Community

Cpt_Micha wrote:

A +4 was playable.. if your dm held back constantly.

Do you really think a +4 is unplayable in previous editions?

You can easily have a wizard with an 18 Int and pretty much be set. If have some negatives, then you can have some other good/decent scores. He'd probably be a more powerful character after mid levels than most +8 non-casters anyway.

Here's the thing sure you can say "Any good dm!" all you want until you are blue in the face and die, and it's not going to change the fact Max. Rolls were often redone, and or discarded because of the range between stats were too high. Hell it was so common they tell you this in the Rolled Stats methods of 4e, 3e, and 2e.

I don't think Maxperson is arguing that you shouldn't have rerolls. He explicitly refers to the PHB which gives a range of bonuses deemed acceptable for the total modifier. Very people have been arguing rolling without some sort of contrainsts.

Most rolling systems want variability and randomness but still recognize that there is a desirable range of ability scores. You can still get unpredicted scores, but have those scores be close in power level. Why is this not an acceptable way to create characters?

Roxlimn wrote:

I've never found a low stat to be a particular roleplaying challenge - it's not like it's hard to do. High numbers are much more challenging.

This isn't a universal truth, either. For me, it depends on which stat we're talking about...

Roxlimn wrote:

Of course, if you're looking for a roleplay opportunity, you'll always find one - it's not like you have to use random rolling as a crutch to have one.

It's not a crutch; it's a catalyst... and no, you don't need it, but by that logic, you don't need RPGs at all.

Cruel wrote:

no one has to play a 14/13/12/10/10/6 array while the other guy gets 18/18/17/16 etc. I say that people want to roll so they can be overpowered compared to the norm.

I would like to point out that neither is valid if the DM follows the +4 to +8 advice the method gives.

I feel that point buy allows all party members to start out evenly powered with each other

The only comment I will make here is that not eevryone is concerned with this. my group certainly isn't and I usually (not always) get the bare minimum +4 guy. I still always have lots of fun. if I didn't I suppose I wouldn't play. If such things matter to your group, point buy is probably the better way to go.

Roxlimn wrote:

If you're saying that it's fun to try roleplaying stat deficiencies, I don't see how that's facilitated by stat rolling - it's much better facilitated by point buy because then you get to choose the RP you wanted and enjoy.

Some people like imprompt acting?

Roxlimn wrote:

Um, yeah. We don't need RPGs at all. I fail to see the point.

You said that random generation was unnecessary. My point was that very little is strictly necessary. That's all.

Roxlimn wrote:

If you're saying that it's fun to try roleplaying stat deficiencies, I don't see how that's facilitated by stat rolling - it's much better facilitated by point buy because then you get to choose the RP you wanted and enjoy.

The feel of adopting a role is different when it is one that you create yourself from whole cloth. A role that is (partially) random or is generated by another invokes a different feeling. It has nothing to do with whether the numbers are high, low, or average, and more to do with the fact that you didn't choose them...