Good classes for bad rollers

[G.Cube]

Let's say against all probability you know a player that misses DCs for everything (Enemy ACs, spell effects, skill checks, everything) much more consistently then they make them.

Are there any good classes that this player could take to still contribute to the party and have fun?

First thing that comes to mind is Dragonfire Inspiration Bard, or just about any buffing class. Anything else?

[kardar233]

I would suggest Dragonfire Adept.

[Grod_The_Giant]

A primary caster who doesn't use (ranged) touch attacks.

[Coidzor]

I would suggest Dragonfire Adept.

That's the one that took the cake the last time there was a thread asking which was the least unplayable class for a creature with all 10s or all 1s in ability scores, IIRC.

[mistformsquirrl]

A primary caster who doesn't use (ranged) touch attacks.

This, yeah. It's part of why I myself have been playing casters much more frequently of late. My rolling is *terrible*, whether it be at the table or on the forums.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

At level 11 or 12, a crusader can nab a stance where he may take 11 on any d20 roll instead or rolling for it.

[eggynack]

A primary caster who doesn't use (ranged) touch attacks.
Very much this. You always roll badly? Toss a buff on someone and have them roll for you. Casters can assign lower stakes to their rolls, by being out of harms way when they make them, they can make a low roll work fine, by targeting the opponent's weaknesses, or they can do things that don't require rolls at all, like wall of stone. Casters are obviously better if you are lucky, but they can deal with it if you're not.

[Emperor Tippy]

Actually a Decisive Strike Marital Monk. Take Weapon Supremacy at first level and always use it to take 10 on attack rolls. After that start stacking all of the static attack and damage boosters that you can.

If you have at least one good attribute roll to place then you can make a fairly nasty combatant that never actually has to roll attack rolls. Two would, however, be better.

[purpenflurb]

Fairly predictably, but I do feel the need to point out, if there is no in-game reason why low rolls are being forced, this person should not feel the need to be limited in their character concept. Get some different dice, use an online program (or a different online program), but there should be no such thing as a player who just inherently does badly on die rolls. If "luck" were an actual quality of the world there is a bunch of science that you are probably relying on in your daily life that probably shouldn't work.

I know it sounds pedantic, but I mention this mostly because it would be a shame to see a player feel limited in their character concept by an illusion that they have "bad luck".

[Lorick]

Purpenflurb, I hear you, and the rational part of my mind wants to believe you. I want to believe there is order and structure to the universe.

However, I did once play a game of Risk with someone who literally rolled 3 1s 3 times in a row (about a 1 in 10 million chance, I think). His rolls were all remarkably terrible, the law of averages never jumped in, and he was out of the game almost immediately. After seeing it, gremlins seem reasonable.

[hymer]

3 1s 3 times in a row (about a 1 in 10 million chance, I think)

Closer to two in a million.

Edit: I seem to have misplaced the dot by a decimal. It's more like 21 in a million. 1/6=0.16666... 0.16666.../36 is about 0.004629696, which multiplied by itself is about 0.000021433. Multiply by a million, and you get 21.433, so a little over 21 in a million.

2nd edit: One in ten million ain't far from true. See Taklinn's post below. I seem to have calculated 2 times 3d6 ending up as all 1s, I don't know why.

[Lorick]

Ah, my bad. Someone did the calculations at the table, and that number stuck in my head.

[purpenflurb]

Purpenflurb, I hear you, and the rational part of my mind wants to believe you. I want to believe there is order and structure to the universe.

However, I did once play a game of Risk with someone who literally rolled 3 1s 3 times in a row (about a 1 in 10 million chance, I think). His rolls were all remarkably terrible, the law of averages never jumped in, and he was out of the game almost immediately. After seeing it, gremlins seem reasonable.

Well, variation IS normal. My entire last game session, across several combats and at least around 20 rolls, I never rolled higher than a 6. Which is an absurdly low chance. Before that, my rolls were just fine on average. Some sessions much better than average. The fact is any set of rolls, whether it be 3 1s or a 4, a 6, and a 2, is equally likely. And the law of averages doesn't say that when you get bad rolls they should get better. It really just says that over larger sets of numbers the values tend to be closer to the average.

Depending on what is going on it is possible (Though highly unlikely) that some part of what this player is doing is giving weird numbers. But if you really want to know, have him roll his dice several hundred times, have him roll a different set of dice several hundred times. Make sure to record the numbers. I had a friend claim his die was giving bad numbers, had him do this, did a statistical analysis, and it was almost perfectly average. He just remembered the bad rolls more than the good ones.

tl;dr: By the laws of probability horrible luck absolutely can happen. It just isn't likely to persist as a pattern across long periods of time.

[Kid Jake]

Purpenflurb, I hear you, and the rational part of my mind wants to believe you. I want to believe there is order and structure to the universe.

However, I did once play a game of Risk with someone who literally rolled 3 1s 3 times in a row (about a 1 in 10 million chance, I think). His rolls were all remarkably terrible, the law of averages never jumped in, and he was out of the game almost immediately. After seeing it, gremlins seem reasonable.

Sounds like somebody I know; I can count the number of times I've seen the guy roll higher than an eight on one hand. He switched from a physical die to an online roller and I think it actually managed to get worse. It's actually became enough of a running joke that if somebody else is rolling well and irritating him, he'll reach out and touch their dice to suck out the luck.

[Gemini476]

Ah, my bad. Someone did the calculations at the table, and that number stuck in my head.

Do note that if that really is a one-in-two-million chance, it is likely to have been rolled at least once during the history of Risk. How many copies has Risk sold under its 40-year lifespan, d'you think? How many times has a player rolled three dice three times in a row?
Basically, it's more likely than you think. We have seven million million people on Earth, after all.

[Zweisteine]

Warlock and Dragonfire Adept are the go-to classes for bad rollers, and the classes themselves aren't actually horrible.

[Taklinn]

Closer to two in a million.

Edit: I seem to have misplaced the dot by a decimal. It's more like 21 in a million. 1/6=0.16666... 0.16666.../36 is about 0.004629696, which multiplied by itself is about 0.000021433. Multiply by a million, and you get 21.433, so a little over 21 in a million.

6^9 = 10,077,696

Am I missing something?

[Red Fel]

Incarnate can actually be pretty useful. You can pick primarily utility soulmelds, as opposed to combat soulmelds, which will let you be more tactical and less dice-rolly. Fly, become incorporeal, be immune to stuff, fun times.

Consider also a Marshal dip. As several have suggested, buffing others is a safe way to remain useful without needing to roll, and Marshal auras (or any other aura-producing class, for that matter) can be very helpful to the party, even when the character producing them isn't.

[HunterOfJello]

Cleric. Focus on buffs, divinations, healing, and spells that force enemies to make saves, but let you avoid rolling anything ever.

[TuggyNE]

Besides the ideas so far, some of the material in the UPS Man might be usable.


Do note that if that really is a one-in-two-million chance, it is likely to have been rolled at least once during the history of Risk. How many copies has Risk sold under its 40-year lifespan, d'you think? How many times has a player rolled three dice three times in a row?
Basically, it's more likely than you think.

Rolling super-low? Around my table? It's more likely than you think. :smallamused:


We have seven million million people on Earth, after all.

Seven thousand million (7.023×109 as of 2012). Different definition of billion.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Fairly predictably, but I do feel the need to point out, if there is no in-game reason why low rolls are being forced, this person should not feel the need to be limited in their character concept. Get some different dice, use an online program (or a different online program), but there should be no such thing as a player who just inherently does badly on die rolls. If "luck" were an actual quality of the world there is a bunch of science that you are probably relying on in your daily life that probably shouldn't work.

I know it sounds pedantic, but I mention this mostly because it would be a shame to see a player feel limited in their character concept by an illusion that they have "bad luck".

Well...

No, "Bad Luck" isn't a think, but "Sensitivity to bad luck" can be. Some players (me) find it more frustrating than others when they lose actions to the vagaries of chance - a class that functions almost entirely independent of luck kind of appeals to me.

...Though significantly less so since I played a 1st-level swordsage that use Wolf Fang Strike on his first round of combat and got two criticals. That was a good moment.

[hymer]

6^9 = 10,077,696

Am I missing something?

Possibly, but I certainly was. After a night's sleep, I can spot another mistake I made: I wrote '3 times in a row', but I calculated only two times in a row, looking at my calculations. I don't see why you're multiplying, though, but then, I'm no mathematician. I'd divide by 6 nine times (starting from 1), since there are nine dice, each having a one in six chance of showing one. Then to find out how many times in ten million that'd occur, I'd multiply by ten million (getting a result that looks a lot like what you're aiming at - though I suppose multiplying is looking at how many results out of which 1 will be nine 1s, since 6^9 multiplied by 1 divided by 6 nine times equals 1).

[Rubik]

Actually a Decisive Strike Marital Monk.I know they pack quite the punch in the bedroom.