>>96802435
>Mainly in that it communicates to your players what their characters are seeing and what the enemies are capable of
Yes of course. But I just don't think it has to be a specific match, especially given that monsters might have modifiers that change up things. IMO, 1d4+1 and 1d6 are interchangeable if for the sake of simplicity

Also, the game don't really account for trashy weapons (afaik). That is - maybe a goblin using a *proper* scimiter would do 1d6 damage, but that's different than using an old, poorly fabricated rusty one

My point being is that I grew up not expecting exact numbers from mobs that the DM threw at us - sure, it should match to some degree so that you can act accordingly, but it didn't have to be precise down to the minimum details

>>96802479
>though arguably 2014 will be simpler on the player side
Probably keeping it as 2014 then, especially because I might be more familiar with it as well

>trying to walk new players through character creation often just ends up overwhelming them
Yeah, it's rubbish. I've been down that road (it was even worse on previous editions). Also, one thing I hate about dnd is how you can't really choose your stats - you must assign it based on class, otherwise your character will be rubbish. There is little option for real choices there, and it's the perfect way for new players to mess up their characters

Don't get me wrong, I get the appeal to make characters once you understand more about the game and/or is deep into RP. But for starting players, I don't think that is where the focus should be

>understandable if you don't want to force the issue
Yeah... I asked the senior player his opinion (kinda to see if he would be ok with it), but I don't think that's the way we are doing it. What I might offer players instead is the option of choosing Race+Class+Background and let me do the rest. I think that might be a sweet spot