characters went on to great success. I've seen the opposite as well. Hell, I remember rolling up some absolutely ridiculous Monk for our Iron Kingdoms (3e) campaign. He had all 16's or higher, three stats were 18! He died second session in.Only time that stats seem to make a big difference is when the DM has it in his/her head that the characters &quot;stats&quot; should determine what the character does...and not the player. When the DM starts asking for Strength checks to open a normal door, or a Constitution check to not die in his sleep, or a Wisdom check to not drink the potion labeled &quot;POISON! DO NOT DRINK!&quot;. But that's a DM problem...not a random stat rolling method problem.^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pming, post: 7141671, member: 45197"] Hiya! I'm going with [MENTION=12608]Soul[/MENTION]Stigma above. I posted back in the beginning? Middle? Can't remember now. Anyway, I always find that at the tail end of these threads they devolve a "bit" into the theorycrafting side of things as each "side" tries to prove they are correct. In this particular thread, I always get a giggle out of watching someone try and back up their claim that random character gen is "bad'ish" by then continuing to use an example that only uses averages or absolutes. Sort of... [I]"Rolling 3d6 is dumb because it's average is 10.5! You can't *roll* 10.5, so right there the system is broken! Even if we say it's 9 to 11, that's still dumb, because now everything that is 8 or lower fails, and everything 12 or more succeeds. The DM has to basically ALWAYS have things be 9, 10 or 11, or else is is setting up all the players who rolled badly on some stat to fail...Every. Single. Time! It's madness!"[/I] <--and in so doing they [I]completely[/I] leave out the fact that a random dice roll is used to get the starting number to succeed/fail to begin with. ;) I've seen characters with absolutely pathetic stats succeed and prosper time and time again. Barkus, the 11th level fighter...with a Strength of 4 and a Constitution of 7; or Mort, the 4th level "begger-archer" with a Strength of 6, Constitution of 9, and Charisma of 4; or Jose Jojoba, the mutant jojoba plant with a chicken head who had stats so low you would have though he should have died as a seedling...all characters went on to great success. I've seen the opposite as well. Hell, I remember rolling up some absolutely [I]ridiculous[/I] Monk for our Iron Kingdoms (3e) campaign. He had all 16's or higher, three stats were 18! He died second session in. Only time that stats seem to make a big difference is when the DM has it in his/her head that the characters "stats" should determine what the character does...and not the player. When the DM starts asking for Strength checks to open a normal door, or a Constitution check to not die in his sleep, or a Wisdom check to not drink the potion labeled "POISON! DO NOT DRINK!". But that's a DM problem...not a random stat rolling method problem. ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]

Verification