Heh, I assumed we were sharing opinions. I gave mine and you gave yours. I didn’t want to sit here and try to negate yours or convince you that you’re “wrong”. I’m cool with you letting people switch to an array or give them all 20s or whatever else is going to happen at a table I’ll never know exists
But, if you want me to take a point and run with it…
DM Choice Three: “Those are your rolls, huh? Cool. Let’s see how to make this work best for what you were planning on playing using feats, gear choices, racial mods/abilities, subclasses, etc”
That said, anyone I’m playing with these days already knows the score and isn’t naively rolling just to be upset about it later. If it was a new player, I’d start them with standard array just to take one complication off the table.
I participated in an AD&D 2nd edition campaign as a teen where the DM insisted we roll 2d6 for each stat, taking the highest roll, and multiply it by three and that was our score. I rolled at least one six for each state except for Charisma which meant I didn’t qualify to play a Paladin. Very disappointing. I went ahead and played a Magic-User.
I have basically no interest in rolling stats during character generation. There will be enough random numbers flying around during play; I don’t need any during character duration that will have a permanent effect.
Then again I’m a naturally risk-averse person and I don’t like gambling, for instance.
I’m very happy you have this paragraph. For any who aren’t as steeped in games, although why they are this far into the thread, who knows. The differences in editions affect how effective the character will be as well, speaking from what the game rules allow, not role playing which could change things a lot.
Funny enough, my favorite version of DND (3E/PF) has the most restrictions based on ability scores. In 1E/2E, a 9 INT wizard can learn up to fourth level spells. Getting a 10 INT pops it up to fifth level spells. The bigger issue I had, although now that I think of it I don’t think it ever came into play, was it took a 19 INT to cast ninth level spells. It didn’t come into play as I don’t think any 1E/2E game I ran got that high without starting that high. (My players fretted over having that 19 INT, though, for the potential of it and for the number of spells they could learn.)
Getting an INT of 13/14, not unheard of for the prime attribute in 1E/2E, would allow 6th/7th level spells respectively. Quite good!
5E improves that by not having any restrictions on what class can be played based on ability scores. A wizard with a 9 INT in 5E will have easy to resist spells but is still viable. (It’s the same for other classes in 5E. A 9 STR fighter works but won’t be able to use heavy armor.) They won’t be able to memorize as many spells, though.
3E would not allow a 9 INT wizard. Not even a 10 INT wizard. The system requires an 11 INT to cast first level spells. It’s more restrictive than I realized.
Each system handles the rest of character creation and gaining levels differently. In 1E/2E, it was rare to get improvements to ability scores. INT didn’t determine saving throws against spells. It only controlled how many total spells of a given level the wizard could have access to but not how many spells they can memorize.
In 5E, assuming a 9 was rolled for INT, ancestry picked could give up to a +2. Then at certain levels, picking the Ability Score Increase for Wizard, could eventually add 10 points to INT but most campaigns don’t go all the way to 19th level. INT doesn’t control what level of spell they can learn but it does control how many spells they can have memorized, minimum of 1, and how easy it is to resist their spells. Magic could increase INT and while not rare, I wouldn’t count on it.
In 3E, ancestry could boost a stat and they get ability score increases. The ASI increase goes to 10 but again many campaigns don’t go that high. There is magic to increase INT as well and if not found could be made. INT allows for bonus spells to be cast and also determines how easy it is to resist. All in all, not having a high INT for a wizard in 3E restricts the character the most.
I said this earlier but want to say it again. In my experience, even if the campaign isn’t going to go higher than 12th level, 16th at most, my players didn’t like losing the potential of not getting ninth level spells, so having that 19 INT. Looking back, I don’t know why, although I suppose an interesting argument could be made for kids (when we were teenagers) thinking about potential in their life and not wanting restrictions on something, even if it never comes. This did continue into my group’s 30s but I think now we might want to try it.
I think the bigger reason this is an issue is campaign length. For me, most campaigns last about a year. The player has to decide if playing that character for a year will be fun or not. With my players today, maybe. Certainly not ten years ago or earlier. It’s nice to play the hero who is good at what they do. Thinking long term then, most players don’t play the same ancestry/class combo every campaign. If they decide to play a 9 INT wizard, it could be a decade or more before they finally get to see the contrast to a 14+ INT wizard. Sure another player might have it but it’s not the same when its the same player playing, and seeing, the differences.
I also never liked rolling for stats. It’s one of those biases I haven’t been able to get rid of, that when I roll for a character ability scores, I roll terrible, even with 4d6 drop the lowest. Getting higher than 16 usually meant three stats below 10. The best I seemed to be able to do was all in the 10-12 range, so no penalty but nothing exceptional.
(Rolls for data:
12,12,12,12,14,16 !
6,14,9,12,13,10
11,15,8,9,10,12
11,13,9,8,16,14
8,9,11,7,7,11
HA! In my mind, those are some of the best rolls of 3d6 I have ever done for character rolling! I would have said that last one was my typical character generation roll.)
I hadn’t looked at the classes this way so this was very interesting! Thanks for the discussion!
Ironically, while we’re saying that stats don’t matter much here, I’ve seen too many times where someone would claim how unfair it was that a half-orc wizard wouldn’t have the same starting INT as an elf wizard and, compared to a 16 INT, having a 15 INT made the character literally unplayable.
These days, 5e has changed to just allow you to throw your stats wherever but that was (IME) the primary argument for floating mods – “But THAT guy gets a 16 and I have to have a stupid 15!”
18 to cast a 9th level spell, at least in 1e AD&D. Generally speaking, none of the attributes provided a bonus in the Players Handbook above 18, except for the STR/00 thing and a 19 giving a boost for knowing spells as a magic-user. Even that was relatively minor unless you got to a point where someone wanted every single 5th level spell in their book, in which case you were probably at a point to collect stat boosting items anyway.
One obvious benefit to using array/point buy is that everyone can make their characters on their lonesome without any worry of fudging. Of course, if you don’t care if anyone fudges their numbers then it matters less but there’s enough social dynamics for me to worry about when running a game without worrying about Player A suspecting Player B of faking those 16, 16, 17, 18, 15, 18 rolls.
It’s actually been a while since I’ve been in a game where we didn’t make our characters independently (with input and interaction via Discord, etc) versus spending a game session rolling dice and scribbling on paper which probably molds my perspective vs Johnny_Bravo’s enjoyment of the “communal minigame” aspect. Our communal aspect is more like a week spent in a Discord chat group talking about what we’re thinking about taking, builds, desired party roles, backstories, etc so stat generation is a pretty minimal part of that. If we were doing it primarily at a dining room table, I might be more excited to hear dice clatter.
From a clickbait hater- and yeah, that was a sorta glitch with WotC quickly fixed.
IIRC, back in the DMG, they had a thing about “unplayable characters” allowing truly horrible rolls a mulligan.
We like that one.
My DM came up with a new thing- everyone rolls 3d6 six times. Then of those sets- the players can pick any set they like. Strangely, I rolled an 18 (in plain view of the DM ect, but when you have five sets of 6 rolls, one 18 is not so improbable) with only a 9 as the bad roll. However, one player rolled so bad, that his highest was a 9. We all picked my set. Oddly, I am not a fan of high stats, but in this campaign we started with very little gear, and some terrible foes.
Unless you want to multiclass. I am not a fan of multiclassing however.
Yes, but that was only for characters that were literally unplayable. Every class had at least one ability score that was required to be at least 9, and so if you didn’t have any stat of at least 9, it was impossible to pick a class.
I read the quick play rules of Shadowdark and it’s … okay. It reads like a modern 1E/2E version of DND. I doubt I will ever run it because of other reasons but I can see its appeal.
Quick summary of it. It’s 3d6 in order with at least one 14 or you can reroll. As with 1E/5E, no limits on max spells that can be cast, no limits on gear used, based on ability scores. As best as I can tell, and it’s not obvious in the quick start rules, you get another hit die of hit points at each level advance but anything else is random, a roll on a table. Each of the four classes has its own advancement table. Spellcasting requires a roll, like attacking, and has certain effects based on failing or crit fail with a natural 1. No ancestry can see in the dark. Dark is bad, it’s where monsters lurk. All torches last a real hour, not game hour. The character sheet could fit on an index card with everything needed.
I have found I don’t prefer games like this for reasons. It’s a game of rulings over rules. As long as the DM is someone you trust, same for your fellow players, that can be fine and fun. If you go to a random table, though, it could play differently due to rulings of this DM. I have found that joining a game in progress like this is frustrating, but it could be me. I have to “sell” the DM on what my character can do or is good at. I then spend more time doing that than playing my character or the game.
I won’t use it for several reasons. I think it’s made based on dungeon or wilderness exploration. Nothing wrong with that! A lot of it is random encounters in those dark places. I prefer a story, where those things aren’t left to random chance. I’m not talking about raiding some ruins of goblins and there is a random chance of finding a goblin patrol. I’m talking about going into a dungeon with beastmen, ettercaps, and minotaurs then rolling skeletons, darkmantles, or something else on a random encounter. Why haven’t the other things that live there cleared those out already? It just doesn’t talk much about diplomacy, skills, and assumes players talk for role playing. Some players don’t like that.
However, it’s “sin” for me is that to use this means I have to start all over with a new world because the world lore I have set up is that there are ancestries that can see in the dark. Magic doesn’t require a roll. Leveling up isn’t random abilities. I feel like that last part was to give it replayability as “no two characters are the same.” It’s not my style.
DC20 is even worse for me. I think they took rules they like from 5E and PF2 and put them together in a strange way.
This is true and for Doom Patrol, it worked. Mostly. I found it weird but okay. I should say it worked for that character and for that character to be the exception. I don’t want that option for every character.
If attributes don’t mean something, there is no reason to have them. In the DC20 preview book, it has specific skills for ability scores. Intelligence is Investigation, Medicine, Survival, and Knowledge. A Wizard in DC20 is defined as “… master[ing] spell schools to control them in a structured and efficient way. Wizards learn to use magic from a dedicated studying of the arcane through practicing lessons and reading tomes.” That to me means a Might or Agility Prime character can’t be a Wizard. I would have no problem with them being a Sorcerer and controlling them a la Flex Mentallo. I do quibble at allowing any Prime / Class combo is all I’m saying.
Overall, it’s been a while since I read DC20, I remember thinking as I read it that it made things more complex but not in a cohesive way. Combat has Action Points. Spell casters have Mana Points. Martials have Stamina Points. Some characters have Grit Points. There are Skill Points, Trade Points, Language Points. Some Points can transfer to another but not all and not in the same ratio. Crafting and Trades become their own sub system, instead of putting it under Skills and treating it the same way.
When I first read 5E and how they simplified adv/dis, I was annoyed. If there are three sources of one and one source of the other, why not give it to the one with more? Well, DC20 helped me answer that question because it does just that. I think it does it to give choices and add tactics but it doesn’t work for me. It makes me appreciate the easy way. I think this is going to result in having advantage too often because if it’s close, there is probably an easy way to turn it into advantage. If the game wants tactics, go full PF2, where “every +1 matters” instead of this.
Sorry for my negative reviews. I’m disappointed after the hype of those two games in particular that after reading them, I was underwhelmed. When I read a new system, I find something that makes me excited and want to run it. I didn’t get that feeling with these two games.
Shadowdark was explicitly designed to feel like the original Advanced Dungeons & Dragons dungeon crawler but with modern mechanics like the 1 hour of table time torch rule. There is no reason that you can’t run narrative-heavy stories in it but it isn’t specifically intended for that kind of play with mechanics for social conflicts or for years-spanning campaigns (and it is unlikely that the characters would survive that long as they’re not that robust). It’s clearly catering to the significant demographic of OSR-type games including an art and layout style that evokes the fantasy gaming of the early ‘Eighties. If that’s not what you’re looking for then it probably isn’t the game for you.
The complaint about “rulings over rules” is a legitimate one if you really devoted to adherence to rules, but frankly most long-standing game tables end up adopting a set of ‘house rules’ that are essentially a codification of ‘rulings’ for situation outside of the scope of the rules as written, or that otherwise better suit the play style of the group. At some point, you have to have trust in the gamemaster that they are making choices that best facilitate gameplay and will make fair interpretations of situations that aren’t cleanly covered by rules rather than jerking around the group for their own amusement. If a player has a legitimate view of the character’s abilities or intentions then the GM should facilitate that, albeit possibly with some challenge or consequences.
Meanwhile, in Hasbrow/WotC news, Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks spoke to Goldman Sachs investors to how the company is using AI as “…both a knowledge worker aid and as a development aid,” and follows with some word jumble about needing to use it carefully and responsibly, and pay creators for their work, but this is the company that just laid off a bunch of their creative staff last year right before Chrismas, so…
I had several talking points but it comes down to this. If the DM is bad, it doesn’t matter what version of the rules are used. I get to play once a year in an in person gathering for the past three years and that’s as regular as it has been for me. I embraced my mostly Forever DM status, at least for regular campaigns.
I think the rules in the 80s didn’t help make good DMs, at least from my experience. I’m glad Shadowdark has the section on The Pact. I’m glad gaming has evolved to what it is now. It is about figuring out what a group wants and likes and then playing in that style, including the DM.
I haven’t seen that Prof DM video yet and will have to watch it.
Dont trust Videos by that guy, a well known WotC hater and purveyor of clickbait, who has been caught several times making bad shit up about WotC in order to get clicks. He is the guy that decided that “Monetize” is a bad word, and that somehow wen WotC wants to “Monetize” D&D that is EVIL. Of course, every single game company in existence wants to monetize their products.
Yep. the edition doesnt matter as much as having a good DM and a good group of players- we had a fun Tunnels & Trolls campaign, actually- not to mention a great 4e campaign.
Still, 5e has brought in a bunch of new players, due to how easy it is to learn.
I’d nuance this a little more. If the DM is malicious, then the game’s going to be bad no matter what the rules are. But for a DM who’s merely unskilled or inexperienced, the rules can make a huge difference.
That guy is totally unreliable. It was one guy (some news says four guys, but only Dixon is named) and his name is Dubow. So, no one was “fired”, one or a couple were laid off. Large companies always have people be laid off. Now, a year ago or so,Hasbro did do a mass layoff of slightly more than 1000. Note that Hasbro employs about 10000 workers, so a layoff of 1 or even 4 people is nothing.
That’s what happen if you use a clickbait hater for your news.
Will Elon Musk buy Hasbro to get control of Wizards of the Coast and purge D&D of ‘wokeness’?:
I mean, this thesis seems way too stupid to take seriously, but then, this is a guy who blew a few billion dollars of his own ‘money’ and a bunch of other investors in a grossly overmarket joke stock offer to buy Twitter so he could annoy the neighbors with a big flashing ‘X’ and spread “Dark MAGA” memes, not to mention protecting the ‘free speech’ of threatening and denegrating people he doesn’t agree with, so clearly we are in a pretty absurd timeline where Gbaji has crawled out from the void and unleashed Primal Chaos on our world.
We all picked my set. Oddly, I am not a fan of high stats, but in this campaign we started with very little gear, and some terrible foes.
