Search Posts
Cool. Another Kickstarter by the Kobolds. I just backed. Can't afford the leather bound version this time but yeah - I'm continuously impressed by the high quality of your Kickstarter books. After Tome of Beats, Creature Codex and Margreve I'm really looking forward to getting this. Gogogo!
Now that PF2 is out, are there any rules people will be moving from that edition to 5e. I don't think so. 5e is streamlined to allow groups to better focus on roleplaying instead of getting bogged down in rules minutiae. Porting more complex and fiddly PF2 rules seems counter-intuitive to me. I'm eyeing the Bulk rules personally, and how Initiative is determined is interesting. In my experience, the simple and traditional initiative rules of 5e are obvious even to newbies quickly, while explaining PF2 initiative again and again doesn't really appeal to me. And for groups who want to track encumbrance or bulk, I generally prefer Matt Rundle's great anti hammerspace sheet. I am not convinced that bulk offers anything that isn't better solved by Anti Hammerspace.
Oooo... yeah, that's not great. Guess we'll see what the numbers say in another 3 months. It hasn't been three months, but right now it's at #13, behind 'old' supplements for 5e such as Xanathars, Mordenkainen's and Volo's. Also behind preorders for the new Eberron campaign setting book and the Baldur's Gate adventure. Hmmmm.
It's a bit worrisome that even with a 40% discount on release the PF2 core rulebook doesn't outsell the 5 year old 5e PHB on amazon.
Shadow and divine Shadow gives you a reusable heighten. Divine greatly increases the spell selection.
I would assume it will rather split and fragment the pathfinder fan base and hurt the statistics. According to Roll20, 5e has ~50%of active campaigns and PF1 has around ~7%. Considering even D&D 3.5 still has 1.5%, that's .. not so good. Warhammer and Vampire are also around 1.5%, and Starfinder is below 1%. Source: https://blog.roll20.net/post/186546450860/the-orr-group-industry-report-q2- 2019-back-and Of course, the launch will have a sales peak where everyone buys the new core books, but in the mid- and longterm I think it will be more difficult to sustain PF's position.
I wanted to get it as print and pdf. However, living in Europe, the shipping is insane (about 125% of the cost of the actual product bundle). Is there a way I can get the print and pdf bundle in Europe that doesn't cost way more than getting print from Amazon + pdf from koboldpress.com (~30$)? I would like to support the kobolds by buying from your store directly, but the additional cost for me just for that is silly.
Yeah, it looks cool. Backed at the unholy warrior level a few days ago...
Very cool, I especially like the Sha'ir Warlock. Perfect for the Elemental Evil campaign.
I like it because it removes the fiddly skill point distribution of 3.5. @Steve Geddes > Personally, I prefer systems which work on 'degrees of success' rather than an explicit target number. I agree with this. In my games, I sometimes tried to use the target number for success/failure, but also take note of the difference. Success with +8 might be better than success with +1, and failure by -1 might just mean a miss but failure by a large margin could have additional detrimental effects; e.g. picking a lock and failing by -1 just means the rogue didn't succeed to open the door, while a failure by a large number might ruin/block the lock or make a loud noise.
Great. Thanks for the info. Btw did you remove shipping costs? I previously pledged 206 (special edition + fantasy grounds + shipping), but now, it seems that shipping is included? At least that's what Kickstarter is telling me when I tried to raise the pledge..
@Wolfgang Baur @Marc Radle I am really happy that you make the cardboard pawns! Amazing. There was some discussion in comments on ks, but I didn't see a definitive answer. Maybe you can help: What do I have to do to get a second set of the cardboard pawns? Has this been decided yet? How much to add to the pledge for a second set?
Too bad there are no pawns or cardboard tokens. Digital tokens are...meh.There are no pawns ... yet! Cool. Looking forward to the next stretch goals!
Too bad there are no pawns or cardboard tokens. Digital tokens are...meh.
No, but it's not really carried over from 4E either, since it was carried from 3.x to 4E. It's not a new design philosophy. It's something like 14 years old at this point. I don't really agree with this. In 4e games, having a healer that can give others the option to spend a healing surge without eating an action was kind of important.
As an old-school devotee, it "ruffles my jimmies" to see a party with no cleric in it. I know that was an intentional design philosophy (carried over from 4E, I believe) so no one would be "forced to play the cleric" but it just feels so strange and "wrong" somehow. It's not like you need one in 3e or Pathfinder. Yes, it's a tier one class, so it is common to have parties with clerics, but far from every party has one.
I can't really comment on much after just 1 game (and no real magic users), other than it being really fun. Combat went smoothly since you didn't have to keep track of so many little +1s. Overall, I like it. They actually managed to make the difference between magic users and melee much smaller. Less higher spell slots, less prepared spells, and concentration mean that they don't dominate the game completely after the first few levels. In addition, most melees have a spellcasting specialization(archetype) available, such as the Eldritch Knight for the fighter and Arcane Trickster for the rogue.
Now looking back at the linked post again, it seems possible you were trying to draw some sort of comparative point between what ShiningFool said and 'not being extreme' without referencing KSF's actual point about the article...but if so you did so extraordinarily poorly. To the point that what you actually said meant something very different from what you meant. I am relieved that you can see my point now that you read the post we were talking about. And thanks for your critique of my posts. If only I were an amazing writer like you. Alas, I am not.
The context was this very long thread about the ideal level of sexiness in Paizo art. In which those rather extreme opinions were voiced that I replied to. While people did try to derail the discussion with that article, luckily I did not take that bait.
No one is saying sex is bad. No one is saying sexy art is bad. You are indeed correct that it was wrong of me to make that statement without linking to one of the examples in the thread. However, my post was already long and I did not feel like dumpster diving again. I should have only said: You did not. Do you not see how this can leave us no recourse but to assume you are not having a discussion in good faith? Sure, insults again. This time against my motives. Ah well, do what you have to.
I don't. I was not talking about the article but answering statements uttered on this board. Namely, those that I quoted. There's also all of that really good stuff that KSF linked to above, which kind of points out that sexually charged advertising essentially lets half of your audience that "this is not for you." Please don't leave out important bits. I bolded them for you. I replied to his statement that sexually charged = excludes half of the audience. The view that sexually charged advertising excludes others is a sex-negative feminist view, and as such a minority feminist stance. In order for the exclusion statement to be true, half of the audience (in this context, all women) would have to follow that belief. I don't believe that this is true. Which actually is what I wrote: You assume that most women follow an extremist feminist stance. I really doubt that. There's not a way to read that second bit where you don't call the article sex-negative. So...you are either exceedingly forgetful, to the point where I would seriously suggest professional help of some sort, are not aware of how English works (which seems unlikely given your posts), or are not participating in this discussion in good faith. Or maybe, I only ever responded to his statements. Those that I quoted. Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you have an excellent explanation for your behavior. I'd be pleased to hear what it might be. In fact, please explain, I've agreed with you in other threads and would be pleased for this to all be some sort of misunderstanding where I don't lose respect for you. I did not quote the article. I would have if I would have responded to it. I did quote the text that I responded to; Shining Fool seems to found his opinions nicely expressed in that article. That's nice. But I was responding to his statements on this thread. I really don't see why I have to defend myself for answering what I quoted instead of answering other things. When you respond to someone saying "The article is mainstream" with "Sex-negative feminism isn't mainstream." In what manner are you not responding to the article? You are, in fact, engaging in a discussion of said article. But I did not ever mention that article. I did not quote any sentence from that article. Really. If I did and forgot about it, please show me, quote me. The sex-negative isn't mainstream was directed, again, at his assertion that sexually charged ads exclude half of the audience. It's right there in the actual post, above my sentence.
You're misunderstanding what people are saying. I don't think I am. No one is saying sex is bad. No one is saying sexy art is bad. Actually, some people did. Not you, though. Along with that, what we're saying is, if male characters are going to be dressed appropriately for their adventuring roles (wearing armor for a front-line fighter, or example), we'd like to see female characters in similar roles dressed appropriately as well. But male characters are not dressed appropriately for their adventuring roles - none of the iconcs is. I really like WAR's style, but most of his characters have various things and whatnots sticking out everywhere, with way too many free-moving parts etc. It's clearly some absurd but cool looking fantasy idea of how a character should look like, combined with the popular D&D trope of characters being walking christmas trees because of all the magic items. Finally, we're saying that, a product that depicts women only as sexual objects for the pleasure of men, or as prizes for men to win, sends a message to potential female customers that the product is not made with them in mind. I don't think Paizo ever sold products like that; if they did, I don't know of them. Could you pleae link the books you are referring to specifically? Please explain how any of those statements represent a "puritan" view, or "hostility towards non-puritan imagery." Those statements do not represent that.
No more arguments, instead just a simple attack on me, my integrity, my language skills, and some insults implying I am drunk or drugged... well, at least you are being honest about your intent here. Still, I fail to see how this advances the discussion at hand. Too bad. No. That's not how it works. That's how cherry-picking and dishonest communication works. So in order not to be insulted by you I should not answer to the text I quote, but instead to something else, somewhere else? What?
Because I'm trying really hard not to be insulting (and have no problem with people getting high, or kidding around) but I'm literally flabbergasted at how you can seriously get 'sex negative' from that article without some form of mind-altering chemical being involved. I don't. I was not talking about the article but answering statements uttered on this board. Namely, those that I quoted. I mean, that article has about as much to do with sex as a study on underwear prices does...ie. it's tangentially sorta part of the discussion, but not what's actually being discussed at all. And while attitudes like sex-negativity can seep through into unrelated works...that's not happening there. Like, at all. Again...really, come on. Did you ever think that I answered to the text that I quoted, not to some other text, written on some other website? I mean, that's how this web discussion forum thing works, right?
Sex-negative feminism is not a view that is shared by the mainstream.No one in the thread is being sex-negative. And as TheJeff said, no one is being sex-negative in the article I linked to. The hostility towards non-puritan imagery uttered in this thread makes me disagree with you.
sexually charged advertising essentially lets half of your audience that "this is not for you."That article, while feminist, is not an example of an "extremist feminist stance." It's pretty much mainstream feminism. Sex-negative feminism is not a view that is shared by the mainstream. The only thing I get from your post is that you seem to think all women are alike, and they are all like Alice Schwarzer. I disagree with that assessment. I specifically quoted and answered this in a previous post on this thread. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with this now. Oh well, maybe you just didn't actually read this... Does anyone in this thread sound "extremist" to you? Yes, of course.
I played a game where I let someone have all 18's in every ability score. She often rolled well, hit the monsters most of the time, made her saves, and sometimes didn't make her saves. What did she do that she deserved this special treatment that your other player's didn't? Everyone had fun, and strangely enough no one argued statistical analysis of the first players ten or fifteen percent advantage. I am not sure how you get from having all classes to choose vs. having only a small subset available to some percentage value.
Yes, DM pity can alleviate the worst effects. I don't see how this makes it more fun. It actually promotes the idea that it would be good if the playing field was even for all players. My favorite is to roll a bunch of sets of stats, usually one each, and have everyone use whichever of those they prefer. Balance between characters, the fun of adding a bit of randomness to it and none of the irritation of point buy. Yes, that's a great approach.
This was also discussed earlier in the thread. "Sex sells" is not a very good defense. The fact that advertising can be "sexy" does not in any way imply that advertising must be "sexy." I agree fully. There's also all of that really good stuff that KSF linked to above, which kind of points out that sexually charged advertising essentially lets half of your audience that "this is not for you." You assume that most women follow an extremist feminist stance. I really doubt that. Or 51% of the population? Seriously, the same mistake again. 51% of the population are not extremist feminists. Those are a minority. The only thing I get from your post is that you seem to think all women are alike, and they are all like Alice Schwarzer. I disagree with that assessment.
... I am assuming you did not see that this was a lower bound, not an upper bound. Actually, I originally wrote 50-100$, but I updated it because one of the guys that use to spend the most on rpg stuff has an OSR phase and now buys all these indie games instead). But it doesn't even matter so much; only Paizo could release numbers but I doubt they will because it most likely would probably just infuriate a vocal minority and lead to bad publicity. I don't think we can assume that male spending dominates so much as to make taking female consumers into consideration unnecessary. Of course it does not; what a horrible idea. You seem to imply that targeting can only be on either males or females, that those are in direct opposition - because otherwise your statement does not really make sense (to me).
Not really. Do you really spend more than both your husband and your sons combined? But even if you do: You mention that you spend 'at least as much' as 'most' of your male friends, while your female friends 'tend to buy their own stuff as well'. This implies that male spending is higher: First, the market is not evenly split; males are the majority. This means that (lets assume) you have 10 friends that are into RPGs, chances are at least six of them are males. Second, in the group that spends less than you are both males and females (husband, sons, female friends, some male friends). In the group that spends about the same amount as you are males and you, the single woman. Finally, the group that spends more than you only consists of males. Either your were very unclear in how you phrased your post, or our now already larger sample gives us the following results: My sample: Male spending dominates clearly.
So..how does this zero out?
Paizo has the exact numbers, but I would be very surprised if spending for Paizo products from males accounts for less than 80% of their sales (probably even a lot more) . You mix up two things: people who play rpgs and people who regularly buy rpg-related products. I guess about 1/4th of my male friends who play RPGs spend more than 30-40$ / month for rpg materials. None of the females in my groups spend that much for rgps in a year (and that's not because they wouldn't have the money). Small sample size, I know, but still.. Also, I was specifically talking about Paizo products; D&D fantasy rpgs. It might very well be different for Vampire... But I have to say, the fact that you don't believe those numbers doesn't surprise me a lot. If that's the attitude around your table, I can imagine a distinctive lack of girls around it. Your assumptions are wrong - not that it matters, though.
Just as an experiment, why not try creating a character just using dice? Don't just roll for attributes, also roll for race, class, background, and personality traits. Then see if you can put the die results together and come up with a backstory for a character that you'd find fun to play. Didn't we have this already? With an expected 16 points of attribute difference between 5 players rolling for attributes, which might be +8 in total modifiers, rolling for stats is a strictly inferior method for character generation than point buy. Yes, you as a DM might enjoy it when a player needs DM pity to survive or to be able to contribute to the game properly, but it is very unlikely that the unlucky player feels the same.
Baldur's Gate and early 3E is definitely one of the bigger entry periods; therefore, it's reasonable to expect a great many people will use that as a baseline of sorts. And it's a perspective that WotC has consistently ignored in important ways when developing both 4E and 5E. While appealing to pre 3rd edition players is fine, they can't really afford to act as if 3rd edition never happened, or pick and choose what parts of 3rd edition happened and which ones can easily be ignored. Yes, they can. Also, you seem to be unaware of it, but Baldur's Gate uses AD&D 2 rules; pre-3e by definition. Therefore, you could actually make the argument that 5e appeals more to players of BG2 than 3e or Pf does...
The argument has largely been that there is something wrong with defaulting to the male knight bedecked in heavy steel while the female knight is wearing plate pasties and a chain mail thong. There's an obvious economic reason for that. Paizo as a company has to be profitable first; which might explain the above situation. Paizo has the exact numbers, but I would be very surprised if spending for Paizo products from males accounts for less than 80% of their sales (probably even a lot more) . Where are our ripped male iconics wearing six square inches of strategically draped leather? /hyperbole Probably on the cover of romance novels where the target audience consists of mainly females. If the men default to being "competently" dressed, than their female counterparts should too. Sexy clothing is fine too, but it should make sense for the character. I am not sure why you feel this is anything else but an economic issue. Paizo obviously has to create artwork that appeals to their customer base. This thread shows that they did not succeeded with it as well as with previous releases. Additionally, I don't see why illustrations for fantasy characters that fight fantasy monsters should make sense for the character, irrespective of gender. Just look at all the great artwork by WAR - how would anyone ever fight with all that stuff sticking out everywhere...it's totally unrealistic and pointless, but it looks great and makes for evocative and inspiring images.
Nope. And the attempt at pop psychoanalysis isn't helping your argument. Yeah, probably not. I just found it unlikely that you actually subscribe to such a ...well... simplified view of the matter. But having read up on your other posts in this thread, it seems I was wrong, so.... nevermind.
But this thread is called "New Iconics Desexed". It seems natural that the spectrum mentioned in the thread title is discussed while others are not. Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that the only way to have variety of appearances for women is to differ in the amount of sex appeal they display. It's like saying the only way for a bunch of women to look different is through different hair color, and implies that the only important thing about the way any of the female characters look is how sexy they are. I don't read that at all. Yes, this thread focuses on the sex appeal, but no one says that there aren't many other, equally valuable distinctions. I can understand that this issue is important to you, but maybe you are projecting a bit?
The main thing is that it doesn't stack - two times advantage (e.g. flanking, charging) doesn't give the bonuses twice. It does succeed in reducing the amount of fiddly modifiers (something that is a major weakness of Pathfinder). However, this reduction in complexity will most likely primarily welcomed by groups that want to focus on roleplaying and storytelling (because it makes for shorter fights with less rule discussions), while min-max optimiser groups might not like it as much as it removes the bonus stacking inherent in Pathfinder combat.
According to these statistics, the expected maximum difference between two players when using 4d6 drop lowest for rolling stats is 16 points. That could be +8 modifier points, and more than the expected unluckiest player has in total.
also, the disparity isn't as great as you think it is. It is. According to these statistics, the expected largest difference betweeen two players is more than 16 points. That could be a whole +8 in modifiers, or the difference between two 18s and two 10s. so from 6 characters the largest disparity is between 8, 11, 16, 17, 6, 14, and 11, 12, 17, 14, 16, 14. both of which have a 17, 16, 14 and an 11. the difference being a 6 and 8 vs a 12 and 14. this is actually very oddly symmetrical. but yeah, you could easily have both of these rolls end up on a character that didn't need to use the 6 or 8, aka could be wisdom and int on a paladin, could be strength and charisma on a wizard. the characters don't lose much to their effectiveness by having those stats lowered from 12 or 14(or 11 as the case may be). Even in your example, you have a disparity of 12 points or 6 modifier points. That's more than the worst player has modifiers in total (5). That's just really horrible for the worst player, and it clearly shows why rolling for stats naively is such a bad idea.
If it turns out that your posts are not about the OP's situation, but are about your dislike of 'rolling for stats', then just say so! I did exactly that, in my previous response to you: Here is the original post:- I get the feeling you are just trying to evoke some kind of emotional response, and are not interested in discussion the topics that were raised and discussed in the last two pages of this thread. Not very paladin-like, that behavior.
All the time, as I said I don't enjoy point-buy games but sadly it's all I've got to work with at the moment, so when I do I'm the one suggesting lower point totals and/or intentionally running a non-optimized character. I've even proposed running a quick one off using 2d6+3; a kind of Call of Cthulu, Tomb of Horrors, you are in all ways outclassed and have to be smart, kind of adventure. No. Everyone playing with lower point totals is not the same. I was asking explicitly for an example where your character is strictly worse, i.e. has a lower point total. So everyone would get 25 points and you would build your character with 15. Or something like that. The problem is not the total stats, but the disparity between players. Also, I do not believe that you run non-optimized characters. Probably, you just optimize your characters for something else than the Pathfinder rules, such as optimized for adherence to a concept, optimized to copy a specific literary character or optimized to force the rest of the party to carry you.
Every player had the same chance to roll good or bad stats, that one player was unluckier than others is unfortunate but not unfair. Is it unfair because this one roll has a disproportionate influence. Two minutes of random luck should not have strong effects for the year or more that the campaign lasts. I could have loads of fun playing around a -3 modifier, working out ways to turn challenges to my stronger stats, or outside bonuses to negate it. That's fun to me, that's puzzle solving and creative roleplay. If it's so much fun, did you ever ask your DM if you could play with lower stats? Or if you could roll 4d6 drop highest? Or anything else that helps your goal to maximize your fun by playing characters with bad stats?
Take two otherwise identical wizards with 17 Int and average other stats, except one has 4 Cha and the other has 10 Cha. It's true that the first will have a lower modifier to his charisma-based skills, but since neither he nor his Cha 10 brother will be the party face then neither will be making these checks for the party anyway! Both are equally effective in their chosen role, and that role is not 'party face'. I thought we were talking about 4d6 drop lowest. You seem to be talking about an ability score generation method that guarantees only one bad stat? With 4d6 drop lowest it is very well possible that the highest stat of player A is better or equal to the worst stat of player B.
anyone who tries to tell me it's not fair is being lazy. Wait, what? Your houserule is broken because it's unfair and easily abusable. It doesn't even solve the problem of the disparity in player stats. But if I tell you this I am lazy?
... Wait, so you have this elaborate and opaque system where players are treated differently by you because of how they rolled in the first few minutes before the game began, and players who rolled well get (seemingly) arbitrary punishments because of 'fame' and players who rolled badly get DM pity and can just like that achieve stuff without rolling because their stats suck. That's certainly one way to do it. Yet I fail to see the advantage of your approach.
And that's unfair, and no fun.That, honestly, is the part I strongly disagree with, at least in general terms, as it is highly dependent on the specific group in question. For a bunch of old school gamers or those that like the challenge that comes with rolling and finding a way to be useful regardless of what you roll, not only is it not unfair, but the alternatives, either point buy or even other rolling methods that remove that aspect, are both boring and harmful to the game they want to play. I understand that the typical rolling method creates potential challenges that many, including yourself obviously, don't like, either as a player or a DM, but that doesn't make it unfair or no fun. But it does. It's not even a question that it's unfair, it's just that some group might accept this unfairness. You miss the point. While I keep experimenting, 4d6, drop the lowest, is still the best overall scheme for balancing ease of use and power level. Wait, what? 4d6 drop one is for balancing? There is no balancing. There simply are random distributions that are skewed upwards because of the drop lowest, but that is not balancing. Lower numbers may mean less effectiveness math wise, but it also means an easier times being sneaky or secretive So you don't use the pathfinder stealth rules? Because according to the rules, a higher Dex actually does make it easier for people to be sneaky. how others will react in many circumstances. Oh, so you don't use the Pathfinder Diplomacy and attitude rules? Because according to the rules, a higher Cha...etc. So for me at least, the numbers are only part of the equation Oh, sure. If you don't play according to the Pathfinder Core Rules, the stats don't matter. That's what I stated in one of my first posts.
The goalpost moving is being done by you. Here is the original post:- But I was not responding to the original post, but to JoeJ's answer. I thought that was clear, given that I quoted the relevant parts in my posts. The conversation then turned into a succession of posts suggesting that a PC with a 4 is unplayable. The person you are arguing against said that you can easily create a PC with a 4 who can contribute in the same way as a PC without that one low stat. And that's just wrong. He can contribute, but he cannot contribute as well, because all player choices could be like the player with better stats and still would be objectively worse. He's right! Whatever class you choose is up to you, not the vagaries of the dice, and you can choose a SAD class and place that 4 where it will have minimal (if any) impact, leaving you with a 17 for your main stat. Even what you call 'minimal impact' is not 'no impact'. Therefore, I can only assume you agree with me that this player cannot contribute as well because of the non-zero impact of his lower stats compared to the rest of the players. Point being, that 4 does not prevent you creating a PC who will effectively contribute to the party, excelling in the role you choose. But you just stated that it limits his selection from to a subset (namely SAD). How is this fun? Why does this player deserve to have a smaller selection than the guy or girl who sits next to him if he wants to contribute equally and excel at his role?
while a good point DMW, the other guy is saying that someone with lower stats can't contribute or contributes less to a party if someone else has higher stats, regardless of the class/race choice or anything else. No, that's exactly NOT what I am saying, but what JoeJ repeatedly tried to change the goal posts to. When talking about stats, class and race choice does not matter. Because class and race are a player choice. The rolled stats are not. If we have player A, and player B. Player A has rolled: Best stat 17, worst stat 10.
For choices (class, race, feats, etc), A and B might decide the same; assume both build an Elven Wizard with best stat in Int, second best stat in Dex and worst stat in Cha, and the same feats, spell selection etc. Clearly, player A can contribute better to the party than B, because he has better stats. And that's unfair, and no fun. And any difference because of class and race is based on the player's choice, on a trade off he or she was willing to make. That is my point, no matter how many times JoeJ tries to twist it into something else. And from that point follows that rolling naively is bad. Not rolling in general, but rolling in a way that creates unfairness. As already mentioned multiple times above, there are many ways to allow rolling for stats without creating an unwanted disparity between different players, such as: All players get to choose from all the rolled stat arrays. while a good point DMW, the other guy is saying that someone with lower stats can't contribute or contributes less to a party if someone else has higher stats, regardless of the class/race choice or anything else. basically, the other guy is making very strong claims which are pretty much just wrong.Where'd Malaclypse say that? I get the impression he's trying to say more or less what I just did...only in a more confrontational way. Yes. Thank you, DMW.
so dying as consequence of a roll is not a very important and consequential thing rolled from RNG? that was my point, there are other very critical rolls that can arise through gameplay. Sure, but there are multiple factors that soften the problem when it's an attack. First off, one hit kills are rare, so it's generally multiple failures that lead to death. Secondly, even after a one-hit kill you can resurrect the player, and because of XP / level disparity he will close up quickly. There are rules for that. There are no rules for "player A is inherently worse that player B for the whole campaign because he rolled bad stats". RAI is maybe DM pity, but that should not be the solution.
Of course class is a choice. As are race, feats, skills, and spells. Choices so powerful that together they basically negate the effect of stats on relative PC effectiveness. Which means that there's nothing unfair about using the default system and rolling for basic stats. No, they don't negate the effect. Yes, it is unfair. I am not sure how you can even discuss this, given the aforementioned table 1-3: Ability scores and bonus spells. The core rules themselves contradict your statement.
What exact choice (except for character suicide or whining to the DM to allow rerolls) can the player make so his stats aren't worse than those of the other players? Please elaborate. And don't switch the goalposts again. It's not a bad system. It's a system you don't like. The two are not the same thing. Ok, again: It is a bad system because it promotes unfairness and randomly disadvantages some players. Keep your personal attacks to yourself. I'm not going to be baited by silliness. Don't generalize from yourself to others. There was no personal attack in my statement, I merely asked you because I am confused: You advocate a system that promotes unfairness and randomly disadvantages some players, and I don't understand why. Be my guest. Show all the statistics you want. You're the one claiming that the standard system in the rules is unfair; a claim that you have so far completely failed to support. I cannot teach you statistics in order to show you that the system you promote is unfair. Wikipedia and the wider internet have enough resources that will help you understand the problem, should you want to. I merely tried to point you into the right direction.
|
