Quote from: StormBringer;676845The 1d6 damage from the shield is an extra 3.5 damage on average, while adding two points to Strength only provides an extra point of damage.  The frequency of Strength ability checks would vary wildly by play style, so that's a wash.  Carrying capacity is a constant bonus, in this case a rather minor extra 20lbs.

+1 to damage, +1 to hit, +1 to ability checks, +1 to saving throws.

I'd say it's more than a wash.

Quote from: The_Rooster;676844Only old grumpy people roll stats. Us hipsters use point-buy. Therefore, 17 is the highest, therefore, learn math, 17 is the highest.

So... nyah.

rolling for attribute scores is not only the way D&D has been designed from the get go, but is the most common way of generating them.  Because you don't roll for them is hardly a design flaw, and your preference is hardly objective fact.  So yeah, you can get an 18 at level 1.  You can even get higher.

Quote from: The_Rooster;676862+1 to damage, +1 to hit, +1 to ability checks, +1 to saving throws.

I'd say it's more than a wash.

that feat also granted more than an extra damage, as I described.  Because ability modifiers only increase with every 2 points of ability score rating, you can't get both the strength and dexterity bonuses as in your earlier example.  You only get one.  And before you say, "yes you can if both scores were an odd number to begin with." I'll point out that if that's the case then the next time you have ability score bonuses and you increase each by 1, you get no bonus at all.  So in that case, choosing a feat is obviously better...

point is, is that you're basing your bitching on either incorrect assumptions, or in the ways you're choosing to use which rules you use and which ones you are ignoring.  Either way, not a game design problem.

Quote from: James Gillen;676842You must not like HERO System.

jg

I like it when it's used to model a world and takes a back seat to the imagination. I dislike it when it becomes about crunching numbers and dictates to the imagination.

This is of course a group problem.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;676910rolling for attribute scores is not only the way D&D has been designed from the get go, but is the most common way of generating them.

I'm guessing that hasn't been true for the better part of a decade at this point. Most of the 3.5/PF crowd seems to use point buy and rolling ability scores appears to be virtually unknown among 4E players.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;676910Either way, not a game design problem.

You're right. It's not a game design problem.

Of course, you're only right if you don't care about game balance.

Rollin', rollin', rollin', keep them dice a rollin'...

Quote from: Justin Alexander;676955I'm guessing that hasn't been true for the better part of a decade at this point.

Yeah, while OSR gamers may roll 'em, 3e/Pf and 4e gamers are far more likely to point-buy their character attributes.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;676969Yeah, while OSR gamers may roll 'em, 3e/Pf and 4e gamers are far more likely to point-buy their character attributes.

If that's true, it's sad. There's some excitement to have in generating attributes randomly. I'm sure not all recent 3e/PF/4e gamers would like it, but if they're not even aware that could be done, or what it actually does when you generate a character in such manner, then some of them might be missing something that would actually make the game more fun to them, and not necessarily less.

I think it's a difference of philosophy. In the WotC editions your character is something that you build, a tool for solving the encounters mechanically. In the TSR editions your character is more of an avatar, a jacket you put on while solving the encounters with your own creativity.

Quote from: The_Rooster;676966You're right. It's not a game design problem.

Of course, you're only right if you don't care about game balance.

Rollin', rollin', rollin', keep them dice a rollin'...

man what?  It seems you are just crying for crying's sake, as everything you complained about either isn't true, or is easily avoided by using official rules available.  If your preference is providing a shit experience, then maybe the problem is your preference and not the rules themselves.. I mean, your entire position has been reduced to a very bad strawman.

Quote from: Benoist;676970If that's true, it's sad. There's some excitement to have in generating attributes randomly. I'm sure not all recent 3e/PF/4e gamers would like it, but if they're not even aware that could be done, or what it actually does when you generate a character in such manner, then some of them might be missing something that would actually make the game more fun to them, and not necessarily less.

either way, the claim that you can't get an 18 dexterity at level one simply isn't true, as you can by playing raw

Quote from: Benoist;676970..then some of them might be missing something that would actually make the game more fun to them, and not necessarily less.

As a person who has played many games that have random ability score rolling, I can say only this:

Fuck. That. Shit. My hat of random chargen know no limit!

Tried it, many times, and absolutely don't enjoy it. Rolling dice is for conflict resolution in the game - not for PC generation.

If people really have retreated from rolling for ability scores in D&D - good for them. They are missing nothing.


Slightly less evil than random ability scores are pure point buy systems.

To be honest, this is the first playtest in a long while that I actually like. I haven't read it in detail or anything, but I like what they did with Skills (that is, remove them and replace them with Lores).

As for attributes, I don't consider myself an old school gamer, but I like to roll them. That has always been a part of D&D for me (probably because I started with AD&D 2nd Edition, and I never quite liked the more modern versions).

I've had a bit to look at the deck further, and my opinions:

Good
I like the monk class better now.  They got rid of the "raise everything to 20" at 20th level, and have introduced elemental powers as you level up, which I like.  For example, at 3rd level you can learn wind riposte (each element has it's own ability you can choose), which is if you are hit with a melee attack, you can spend 1 ki point to push the attacker 15 feet away with a gust of wind if they fail a strength saving throw.  Those types of abilities feel like old kung fu movies to me, so win there.

Mages.  One class encompasses wizards, witches, sorcerers, etc.  They only mention the wizard tradition though.  Within that tradition, you specialize like 2e wizard schools, and each specialization grants unique abilities.

Rogues:  they cleaned up the rogues a lot.  Only two styles are included: assassin and thievery, but each style is more robust and has more abilities than the specializations in the previous packet.

I haven't played barbarians before, but I understand they addressed the barbarians' overpowered attacks in this one.

Not so Good, or meh:

Clerics got nerfed.  Channel Divinity is now gained at 2nd level, and only once per day.  They only have 3 divine areas to choose from: life, light, and war.  My dwarven protection cleric with the interposing shield feat is now gone.  That sucks.  I really liked him.

Fighters no longer have expertise dice.  That cuts a lot of options away from them.  Instead, now they have 3 specialties: gladiator, knight, or warrior.  Each path grants a special ability at level 3, 7, 10, 15, and 19.  They also have new abilities like healing 1/2 your hp one per day, making a save at 0 hp to go to 1 instead, etc.  They also get ability bonuses more frequently than other classes, so if you use feats, they get more of them.

Paladins.  They got rid of cavalier, warden, and blackguard.  Now they have only one Oath: Oath of Devotion.  So a traditional paladin I guess.  I imagine they'll have warden and blackguard back at some point.  They better.

I mentioned this, but I really don't like that they got rid of a lot of fighter abilities and some feats.  Things like warning shout, interposing shield, etc are things I really liked.  I think that hurts customization.  I've said several times how I loved being able to do my halfling assassin as a fighter only class instead of a fighter-thief.  Now it looks like that's severely hindered.  I can still take the stealthy feat to essentially grant myself an expertise dice on stealth checks, but without deadly strike, I lose that "attack from surprise for extra damage" that emulated the thief's sneak attack.

General observations
Each class now has multiple attacks at certain levels, so it looks like they went back to that.

Feats are now packages rather than singular feats.  We already talked about the shield one above.  I actually sort of like this, but then I've never been one who prefers char op.  They simplified this process of character advancement.  Another example is archery.  If you learned Archery Mastery as your feat, you gain:
* range doesn't impose disadvantage
* ranged attacks ignore half cover and 3/4 cover
* once on your turn with a bow, you can make an additional attack.  Both attacks suffer a -5 to hit.

Speaking of feats, you don't get them now until 4th level.  Level 1-3 truly seem like introductory levels, allowing you to get a feel of the character class and how you want to progress before the really big path choices present themselves.  I think this will help newer players, as there isn't much to learn about your class at low levels.

Skills:  Skills are gone.  Which I like.  Reinforces the "anyone can attempt" theory that I prefer.  Now they just need to address the DC values of tasks, which IIRC, they are doing right now to reflect this.

Quote from: Benoist;676970If that's true, it's sad. There's some excitement to have in generating attributes randomly. I'm sure not all recent 3e/PF/4e gamers would like it, but if they're not even aware that could be done, or what it actually does when you generate a character in such manner, then some of them might be missing something that would actually make the game more fun to them, and not necessarily less.

I find the big advantages to rolling ability scores in order is that it (a) speeds up character creation and (b) provides an improv seed. You really are generating the foundation of a character and then creating on top of that foundation. I've found these features absolutely essential in open table play, and particularly valuable when introducing new players to RPGs. (I discussed this at some length over here.)

What's interesting is the degree to which randomly rolling six attributes and then assigning them to ability scores pretty much completely nullifies these advantages. At the link above, I discuss the fact that it still gets new players rolling the dice faster and that can be valuable. But that's a fairly narrow window of advantage.

D&D basically switched to this compromise position for random generation back in 1979 and I suspect it's the version most people who have used random generation are most familiar with. Given that, I think it's unsurprising that so many people have difficulty seeing any advantage to random generation.

Quote from: Jaeger;676979Tried it, many times, and absolutely don't enjoy it. Rolling dice is for conflict resolution in the game - not for PC generation.

Weak

Quote from: Brad;677000Weak

I'm curious to know why such aversion to rolling for stats, especially since classes don't require a high stat anymore.  Is it fear of having the chance for a low roll?  Is it hating the fact that another player might have better rolled stats than you?