|
3 months ago ::
Feb 11, 2013 - 6:24AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
One Belt of Storm Giant Strength turns this handwringing and consternation into hypocrisy.
True. ALthough the benefits of a belt of Storm Giant strength are far far far less than they would be in the later editions.
There was a reason why A&D worked better in some ways - and this is an example.
Lets see: Belt Girdle of Storm Giant Strength...
AD&D1st: +6 to hit, +12 to damage
So - the equivalent to hit of a 22 strength now (with an extra +6 to damage).
Not that game breaking. It's only an additional +1 to hit over what you can already get in 5E with all of its focus on bounded accuracy.
A paragon level character with that strength bonus would be considered weak in 4e - and barely above average in the heroic tier.
The problem - again - goes back to 3.0 which a) vastly increased the rate at which you gained bonuses from ability scores and also allowed them to be improved quickly and easily.
And the later editions which followed 3.0's lead.
Carl
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 11, 2013 - 2:18PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2009
|
I think I would prefer if they went back to 3d6 for ability scores, with a cap of 18 for humans, and 20 if your race has a bonus to that ability score. Then do away with ability score increases as a natural part of the progression.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 12:15AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2012
|
Ability scores shouldn't increase ever. All that has caused is problems and imbalance. As the OP shows, many people will just use their pluses to skyrocket a single stat through the roof if they are allowed to. Whats even the point? And how are the devs supposed to balance it? If they assume every player will just put their points into a single stat, then players who DON'T will probably be behind the curve. If they don't assume every point will be spent on the same thing, then those who DO put them all into one stat will be way ahead of the curve. There is no reason to increase ability scores after level 1. If you absolutly MUST represent it, instead create feats that increase your rolls for ability checks AND ABILITY CHECKS ONLY for a single ability score.
This... actually inspires an idea I might put into play for my table. Rather than gaining attribute raises every few levels, I rather like the notion of adding some sort of attribute focus/specialization/whatever-you-want-to-call it. Gain bonuses to ability checks (and possibly saving throws) without affecting direct combat viability.
An example: let's assume an 8th level Fighter with 18 Strength. He has +4 to attack and damage rolls (dur!)
At 4th and 8th levels, this fighter chooses to spend his "attribute raises" on Strength. He now has a +2 to Strength checks.
This Fighter now receives an increased weight allowance, +6 bonus to bashing open doors/locks, wrestling with an ogre, toppling boulders, etc. (and maybe to Intimidate, depending on your DM - always felt like the skill shouldn't be relegated to Cha-only, but that's a separate argument)
This Fighter still receives +4 to attack and damage rolls, as his Strength is still 18.
As to changing rolling methods? I'd much rather they just keep it as is; allow the mechanics to develop around what has consistently been the case in D&D's character generation across several decades of editions. I'd file this under unnecessary changes that will provoke a poor response from crowds they're trying to woo back into playing (buying). "Do you miss oldschool D&D? Come try our newest edition, which can replicate those games of olde -- now roll 2d8 and lather your dice in butter to create your hero!" And that's not to say I disagree with the intent behind your suggestions. I'm merely pointing out that divorcing the system from common staples in the game (across all editions) has, historically speaking, offended some fans. To do so over something as nebulous (nebulous meaning it's rare to encounter multiple groups of D&D that use the same generation method, let alone care what the book tells them to do) as stat generation just seems... not worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 15, 2013 - 7:09AM
#44
|
|
|
Ability scores shouldn't increase ever. All that has caused is problems and imbalance. As the OP shows, many people will just use their pluses to skyrocket a single stat through the roof if they are allowed to. Whats even the point? And how are the devs supposed to balance it? If they assume every player will just put their points into a single stat, then players who DON'T will probably be behind the curve. If they don't assume every point will be spent on the same thing, then those who DO put them all into one stat will be way ahead of the curve. There is no reason to increase ability scores after level 1. If you absolutly MUST represent it, instead create feats that increase your rolls for ability checks AND ABILITY CHECKS ONLY for a single ability score.
This... actually inspires an idea I might put into play for my table. Rather than gaining attribute raises every few levels, I rather like the notion of adding some sort of attribute focus/specialization/whatever-you-want-to-call it. Gain bonuses to ability checks (and possibly saving throws) without affecting direct combat viability.
An example: let's assume an 8th level Fighter with 18 Strength. He has +4 to attack and damage rolls (dur!)
At 4th and 8th levels, this fighter chooses to spend his "attribute raises" on Strength. He now has a +2 to Strength checks.
This Fighter now receives an increased weight allowance, +6 bonus to bashing open doors/locks, wrestling with an ogre, toppling boulders, etc. (and maybe to Intimidate, depending on your DM - always felt like the skill shouldn't be relegated to Cha-only, but that's a separate argument)
This Fighter still receives +4 to attack and damage rolls, as his Strength is still 18.
As to changing rolling methods? I'd much rather they just keep it as is; allow the mechanics to develop around what has consistently been the case in D&D's character generation across several decades of editions. I'd file this under unnecessary changes that will provoke a poor response from crowds they're trying to woo back into playing (buying). "Do you miss oldschool D&D? Come try our newest edition, which can replicate those games of olde -- now roll 2d8 and lather your dice in butter to create your hero!" And that's not to say I disagree with the intent behind your suggestions. I'm merely pointing out that divorcing the system from common staples in the game (across all editions) has, historically speaking, offended some fans. To do so over something as nebulous (nebulous meaning it's rare to encounter multiple groups of D&D that use the same generation method, let alone care what the book tells them to do) as stat generation just seems... not worthwhile.
I don't know why, but that made me start thinking about 18/X% strength from 1st/2nd editions, which led me to the 1st edition Cavalier, who rolled at certain intervals (every level?) to increase certain scores. Maybe you'd consider something like that, where eventually, if players keep bumping the same stat, they eventually will increase it to the next level, while adding small bonuses to certain checks and the like along the way? (Ex: 17/20 strength means you can carry 172 lbs, +1 modifier to strength checks, etc.) You might even have them roll dice (percentile or d20, depending on how quickly you'd want them to get bonuses) each time they bump a stat.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 19, 2013 - 3:22PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2013
|
its a gear issue, mostly. player stats tend to max at 20 before gear. According to the how to play pdf, gods can have stats as high as 30, so how do players make up the difference?
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 19, 2013 - 3:46PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2012
|
Maybe I'm not the first person who brought this up, but the line in "Creating a Character" that goes "After these adjustments, a score can be no higher than 20." I think... that may be referring to AT CHARACTER CREATION, or, level 1 as it seems to assume.
EDIT: And nevermind that, I didn't read it all.
I'm of the opinion that there should not be an attribute cap.
By level 20, the barbarian isn't really mortal anymore, he's Hercules. The Wizard isn't just a brilliant mind, she's one of the smartest beings in the cosmos.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 19, 2013 - 11:38PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
I'm of the opinion that there should not be an attribute cap.
By level 20, the barbarian isn't really mortal anymore, he's Hercules. The Wizard isn't just a brilliant mind, she's one of the smartest beings in the cosmos.
The level 20 character is able to exceed those limits. The wizard is one of the smartest beings in the cosmos because he read magical tomes that increased his intelligence to godly levels. The barbarian is hercules because he has a belt of giant strength. The 20 cap is only a cap on a character's natural ability scores. Magic still allows you to exceed those limits. I'm fine with that. Anyone who is that strong or smart is, by their very nature, a supernatural being.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 7:00AM
#48
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
I think we should remove the stat bumps every four levels and replace them with a skill training. 
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Apr 03, 2013 - 6:34PM
#49
|
|
|
I agree that it is too easliy reachable. I would love to see all race and class bonuses abbolished to make an 18-20 AMAZING again.
QFT
the sense of drama is lost when ever character has better stats tan all of the monsters they face. It leads to roleplay that is more about who can beat X faster.
I hate this:" I have 1 or 2 stats maxed at first" chatter. how about 3d6 not boosts at first level and stats raise as you go.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Apr 07, 2013 - 10:48AM
#50
|
|
|
Also as a side note Lord Von asked how player characters "how do pcs make up the difference in stats when gods have 30s?" (not a direct quote)
They don't. Gods have Godly stats. Why do characters NEED to have stats of gods? Let's say your dm wants you to try to take on a god at 20th level- first, it should be a challenge of ridiculous, monumental difficulty to kill or even defeat a god. Secondly, by the time they come out with the game and you make it legitimately to 20th level I am sure they will release an epic level book. If they don't then you don't kill a god, or your DM works ith the players to house rule epic level craziness.
|
|
|
