Quote from: jeff37923;800884You know, there is always the option of letting the offended party just go fuck himself because he is being infantile.

That hardly offers any drama. I mean besides the first moments of jaw dropping shock. Oh wait, you said "letting". If it was "telling" it might offer some drama, but in this case it just seems creepy.

Quote from: trechriron;800889That hardly offers any drama. I mean besides the first moments of jaw dropping shock. Oh wait, you said "letting". If it was "telling" it might offer some drama, but in this case it just seems creepy.

Now that was funny.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800882I guess I'm just different then, because I find it odd that a player would sit and figure out all the bonuses another player has when that other player is making an attack roll or check or saving throw.

I suspect most players are like you. Most cashiers don't make change in their head either. What I find odd is the notion that nobody at the table would be doing the math. It's pretty easy after all. You see what roll they hit on or miss on and infer their bonuses from that. If you care to you can then see how that compares to your bonuses. If you are familiar with the system the degree of mental effort involved is equivalent to figuring out how much change is due back from a sale. Which is why I compared it to that.

Quote from: Bren;800807No. No! NO!

He should insist that the DM lowers the other players stats because as everyone should know by now, you don't make everyone equal by raising one person up. You make everyone equal by knocking everyone who towers above the lowest common denominator down.

If there's one thing I took from Harrison Bergeron it's the equalizing power of the clown nose!

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800798So honest question for those who have made those arguments.  If you don't know what stats another PC has, how does that ruin your fun?  Because from what I can see, it really doesn't impact the actual game play of your PC if you don't know how many +'s they have.  When you're rolling a random result between a 1 and 20, and extra +1 or +2 won't even be noticeable unless you're really paying attention and doing the math in your head, and why would you?  It's not your PC.

The difference in stat bonuses is not that great; the second one is only matching for the top three. The worst difference is +2 versus -1, which is in the worst of six characteristics, so probably not something either character uses much. The d20 roll varies by up to 19, so the bonus isn't that big a difference, and 5e seems designed for that to be true. I am curious what racial bonuses were involved; Dragonborn get less extra points than humans but get a breath weapon. Also, did your character have an advantage in a particular characteristic (18 where the others had lower bonuses, low where they were high) so that you still have the advantage in your specialty?

But still differences may be noted in other areas of 5e; although it was because jibbajibba was running with an incorrect rule (no DEX bonus on damage for ranged weapons), his players did notice that the archer was worse than the warlock with a cantrip on damage, and that would undercut the archer player's enjoyment of what should be his signature ability (hitting things hard from a distance, round after round). Also, if they got their higher characteristics by cheating, then why wouldn't they be cheating on lots of other rolls? Or if you can see their rolls, then you know that they hit on a 12 the enemy you missed on a 16.

The situation was much worse in, e.g., OD&D (with supplements): Rangers and Paladins got abilities nobody else got and you could only qualify by having high enough characteristics, or humans could only multiclass with high enough characteristics, or other qualitative effects (e.g., being the only character who could kick open a wizard locked door).

In summary: my honest answer is that it probably doesn't matter much in 5e and very little for the example given, but a little in areas where the bonus makes a consistent difference (like damage) and a lot in other versions of D&D. (But I haven't made those arguments very strongly.)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800882I guess I'm just different then, because I find it odd that a player would sit and figure out all the bonuses another player has when that other player is making an attack roll or check or saving throw.

Agreed given I'm too busy trying to figure out my own bonuses in any situation. And then redoing the whole mess IF he misses and I actually have to come up with some type of seat of my pants tactic because it's ACTUALLY my turn and the group is counting on me to do something awesome and fun.

Yup none of this matters until it matters.

No one cares what stats other PCs have and yet if I sat down with a 1st level PC with:

20, 19, 18, 18, 18, 18

then you might care.
The point is that that line between caring and not caring might be different for different people but I think there is a line.

For me its when a PC gets consistently overshadowed in their "niche" by a PC who has made no effort to cover that niche but just by luck or game rules is uber at that thing (thus the origin of my concern round warlock vs archer damage). Or when a minor tweak moves a PC from having no skill in an area to being comparable to specialists. Feats can do this eg. A Paladin who has previously had no ranged attack to speak of picks up Magical Adept at 12th level and can suddenly cast at will Firebolts for +9 to hit 3d10+5 damage.

I don't think stats alone can do this but .... like I said most people would probably object to the stat line above so we all have limits.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800913Yup none of this matters until it matters.

No one cares what stats other PCs have and yet if I sat down with a 1st level PC with:

20, 19, 18, 18, 18, 18

then you might care.
The point is that that line between caring and not caring might be different for different people but I think there is a line.

For me its when a PC gets consistently overshadowed in their "niche" by a PC who has made no effort to cover that niche but just by luck or game rules is uber at that thing (thus the origin of my concern round warlock vs archer damage). Or when a minor tweak moves a PC from having no skill in an area to being comparable to specialists. Feats can do this eg. A Paladin who has previously had no ranged attack to speak of picks up Magical Adept at 12th level and can suddenly cast at will Firebolts for +9 to hit 3d10+5 damage.

I don't think stats alone can do this but .... like I said most people would probably object to the stat line above so we all have limits.

Why would a Paladin waste a feat on an ability/spell she doesn't need given she can attack TWICE with a bow or any other ranged weapon at full profiencency or use various Smites combined on a hit if in melee? If she had a use for a couple of cantrips it'd make more sense to go for a couple of utility types over a combat type that will never see any use.

The only options to combine combat spells beyond Smites are the EK or VB and even they do it at disadvantage if it's a ranged spell attack just like anybody. Hence the reason they use cantrips like Chill Touch or Shocking Grasp. No other class or subclass can even use any spell in conjunction with a weapon attack beyond Smites which are adders not seperate attacks or spell attacks.

This isn't 3e a Paladin has 5 chances over 19 levels to pick a feat or up her stats, not both but EITHER one or the other.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800913Yup none of this matters until it matters.

No one cares what stats other PCs have and yet if I sat down with a 1st level PC with:

20, 19, 18, 18, 18, 18

then you might care.
The point is that that line between caring and not caring might be different for different people but I think there is a line.

So I guess the answer to my question, "Why would anyone feel cheated or gimped by random rolled stats?" is

"Here's a bunch of reasons that won't ever actually statistically happen in game, or here's a reason that doesn't have anything to do with stat generation."


:rolleyes:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800915So I guess the answer to my question, "Why would anyone feel cheated or gimped by random rolled stats?" is

"Here's a bunch of reasons that won't ever actually statistically happen in game, or here's a reason that doesn't have anything to do with stat generation."


:rolleyes:

No the answer is there is a continum and the continum goes from most people don't care about randomly rolled stats at all to some people want all stats to come from an array so its "fair".

Now that continum is different for different people and spreads out beyond the actual stats to what they do in game to how the PC "performs" in game.

Stats only affect us when they are used to do something in game.
So if the Cleric can track better than the bounty hunter because the Cleric has 20 Wisdom so their +5 to tracking outweighs the Bounty Hunter's +2 WIS +2 proficiency then the Bounty Hunter PC might be a little irked... Some players will some won't.  Some will tell the Bounty Hunter they should have chosen a better class to make a bounty hunter... whatever

We all have a different take on what we percieve to be "fair".

From my persepctive as a player I don't give a toss what is on your sheet. From my perspective as a DM I need to make sure that my game is as much fun as it can be for all my players so I need to be much more aware of where they all sit on that continum.

So now your issue is that some WIS maxed player (impossible unless using random roll) is slightly better then a wizard or fighter? Given a Bard or Rogue, you know, those dumb skill based classes? Totally invalidate your stupid premise at the start. Given no Cleric has profiencency in tracking without a feat or that even without upping WIS at all said Bounty Hunter outdoes them by level 9 (obviously much sooner given Druids and Rangers usually have 16-18 in WIS as soon as possible). Or maybe take a background that works for Bounty Hunter like a player of the type you're positing (that's part of your job as DM by the way, giving helpful advice during character generation).

Quote from: Marleycat;800919So now your issue is that some WIS maxed player (impossible unless using random roll) is slightly better then a wizard or fighter? Given a Bard or Rogue, you know, those dumb skill based classes? Totally invalidate your stupid premise at the start. Given no Cleric has profiencency in tracking without a feat or that even without upping WIS at all said Bounty Hunter outdoes them by level 9 (obviously much sooner given Druids and Rangers usually have 16-18 in WIS as soon as possible). Or maybe take a background that works for Bounty Hunter like a player of the type you're positing (that's part of your job as DM by the way, giving helpful advice during character generation).

I am begining to tire of your lack of basic comprehension.

Read the post. The post is about Random rolled stats so your reference to "impossible unless using random roll" is entirely irrelevant and you always focus on the detail of an example when its just an example. I don't give a shit if the guy could get a much better bonus from this combination of x, y and z.
The discussion is around fairness and the perception of fairness. Some people have a very wide boundary of what is fair and for some people its very narrow.
If you entirely don't care about fairness then you would be entirely happy to roll 3d6 straight for your PC and for me to have all 18s. Most people care about fairness more than that. But for some people the fact that you have an additional +1 bonus over them is unfair. It's a continum. There is no right or wrong. You can't say a total of +3 more bonuses is fair but +4 is unfair. We all have a different tipping point.
A good DM is aware of that and tries to pitch his game so that all the players are happy.

That is all I am saying.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800920I am being to tire of your lack of basic comprehension.

(...)

That is all I am saying.

Good luck. I didn't think I was talking rocket surgery, but some people are either really really thick or fucking with us.

Quote from: Will;800921Good luck. I didn't think I was talking rocket surgery, but some people are either really really thick or fucking with us.

Or they think that there is an objectively wrong way or right way for everyone to play elf games. Which is pretty crazy.

Quote from: Bren;800924Or they think that there is an objectively wrong way or right way for everyone to play elf games. Which is pretty crazy.

It'd be one thing if they actually just disagreed. Like:
'Savory stuff can't be dessert!'
"What about salted caramel?"

Now, you could have someone say 'just because you put salt on it doesn't make it SAVORY, it's still fundamentally a sweet thing.' Or you could argue about flavorings.

But going 'you're bringing up binary combinations! That's just distracting with the craziness!' or 'yes, but caramel isn't food' or whatever... wuuut?


I would disagree with 'only chocolate things count as desserts,' but at least it'd be stating an argument.

(I'm now waiting for 'but games aren't food' or other nigh-Aspie responses)