Community

Jan 11, 2013 -- 8:59PM, Miladoon wrote:

Rolling scores is bad design?

Jan 11, 2013 -- 9:00PM, Qmark wrote:

Jan 11, 2013 -- 8:59PM, Miladoon wrote:

Rolling scores is bad design?

Assuming at least a 15 in prime is bad design.

Qmark is correct.  Rolling is just a personal preference.  Assuming high scores is the bad design I mentioned.

Jan 11, 2013 -- 8:59PM, Miladoon wrote:

Rolling scores is bad design?

 I though not rolling is bad design and has about as much relevence.

Jan 11, 2013 -- 9:20PM, Metafictional wrote:

The problem with not assuming a benchmark comes in when designing monsters and other challenges.  Where do you set attack values?  Damage?  Hit points?  Sure, the DM can adjust these things, but a lot of people like not having to fiddle with the system and just use the game they are given.  And even if you did create monsters with a high/medium/low power value, it still doesn't address statistical outliers (one guy has an 18 in his attack attribute, another has a 14).

It's not that you don't assume a benchmark.  It's that you don't assume one that's so high.

As for the outliers, they don't matter.  In a point buy system, you're paying for those outliers.  In a rolled system, you don't care about outliers anyway (at least not on the high end).

A couple of points on this argument.

• I don't like rolling dice because it creates tangible party imbalance but if you want to leave that to luck then feel free to do so, I'll never argue for DnD Next to explicity tell that you can't roll your stats. Alienating large sections of the fanbase is bad business, the amount of people close minded enough to stop buying DnD Next simply because it allows the OPTION of selecting your stats in a fashion they don't like, ON TOP of having the option of selecting the stats as they do like should be minimal.

• Even if they were to remove array and point buy for Next, a lot people would import it from prev editions.  I'm quite sure that Array and Point Buy are balanced against average Stat roll, that is a balance that will remain intact regardless of what an edition tells you how good each stat is.

• Assuming a certain score and making it imposible to succeed without it would be bad design.

• In reality, I'm more inclined to think that having a certain score in prime is what designers will consider average capability, if you have more of the stat then things would be easier for you, if you have less, then you'll have a harder time and I'm perfectly fine with that, you need to have an expected value to be able to balance around. With bounded accuracy your "aim" stat might prove to be effectively a huge priority

• While it's fun to have builds that deviate from the standard cookie-cutter slot allocation, having all those multiple builds add to the complexity of balancing, specially when you want to support all of them being equally strong, I'd love to see other stats become viable options on different characters but I wouldn't die if there are at least just two or three obvious ways to play a class that are balanced within each other.

• How much are stats going to affect DND Next and its bounded accuracy? With no BAB and high attack bonus magic weapons, that +2 difference between an starting 18 str Fighter and a 14 str might prove to be a big difference, maybe even a deal breaker.

The best hybrid system between "Rolling stats is so maaaaagical!" and "I actually want to be allowed to play the character I want" that I've ever seen is the one from the latest Gamma World. Your Origins (sort of race-class hybrids) determine a primary and secondary statistic for you. Your primary statistic is always an 18, and your secondary is always a 16 (if both are the same ability score, it is a single 20 instead). All the other stats 3d6 rolled. This, in my mind, is an excellent compromise between being allowed to choose at a basic level who you will play, yet providing a random element to all other aspects of the character.

I wouldn't suggest those high numbers necessarily for NEXT, perhaps being 16 for prime, 14 for secondary, and 18 if both are the same instead. Your classes Prime stat would determine your primary stat, which could be a nice throwback to the prime requisites of older editions, but with its purpose being to assure your character is good at their class rather than rewarding being good at your class with more bonuses, which is a bizzaro-world concept. You could use race to provide the secondary attribute, removing the requirement of giving stat bumps to races to represent their natural abilities, since every character will have a good stat in their racial ability. Gives humans the choice of any cause yeah. Roll all other stats 3d6 in order, hardcore style. Would work for me.