PDA

View Full Version : The few, the proud... the average



elliott20
2007-02-06, 05:12 PM
A long time ago, I was starting a new campaign with a couple friends and I rolled up a character for myself with the follow numbers: 10, 12, 13, 12, 10, 10.

I'm so not making this up.

What followed proceeded to be the hardest character for me to play. ever.

I ended up making her a paladin since I figured her warhorse would help out quite a bit. (in hindsight, I should have made a rogue)

she had a str of 12, cha of 13, wis of 12, and everything else was a 10.

this was done without much foresight on my part, as I realized that she was not capable of over half the feats in the book. Power attack? str's too low. Dodge? dex's too low. Combat expertise? sorry, int too low.

it wasn't even like she was actually handicapped enough to give me some kind of roleplaying hook either. A low con? sickly. A low int? slow. A low wis? has no common sense. But she doesn't have that either. Quite frankly, she was just not cut out to be an advanturer.

but I persevered with her... for about 4 levels. I grit my teeth and played her to be extra courageous and extra daring and extra resourceful to make her mundaneness seem irrelevant. but in the end, it just wasn't enough. She finally bit the bullet at level 4, and was given a viking funeral.

Still, what a challenge that was.

How would you have dealt with such a character?

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-06, 05:23 PM
How would you have dealt with such a character?
Well, the PHB says you should reroll stats if the highest score is 13 or lower...

:smallsigh:

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-06, 05:25 PM
I would have played a Wild Shape ranger going into Master of Many Forms and made my stats irrelevant.

Rei_Jin
2007-02-06, 05:25 PM
Well, I would have gone for a Half Orc Barbarian/Fighter.

Arrange your stats as follows...

STR 15
DEX 12
CON 12
INT 8
WIS 10
CHA 8

I'd then pick up extra rage as my level 1 feat allowing you to rage 3/day. From there you take levels in Fighter. When raging your stats are much better in regards to a combat freak, and although you won't break any damage records in regards to Barbarians you've got a good start.

Then you go into combat tricks to help yourself out. You will NEED Weapon Focus, Specialisation, and all those ones.

Get some Full plate. Sure, your speed will drop (until you can afford Mithril Fullplate) but you'll have a decent AC and make the most of your low dex.

After that? Go nuts and play up the weak-but-angry half orc angle.

ExHunterEmerald
2007-02-06, 05:26 PM
I probably would have asked for a reroll. I'm weak!

The first character I ever rolled up ended up with something like a -2 total mod for scores. I rerolled, and I got 18 17 15 14 14 13.

Jimp
2007-02-06, 05:26 PM
I'd Kamikaze.
I admire your tolerance for actually playing the character. I once rolled a character with similar stats and begged the dm to change one of them to a 6 and another to a 16 so I'd have some kind of rp hook.

daggaz
2007-02-06, 05:28 PM
I think its cool you played her. Just too bad you took a MAD class (what were you thinking??!--oh yeah, the horse). Just started a campaign where the DM made us roll, saying 'real men aren't afraid of luck.' He then allowed the first guy to roll three times because he hit 'boring stats' like those. The next guy got to reroll three times, despite having a few sixteens in one (he had two dumps as well). I rolled once and had to keep my roll. (heh but I got 16 16 15 14 10 7, still the best roll of the group so far).

Orzel
2007-02-06, 05:38 PM
I rolled a Str 8 Dex 12 Con 10 Int 12 Wis 11 Cha 11 hobgoblin rogue before racials once. I named him Medi Oka.

I got the DM to axe the LA.
Poor sap died after a failed will save at lvl 3.

I admire you for getting to lvl 4 without suiciding your PC into a dragon.

Woot Spitum
2007-02-06, 05:49 PM
Once, on a roll 7 times, drop lowest, I got 8,9,9,10,10,12,14. My DM took one look at my sheet and put a 1 in front of my 8. Of, course, this was going to be a one-session hack-and-slash with 2 PC's and one DM-controlled NPC, so growing into the character and making his faults endearing over time wasn't a very realistic goal.

elliott20
2007-02-06, 05:57 PM
Well, as you would have it, my teammates were invaluable in saving me time and time again. But let me tell you, it wasn't easy.

I basically had to batman that one, where I used every tool to my advantage and I used my only advantage - my hit points - to the greatest extent.

If something could be used to give me a circumstantial bonus, I took it. A table to hide behind for cover? can't be cautious enough. A little bit of fire to distract the enemy to close in? why not.

and we have a rogue among us, so flank flank flank.

You really would be surprised what even an extra body can do, when given enough tools to work with.

so. it was a fun character, but I don't think I'd ever play a character like that again.

Black Hand
2007-02-06, 05:57 PM
In the past I have used and have DM'ed players that have had otherwise average stats (9-13). And that was in 2E where even a 12 or 13 would give you squat.

Ironically those characters were always the most fun to play, because of the challenge they provided and the players that managed to keep that character alive to lvl's 7 or 9 were more proud of those characters than their others which had more..."acceptable" stats.

I found that it made you rely more on how you play your character, and forced you to think on your feet or outside of the box, since you couldn't just walk in and start fighting.

My character died around 4th level, but it was fun man.

Tengu
2007-02-06, 05:58 PM
That's why point buy is superior.

I vaguely remember playing a character who had sucky stats in Dragon Fist (a free DND-based game, which was released before 3.0 was created - many of the future elements of the new DND mechanics came out from that game, and many of the Oriental Adventures flavour did), long ago. He was a wizard with the highest roll of 15 (which I put into intelligence) and the rest in the range of 9-11. He only lasted one session, though without dying and the quest we had actually ended in a success - the game was just rather uninteresting to play.

Matthew
2007-02-06, 06:25 PM
Human Fighter

Strength 13
Dexterity 12
Constitution 12
Intelligence 10
Wisdom 10
Charisma 10

Fortitude 3
Reflex 1
Willpower 0

Skills: Jump 4(5), Climb 4(5), Swim 4(5),
Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword), Power Attack, Cleave,
Equipment: Scale Armour, Long Sword, Heavy Shield, Dagger, Long Spear,

A perfectly viable Human Fighter, I would have said. Of course, as Fax indicates, according to the PHB you should have got a reroll.

Tengu
2007-02-06, 07:30 PM
Not much worse than Redgar (Rethgar?).

Matthew
2007-02-06, 07:31 PM
Regdar, apparently. I noticed only recently, having always thought it was Redgar.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/minigen/cards/De/12R.jpg


http://www.wizards.com/dnd/minigen/cards/GoL/12R.jpg

Noticably, he doesn't have the right number of Feats...

sktarq
2007-02-06, 07:43 PM
I've played a couple of characters like that. (I was forced too twice. Once after the previous champain involved a 18 15 17 16 18 17 (before stat level growth) mauled everything and they wanted to get me back to "average" The other was after the D'n'D "other brain cell" incident)

I generally have lots of fun with them and they can be totally serviceable...and particularly in interaction heavy games where fewer dice are rolled.

BUT WHY DID YOU PICK A PALADIN?!?!?!

If you remember back in 2e paladins had stat reqs serious ones....while the reqs were dropped they were still favoring those kind of scores in how feats and abilities were laid out.

A fighter or Rogue would have worked....In their descriptions they are both refered to as your average man classes. For me it is not because they are less capable but because they are the best places for a reletivly average character to level up while taking the fewest penalties for their mediocracy.

Scalenex
2007-02-06, 08:04 PM
Multi-class all the way! With a 12 Wisdom and Intelligence you get can get a bonus divine and arcane spell! Start Rogue for the mad skill dice and then branch out from there.

Thomas
2007-02-07, 08:34 AM
A long time ago, I was starting a new campaign with a couple friends and I rolled up a character for myself with the follow numbers: 10, 12, 13, 12, 10, 10.

I'm so not making this up.

What followed proceeded to be the hardest character for me to play. ever.

I ended up making her a paladin since I figured her warhorse would help out quite a bit. (in hindsight, I should have made a rogue)

she had a str of 12, cha of 13, wis of 12, and everything else was a 10.


You're kidding.

My favorite D&D 3rd edition PC (I've only gotten to play a total of 3 games as a player since 3.0 was released) was a paladin, Priam, with a stat array of 11, 13, 11, 11, 16, 13.

It immediately made me think of my old D&D (red box) character, who had stats something like 16, 14, 12, 11, 10, 9.

Priam made it to 9th level mostly through sheer bloodymindedness (he was raised 2-3 times, I think), and died riding a pegasus, flying loops around an old red dragon to buy the rest of the party time to warn the nearby village and have them evacuated...

I got Power Attack at 9th level, having put two raises into my Strength...


So, uh, I guess I would've done the exact same you did.

Leush
2007-02-07, 09:06 AM
Not being sarcastic, but those stats just scream bard to me. Bards will never need any skill over sixteen. Their primary ability does not depend on stat bonus but rather on level, and by selecting buff/heal spells which make the saving throw irrelevant. In fact, you can play just about any support/long range character with those stats and it's perfectly serviceable. Although, yeah, I'd avoid monks or paladins unless you get at least a couple of high rolls.

I once had a character exactly like that, except there was also a seven and an eight thrown in instead of two of the tens, and it worked fine all the way till the campaign reached its natural conclusion.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-07, 12:28 PM
I once had a character exactly like that, except there was also a seven and an eight thrown in instead of two of the tens, and it worked fine all the way till the campaign reached its natural conclusion.
Ooh. Nothing above a 13 and a net modifier total of 0!

You got guts.

Diggorian
2007-02-07, 01:04 PM
My groups either do point buy or roll stats that must meet a certain point buy standard.

If it was a low powered 15 pts game, the paladin would be ahead of the game (19 pts). If not, you should re-roll.

But, since ya had fun with her that's what's most important thing.

Roderick_BR
2007-02-07, 01:37 PM
I think that's cool. Nothing like playing a susceful average character to shut up that annoying player that says "I won't play if he doesn't get at least a 17" (one of my players actually said that once).
I think I had a char like that too (my other friend called him NormalMan). I think I did a fighter. Playing as a paladin would be too hard, indeed. You really got guts.
And nothing wrong in playing a "Batman" character. I once played a paladin with good strenght and charisma scores, and in one of my first fights, I set fire to a wagon full of hay and had two solders help me push it over a group of enemies, instead of charging into them with Smite Evils.

Dairun Cates
2007-02-07, 02:01 PM
Oddly enough, I ended up in a similar scenario once. The GM had us roll our stats for each stat. Basically, we rolled each stat in a row and took whatever class would fit that. Well, here was my awesome roll.

Str-6
Con-12
Dex-10
Int-14
Wis-11
Cha-14

That's a little higher on two of them, but the average is about the same.

Star Wars d20. I ended up going diplomat, but I had the same problem, I couldn't really get half the feats in the book especially when my character became a force user. These really are some of the more fun characters to play. When you have less stats, you're forced to constantly think up weird and stupid strategies just to stay alive.

Despite having the single worst stats of anyone in that campaign, bar none, I managed to become really useful oddly enough. I basically used my resource and favor checks creatively and used my character's talent with words to give myself the upper hand. I may not be able to shoot worth a damn, but I can talk the enemy into coming with less bodyguards.

So, if I rolled those stats, I'd probably either go bard or rogue use the extra skill points to become a skilled social character, pull up the netbook of feats and find feats that are useful and weird that my GM is willing to allow. You'd be surprised what you can do with a character when you're not bound by the compulsion to take a feat chain.

Arceliar
2007-02-07, 02:03 PM
I once rolled 11 11 11 11 11 10...I of course rerolled on the grounds that such a character would be deathly boring to play.

One of these days I want to run an NPC-classed campaign and play a commoner.

elliott20
2007-02-07, 02:44 PM
Not being sarcastic, but those stats just scream bard to me. Bards will never need any skill over sixteen. Their primary ability does not depend on stat bonus but rather on level, and by selecting buff/heal spells which make the saving throw irrelevant. In fact, you can play just about any support/long range character with those stats and it's perfectly serviceable. Although, yeah, I'd avoid monks or paladins unless you get at least a couple of high rolls.

I once had a character exactly like that, except there was also a seven and an eight thrown in instead of two of the tens, and it worked fine all the way till the campaign reached its natural conclusion.
damn, that's brass you got there dude.

JaronK
2007-02-07, 05:41 PM
I think if I was forced to play a character with stats like that, I'd do a supermount thing and let him play cheerleader... I don't like it when my character can't do anything impressive. Something like:

Halfling Ranger 1/Paladin 6/Beastlord 1/Halfling Outrider 10/Wild Plains Outrider 2

Then I'd have my little average character riding around on his 20+HD Riding Dog. It would rock.

JaronK

Red Sky Knight
2007-02-07, 06:14 PM
OK, just out of curiosity, for those who would have re-rolled their abilities; What are the lowest statistics you would accept for your character?

Fax Celestis
2007-02-07, 06:17 PM
All eights.

Matthew
2007-02-07, 06:38 PM
OK, just out of curiosity, for those who would have re-rolled their abilities; What are the lowest statistics you would accept for your character?

Depends entirely on the campaign. If it's default D&D, then just by the book.

JadedDM
2007-02-07, 08:37 PM
Haha. I like how surprised everyone is. In my game, we use 3d6 to roll dice, so my players get characters like that all of the time. Sometimes worse. It's old hat now.

Now...someone getting really amazing rolls, like say multiple 18s...that's something to be surprised about.

I think one of the worst ones was a character my girlfriend once rolled: 10, 14, 5, 10, 10, 7. She was a human thief. She didn't last long, though. Not because of her stats. Because she was PK'd by her teammates. It was an evil campaign, you see.

RandomNPC
2007-02-07, 08:55 PM
Regdar, apparently. I noticed only recently, having always thought it was Redgar.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/minigen/cards/De/12R.jpg


http://www.wizards.com/dnd/minigen/cards/GoL/12R.jpg

Noticably, he doesn't have the right number of Feats...

anything with fighter levels on those mini stat cards is bound to skip a few feats. just about every miniature over fighter 3 is missing some feats.

MeklorIlavator
2007-02-07, 08:57 PM
Well, I didn't play these stats but it went like this in order(thoughts in parenthesis)
14(Nice)
10(not bad)
6(Uh-Oh)
4(cr@p)
7(man...)
11(Can I reroll?)

The Dm let me reroll, and I got 9, 16, 18, 13, 14, 15. Every one else saw the rolls and so every character in the party except 1 is based on my rolls. Now I have the array named after me, and it just might become a standard for scores.

JaronK
2007-02-07, 09:29 PM
OK, just out of curiosity, for those who would have re-rolled their abilities; What are the lowest statistics you would accept for your character?

I like casters, so I'd want at least one stat high enough to actually cast with past level 6 or so.

JaronK

Red Sky Knight
2007-02-07, 10:40 PM
I rolled 15, 14, 14, 13, 11, 9 and got very very tempted to reroll for my planned fighter/rogue concept. I just can't help but calculate the things he could be better at. I've stuck with him, though, i mean he has better stats than the iconics, so thats gotta be ok. I'm learning, slowly and painfully, not to powergame :)

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-08, 01:45 AM
*Rolleyes*

And this is why through Middle School I always enforced Elite Array when DMing... it wasn't until I got back into 3.5 that I discovered the joys of Point-Buy. First 28, and then I realised 25 was the 'intended' amount for balance....

Quietus
2007-02-08, 03:04 AM
I've got one campaign going that a friend of mine rolled up a character for - He rolled all 10s. I still don't know how in the world he managed it, but he did it. He decided to go all the way with the "normal guy" syndrome, with the exception of choosing Fighter as his class isntead of an NPC class.

John Smithe has reached level 2, and is currently inside Fort Melbourne in a homebrew world called Ninemaps. Based on a pair of nat 20's on untrained hide and move silently checks during his adventures in level 1, he took his second level as Rogue.

Oh - his quest? To get enough money to buy a ring to marry the girl he's courting, and settle down.

JaronK
2007-02-08, 03:26 AM
I rolled 15, 14, 14, 13, 11, 9 and got very very tempted to reroll for my planned fighter/rogue concept. I just can't help but calculate the things he could be better at. I've stuck with him, though, i mean he has better stats than the iconics, so thats gotta be ok. I'm learning, slowly and painfully, not to powergame :)

Man, that's a better stat line than the vast majority of the characters I play.

Generally, I'm hoping for one high score (16+) and at least a few 12s. That's pretty much all I need to work with.

JaronK

Tormsskull
2007-02-08, 07:12 AM
I can play with pretty much any stat array. My philosophy is if you roll it, you own it. Assuming all players have the same rules as far as "acceptable" stats, then I wouldn't ever try to suicide a character off just because he has mediocre stats.

Arlanthe
2007-02-08, 08:51 AM
Yay for regular, average players who actually roleplay!

JaronK
2007-02-08, 09:07 AM
You really feel that roleplaying has anything to do with your dice rolls? The only reason I want a high stat is so I can feel like my character is competant at his specialty. I just happen to like roleplaying characters who are talented. Makes for more heroic actions and thus more heroic storys.

JaronK

Tengu
2007-02-08, 09:09 AM
JaronK beat me to it. Since when playing a weak character is roleplaying, and playing a strong character is not?

elliott20
2007-02-08, 09:38 AM
well, I personally think the story of an average joe doing something heroic is actually more heroic because he places himself at greater risk.

But that's just my own opinion on it. This, however, doesn't mean that roleplaying is exclusive to just characters with a million weaknesses.

Tormsskull
2007-02-08, 09:54 AM
You really feel that roleplaying has anything to do with your dice rolls? The only reason I want a high stat is so I can feel like my character is competant at his specialty. I just happen to like roleplaying characters who are talented. Makes for more heroic actions and thus more heroic storys.

JaronK

I see this expressed a lot, let me explain my side of it.

When 4 players sit down and agree to roll stats, and 1 of them rolls average stats (say nothing higher than a 14, +4 modifier overall) and then complains, it shows that they are a poor player IMO. They agreed to the rolling method knowing this could occur, and they they whine about the results afterwords.

How this affects roleplaying. When someone is 'forced' to keep a character they don't really want to play, they often "role-play" them very poorly. Either they take incredible risks because TPB doesn't really care if their character dies or not, or they are just unoriginal or whatever.

So when I see a person who rolls moderate stats and can role-play that character effectively, I think they are a better role-player than someone who suicides their character because they didn't have an awesome stat.

People give the argument that they want to be someone special in the game. But stats don't make you special, your actions and the results of those actions are what make a character special. If I wrote you a little story about a guy who saved an entire village by challengeing a goblin chief to single combat and won, would it make a difference what his stats were? Nope, but he would sure be special.

So IMO, a good role-player can play multiple roles. He can role-play a poor character, a rich character, a fighter, a wizard, an elf, a dwarf, etc, etc. Some players always make the same characters. You'll notice that no matter how many characters they have, they are basically the player molded into a character.

I had a player who loved D&D, had a great time playing, but he sucked at role-playing. Every single one of his characters had a brash, not-afraid of anything, I can kick your butt type of personality. If he had a character with less that a 16 on his stats and/or less than a total modifier of +7 he'd complain.

I had another player who refused to call any of the NPCs "lord" who were actually lords in the game. In real life that player believes that everyone is equal and doesn't like authority, etc. He's not a good role-player because he basically plays himself as a character.

A good role-player can craft an original role based on what he has to work with, and make a mostly unique personality.

Swordguy
2007-02-08, 10:02 AM
Yay for regular, average players who actually roleplay!

So, then, I get the RP award of the century for my elven rogue a few years back.

4d6, discard low, assign as desired (DM didn't accept mulligans - you roll it, you play it):

Str: 4
Dex: 10
Con:5
Int:5
Wis:3
Cha:7

Least enjoyable character I've EVER played. Not because of any RP deficiency, but because he couldn't do anything under 3.x rules.

jjpickar
2007-02-08, 10:05 AM
I don't know much about roll playing (i.e. I don't want to argue about it) but I have to say that those stories of players who stuck with average characters are rather inspiring. In fact, I think I'll try to stick with the next dice roll I come up with no matter how crappy it is.

Edit: Well maybe not that crappy. (heh)

Tormsskull
2007-02-08, 10:11 AM
So, then, I get the RP award of the century for my elven rogue a few years back.

4d6, discard low, assign as desired (DM didn't accept mulligans - you roll it, you play it):

Str: 4
Dex: 10
Con:5
Int:5
Wis:3
Cha:7

Least enjoyable character I've EVER played. Not because of any RP deficiency, but because he couldn't do anything under 3.x rules.

That's just poor DMing. There's a reason why the PHB has a minimum accepted stat level. Fluff-wise the above character would have probably died before he reached his teenage years.

hewhosaysfish
2007-02-08, 10:13 AM
When 4 players sit down and agree to roll stats, and 1 of them rolls average stats (say nothing higher than a 14, +4 modifier overall) and then complains, it shows that they are a poor player IMO. They agreed to the rolling method knowing this could occur, and they they whine about the results afterwords.


Agreed.
If people don't like random numbers (if they don't understand that that is what the dice are for then there's no help for them) then they should use arrays or point-buy.
Unless the GM insists everyone roll for stats (no character is an island) in which case they should whine before the dice are rolled, not after. If someone whines afterwards, everyone else just says to themselves "Oh, yeah. You wouldn't have complained if you got two 18s".



People give the argument that they want to be someone special in the game. But stats don't make you special, your actions and the results of those actions are what make a character special. If I wrote you a little story about a guy who saved an entire village by challengeing a goblin chief to single combat and won, would it make a difference what his stats were? Nope, but he would sure be special.

Agreed. That would be special.
But what about the story about the guy who stood and held his mates' bags while they (no character is an island) fought the goblin chief because they were so much better. Not so special.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-08, 10:25 AM
That's just poor DMing. There's a reason why the PHB has a minimum accepted stat level. Fluff-wise the above character would have probably died before he reached his teenage years.

Unfortunately, you can only die during character creation in Traveler. :P

Deepblue706
2007-02-08, 10:25 AM
No, no, this is all wrong.

People who play less-powerful characters aren't better roleplayers, just better people (Gfawhaw!).

You can roleplay any character well, however, the characters with all high stats are just plain BORING, in my opinion. I firmly believe that all heroes need at least one weak point, whether it be in the form of stats or something else, and making a character without one in mind is something I cannot rightly do.

Imagine the set: 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18. Hmm....not bad, eh?

You could roleplay quite a few different people with that, but I would say there are less combinations of what you could build. Each character's disposition could be interpretted differently, just depending on who actually has the set. However, as demonstrated by Star Trek (with the evil goatee universe), there is no "evil-twin-opposite" for things like...Logic. This is why Evil Spock ended up actually helping the good guys.

Therefore, I would say the closer your character is to omnipotence, his ever-growing personality approaches that of simply other omnipotent characters.

I currently play a character who has 10 WIS, but he's not quite average. His other mental stats are high (15 and 16), but he's a bit emotionally unhealthy. Now, the average person isn't unstable, but I treat the stats, in this case, to be a sort of "average" of all associated traits.

For instance, he's quite aware, insightful, rational...ect.
But, he's manic depressive, hateful, and an alcoholic.

If you use this method of determining what a character's stat is, I would say you are certainly left with more freedom for creativity.

If he had an 18 WIS, well...I'm sure it'd be widely interpretted that he is much more calm, disciplined and centered, as well as even more insightful. I couldn't dare say he had too many emotional problems, considering such a high score doesn't warrant much room for flaws.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-08, 10:28 AM
Therefore, I would say the closer your character is to omnipotence, his ever-growing personality approaches that of simply other omnipotent characters.

That's why all the gods are the same.

Deepblue706
2007-02-08, 10:31 AM
That's why all the gods are the same.

Well, if any of the gods were truly omnipotent, how is there any conflict between them?

Perhaps I could have worded it better, anyway. I'm just saying, it gets hard to make much variety at the top.

Khantalas
2007-02-08, 10:31 AM
Unfortunately, you can only die during character creation in Traveler. :P

Don't forget Vampire.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-08, 10:37 AM
Well, if any of the gods were truly omnipotent, how is there any conflict between them?

Perhaps I could have worded it better, anyway. I'm just saying, it gets hard to make much variety at the top.

No, look at, say, the Faerun pantheon. They're all FAR more powerful than PCs are likely to ever be, all-18s or not. And yet, they manage to all be very different.

In other words, I disagree. And because I speak flawless and unquestionable Truth, you're wrong.

hewhosaysfish
2007-02-08, 10:38 AM
No, no, this is all wrong.

People who play less-powerful characters aren't better roleplayers, just better people (Gfawhaw!).

You can roleplay any character well, however, the characters with all high stats are just plain BORING, in my opinion. I firmly believe that all heroes need at least one weak point, whether it be in the form of stats or something else, and making a character without one in mind is something I cannot rightly do.

Emphasis mine

That's not what's under discussion (partly because I don't think anyone would want to contradict what you said). We're talking about characters who are all "average" with no particular strengths.
Which sucks, because the "average" of 10 or 11 is actually below par for a PC.
And if when initiative is rolled one player just says "Ok, I'm going to read Complete Splatbook in the corner, tell me when all the monsters are dead" then that game is a failure.


Also...

Unfortunately, you can only die during character creation in Traveler. :P

*boggles at the concept*

Deepblue706
2007-02-08, 10:46 AM
No, look at, say, the Faerun pantheon. They're all FAR more powerful than PCs are likely to ever be, all-18s or not. And yet, they manage to all be very different.

In other words, I disagree. And because I speak flawless and unquestionable Truth, you're wrong.

Honestly, I know nothing about Faerun. I played Baldur's Gate 1 and 2...was that Faerun? I can't remember, so long ago.

I'd like to ask you, then, what makes them different, to you?

I'd say these dieties have reached far beyond human comprehension, but not quite a scale that reveals the best solution to...say, any problem to come their way...

Obviously, there is disagreement, and this could be roused by difference in knowledge skills (if they'd even still have them at this point?), alignment, intelligence, wisdom...

So, what I'm saying is that they are not what we define, currently on Earth, as gods. I don't really wanna make this a religious discussion and ruin the thread, but while I understand what you're saying, I don't think the definitions of omnipotence and omniscience in one world are lining up with the other.

Deepblue706
2007-02-08, 10:49 AM
Emphasis mine

That's not what's under discussion (partly because I don't think anyone would want to contradict what you said). We're talking about characters who are all "average" with no particular strengths.
Which sucks, because the "average" of 10 or 11 is actually below par for a PC.
And if when initiative is rolled one player just says "Ok, I'm going to read Complete Splatbook in the corner, tell me when all the monsters are dead" then that game is a failure.



I saw someone mention Those that play low stat characters = better roleplayers.

I was making the point that even when playing a character with all high stats, you could be a good roleplayer.

Then, I proceeded to say lower stats (which could be a Hero's take on "average") give more freedom for creativity.

Saph
2007-02-08, 10:55 AM
I had a player who loved D&D, had a great time playing, but he sucked at role-playing. Every single one of his characters had a brash, not-afraid of anything, I can kick your butt type of personality. If he had a character with less that a 16 on his stats and/or less than a total modifier of +7 he'd complain.

Yeah, this kind of thing really annoys me. Seeing players who roll 17, 15, 14, 12, 10, 9 and who then complain non-stop about how 'weak' their character is. And when you point out that their stats add up to 34 points by point buy, which is higher than the highest level point-buy that the rules recommend, they say, "But I want to be a hero and be special . . ."

Average commoners have a stat-block of 13 12 11 10 9 8. So anyone using Elite Array is special already. The D&D challenge rating system is balanced for PCs using Elite Array or the equivalent. A 32-point character is incredibly powerful, and the DM will have to scale up the monsters to match. But looking around the Internet, I regularly see character builds with half their stats at 16 or over and point scores in the 40-50 range. Funnily enough, these players are then the most likely to complain about how unbalanced their games are . . . wonder why?


- Saph

Closet_Skeleton
2007-02-08, 11:13 AM
A good thing about Point buy is that your stats reflect your character. In my d20 modern game it was really dumb at the begining when the Fast Hero sniper had the lowest dexterity score and his highest stat was dexterity. It was just laughable that the melee specialist and the Tough hero was better at ranged combat than the sniper.

That character died and came back with as an NPC with Template that turned him into a superhuman undead monster. That was funny. He wasn't so puny then.

That player's next character had 1 18 + 2 17s... Damn dice.

Having lower stats doesn't make you a good role player. You just have to be a good role player to enjoy having low stats.

clericwithnogod
2007-02-08, 11:15 AM
I see this expressed a lot, let me explain my side of it.

When 4 players sit down and agree to roll stats, and 1 of them rolls average stats (say nothing higher than a 14, +4 modifier overall) and then complains, it shows that they are a poor player IMO. They agreed to the rolling method knowing this could occur, and they they whine about the results afterwords.

Funny, a DM that forces one player, because of bad luck in the six seconds it took to roll his stats, to be stuck playing a character that he dislikes and is inferior to the rest of the party for months that the DM is a poor DM IMO.



How this affects roleplaying. When someone is 'forced' to keep a character they don't really want to play, they often "role-play" them very poorly. Either they take incredible risks because TPB doesn't really care if their character dies or not, or they are just unoriginal or whatever.


Who cares whether your character lives or dies when its existence is causing you to spend turn after turn being failing consistently while everyone else is doing something that matters.



So when I see a person who rolls moderate stats and can role-play that character effectively, I think they are a better role-player than someone who suicides their character because they didn't have an awesome stat.


Someone's desire not to play a mechanically inferior character or desire to play a mechanically superior character is no indication of their ability to roleplay.



People give the argument that they want to be someone special in the game. But stats don't make you special, your actions and the results of those actions are what make a character special. If I wrote you a little story about a guy who saved an entire village by challengeing a goblin chief to single combat and won, would it make a difference what his stats were? Nope, but he would sure be special.


Stats determine the success or failure of your actions. So, over time, your stats make you more or less special. It's a game not a story. The DM just telling someone that they succeeded despite the mechanics is playing make-believe not playing a roleplaying game. Most likely, the guy who challenges the goblin chief has stats that make him good at combat. If he doesn't, he just got lucky or the goblin chief was a weak opponent and in a campaign the guy would spend the rest of the campaign failing repeatedly if not dying if the campaign was scaled to challenge characters that are more competent.



So IMO, a good role-player can play multiple roles. He can role-play a poor character, a rich character, a fighter, a wizard, an elf, a dwarf, etc, etc. Some players always make the same characters. You'll notice that no matter how many characters they have, they are basically the player molded into a character.

I had a player who loved D&D, had a great time playing, but he sucked at role-playing. Every single one of his characters had a brash, not-afraid of anything, I can kick your butt type of personality. If he had a character with less that a 16 on his stats and/or less than a total modifier of +7 he'd complain.

I had another player who refused to call any of the NPCs "lord" who were actually lords in the game. In real life that player believes that everyone is equal and doesn't like authority, etc. He's not a good role-player because he basically plays himself as a character.

A good role-player can craft an original role based on what he has to work with, and make a mostly unique personality.

The fact that a player's character exemplifies a player's beliefs or a certain heroic ideal has no bearing on whether or not that person is a good roleplayer. It's a roleplaying game, not theater camp. Crafting a unique personality that you dislike around a set of statistics that make you less able than the rest of the party isn't fun for a lot of people. They aren't bad roleplayers because of it. They're just playing a character that they enjoy.

Tengu
2007-02-08, 11:21 AM
The closest to DND 3.x from the things I played, NWN1 and 2, use respectively a 30 and 32 point buy system. I consider this, along with 28 points, good point buys for strong adventurers. 13 12 11 10 9 8 array is good for cannon fodder, elite array or 25 points for strong cannon fodder and weak adventurers (you actually will roll up better stats most of the time), and practically too weak for any class with strong MAD.

Quietus
2007-02-08, 11:26 AM
Yeah, this kind of thing really annoys me. Seeing players who roll 17, 15, 14, 12, 10, 9 and who then complain non-stop about how 'weak' their character is. And when you point out that their stats add up to 34 points by point buy, which is higher than the highest level point-buy that the rules recommend, they say, "But I want to be a hero and be special . . ."

Average commoners have a stat-block of 13 12 11 10 9 8. So anyone using Elite Array is special already. The D&D challenge rating system is balanced for PCs using Elite Array or the equivalent. A 32-point character is incredibly powerful, and the DM will have to scale up the monsters to match. But looking around the Internet, I regularly see character builds with half their stats at 16 or over and point scores in the 40-50 range. Funnily enough, these players are then the most likely to complain about how unbalanced their games are . . . wonder why?


- Saph


I know what you mean; Even the weakest character idea can be deadly when you have stacks of awesomeness under your belt. It doesn't matter what roleplay shtick you've given him, if you roll the die and add a high number, it's got a better chance of coming up good.

That said, I don't think that people who play an average/low character are better roleplayers by necessity. I do, however, think that it's those that are more willing to roleplay who will play with a stat array that would normally warrant a mulligan. I, for example, am willing to play with a horrible set - I almost always end up with a 4 or 6 for some reason, I still haven't figured that out. Does that make me a better roleplayer? No, but it makes me a more WILLING roleplayer. It's helped that recently I've changed my outlook from "look down the road 16 levels, will I be awesome then?", to "This is what my character is good at, how can I solve the problems in front of me right now?". I think the former is an outlook carried by a lot of people; That's what leads to people complaining that they don't have all 18's. I've had players recently complain about their 17/16/16/15/12/10 array, because they don't want to be "average" in any way. When I suggested shifting points 1:1 from their high scores to raise their low ones, they told me "No way! I don't even have an eighteen, and you want to take away the seventeen as well?"

That kind of outlook is sad... specially when one of the people they're travelling with is packing a 15/14/14/12/12/10.

Dairun Cates
2007-02-08, 11:44 AM
Funny, a DM that forces one player, because of bad luck in the six seconds it took to roll his stats, to be stuck playing a character that he dislikes and is inferior to the rest of the party for months that the DM is a poor DM IMO.


Honestly, the key here is that the players AGREED to roll for stats. The GM didn't force them. If a player gets bad rolls and agreed ahead of time to rolling instead of point buy, he's going to just have to take what he gets. I find the idea of wanting to play a game of chance and then complaining when you lose is silly. Also, if the GM honestly just wants to roll for the randomness, it's his perogative. High stats don't always equal good characters and bad stats don't always equal bad characters. The only thing the GM should feel free to do is help the people with lower stats get what they can out of the character.

But yeah, I've managed to make characters that work really well with sub-par stats. It's not that hard, and I don't see how it keeps a character from "contributing to the group". If you can't contribute significantly without high stats, then it's your play style keeping you from helping, not your numbers.

Edit: and like I said earlier, my Diplomat's best stat was a 14 in cha. He had an overall +3 modifier and really low point buy. He's actually one of my better and more powerful characters because of how I worked with him. Mind you, he was never PERFECT in combat, but he used the skills he did have creatively and without mercy. Also, oddly enough, he would've died a few times if his con had been 2 higher.

Fronko
2007-02-08, 12:00 PM
Also, oddly enough, he would've died a few times if his con had been 2 higher.

Ok. You got me. How that?

Tormsskull
2007-02-08, 12:36 PM
Funny, a DM that forces one player, because of bad luck in the six seconds it took to roll his stats, to be stuck playing a character that he dislikes and is inferior to the rest of the party for months that the DM is a poor DM IMO.


All I'm seeing here is that you're saying that a DM who requires that a player uses the stats he rolled when all players agreed to using the rolling method is a bad DM. I would say that that is an incredibly illogical outlook.



Who cares whether your character lives or dies when its existence is causing you to spend turn after turn being failing consistently while everyone else is doing something that matters.


Who said anything about failing consistently? I think you're under the assumption that 'average' = horrible. Or even that 'not at good as the next guy' = horrible. I used to have players like that in high school, I don't any more.



Someone's desire not to play a mechanically inferior character or desire to play a mechanically superior character is no indication of their ability to roleplay.


I would argue it is an indication of their ability to role-play. Role-playing used in this way is a general term used to describe a person's ability to act as a character other than themself. If they are only ever able to play 1 role, or if they aren't able to separate themselves IRL from their character in the game, they aren't going to be very good role-players.



Stats determine the success or failure of your actions. So, over time, your stats make you more or less special. It's a game not a story. The DM just telling someone that they succeeded despite the mechanics is playing make-believe not playing a roleplaying game. Most likely, the guy who challenges the goblin chief has stats that make him good at combat. If he doesn't, he just got lucky or the goblin chief was a weak opponent and in a campaign the guy would spend the rest of the campaign failing repeatedly if not dying if the campaign was scaled to challenge characters that are more competent.


Sure. That's why if your a person who can't handle non-optimized stats you can choose point-buy. Point-buy can be an excellent tool for this. In addition, getting 'lucky' to defeat an enemy is the stuff legends are made of. That guy in The Hobbit who fired a single arrow, piercing Smaug in his one vulnerable spot got lucky. It wasn't that he was a level 26 ranger/fighter/archer/superduper archer build with a 39 dexterity, a +5 bow of destruction, blah, blah, blah.

Average people can do great things. If one guy has all 14's and another guy has all 16's that doesn't make the guy with 14's useless or pointless or any such thing. A person with all 14's is incredibly special. A personal with all 16's is even more so. If as a player you don't like the possibility that one of the other players in the game might be better than you, use point-buy.



The fact that a player's character exemplifies a player's beliefs or a certain heroic ideal has no bearing on whether or not that person is a good roleplayer. It's a roleplaying game, not theater camp. Crafting a unique personality that you dislike around a set of statistics that make you less able than the rest of the party isn't fun for a lot of people. They aren't bad roleplayers because of it. They're just playing a character that they enjoy.

Playing a character that you enjoy is encouraged. But if you play the SAME character campaign after campaign after campaign, that is different. If as a character you enjoy being the strongest person around, or the leader of the group, or know-it-all-wizard, guess what? Sometimes you aren't going to be the strongest person around. Sometimes you don't get to lead the group. And sometimes there will be a wizard that knows more than you. If you aren't able to handle that I'd say a cooperative game like D&D isn't for you.

elliott20
2007-02-08, 12:42 PM
Umm... purposely playing a character that is basically crippled in every aspect is not my idea of what makes a good roleplayer. That's like saying an actor playing somebody mentally challenged is more deserving of an Oscar than somebody who just plays his character very well and compellingly.

Having said that, having one or two low stats can assist a player in crafting his character's flaws and personality. But it should not be a friggin' standard.

My complaint wasn't that I had low stats. It was that I had stats that were all very average, with nothing to bank on and use to faciliate the creation process. It didn't stop me from making the character fun and interesting, but it did make it somewhat difficult for me to actually figure out what to do with her mechanically so she can still be effective.

In the end, I did for a while and it was a lot of fun. But it's not exactly just roleplaying I'm talking about here, it's just strategy.

Roleplaying wise? 10s all across the board could still give you a multitude of personalities, since the interpretation of a statistic is never quite that static. And a good roleplayer can figure that out for themselves. However, if they have some diversity in their stats, this task is made significantly easier, that is all.

do not forget, the numbers alone do not define the character. If we follow that line of logic, it reasons that the numbers should not define the prowess of the roleplayer himself.

Matthew
2007-02-08, 01:20 PM
Yes indeed. Prior agreement is the key.


anything with fighter levels on those mini stat cards is bound to skip a few feats. just about every miniature over fighter 3 is missing some feats.

Interesting and unfortunate, as that means their roleplaying stats have to be vetted if you want to use them in a pen and paper game.

Tormsskull
2007-02-08, 01:36 PM
Umm... purposely playing a character that is basically crippled in every aspect is not my idea of what makes a good roleplayer. That's like saying an actor playing somebody mentally challenged is more deserving of an Oscar than somebody who just plays his character very well and compellingly.


I agree. Purposely playing a crippled character can have its purpose, but it by its self does not make you a better role-player.



Having said that, having one or two low stats can assist a player in crafting his character's flaws and personality. But it should not be a friggin' standard.


Agreed again. However I think that whatever generation method the group decides to use should be stuck with. If everyone agrees to rolling and 1 person rolls 'average' while the other players roll 'good' I don't think the person who rolled 'average' should throw a tantrum.



My complaint wasn't that I had low stats. It was that I had stats that were all very average, with nothing to bank on and use to faciliate the creation process. It didn't stop me from making the character fun and interesting, but it did make it somewhat difficult for me to actually figure out what to do with her mechanically so she can still be effective.


emphasis mine. I think that point was being missed. Average stats can be interesting. I agree it doesn't give you anything real specific to build off of. You could always do the normal person forced to adventuring by some outside force schtick.



Roleplaying wise? 10s all across the board could still give you a multitude of personalities, since the interpretation of a statistic is never quite that static. And a good roleplayer can figure that out for themselves. However, if they have some diversity in their stats, this task is made significantly easier, that is all.


Agreed again.



do not forget, the numbers alone do not define the character. If we follow that line of logic, it reasons that the numbers should not define the prowess of the roleplayer himself.

Agreed. A good role-player can make a unique and interesting character, and have fun with said character, regardless if they are 'average', 'good' or 'great' statistically.

Quietus
2007-02-08, 01:40 PM
I would argue it is an indication of their ability to role-play. Role-playing used in this way is a general term used to describe a person's ability to act as a character other than themself. If they are only ever able to play 1 role, or if they aren't able to separate themselves IRL from their character in the game, they aren't going to be very good role-players.

I would argue that it isn't an indication of their ABILITY to role-play, but rather, it's an indication of their WILLINGNESS to role-play. I know a great many people who have a hard time getting in character and staying there, but they do love trying. I also know people who don't ever bother trying, but on the rare occasion things synch up, they roleplay very well.

The people who fall into the first group tend to be more willing to accept average rolls than people who fall into the second, in my experience. I'm sure others have had different experiences, but that's just mine.

Swordguy
2007-02-08, 01:44 PM
The question then becomes:

Can mechanical difficulties with a character impede one's ability to enjoyably and effectively role-play said character?

elliott20
2007-02-08, 02:00 PM
oh it definitely can.

In my case, it gave me a fresh challenge. But if this were to become an regular event, where I struggle to make ends meet even just to grow as a character, I would no doubt be very frustrated.

Having said that, it take some pretty extreme cases to make a character mechanically impossible to play.

However, this also has to do with a player's options. Do not forget, aside from just not having as good of a save and skill mod, lesser attributes also means you have less options to develop your character effectively. (i.e. It would be pointless to play a paladin with a 7 charisma)

We then have to examine if such a player is comfortable with being pigeonholed into certain option. After all, even with all 10s, you can make a serviceable rogue. The only problem is, would the player in question WANT to play a rogue? What if he just doesn't like rogues? Well then, these stats will obviously pose as an issue for this player.

That is, mechanical difficulties can only pose as an issue when the player in question does not like the options that such difficulties imposes upon him.

In the case of absurdity where you stats so terrible where you have NO options? Well, if you like playing the mentally challenged gimp who can't do ANYTHING but be protected and saved at every turn, sure, it'll work, I guess.

Matthew
2007-02-08, 02:23 PM
Mechanics should reflect Character Concept. However, if you have chosen to randomly roll your Character's Ability Scores, what's the point in trying to fit them to a Character Concept that they don't support? Use Point Buy or simply assign your Ability Scores if you want to reflect an iron clad pre existing Character Concept.

Tormsskull
2007-02-08, 02:37 PM
Mechanics should reflect Character Concept. However, if you have chosen to randomly roll your Character's Ability Scores, what's the point in trying to fit them to a Character Concept that they don't support? Use Point Buy or simply assign your Ability Scores if you want to reflect an iron clad pre existing Character Concept.

Exactly. That's why IMO a character concept should not revolve around scores. If your character concept is "A fast, strong, healthy fighter who is very skillful, perceptive, and has a silver tongue" then you're going to be pretty disappointed when you roll 13, 13, 12, 12, 12, 6.

Saph
2007-02-08, 02:38 PM
In the case of absurdity where you stats so terrible where you have NO options? Well, if you like playing the mentally challenged gimp who can't do ANYTHING but be protected and saved at every turn, sure, it'll work, I guess.

You know that the D&D rules for rolling up characters have a "minimum acceptable" clause, right? If you've got a character with really really terrible scores, then the DM is houseruling.

In my experience, though, DMs who allow overpowered ability scores are WAY, WAY more common than ones who insist on underpowered ones. I don't even know any DMs who do 25 point buy, and that's supposed to be the baseline.

But playing a weaker-than-average character once in a while is a good idea. It teaches you a lot of things, and often does make for good characters, even if you wouldn't want to always do it.

- Saph

elliott20
2007-02-08, 02:41 PM
well, that's a difference in design philosophy. I mean, to me, I like rolling for stats because it helps me springboard my creativity and see what I can have. But if you're going to have a pre-existing concept based on competence and measurable values, then at some point, you're gonna realize that there are certain parts of the character concept is going to be reliant on numbers.

I don't see either design philosophy to be superior to another, as "play-by-numbers" simply means that you've considered the mechanical ramficiations of your decision.

elliott20
2007-02-08, 02:42 PM
You know that the D&D rules for rolling up characters have a "minimum acceptable" clause, right? If you've got a character with really really terrible scores, then the DM is houseruling.

In my experience, though, DMs who allow overpowered ability scores are WAY, WAY more common than ones who insist on underpowered ones. I don't even know any DMs who do 25 point buy, and that's supposed to be the baseline.

But playing a weaker-than-average character once in a while is a good idea. It teaches you a lot of things, and often does make for good characters, even if you wouldn't want to always do it.

- Saph
yeah, I was made aware of that rule earlier in the thread. I kind of kicked myself a little for it.

Matthew
2007-02-08, 02:48 PM
well, that's a difference in design philosophy. I mean, to me, I like rolling for stats because it helps me springboard my creativity and see what I can have. But if you're going to have a pre-existing concept based on competence and measurable values, then at some point, you're gonna realize that there are certain parts of the character concept is going to be reliant on numbers.

I don't see either design philosophy to be superior to another, as "play-by-numbers" simply means that you've considered the mechanical ramficiations of your decision.

Don't get me wrong. I prefer Rolling (with caveats) to Point Buy, in general. However, the point is that your Character Concept should fit the Ability Scores you roll.

elliott20
2007-02-08, 02:51 PM
Don't get me wrong. I prefer Rolling (with caveats) to Point Buy, in general. However, the point is that your Character Concept should fit the Ability Scores you roll.
that makes sense to me.

Leush
2007-02-08, 02:51 PM
Here's something I thought having read all this... A character with lower ability scores is actually easier to roleplay than a character with uber stats. Why? Becaus it is far more familiar to us, and we can more easily imagine ourselves in that situation. People who play high powered characters, despite being thought of as metapowergamers may actually be playing them correctly... Would a high stat character be afraid of dying since most things in life come easily to him? The high power player is doing what he would do if he had uber stats himself, and therefore probably being a good roleplayer without thinking about it. Please return me to reality and tell me I'm wrong.

Now I find a slightly lower stat character more interesting to play, but... Perhaps, perhaps because it is easier, and therefore would qualify as a roleplayer "who can't be bothered"....

Fax Celestis
2007-02-08, 02:52 PM
I prefer rolling 4d6 (drop low), eight scores. Select six. It gives you some versatility but still usually leaves you high scores, and you don't get cookie-cutter character scores the way you do with point-buy.

Saph
2007-02-08, 02:57 PM
Don't get me wrong. I prefer Rolling (with caveats) to Point Buy, in general. However, the point is that your Character Concept should fit the Ability Scores you roll.

Actually, my favourite character is one I came up with because I rolled up a pretty weak set of scores (15 13 12 10 10 7) and tried to turn that into a character I'd like playing. I ended up liking the character so much that I used her in four different games, altering the ability scores a little each time but keeping the core the same.

Whereas in my other games I've got two characters with unreasonably high stats whom I just can't care about that much . . .

- Saph

Tormsskull
2007-02-08, 03:17 PM
Here's something I thought having read all this... A character with lower ability scores is actually easier to roleplay than a character with uber stats. Why? Becaus it is far more familiar to us, and we can more easily imagine ourselves in that situation. People who play high powered characters, despite being thought of as metapowergamers may actually be playing them correctly... Would a high stat character be afraid of dying since most things in life come easily to him? The high power player is doing what he would do if he had uber stats himself, and therefore probably being a good roleplayer without thinking about it. Please return me to reality and tell me I'm wrong.


You're wrong (Hey, you asked me too!).

I don't think ability scores effect a character's personality to that degree. That's part of the character design. If I decide I'm going to play a smart-ass rogue, he can still be a smart-ass with 10 Int, 10 Wis or 16 Int, 16 Wis. The degree of insults he comes up with, the level of sarcasm he would apply could be affected, but its not like all smart people are one way, for example.

So while generally speaking a person with a 16 Str, 16 Dex, 16 Con may be more confident in their own abilites, may be more willing to take risks, etc, I don't think someone with those stats HAS to be overconfident. That's a decision the player makes about the kind of character that they want to play.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-02-08, 03:18 PM
I always DM. One time I wasn't DMing and made the most awesome character ever. I had a crossdressing (actually male) Katana wielding knife throwing fighter with Str and Dex 18 and Quickdraw (all his weapons where concealed in his dress). Then the DM gave up and I had to take over.

That was really annoying but playing and DMing is pure pain for me. I managed to use him as a NPC a few times afterwards.

Yakk
2007-02-08, 03:26 PM
So, then, I get the RP award of the century for my elven rogue a few years back.

4d6, discard low, assign as desired (DM didn't accept mulligans - you roll it, you play it):

Str: 4
Dex: 10
Con:5
Int:5
Wis:3
Cha:7

Least enjoyable character I've EVER played. Not because of any RP deficiency, but because he couldn't do anything under 3.x rules.

Human Rogue -- or maybe Halfling rogue. Maybe splash some ranger for the combat feats (so you can use two weapons without having high dex).

You only get 6 skill points/level, 5 if a halfling. That will have to do.

Your weapons: Any light weapon. Your penalty to damage is so much it doesn't matter what your base damage is.

Use crossbows for ranged combat -- strength penalties don't apply.

At L 4, you can start getting stuff like mobility, because your dex hits 13.

Boost your initiative, so you can get your crossbow shot off early.

At L 1 you have 3 HP. Each level, if you roll HP, you gain 1.5 HP on average.

There. You are a pretty gimp character, but you can do something.

MeklorIlavator
2007-02-08, 03:34 PM
The problem with my group is that everyone (possibly with me as an exception) is a powergamer, and though having characters with lower stats isn't too bad(in my opnion), having "normal" scores where every other player has scores that, when converted, is equivalent to 48 point buy(I actually DM a one shot adventure with a player, now that was a nightmare).

Tormsskull
2007-02-08, 03:55 PM
The problem with my group is that everyone (possibly with me as an exception) is a powergamer, and though having characters with lower stats isn't too bad(in my opnion), having "normal" scores where every other player has scores that, when converted, is equivalent to 48 point buy(I actually DM a one shot adventure with a player, now that was a nightmare).

Yeah, this is where the majority of problems come from. Player A thinks a character with a 40 point-buy equivalent is "normal" and Player B thinks that a character with a 40 point-buy equivalent is "overpowered".

I personally think 25 point-buy or 28 point-buy is perfectly fine for adventurers. Some people refuse to play with less than 32 point-buy. I think people who demand a certain point-buy or who refuse to play 'average' rolled scores are too caught up in the mechanics.

Matthew
2007-02-08, 04:07 PM
Indeed. It's up to the DM to set the standards.

Swordguy
2007-02-08, 04:20 PM
Human Rogue -- or maybe Halfling rogue. Maybe splash some ranger for the combat feats (so you can use two weapons without having high dex).

You only get 6 skill points/level, 5 if a halfling. That will have to do.

Your weapons: Any light weapon. Your penalty to damage is so much it doesn't matter what your base damage is.

Use crossbows for ranged combat -- strength penalties don't apply.

At L 4, you can start getting stuff like mobility, because your dex hits 13.

Boost your initiative, so you can get your crossbow shot off early.

At L 1 you have 3 HP. Each level, if you roll HP, you gain 1.5 HP on average.

There. You are a pretty gimp character, but you can do something.

Point: the Dex roll was an 8. Elf bonus to dex, remember?

No, anymore we just roll a single statline and ALL characters use it (though they may choose what goes where). Guarantees balance between PCs (at least as far as stats go).

Reminds me of my first AD&D character, who didn't qualify for ANY class (was forced to play as a commoner...).

JadedDM
2007-02-08, 09:16 PM
Honestly, I know nothing about Faerun. I played Baldur's Gate 1 and 2...was that Faerun? I can't remember, so long ago.

Yes, Baldur's Gate takes place on Faerun. So does Neverwinter Nights, Icewind Dale...actually, about 90% of all D&D video games take place there.


Funny, a DM that forces one player, because of bad luck in the six seconds it took to roll his stats, to be stuck playing a character that he dislikes and is inferior to the rest of the party for months that the DM is a poor DM IMO.

Bad luck is the key word here. Why play with dice? Because they offer a random element in the game--something beyond the control of the player and the DM. How many times would a good DM allow a player to reroll a bad attack roll? A bad saving throw? A bad skill check? Why should ability scores be any different? Luck is a HUGE factor in D&D and always has been. Like Tormsskull said, if you don't want luck to be a factor then use a point-buy system. Otherwise, you have to take the bad luck along with the good luck.

Besides, don't ability scores improve over time in 3E? So it seems like average stats wouldn't be as big a deal as they are in 1E/2E.

Deepblue706
2007-02-08, 11:25 PM
Yes, Baldur's Gate takes place on Faerun. So does Neverwinter Nights, Icewind Dale...actually, about 90% of all D&D video games take place there.

Thanks. I was awaiting a reply from BwL, but apparently he either forgot we were engaged in conversation or simply decided I wasn't worth his precious time.

JadedDM
2007-02-08, 11:33 PM
That's okay. As a 2E player, I'm just thrilled when someone asks a question that I actually know the answer to. :smallsmile:

Dairun Cates
2007-02-09, 11:44 AM
Ok. You got me. How that?

Do you have any idea what the fort save and vit. points for a 12 con diplomat is? Not much compared to the 3d8 blaster rifles people are shooting around. Diplomats don't get to keep standing much at lower levels. Thus the joke about my character's typical interaction in battle was to try to reason with the person before the battle and fall down from his surprise attack.

Basically, by constantly failing my saves at lower levels, I ensured that I wouldn't be shot into negatives and start bleeding or worse. However, if my hp had been a couple higher or my fort save just a bit higher, I would've made those saves those couple of times and would have probably died on the spot, because 2 wound points has a good chance of dying against a 3d8 blaster. Oddly enough, a higher con would've killed him.