And yet another character creation question

[ZorroGames]

So, if you ended up with a character whose stats were ranged from a low of 9 to a high of 12, would

1) you deem that character playable or would you petition the DM to let you create an alternate set of stats?
2) you play the character even though the numbers would only be "heroic Average Guy" level?
3) As a DM would you actively discourage a player from trying to play that character?

[Arcangel4774]

Depends on the other players in the game. A good dm scales the game to the ability of the pcs in it, but if one pc is weaker than the rest, there isn't much the dm can do

[Ebon Rogue]

3 Its happened before in a campaign, and its not fun for the "Average Guy". I generally discourage it and offer the use of the point-buy variant, which is generally on par with the average. Being gimped at -3 to the other players is like being 10+ levels behind if you compare it to proficiency.

You can however get away with it if your a support caster that avoids saving throws in the spells and focuses on mostly buffing and healing. Skills can be mitigated with expertise from rogue or bard, so your best bet, if you haven't selected a class yet, is a support bard. Probably multi-class into rogue for even more expertise and focus on healing, support, and throwing caltrops and ball bearings. Just be as insufferable as possible without rolling. A good rogue archetype is mastermind. You can use help as a bonus action and help has a range of 30ft., so you can give advantage twice/turn at the very least while still hiding behind that tree!

[jas61292]

Depends on the specific stats. If we are talking 12 11 11 10 10 9 or worse, I'd probably look to reroll. If it was 12 12 12 12 12 9 I the other hand, I'd try and work with it and see what I can do.

Same as a DM. I fully encourage average, well rounded characters. But you should still have total modifiers better than a base commoner.

[DanyBallon]

I'd say it dépends on what stats the other players have and how you feel about it.

i.e. if the others characters have stats in line wth standard array and you don't then you'll be a bit less effective.

Now if you don't mind, your character is still playable and you may have fun playing it. On the other hands, there are some players that can't stand bieng less effective and won't accept having lower stats. Either are fine, it's more a matter on how you feel about it.

[Zanthy1]

If I were the player, and talked with the DM I would petition to let me try it out for a session or two, but not to pull any punches, thus being able to test the concept out but not be locked into it. Obviously you'd have to go folk hero with like, champion fighter or something simple. The idea being that you're just a slightly better than normal guy who goes on adventures with some tough people, and seems to survive. Until you don't. After the first session, if you aren't attached, roll up something new or just let him die lol.

[Sigreid]

I have played that character and really enjoyed figuring out how to make it work.

[Beaureguard]

It depends on how those stats compare to the rest of the party. If you were using a strict stat acquisition system and all the players' stats were pretty low then as a DM I'd let it ride without hesitation. If it deviated too much then I'd leave it up to the player.

Personally, I'd probably play the character. I'd try to find some niche to fit into as either a cleric or wizard; either option should allow him to be of some use without being TOO crippled by bad stats. I'd take that heroic average guy and make it a part of my guy's personality. He'd either know he was outclassed by these other guys and half idolize them, like a kid brother getting to hang out past his bedtime, or he'd resent them and be constantly making excuses for his shortcomings.

[N810]

Well if you pick regular human they would all go up by +1.
So that might not be as terrible.

[ZorroGames]

Well if you pick regular human they would all go up by +1.
So that might not be as terrible.

Good point.

[Zman]

As a player I would petition the DM for rerolls, pointbuy, etc. If the DM disagreed and other players were much much stronger I would either walk away from the game, have the character decide adventuring wasn't for him and retire after the first encounter, or have the character be suicidal and force the DM to kill him off. IMO it is simply not fun to be completely outclassed by those around you. Now, your best stats are a pair of 14s, and the guy next to you have a 15 and a 16, yeah that sucks, but it isn't that earth shattering. But, the best you got is a 12, and they have dump stats in that range, yeah, that is not a playable scenario in my book.


As a DM, I would not force the player to play that character, I would give them options to replace their rolls. I have a built in method for this in my new rolling method that I am trying as an alternative to pointbuy. My method lets a player get two 14s even if they have the worst luck imaginable and can't roll one.

[Christian]

If it was 12 12 12 12 12 9 I the other hand, I'd try and work with it and see what I can do.

Oh, that's easy. Standard human, put the 10 in Con, and multiclass *everything*. Just to see how long he'd be able to go without any ASIs.

If he somehow survived to 13th level, I'd have to retire him, naturally. Obviously a Barbarian 1 / Bard 1 / Cleric 1 / Druid 1 / Fighter 1 / Monk 1 / Paladin 1 / Ranger 1 / Rogue 1 / Sorcerer 1 / Warlock 1 / Wizard 1 does not have the attention span to take a second level in anything.

[Luvia]

As a player I would petition the DM for rerolls, pointbuy, etc. If the DM disagreed and other players were much much stronger I would either walk away from the game, have the character decide adventuring wasn't for him and retire after the first encounter, or have the character be suicidal and force the DM to kill him off. IMO it is simply not fun to be completely outclassed by those around you. Now, your best stats are a pair of 14s, and the guy next to you have a 15 and a 16, yeah that sucks, but it isn't that earth shattering. But, the best you got is a 12, and they have dump stats in that range, yeah, that is not a playable scenario in my book.


As a DM, I would not force the player to play that character, I would give them options to replace their rolls. I have a built in method for this in my new rolling method that I am trying as an alternative to pointbuy. My method lets a player get two 14s even if they have the worst luck imaginable and can't roll one.

you would walk for the dice not going your way? Honestly this is why I like point buy so this dosent happen.

[Zman]

you would walk for the dice not going your way? Honestly this is why I like point buy so this dosent happen.

No, I'd walk away from a game where the DM would force massive disparities between players without some kind of recourse. And I've done that from PBPs, many times, but that is easier.

The dice can create reasonable disparities in abilities, but if they aren't massive there aren't any problems. If one character has a 16 and two 15s, and another player doesn't have an ability higher a 12, that is a problem. And IMO any DM that would force that scenario to play out, is not a DM whose game Is play in.

I usually opt for point but as well, but am using a dice rolling method that allows for more varied states if not less optimized where most variety come in the secondary and Tertiary character stats.

[ZorroGames]

Depends on the specific stats. If we are talking 12 11 11 10 10 9 or worse, I'd probably look to reroll. If it was 12 12 12 12 12 9 I the other hand, I'd try and work with it and see what I can do.

Same as a DM. I fully encourage average, well rounded characters. But you should still have total modifiers better than a base commoner.

Been giving this some thought.

Well, if the stats were before race/class decisions I can see a 13 ST, 13 Con mountain dwarf Fighter with 12 DE, 10 IN, 10 CH, and 9 WI as being easily playable. Heavy Armor, Versitile weapon such as a Battle Axe, spear, Javelin(s) or Hand Axes. Put a fighter, ranger, paladin, or combat oriented cleric on each side supported by casters and off you go. Are you Conan? No. But you might end a "Gimli" heroic figure (book, not the movie.)

Other playable scenarios also came to mind fir other races/classes.

Those scores post race... Having second thoughts...

[Luvia]

No, I'd walk away from a game where the DM would force massive disparities between players without some kind of recourse. And I've done that from PBPs, many times, but that is easier.

The dice can create reasonable disparities in abilities, but if they aren't massive there aren't any problems. If one character has a 16 and two 15s, and another player doesn't have an ability higher a 12, that is a problem. And IMO any DM that would force that scenario to play out, is not a DM whose game Is play in.

I usually opt for point but as well, but am using a dice rolling method that allows for more varied states if not less optimized where most variety come in the secondary and Tertiary character stats.
It kinda takes the random out of rolling if you want new stats whenever they arent to your liking. honrdtly if your going to walk because you arent allowed to change low rolled stats. you probably shouldnt join games where stats are rolled in the first place.

[Zman]

It kinda takes the random out of rolling if you want new stats whenever they arent to your liking. honrdtly if your going to walk because you arent allowed to change low rolled stats. you probably shouldnt join games where stats are rolled in the first place.

Nice straw man, fun to knock down?

I don't mind random, but there is differences between random and moderate but significant differences between characters and gross power imbalances due to random dice.

I use a rolling method, but one that literally guarantees players can have 2 14s, even if the dice are absolutely atrocious. And in the rare case they still can't hit a minimum stats bar, I have a mechanism spelled out to help bring them up to competence.

The OP is talking about a character whose stats are all 9-12, compared to just the standard array, that is losing out on a 15, 14, and 13. For a Human that is the difference between starting with a 13 or 16 in your primary Stat. That requires your ASI at 4th, 8th, 12th, and 16th just to hit a 20 in your main stat. That has far reaching consequences that can't be hand waved away.

[Mandragola]

Honestly I don't understand why anyone rolls stats. Point buy and the standard array are a far fairer way to determine stats.

If you are committed to rolling stats then you have two choices. Either you need to raise up terrible stats and nerf outrageously good ones, effectively converging on what you'd get with point buy anyway (in which case, why not just use it?), or you need to suck up the imbalance. Live with some people's characters being better than others.

You can't really have a situation where point buy is the fallback option for people who roll badly, but people who rolled well get to keep their awesome stats. That's still imbalanced, and raises the power level of the party.

Why would you want that outcome? It just creates trouble for the DM as characters are more powerful (or on very rare occasions less powerful) than the books expect them to be.

[Fixer]

In a game I played years ago (3rd edition, not even 3.5), all the other players rolled up incredible characters. Nothing lower than a 13. Everyone was pleased. My rolls were horrible, nothing higher than an 11. The GM suggested that I reroll a new character, but I negotiated having a character with straight 10s. He was the most average person in the world, and I played him as a commoner with such determination (and almost suicidal bravery) that he just threw himself into everything he did. He ended up going from level 1, to level 20. He was a Fighter 4/Rogue 3/Barbarian 2/Fighter 11 by the time the game finished.

He never died, while all the other characters had died at least once each. Part of it was luck, I will agree, but the other part was that he was always so ridiculous (heavy plate on a scrawny farmer kind of ridiculous). He used a scythe as a weapon (he was a scrawny farmer, after all), and eventually purchased / had made magic items that supported the whole "I am death" theme he was going for, and made it so his gear would magically poof onto him and off of him (sort of like a bag of holding, but only for stuff he was wearing and he could free-action it onto and off of him).

He ended up retiring back to his little pig farm, put his gear in a chest at the end of his bed, and returning to the life of a farmer after saving the world a few times. After the campaign ended, I actually continued to write short fiction about him and his experiences after retirement. He was the ultimate reluctant hero / comic relief.

Thus, the life of Joe Dawn continued. He is still one of my favorite characters to talk about.

[ZorroGames]

And I think Zman's point is where I was heading even if not consciously.

In OD&D we played with players running an entire party solo (4 to 10 characters, average around 6) or small groups of players players with several grunt NPCs and though it was possible to have, indeed normal, to have stats between my example and the standard array better stats made for more heroic play.

I see 5th more of being driven by small groups of players with heroes and beginning superheroes with a need to not be just average man "street sweeper vigilantes" but Batman (or even Superman) in the making who may determine the fate of the story/world.

Is the difference that much? Ask me when I have played a character into the teens or even 20 but I think so. I have a wizard with starting stats no higher than 12 (IN) and none lower than 8 (saves worked radically different then) who achieved that - level 16 IIRC without looking her sheets up - but in 5th I just don't think that would as much fun given the game mechanics.

Most of my most memorable characters to achieve near 20th level (and there were a handful) even though you did not have a way to grow stats like 5th started with Prime stats around 15 to 16 with the rare 17. My Wizard and my first Cleric who started with a high stat of 13 WI with everything else at 9 - 12 struggled then but I think they would be battling just to survive in 5th. Different animal entirely but I do believe starting Prime stats are vastly more important in today's game.

[ZorroGames]

Fixer, that story resonates with me so much.

[Zman]

And I think Zman's point is where I was heading even if not consciously.

In OD&D we played with players running an entire party solo (4 to 10 characters, average around 6) or small groups of players players with several grunt NPCs and though it was possible to have, indeed normal, to have stats between my example and the standard array better stats made for more heroic play.

I see 5th more of being driven by small groups of players with heroes and beginning superheroes with a need to not be just average man "street sweeper vigilantes" but Batman (or even Superman) in the making who may determine the fate of the story/world.

Is the difference that much? Ask me when I have played a character into the teens or even 20 but I think so. I have a wizard with starting stats no higher than 12 (IN) and none lower than 8 (saves worked radically different then) who achieved that - level 16 IIRC without looking her sheets up - but in 5th I just don't think that would as much fun given the game mechanics.

Most of my most memorable characters to achieve near 20th level (and there were a handful) even though you did not have a way to grow stats like 5th started with Prime stats around 15 to 16 with the rare 17. My Wizard and my first Cleric who started with a high stat of 13 WI with everything else at 9 - 12 struggled then but I think they would be battling just to survive in 5th. Different animal entirely but I do believe starting Prime stats are vastly more important in today's game.

Ahh, those be different times. In 2ed(far back as my experience goes), if you didn't have a 15, that 9 would do just fine, haha. They game was designed with great rolls being huge benefits, but below average to high average being effectively equivalent. You could play that 9-12 character and be just fine.

3.5 was bad, because you'd never catch up, at least in 5e there is the hard 20 cap. But, there are still differences that are just too much to handle.

I have always preferred pointbuy, but didn't like people dumping the same stars and always having the perfect stat allocation. My new rolling method is meant to have the best of both worlds, a bit better on average than point buy, but not necessarily optimally distributed.

[ZorroGames]

Playing around with my RPG Roller app on my iPhone:

Tried a 2m3D6 combo - 3D6, minimum of 2 on any Die.

Results of my electronic rolling;
11,13,14,11,13,10
10,11,8,14,11,16
12,13,13,10,11,12
16,12,17,14,11,11
10,12,11,11,13,9
7,13,10,13,12,10
10,13,9,12,9,11
12,16,13,8,11,12
12,11,13,11,11,11
15,13,12,11,12,13

Ten cases (ultra small sample) but I guess I have two questions.

First would this best serve to create a Companion to support a first level adventurer with the intent that they would retire (Marry, inherit Dad's title, take on a more mundane career, enter a non-PC order of priests/nuns, etc.,) when the the player make their second level (50%) or third level (100%) instead of a PC?

Second, does the chance, two cases of a 16 or in one case 16 and 17, unbalance the stats? Does the presence of two 8s and a 7 perhaps skew the stats too much as a penalty factor?

Would a single 18 combine with an average set including a 6,7, or 8 be unbalanced?

[ZorroGames]

Honestly I don't understand why anyone rolls stats. Point buy and the standard array are a far fairer way to determine stats.

If you are committed to rolling stats then you have two choices. Either you need to raise up terrible stats and nerf outrageously good ones, effectively converging on what you'd get with point buy anyway (in which case, why not just use it?), or you need to suck up the imbalance. Live with some people's characters being better than others.
Snip


To quote Teyve, "Tradition!"

Okay besides that, I think some people (like those who play the lottery) hope for lightning to strike and get that "18" or a few really high starting stats like a '17,16,15" combo.

While that could happen (reference the memorial night of red hot dice my two friends had) with the ability to grow stats without a wishing well (commonly found in many early dungeons but beware the "-2 to all stats" roll!) does pretty much remove the "roll 100 characters 3D6 in order and choose one discarding the rest" drudgery. 😂

I think the standard array is acceptable if not ideal for those who want to start as Batman. 😇

[ZorroGames]

Snip

If you are committed to rolling stats then you have two choices. Either you need to raise up terrible stats and nerf outrageously good ones, effectively converging on what you'd get with point buy anyway (in which case, why not just use it?), or you need to suck up the imbalance. Live with some people's characters being better than others.



The last was pretty much everyday life in my Sacramento OD&D days.

With good friends that really isn't bad but over time perhaps suboptimal.

[DanyBallon]

Honestly I don't understand why anyone rolls stats. Point buy and the standard array are a far fairer way to determine stats.

If you are committed to rolling stats then you have two choices. Either you need to raise up terrible stats and nerf outrageously good ones, effectively converging on what you'd get with point buy anyway (in which case, why not just use it?), or you need to suck up the imbalance. Live with some people's characters being better than others.

You can't really have a situation where point buy is the fallback option for people who roll badly, but people who rolled well get to keep their awesome stats. That's still imbalanced, and raises the power level of the party.

Why would you want that outcome? It just creates trouble for the DM as characters are more powerful (or on very rare occasions less powerful) than the books expect them to be.

I'll speak only for myself, but I like rolling stats because I prefer creating a character (choosing race, class and background) from the stats I rolled. It's a different challenge from having a concept and trying to fit point buy or standard array to fit the concept.

[PeteNutButter]

Of course it depends upon the discrepancy between other players, as everyone above mentioned.

In general the best thing you can do with crap stats is just go hill dwarf moon druid. Live and do little when you are out of wild shape, but outshine the party on the key levels you can like 2 and level 10.

It's not amazing, but it sure beats having a +1 in your key stat.

If with racials, you can get a +2 in a stat, any pure caster can function, with one less than their peers.

[Herobizkit]

I'd probably go full "Nerd" with that array and go some combination of Bard and either Knowledge Cleric or Diviner Wizard. Focus on buffs and other spells that don't require saving throws. Go v. Human and take Keen Mind as a feat.

[Arkhios]

Once upon a time, we had this simple houserule in our games:

(IIRC) when rolling your stats, if your highest ability score was 13 and your combined ability modifier bonus was less than +2 (before racial modifiers), you could roll a new set. I think this could work with 5th edition too.

[Maxilian]

So, if you ended up with a character whose stats were ranged from a low of 9 to a high of 12, would

1) you deem that character playable or would you petition the DM to let you create an alternate set of stats?
2) you play the character even though the numbers would only be "heroic Average Guy" level?
3) As a DM would you actively discourage a player from trying to play that character?

1) I would understand the DM problem with having me roll again, so i would ask i, at least, could use the Standard Array
2) In most cases, no, unless i have a concept for something that does not require nice stats.
3) No, but i would point out to the player that they could take the standard array (Or will try to make for it by giving them some nice loot)