Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="R_Chance" data-source="post: 7985379" data-attributes="member: 55149">Pick up your mic! Litterbugs. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Ahem, not to be too picky but the Dungeon Masters Guide was published in 1979. The Players Handbook was 1978. The Monster Manual was 1977 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />  Exactly when EGG wrote those words, page 11 of the DMG specifically, is subject to question but I gather he spent about a year on the manuscript of the DMG before editing and publication . Ymmv.All four of these methods give a player a chance at better ability scores for their character. Method I was the one we used, but we had been using it since about 1975 anyway, to avoid really low rolls. Survival was not a given <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> None of those methods guarantees that you will get the scores needed for the class you want. No 17Charisma, no Paladin.  Assassins and Monks had three and four requisites respectively and falling low in any of them meant no Assassin / Monk. Rangers and Illusionists had their requirements (but not as high as a Paladin or in as many areas as the Assassin or Monk). Other classes required a 9 in the prime requisite. Not much of a barrier given the various rolling methods you enumerated. What these methods did do was give you a decent character who could play most, but not all, classes without too many issues.There was no guarantee you would get exactly what you wanted. And what you ended up with mattered. I remember choosing to play a Paladin once because it seemed like a waste to not make use of that 17 Charisma I ended up with. Despite not "wanting" a Paladin I had a blast playing him until he died, heroically saving the other PCs, at 4th level. You rolled your dice and made your choices from what chance gave you.I suspect the high mortality rate of PCs in those days and the emphasis on exploring the DMs world made it easier to "put up with" characters who were not exactly what you wanted. The level limits for many non-human races were probably less of an issue because death often came before the level cap was hit. You explored your character options, the world the DM presented and had a blast. We were, of course, all miniature and board wargamers, so fatalities just seemed par for the course <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Players tend to assume, and plan for, the run up to level twenty in more recent editions.Point buy will give you exactly what you want / need for the class you have chosen. There is a right and a wrong way to build characters (within certain bounds perhaps). Player control is total, choices do not result from an outside agency (like chance), but from what the player wants. It's an attractive option, but personally I prefer choices based on options and consequences presented by chance. Roll those dice!As for which is "better", neither I think. It depends on the game, the players and the DM.</blockquote>

Verification