How to play a 4 Dex

[Stryyke]

Obviously the simple answer is clumsy, but I really don't want to go around knocking things over all the time. What are some creative ways to play a 4 Dex that aren't so . . . intrusive?

[CharonsHelper]

Stomp when you walk.

Occasionally whiff going for a doorknob.

Unless your character is also dumb they know that they have clumsy fingers, so have all of your pockets/pouches etc. be extra big and easy to handle.

[Knaight]

You could emphasize the sluggish reflexes and the lack of fine motor skills over general clumsiness. If something is tossed to you you miss it, if your character writes it's in an atrocious scrawl, so on and so forth. There's essentially a bunch of descriptive factors and minor decisions to have the character fail that can accentuate the mechanics having the character fail.

[SimonMoon6]

In real life, I had a friend with a low dexterity. One of my other friends made a little song about him after a particular example of his low dexterity:

"He trips and falls
And bumps into walls,
It's ____________"

I've left out his name, but that's what goes in the blank.

[shadowmann2330]

your character could have a simple latency with his motor skills, when you roll high on dex saves you could flavor it like this;
DM: a swift bolt of lightning is aimed at your favorite Brocccoli-toting Donkey, make a dexterity saving throw to push him out of the way.
*Player rolls a 20 on the check*
You: Bumbles throws himself into the fray! His backpack holding 850 lbs of rocks, becoming unstrapped from his back hurtles into the side of his favorite broccoli-toting donkey pushing it to safety,while Bumbles face plants and eats a mouthful of dirt.

[Stryyke]

your character could have a simple latency with his motor skills, when you roll high on dex saves you could flavor it like this;
DM: a swift bolt of lightning is aimed at your favorite Brocccoli-toting Donkey, make a dexterity saving throw to push him out of the way.
*Player rolls a 20 on the check*
You: Bumbles throws himself into the fray! His backpack holding 850 lbs of rocks, becoming unstrapped from his back hurtles into the side of his favorite broccoli-toting donkey pushing it to safety,while Bumbles face plants and eats a mouthful of dirt.

LOL! I love it!

[halfeye]

This is potentially offensive I think.

I am stroke affected (I'm not young), and one side is now much less coordinated than the other. So, is the character handed or sided?

[scalyfreak]

If the character has very high strength or constitution scores, make him/her less than flexible. To the point they struggle to sit cross-legged for long, reaching for something close behind them is a struggle doomed to failure, etc.

Combine it with constantly bumping into things, especially when distracted, and tendency to drop things if they try to carry more than one item, and you have your standard clumsy person right there.

[Jay R]

Make it fun by refusing to do things that he shouldn't do.

"No, I'm not climbing the ladder. Somebody else can do that."

"You build the fire. I'd burn myself."

etc.

Every once in a while, describe more steps than necessary for a task.

"Throckmorton gets the carthorse out of the stables, hitches him to the cart, chases down the carthorse, and hitches him to the cart again."

"Throckmorton walks up to the throne, bows to the king with his most formal bow, gets back up off the floor, and blushes. Then he picks up his sword and puts it back in its sheath."

[CharonsHelper]

I will say - a 4 Dex isn't THAT uncoordinated. If you go by the 3d6 bell curve, a Dex of 4 puts you in the bottom couple percent (bottom 4/216), but it's not as if in a crowd of 50+ people someone is tripping on nothing every few seconds.

[woweedd]

I will say - a 4 Dex isn't THAT uncoordinated. If you go by the 3d6 bell curve, a Dex of 4 puts you in the bottom couple percent (bottom 4/216), but it's not as if in a crowd of 50+ people someone is tripping on nothing every few seconds.
I mean...In Intelligence terms, that puts you very slightly above a Gorilla's brain power. It is almost terminally low.

[CharonsHelper]

I mean...In Intelligence terms, that puts you very slightly above a Gorilla's brain power. It is almost terminally low.

No. No it doesn't.

An INT of 4 is right on the cusp of being retarded (from a medical standpoint).

Going by the bell curve they'd be 2nd or 3rd percentile of Intelligence, which would give them an IQ of 65-71ish. On the high end (70+) they wouldn't be retarded at all. So, that'd put them in the same range as the very highest functioning people with downs syndrome (without the physical/personality traits).

I think that's a big step up from a gorilla. (And why in the world did you capitalize "Gorilla's"?)

[Random Sanity]

Speaking as someone with low Dex IRL:

I think we need to make a distinction between "coarse" and "fine" motor control; they are related, but separate. A low-Dex character may very well be operational in one area and weak in the other.

You could be coordinated on the whole, but have atrocious penmanship and be prone to cutting yourself when peeling potatoes. Or you could have a knack for both painting and tripping over yourself.

[woweedd]

No. No it doesn't.

An INT of 4 is right on the cusp of being retarded (from a medical standpoint).

Going by the bell curve they'd be 2nd or 3rd percentile of Intelligence, which would give them an IQ of 65-71ish. On the high end (70+) they wouldn't be retarded at all. So, that'd put them in the same range as the very highest functioning people with downs syndrome (without the physical/personality traits).

I think that's a big step up from a gorilla. (And why in the world did you capitalize "Gorilla's"?)

All animals have an INT of 2 or lower, by definition. 4 is only a couple degrees removed.

[CharonsHelper]

I think we need to make a distinction between "coarse" and "fine" motor control; they are related, but separate. A low-Dex character may very well be operational in one area and weak in the other.

You could be coordinated on the whole, but have atrocious penmanship and be prone to cutting yourself when peeling potatoes. Or you could have a knack for both painting and tripping over yourself.

That is why many non-D&D RPGs split Agility & Dexterity into separate stats.

[halfeye]

All animals have an INT of 2 or lower, by definition. 4 is only a couple degrees removed.

That is intelligence, not dexterity, animals may be highly dexterous, or less so, depending upon among other things their species.

This is D&D, which is fiction. Intelligence is something humans are exceptionally good at, in dexterity we are not so very far ahead of some other animals. In the real world, there is every reason to think that human intelligence is exponentially more than most animals, on the scale where humans scoring 70 are low, cats and dogs score 2 or 3 at best (and some aren't that good).

[FreddyNoNose]

Perhaps the 1st edition Players Handbook could help here:


Dexterity: Dexterity encompasses a number of physical attributes
including hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, precision, balance, and
speed of movement. A high dexterity indicates superiority in all of the
above attributes, while a low dexterity might well indicate that one of
these attributes is actually superior, but that the others are very poor.
Dexterity affects a11 characters with regord to initiative in attack, the
projection of missiles from hand or other means, and in defensive
measures. Dexterity is the maior characteristic of the thief class of
character, and it affects their professional activities (such as picking
pockets, opening lacks, and so forth) accordingly. Thieves with a dexterity
ability score of 16 or more gain a bonus of 10% of earned experience. The
two tables which follow outline the effects of dexterity on characters.

[woweedd]

That is intelligence, not dexterity, animals may be highly dexterous, or less so, depending upon among other things their species.

This is D&D, which is fiction. Intelligence is something humans are exceptionally good at, in dexterity we are not so very far ahead of some other animals. In the real world, there is every reason to think that human intelligence is exponentially more than most animals, on the scale where humans scoring 70 are low, cats and dogs score 2 or 3 at best (and some aren't that good).
I know. It was using it as an example, since INT has a more easily defined boundary line. My point is that DEX 4, while maybe not terminally low, is still very low.

[halfeye]

I know. It was using it as an example, since INT has a more easily defined boundary line. My point is that DEX 4, while maybe not terminally low, is still very low.

It's low, but the character has hands I think. Is a sheep dexterous? is a raccoon?

[Aliquid]

This is potentially offensive I think.

I am stroke affected (I'm not young), and one side is now much less coordinated than the other. So, is the character handed or sided?If we are talking real-life ailments that could lead to a Dex of 4, Parkinson's Disease is another example. But yes, there is the potential to be offensive if not handled properly.

[scalyfreak]

Speaking as someone with low Dex IRL:

I think we need to make a distinction between "coarse" and "fine" motor control; they are related, but separate. A low-Dex character may very well be operational in one area and weak in the other.

You could be coordinated on the whole, but have atrocious penmanship and be prone to cutting yourself when peeling potatoes. Or you could have a knack for both painting and tripping over yourself.

This is creepy! You just described me! (Though not painting... my low DEX really makes that particular hobby very hard on my clothing.)

[woweedd]

It's low, but the character has hands I think. Is a sheep dexterous? is a raccoon?
Again, the animal comparisons were used because their intelligence limit serves as a good benchmark for what the numbers on stats actually mean. 4 Dexterity is,as stated, almost comically low. It's not quite "unable to function" low, but it's close.

[Thrudd]

Play it as someone who fails their saving throws a little more often than others, often reacts after others in combat, isn't good at using small tools or acrobatics, and has poor aim with missile weapons. When you get hit by a failed dex saving throw, describe how he couldn't react fast enough to get out of the way. In initiative, he fumbles for a second to draw his weapon. He avoids using bows and trying to pick locks because he fumbles with the tools or has a shaky hand. That's about it.
He doesn't need to trip on stuff for no reason or be a bumbling idiot. When the poor dexterity actually affects something that happens, then you play it out. But if the game doesn't say he falls flat on his face (prone is an actual condition), then he hasn't fallen prone and you shouldn't purposefully give yourself more penalties than you'll already have. It doesn't make him any worse at fighting, that's strength, fighting requires a lot of coordination and athleticism. He just isn't great at certain things.

[woweedd]

Play it as someone who fails their saving throws a little more often than others, often reacts after others in combat, isn't good at using small tools or acrobatics, and has poor aim with missile weapons. When you get hit by a failed dex saving throw, describe how he couldn't react fast enough to get out of the way. In initiative, he fumbles for a second to draw his weapon. He avoids using bows and trying to pick locks because he fumbles with the tools or has a shaky hand. That's about it.
He doesn't need to trip on stuff for no reason or be a bumbling idiot. When the poor dexterity actually affects something that happens, then you play it out. But if the game doesn't say he falls flat on his face (prone is an actual condition), then he hasn't fallen prone and you shouldn't purposefully give yourself more penalties than you'll already have. It doesn't make him any worse at fighting, that's strength, fighting requires a lot of coordination and athleticism. He just isn't great at certain things.
(emphasis mine.)
WOuldn't that be an argument FOR dexterity being vital to combat?

[scalyfreak]

(emphasis mine.)
WOuldn't that be an argument FOR dexterity being vital to combat?

I'm picturing the trial by combat fight between The Mountain and Oberyn Martell right now. They each made compelling arguments for dexterity, strength, and constitution in that scene.

[woweedd]

I'm picturing the trial by combat fight between The Mountain and Oberyn Martell right now. They each made compelling arguments for dexterity, strength, and constitution in that scene.
All three are important. Unless you're a Transmuter/A Druid with Natural Shape.

[scalyfreak]

My point exactly. However, a character with one of them very high can safely dump one of the other two. Oberyn was clearly a dexterity based fighter, while The Mountain had maxed his strength as much possible and dumped dexterity - compared to Oberyn he moves very slowly.

All of them are important, but the player can choose to focus on either one as their primary. In the case of this thread, dexterity is not it.

[woweedd]

My point exactly. However, a character with one of them very high can safely dump one of the other two. Oberyn was clearly a dexterity based fighter, while The Mountain had maxed his strength as much possible and dumped dexterity - compared to Oberyn he moves very slowly.

All of them are important, but the player can choose to focus on either one as their primary. In the case of this thread, dexterity is not it.
Indeed. Max out one but minimize the other two and you end up with either an immobile brick, an invisible man with no actual fighting skill, or a fast dude who'll go down the instant you hit him.

[Thrudd]

(emphasis mine.)
WOuldn't that be an argument FOR dexterity being vital to combat?

In D&D, you don't need dexterity to fight. So dexterity in D&D doesn't represent things strictly necessary for fighting. A character with good strength but low dex is still good at fighting, and therefore not uncoordinated or clumsy or un-athletic (athletics is a strength skill). They are just not good at the things affected specifically and solely by dexterity in the game.

Real people don't have attributes neatly delineated into only six categories, and real fighting skill is affected by several different attributes equally and simultaneously (ie you don't choose whether to use strength or dexterity when you fight). Games can't generally go into that much detail and still be playable.

[goto124]

(Though not painting... my low DEX really makes that particular hobby very hard on my clothing.)

New character concept: A clumsy man who loves painting despite the mess it makes, so he just walks around with paint on his clothing 99% of the time.

You could just flavor any Dex rolls you fail (or pass!), after all it's a stat that's well-covered by the system. If anything, it's a question of how to flavor those instances of failing or succeeding rolls.

[woweedd]

In D&D, you don't need dexterity to fight. So dexterity in D&D doesn't represent things strictly necessary for fighting. A character with good strength but low dex is still good at fighting, and therefore not uncoordinated or clumsy or un-athletic (athletics is a strength skill). They are just not good at the things affected specifically and solely by dexterity in the game.

Real people don't have attributes neatly delineated into only six categories, and real fighting skill is affected by several different attributes equally and simultaneously (ie you don't choose whether to use strength or dexterity when you fight). Games can't generally go into that much detail and still be playable.
That all depends on whether you take a, if you'll forgive the pretentious terminology, gamist or simulationist view of things.

[goto124]

if I recall correctly, DnD tends towards gamist.

[woweedd]

if I recall correctly, DnD tends towards gamist.
Pretty much. It basically boils down to "Whats more important, the mechanics or the fluff?"

[Thrudd]

That all depends on whether you take a, if you'll forgive the pretentious terminology, gamist or simulationist view of things.

No, it literally depends only on the rules of the game. That can be interpreted however you want, but it is a fact that in D&D, the strength stat is the one that primarily contributes to fighting ability. Can someone be an amazing fighter but unable to walk without tripping over their own feet and dropping weapons all the time? No, that would be ridiculous. So low dex doesn't necessarily mean your character is especially clumsy. Just that they don't react as quickly as others in certain situations and aren't good at certain types of tasks that use fine motor control.

It's more about believably portraying a character rather than going to silly extremes based on misinterpretations of what the ability scores represent. You can't ignore what the ability scores actually do in the game when you decide what they mean to your character.
If you think your character is sometimes awesome and coordinated, only when he's got a weapon and is fighting, but at other times is a total goof who can't open doors and is always bumping into things, that is not simulating a believable person.
If you think that they must be super clumsy all the time, but are just really lucky when they fight somehow and always manage to hit the enemy, that is equally unbelievable.

mechanics and "fluff" need to intersect and support each other. the mechanics say one thing, your "fluff" needs to take that into account. the mechanics need to represent "the fluff", otherwise what happens in the game just doesn't make sense.

[woweedd]

No, it literally depends only on the rules of the game. That can be interpreted however you want, but it is a fact that in D&D, the strength stat is the one that primarily contributes to fighting ability. Can someone be an amazing fighter but unable to walk without tripping over their own feet and dropping weapons all the time? No, that would be ridiculous. So low dex doesn't necessarily mean your character is especially clumsy. Just that they don't react as quickly as others in certain situations and aren't good at certain types of tasks that use fine motor control.

It's more about believably portraying a character rather than going to silly extremes based on misinterpretations of what the ability scores represent. You can't ignore what the ability scores actually do in the game when you decide what they mean to your character.
If you think your character is sometimes awesome and coordinated, only when he's got a weapon and is fighting, but at other times is a total goof who can't open doors and is always bumping into things, that is not simulating a believable person.
If you think that they must be super clumsy all the time, but are just really lucky when they fight somehow and always manage to hit the enemy, that is equally unbelievable.

mechanics and "fluff" need to intersect and support each other. the mechanics say one thing, your "fluff" needs to take that into account. the mechanics need to represent "the fluff", otherwise what happens in the game just doesn't make sense.
If a character has a Dexterity of 4, he probably isn't a very good fighter. As said earlier, that is almost terminally low. He'd be clumsy to a near-deadly level, assuming that stats actually mean anything outside of combat.,

[Knaight]

If a character has a Dexterity of 4, he probably isn't a very good fighter. As said earlier, that is almost terminally low. He'd be clumsy to a near-deadly level, assuming that stats actually mean anything outside of combat.,

I wouldn't say that. Being generally clumsy and sluggish but having put enough practice into one particular thing that when you do it you're fast and graceful isn't particularly unusual, and if this is D&D (and all signs point to it being D&D) that one particular thing is almost certainly some variety of killing stuff.

[Jay R]

The rules do not describe the real world, and we miscommunicate when one of us is talking about D&D and the other is talking about reality.

In this case, we're failing to communicate because we're using the same word to mean two different things. The only way out is to come up with definitions that we can all agree on. So I'm going to use "strength" and "dexterity" with their common English meanings, and use "STR" and "DEX" to represent D&D rules.

Dexterity is certainly necessary for melee fighting. DEX is not necessary to make successful "to-hit" roles in D&D.

Therefore either DEX is not the same as dexterity, or the simulation is imperfect. [Or, far more likely, both.]

Long ago I decided that it's easier to assume that STR isn't exactly strength, and DEX isn't exactly DEX, although there is certainly a great deal of overlap.

STR includes generic gross physical abilities, starting with strength, but also including the ability to hit a target, focus in combat, etc. [Focus is the only way to explain how the stronger person can ever lose a STR vs. STR opposed roll. I can never beat a stronger person at tug-of-war unless he gets distracted.]

DEX includes fine motor skills and precise grip.

[Back in original D&D, I decided that "INT" only meant magic ability, and WIS only meant divine ability, since at the time they had no other effect on the game.]

This doesn't make the simulation match the real world, but it's much close.

And in any case, There's nothing to be gained by arguing whether dexterity aids melee combat or DEX does not aid melee rolls in D&D. Both are true.

[halfeye]

I think dexterity is important in close combat, but does a sniper need to be dexterous? I'd guess that's more about patience and timing than dexterity.

[Minwaabi]

According to http://www.d20pfsrd.com, someone with a 4-5 Dex shows visible paralysis or physical difficulty. This is for pathfinder, so it probably works for 3.5 as well. An example of a creature with a dex in that range is a hungry fog. You have more dex than an ooze or a sea urchin, and less than a ogre zombie or purple worm.

Mechanically speaking you can't dodge to save your life, you probably drop your arrows when you try to shoot your bow, and you might dodge *after* the fireball hits you.

If you are interested, you can go here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores/) to see other examples.

If you consider a bell curve, then you are in the bottom 2% or so. In the US, being in the bottom 2.5% means you need a wheelchair, cane, or walker to get around. You don't see people tripping in a crowd of 50 people because either no one in that crowd has a dex that low, or they have some tool to help them from falling down.

[CharonsHelper]

If you consider a bell curve, then you are in the bottom 2% or so. In the US, being in the bottom 2.5% means you need a wheelchair, cane, or walker to get around. You don't see people tripping in a crowd of 50 people because either no one in that crowd has a dex that low, or they have some tool to help them from falling down.

The people with wheelchairs, canes, or walkers are mostly the elderly, and in D&D terms they probably have a DEX below 4. Going to middle-age gives you a -1, old an additional -2, and venerable an additional -3.

A 4 only puts you in the bottom 2% of relatively young adults. Once you start taking age penalties a 4 isn't so bad. At old age a 4 is barely in the bottom 10-12% and at venerable age a DEX of 4-5 is average.

[Thrudd]

If such a low dex is that debilitating, then adventuring characters wouldn't be allowed to have that score, it would be impossible to function in any sort of adventuring capacity. But according to how the game works, they are not functionally disabled, they only suffer a penalty on a few certain things. It doesn't stop them from being very athletic and a good fighter. So it must not mean that, and the PF people who said that aren't thinking clearly about their own game.

[Jay R]

There is no such thing as a level of dexterity that:
a. is held by 2% of the population,
b. meets the description of DEX 4 in the rules, and
c. is possible for adventuring.

The primary conclusion from careful analysis of the rules of D&D is that D&D rules cannot survive careful analysis.

[CharonsHelper]

There is no such thing as a level of dexterity that:
a. is held by 2% of the population,
b. meets the description of DEX 4 in the rules, and
c. is possible for adventuring.

The primary conclusion from careful analysis of the rules of D&D is that D&D rules cannot survive careful analysis.

WHAT!? A game intended to play out fighting monsters and stealing from tombs isn't a perfect measure of the real world!?

[MarkVIIIMarc]

According to http://www.d20pfsrd.com, someone with a 4-5 Dex shows visible paralysis or physical difficulty. This is for pathfinder, so it probably works for 3.5 as well. An example of a creature with a dex in that range is a hungry fog. You have more dex than an ooze or a sea urchin, and less than a ogre zombie or purple worm.

Mechanically speaking you can't dodge to save your life, you probably drop your arrows when you try to shoot your bow, and you might dodge *after* the fireball hits you.

If you are interested, you can go here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores/) to see other examples.

If you consider a bell curve, then you are in the bottom 2% or so. In the US, being in the bottom 2.5% means you need a wheelchair, cane, or walker to get around. You don't see people tripping in a crowd of 50 people because either no one in that crowd has a dex that low, or they have some tool to help them from falling down.

Ditto. 4 for Dex is pretty legendarily bad.

It is the 2nd worst roll POSSIBLE. Takes three or four 1's to beat it.

Wonder what the percentage chance of rolling a 4 out of 4 drop the lowest one.

What method of scoring did you use?

I'm trying to think of a functional fictional hero I'd assign a 4 to. Hulk is kinda a good but lands well when he jumps usually.

[Guizonde]

it's not the same system, but i had a character who had very low agility. i rolled the stats and came up with 24% agility in a whfrp system game. that's 4% lower than a human average for the game. rather than play it clumsy as i should've, since my character was over the hill (and was ex-special forces), i decided he got out of there due to a friendly fire incident involving a large bullet and his knee. so he limped. he was slow, he was cautious, he could snipe the ego off a bad guy at 500 paces, but his sneaking was off (*swish CLOMP swish CLOMP went his gait*), his crouching left his leg exposed, he couldn't run as fast or climb as lithely as he used to at his peak, he griped about being "too old for these stunts", he fell awkwardly, etc... basically, anything to justify why i didn't have the agility of an ex-spec ops.

it was a lot of fun, precisely because i had to work around that handicap. thanks to the system, my skills got better over time, and i even got to the point where i had the character get a knee brace tailor-made for him (finally granting me 5 movement, as befits a scout).

i like the idea of an inflexible character, his hands work good, but his reflexes or flexibility are shot. maybe he's cripplingly near-sighted, maybe he's got early-onset arthritis. maybe he didn't do any callisthenics or gymnastics in his youth. i know i didn't, and i'm about as flexible as your average oak.

so the question is: why does your character have 4 dex? since you're asking how to play it, i assume it's not in a min-maxing goal or build. turn that flaw into character building. make it a serious part of your backstory or character creation, rather than a joke. set up the handicap.

my current pf character has drow eyes, and so has to wear sunglasses. it is a pretty severe handicap in its own right, but it's not played for fun (too much. it helps me rp the inquisitor's stern gaze)

[Emperor Demonking]

According to http://www.d20pfsrd.com, someone with a 4-5 Dex shows visible paralysis or physical difficulty. This is for pathfinder, so it probably works for 3.5 as well. An example of a creature with a dex in that range is a hungry fog. You have more dex than an ooze or a sea urchin, and less than a ogre zombie or purple worm.

Mechanically speaking you can't dodge to save your life, you probably drop your arrows when you try to shoot your bow, and you might dodge *after* the fireball hits you.

If you are interested, you can go here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores/) to see other examples.

If you consider a bell curve, then you are in the bottom 2% or so. In the US, being in the bottom 2.5% means you need a wheelchair, cane, or walker to get around. You don't see people tripping in a crowd of 50 people because either no one in that crowd has a dex that low, or they have some tool to help them from falling down.

Are you ignoring age penalties? As the right view for the 'bell curve' is not the bottom 3% in society, but the bottom 3% in the age group that does not suffer from age-related penalties. You may have already considered this.

[FreddyNoNose]

The rules do not describe the real world, and we miscommunicate when one of us is talking about D&D and the other is talking about reality.

In this case, we're failing to communicate because we're using the same word to mean two different things. The only way out is to come up with definitions that we can all agree on. So I'm going to use "strength" and "dexterity" with their common English meanings, and use "STR" and "DEX" to represent D&D rules.

Dexterity is certainly necessary for melee fighting. DEX is not necessary to make successful "to-hit" roles in D&D.

Therefore either DEX is not the same as dexterity, or the simulation is imperfect. [Or, far more likely, both.]

Long ago I decided that it's easier to assume that STR isn't exactly strength, and DEX isn't exactly DEX, although there is certainly a great deal of overlap.

STR includes generic gross physical abilities, starting with strength, but also including the ability to hit a target, focus in combat, etc. [Focus is the only way to explain how the stronger person can ever lose a STR vs. STR opposed roll. I can never beat a stronger person at tug-of-war unless he gets distracted.]

DEX includes fine motor skills and precise grip.

[Back in original D&D, I decided that "INT" only meant magic ability, and WIS only meant divine ability, since at the time they had no other effect on the game.]

This doesn't make the simulation match the real world, but it's much close.

And in any case, There's nothing to be gained by arguing whether dexterity aids melee combat or DEX does not aid melee rolls in D&D. Both are true.

In general, if the rules allow you to roll 3 - 18 (or whatever) and you end up with a 4 as a result, then it is a valid attribute score. If they don't want 4 as a valid result, they should change it so it is something like 2d4+10 (aka 12-18).

[Jay R]

Wonder what the percentage chance of rolling a 4 out of 4 drop the lowest one.

You need to roll three ones and a two. The single four can be the first, second, third or fourth die, so the probability is 4/1,296, or 1/324, which is 0.00308642, or 0.308642%.

[FreddyNoNose]

You need to roll three ones and a two. The single four can be the first, second, third or fourth die, so the probability is 4/1,296, or 1/324, which is 0.00308642, or 0.308642%.



I have rolled a character using 4d6k3 and had the highest score a 6.

[Jay R]

I have rolled a character using 4d6k3 and had the highest score a 6.

That would be about 1 chance in 55 billion if the rolls were truly independent and perfect. I suspect that at least one of those four dice isn't perfect, and that it/they roll/s less than average over time.

If that happened with my dice, I might devote an hour to rolling them for data, and perform a chi-squared goodness-of-fit test.