The Gaming Den

I just read how you generate attributes. Either you roll, or use the stat array. Or if you blow your GM he might allow point buy... which caps at 15. What is this shit?

Rawbeard wrote:I just read how you generate attributes. Either you roll, or use the stat array. Or if you blow your GM he might allow point buy... which caps at 15. What is this shit?

Pretty sure it's to defeat munchkin powergames and force rolling as the One True Way.

srsly...

Rawbeard wrote:I just read how you generate attributes. Either you roll, or use the stat array. Or if you blow your GM he might allow point buy... which caps at 15. What is this shit?

I suspect it (to the developer's minds) is some attempt at balance. And a nice little illusion of progression. You need two ability increases to hit cap so it is something to strive towards (about the only thing to strive towards, actually) but doesn't come at the end of the level system when nobody cares.

It also gives them a really hard cap on what 1st level characters are capable of. More or less everyone starts off attacking at +5, and hits for 1dx +3 damage. With that as a baseline the tiny amount of math they were actually willing to do is really easy. Until they explode it again through supplements

I am a little surprised that rolling is the default, because it can really fuck over the entire system. Above average rolls mean a lot more confidence and essentially easy mode at level 1, no real sense of progression, and the ability to dick around with feats, which they clearly don't want you to do.

Neckbeard edition, no surprises here.

Voss wrote: I am a little surprised that rolling is the default, because it can really fuck over the entire system. Above average rolls mean a lot more confidence and essentially easy mode at level 1, no real sense of progression, and the ability to dick around with feats, which they clearly don't want you to do.

I'm not surprised at all. Rolling is one of those super grognardy things that brings back the "old school feel."

It doesn't matter that it's a totally horrible mechanic, but it's the best "solution" to the problem of everyone having an 8 charisma. But for whatever reason grognards love it.

And hell, 5E doesn't stop with rolled stats, it also encourages rolled hit points too.

For people who think that Point Buy is too samey, I still have yet to see a solution more elegant than having everyone roll a stat array and then having the players choose which array they want to use.

I mean, having a fighter in one campaign with no stat below a 16 and in another campaign with no stat about 13 is one thing, but these two characters belonging in the same campaign and to different players is just fucking ridiculous.

The original point of rolling stats was that it was a game, so duh, you roll for it. Getting high strength gave a 5% XP bonus if you chose Fighter instead of Wizard or Cleric and that was all.

Then Gary started patching the classes, and the Fighter buffs first got put in Strength, because that's what Fighters had. So then you needed Strength to be a Fighter and we got the many and ever-more generous rolling systems to let that happen, and extra rules so only Fighters got Fighter-strength and Fighter-Con bonuses.

Until you're finally about six levels behind by having average Strength instead of maximum, and so everyone just buys the same stats, and the rules conform to that. Because you have to. So why even have stats?


Well, if you put the Fighter bonuses into the Fighter class, and give some other tiny bonus to Strong characters who choose that class, you can roll to individuate the story side of your character. Or even use 3e style stat-feats (or 4e-style powers) to give strong Fighters different options to dexterous or charismatic ones. But no more raw damage or AC or hit points or anything. Meh, not that anyone can design properly.

Rawbeard wrote:I just read how you generate attributes. Either you roll, or use the stat array. Or if you blow your GM he might allow point buy... which caps at 15. What is this shit?

Well, if your stats cap out at 20 like in 5e, it makes sense to set the starting limit low so that you can point to the difference as a way to see an increase in power. It's a really terrible way to con-man power increases, but I fully believe that was the reasoning behind it.

I don't mind the cap, but the fact it only applies to point buy.

To be fair, point buy is terrible. It makes noncasters even more useless, because those characters have multiple attribute dependency.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:For people who think that Point Buy is too samey, I still have yet to see a solution more elegant than having everyone roll a stat array and then having the players choose which array they want to use.

That's a really good idea. I might use it next time I run a game.

To be fair, point buy is terrible. It makes noncasters even more useless, because those characters have multiple attribute dependency.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:For people who think that Point Buy is too samey, I still have yet to see a solution more elegant than having everyone roll a stat array and then having the players choose which array they want to use.

That's a really good idea. I might use it next time I run a game.

If the problem with point buy is that people are always taking the same stat, the solution is in making the other stats better for a variety of classes. Give people a reason to want to make a strong wizard or a smart fighter, and people will do it. If you have smart fighters suck, then people won't want to play them.

Rolling for stats is a veiled attempt to get people to play characters they really didn't want to play.

Cyberzombie wrote:If the problem with point buy is that people are always taking the same stat, the solution is in making the other stats better for a variety of classes. Give people a reason to want to make a strong wizard or a smart fighter, and people will do it. If you have smart fighters suck, then people won't want to play them.

Rolling for stats is a veiled attempt to get people to play characters they really didn't want to play.

Pretty much this, and if your players need to be coerced into playing different classes then there is probably something wrong with those classes.

Night Goat wrote:To be fair, point buy is terrible. It makes noncasters even more useless, because those characters have multiple attribute dependency.

Eh. Questionable, at best. For 3e monks and paladins? No question. For 5e fighters and rogues, no, not at all. Fighters want strength or dex and con (shoving points into dex if you aren't a ranged or two weapon dex fighter is dumb, since heavy armor essentially zeroes it out for its most common purpose). Rogues want dex and con. Wizards want int, dex and con. Clerics want wis, con. and either str or dex. Everything else is seriously optional.

You may want perception bonuses (wis), but in many ways spell casters in 5e have more ability dependence because wizards are going to want dex to bump their AC in addition to their Int, and clerics are going to want dex or strength for AC (or to offset heavy armor requirements) and a decent non-magical attack of some kind.

Notably, in the 4 classes so far, no one gives two fucks about charisma for anything at all. Though there is a reference to bards, sorcerers, warlocks, and paladins in addition to druids, so it will be interesting to see what all gets shoved into the PH.

I'm curious to what version of the Sorcerer we end up with. The 3E stupid but oh so pretty spontaneous wizards (which turn out to be hideously under powered to wizards because knowing more spells>casting more spells ) or an entirely unique class (which turn out to be even more under powered because wizards got all the legacy save or suck spells, while sorcerers get New Coke grade spells).

sake wrote:I'm curious to what version of the Sorcerer we end up with. The 3E stupid but oh so pretty spontaneous wizards (which turn out to be hideously under powered to wizards because knowing more spells>casting more spells ) or an entirely unique class (which turn out to be even more under powered because wizards got all the legacy save or suck spells, while sorcerers get New Coke grade spells).

Well, mearls is one of the three writers on 4e's phb 2, and in a couple of the puff piece interviews from the time they made it sound like he was especially responsible for the classes. So it seems very likely that he has ppersonally made a new coke style sorcerer before.

That being said, the 5e spell list is just a jumble of crap. Spells aren't even marked as to what classes get them. So I think pretty much every new caster class is just going to get a dread necromancer style spell list, where they get a random assortment of wizard, cleric, and new spells to choose from.

All expansion casters are going to be relatively powerful when they come out and become relatively weak as expansions happen and they don't get new spells. None of them are ever going to be as shit as a fighter though.

-Username17

But... but... fighters are balanced...

The missing indication what classes get what spells at what level outside of spell lists made me somewhat suspicious. And it's annoying as fuck to double check if you class gets that spell you just read. I wonder how they will handle spells that are available to both wizard and cleric at different levels, for example...

Rawbeard wrote:But... but... fighters are balanced...

The missing indication what classes get what spells at what level outside of spell lists made me somewhat suspicious. And it's annoying as fuck to double check if you class gets that spell you just read. I wonder how they will handle spells that are available to both wizard and cleric at different levels, for example...

Considering hold person and anti-magic field, the answer seems to be: they won't. And really the only thing that made it vaguely acceptable was that AD&D had different advancement rates for different classes, and saves weren't tied to the caster's level. 3e kept legacy spells at different levels, but it was fucking terrible decision.