Rant: even when rolling for ability scores, standard array should be a floor

[diplomancer]

I'm starting play now in a campaign with rolled ability scores. I told DM I prefer point-buy or standard array, even though DM uses a generous rolling method (4d6b3, reroll 1s)

As luck would have it, out of 6 characters, 1 has a 20 at level 1, 3 have at least 1 18, 1 has 2 16s, and my character has 2 14s.

Result of that-> I tried to optimize as best as possible, but still I know I will be struggling to keep up. Even making smart choices would just be to compensate for my terrible rolls. It's the first character I've played I'm not excited about. I'm just tempted to be reckless with him and let him die an honorable death, maybe saving the rest of the party, and then either reroll a new character or just stop playing with this group.

I did ask the DM to at least have the standard array, he said he feels "it's more fun that way".

Playgrounders, what should I do?
1- Just leave the group? It's an online game, and I'm not terribly invested in it. I just don't like quitting... and I did accept the DM's rules when I accepted rolling the dice.
2- Try my best to keep the character alive? That feels like the "honorable thing to do" but it means playing a game where I'm feeling subpar all the time.
3- Kill the character, preferably in a way that saves the bacon of the rest of the party? They get to keep their nice characters, and I either make a character I actually enjoy playing or leave.

One important detail- I may be overthinking this, I know, and maybe ability scores don't matter as much as I think they do. I just feel bad looking at my character sheet. I know I can play someone who basically focus on buffing his teammates and be very effective that way. Oddly enough, that WAS the character I was trying to play, as long as I could be reasonably effective on my own, now I feel like I HAVE to focus on myself and forget the rest of the party, they are good enough already. If it was a game with close friends, I would probably keep to that support idea, as they would be able to realize what I was doing. But again, online game with strangers, why do I have to sacrifice my character's fun so that others can feel even more awesome than they are already?

[KorvinStarmast]

One important detail- I may be overthinking this, I think so. :smallsmile: Go forth and have fun. Tell us how the adventures work out.

But it's also fine to "go down in a blaze of glory" at a pivotal point in a battle and re roll.

What are all of your ability scores?

[Keltest]

Have a frank conversation with your DM, that you feel your poor stat rolls are leaving you feeling helpless and that's hurting your fun. He may feel its more fun, but it isn't his character, so yours is the opinion that matters.

If he still wont let you reroll or use standard array, drop the game. A DM not interested in making sure the players are having fun is not one you want to play long term with, given the poor start.

[DevilMcam]

I'd second the previous ansers.

Try and play a couple sessions and see ho it goes.
if after that you still feel bad, ask for a remake/reroll/change of character. If the DM is not up for it, then don't ask and change the DM.

I'd point that [4d6b3, reroll 1s]*6 is not a particularly genrous way of rolling stats though.

Most of the games in wich I've rolled for stats were either roll [4d6b3]*3*3, keep the 2 sets of 3 of your choice, or roll [4d6b3]*7 and keep the 6 results of your choice, Or had a clause stating taht if your stats were below or above a certain threshold you could/Had to reroll them.

Also note that the higher level you will get the less the stats will matter.
The Vhmaun 20STR barbarian that picked gwm as the starting feat can't really get any better.

This may also be the opportunity (if the table is roleplay and not rollplay) for some interesting characters.
I am currently playing a paladin that got average rolls in a party where everyone had godlike stats rolls (several +4 or better at start). This was quite intersting to play the "weak" paladin with a complex of inferiority.
we are now level 8 and she can be a powerhouse when needed

[Tvtyrant]

I'm starting play now in a campaign with rolled ability scores. I told DM I prefer point-buy or standard array, even though DM uses a generous rolling method (4d6b3, reroll 1s)

As luck would have it, out of 6 characters, 1 has a 20 at level 1, 3 have at least 1 18, 1 has 2 16s, and my character has 2 14s.

Result of that-> I tried to optimize as best as possible, but still I know I will be struggling to keep up. Even making smart choices would just be to compensate for my terrible rolls. It's the first character I've played I'm not excited about. I'm just tempted to be reckless with him and let him die an honorable death, maybe saving the rest of the party, and then either reroll a new character or just stop playing with this group.

I did ask the DM to at least have the standard array, he said he feels "it's more fun that way".

Playgrounders, what should I do?
1- Just leave the group? It's an online game, and I'm not terribly invested in it. I just don't like quitting... and I did accept the DM's rules when I accepted rolling the dice.
2- Try my best to keep the character alive? That feels like the "honorable thing to do" but it means playing a game where I'm feeling subpar all the time.
3- Kill the character, preferably in a way that saves the bacon of the rest of the party? They get to keep their nice characters, and I either make a character I actually enjoy playing or leave.

One important detail- I may be overthinking this, I know, and maybe ability scores don't matter as much as I think they do. I just feel bad looking at my character sheet. I know I can play someone who basically focus on buffing his teammates and be very effective that way. Oddly enough, that WAS the character I was trying to play, as long as I could be reasonably effective on my own, now I feel like I HAVE to focus on myself and forget the rest of the party, they are good enough already. If it was a game with close friends, I would probably keep to that support idea, as they would be able to realize what I was doing. But again, online game with strangers, why do I have to sacrifice my character's fun so that others can feel even more awesome than they are already?
I mean, Druid and Artificer exist so this isn't really so bad. Moon and Alchemist are particularly stat agnostic, one beats down while buffing and the other debuffs while buffing.

[kyoryu]

Personally, I'm a fan of rolling for stats in old-school D&D games where you might have multiple characters you use at different times, and where frankly stats are less important.

For modern, "one true party" games? I don't think it's a great idea.

I think your suggestion of allowing the array as a floor is a reasonable one, though not sure if I'd implement that on an "every stat" basis or just "you can choose to swap your rolled stats for the array".

[Democratus]

Stats really aren't all that important in 5e.

Bailing on a group because you don't like how your dice rolled is a bit much.

However, if you really can't have fun unless your character is as good or better than your fellow party members - let the other players (and DM) know now. Don't wait until several sessions in.

[diplomancer]

I mean, Druid and Artificer exist so this isn't really so bad. Moon and Alchemist are particularly stat agnostic, one beats down while buffing and the other debuffs while buffing.

A lot of undead in the campaign, and I'd already volunteered for cleric duty. Was really excited about playing a cleric for the first time too. Now it feels not as fun.

"Stats aren't as important". I don't think this is true. If I'd rolled all 10s I'd definitely give up. It's no fun missing most of your attacks and having most of your spells fail. And that's how the math of the game works.

Standard Array or point buy would STILL mean my character is the worst in the party stats-wise, but at least I'd not feel like a side-kick.

[Tvtyrant]

A lot of undead in the campaign, and I'd already volunteered for cleric duty. Was really excited about playing a cleric for the first time too. Now it feels not as fun.

Yeah I would ask for a reroll, or 1 18 at least. Rolling for stats is only really fun when you are aiming for old school death march D&D, giving players a random advantage over each other is otherwise a strange approach.

[Seekergeek]

I mean, I don't know. Every table is different, so my experience is obviously not a universal standard, but I'm playing Descent right now and have far and away the worst stats in the group. I'm not sure it has impacted things greatly. Play the character you wanted to play and try to have fun. It's a game based around rolling dice and you rolled dice.

[Teaguethebean]

This is why I cannot stand rolling. Every game this happens and then someone feels bad and if you give them a cookie everyone else needs one and it quickly devolves and bogs down the game.

[Christew]

Need your full array to have a clear picture here. Standard array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 -- if the rest of your stats aren't terrible then two 14s isn't that bad. A 14 with a racial +2 gives you a starting 16 which is standard for a starting main stat. Unless you have 14,14, 8, 8, 8, 8 -- stick a 14 in your main stat and choose a race that boosts it, stick a 14 in CON or DEX, and call it a day. Stats aren't that important in a bounded accuracy system.

Philosophically speaking, I use point buy in all of my games to avoid this exact situation. Rolling is designed to introduce variance through chance (this works in both directions), allowing exceptionally high and exceptionally low starting stats. If you want to eliminate the chance of low numbers (with a standard array floor) then you are really only introducing variance to allow higher stats. This is functionally similar to just "rolling" until you get the stats you want. If you want to play a high powered game use point buy with a higher point allowance/remove the 15 barrier. If you want a variable game roll stats and live with the consequences. If you want a standard game use standard array or vanilla point buy.

[CTurbo]

As always, talk to the DM again and explain that this is not going to be enjoyable for you. If he insists you stick with what you got, I would unoptimize on purpose but play the character seriously. I'd probably dump Con or go without armor "for fun" but never try to die on purpose. Also, I wouldn't waste an exciting character idea this time around.



For the record, I would be salty about this too. One of my biggest pet peeves as a player AND as a DM is having a party with wildly different power levels. That's why when we roll for stats, anybody can use anybody's rolls. In your shoes, I'd either not play at all or completely embrace the incompetence of this character. I'd probably never bump any ASI above the 14 and just take fun feats. I could still have fun here, just in a different way. I know this is very passive aggressive, but I'd never go die on purpose or disrupt a campaign because I'm unhappy with my character. If I choose to stay and play, I would take the purposefully hapless character very seriously.

[CTurbo]

I think stats ARE important. +1/-1 here and there isn't going to be that noticeable but your character is going to feel like a commoner next to the superhero that starts with a 20 in it's main stat.

[JNAProductions]

I'll echo those who say "Talk to your DM."

I'll ALSO echo those who say "Give it a try."

A 14 isn't crippling-it's obviously not as good as an 18 or 20, but you can work just fine. If you really feel overshadowed in play, then it's an issue-but I don't think that's guaranteed to happen.

[diplomancer]

Rolled stats were 13 13 13 12 11 11; the 2 14s are AFTER racials.

Not horrible stats, sure. Just boring. But again, this is not comparing to standard array. The rest of the group is a lot more powerful than standard array (2nd worse, the one with just 2 16s after racials, still doesn't have anything below 12).

[Democratus]

I think stats ARE important. +1/-1 here and there isn't going to be that noticeable but your character is going to feel like a commoner next to the superhero that starts with a 20 in it's main stat.

I don't get how having your friend and ally being awesome is somehow a bad thing.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm starting play now in a campaign with rolled ability scores.
I have a suggestion: talk to your DM and ask him to bump one of those 13's to a 15, or allow you to reduce one other score by 1 and add 1 to get a 15. If you are forced into being a Cleric, then having a 16 in your casting stat is more or less expected the way the Basic Rules are written.

Even the Quick build has you put highest score in Casting Stat.
Quick Build

You can make a cleric quickly by following these suggestions.
First, Wisdom should be your highest ability score, followed by Strength or Constitution. Second, choose the acolyte background.


Rolled stats were 13 13 13 12 11 11; the 2 14s are AFTER racials.
Tell him "OK, not gonna be a cleric, I want to be a druid"
Go Moon Druid
Profit. :smallbiggrin:

As an aside: every DM I have played 5e with, who has us roll, allows us to re-roll if we don't get 1 16, or a couple of 15's. Every one of them.

I think you have a great opportunity to Go Down In A Blaze of Glory. Plan it carefully and tell no one! If you are the cleric, at the point where you are sure that you'll get destroyed you need to charge in and attack "for the greater glory of _$deity_"
After that, it's duck soup.
New character, new rolls ...

[Zhorn]

maybe an unpopular opinion here, but I'm of the mind:
"go for the roll, pay the toll"
Rolling for stats has the odds in your favour of getting better than the standard array, but there's still the chance at getting under.
That's the gamble that you sign up for when electing to roll instead of standard array.

[JNAProductions]

maybe an unpopular opinion here, but I'm of the mind:
"go for the roll, pay the toll"
Rolling for stats has the odds in your favour of getting better than the standard array, but there's still the chance at getting under.
That's the gamble that you sign up for when electing to roll instead of standard array.

Except that the OP specifically WANTED Point Buy or Array.

The DM is the one who refused to allow it.

I don't disagree with you in concept, Zhorn, it's just not applicable here.

[Tvtyrant]

I don't get how having your friend and ally being awesome is somehow a bad thing.

Watching someone else be better then you for no reason then random luck is pretty annoying IME. My very first game ever one of the players was a half-orc fighter with an 18, 16 and 14. So 20 strength, 16 con and 14 dex while my cleric was right down the 10-12 line in all stats. That was an older edition but the problem of rewarding players for random chance is still there.

[Dork_Forge]

I'd talk to the DM and if they don't allow you to default over to array or point buy then just find another game. Nobody should have to play with below par rolls when they didn't even want to roll to begin with.

[JNAProductions]

I'd talk to the DM and if they don't allow you to default over to array or point buy then just find another game. Nobody should have to play with below par rolls when they didn't even want to roll to begin with.

Eh... A single foible is not the end of the world. Or at least, wouldn't be for me.

If the DM is, aside from their insistence on rolls, is a good DM, I wouldn't let one thing get in the way of a good time.

I had a DM-a fantastic DM-who houseruled that 1s always failed and 20s always succeeded on saves. I didn't like that-made my Paladin's Aura Of Protection a lot less useful, especially since we had a lot of casters who liked Concentration spells. But I had fun anyway-sure, that minor thing bothered me (among some other stuff too, but that's the example I can think of immediately) but no DM is perfect.

[Dork_Forge]

Eh... A single foible is not the end of the world. Or at least, wouldn't be for me.

If the DM is, aside from their insistence on rolls, is a good DM, I wouldn't let one thing get in the way of a good time.

I had a DM-a fantastic DM-who houseruled that 1s always failed and 20s always succeeded on saves. I didn't like that-made my Paladin's Aura Of Protection a lot less useful, especially since we had a lot of casters who liked Concentration spells. But I had fun anyway-sure, that minor thing bothered me (among some other stuff too, but that's the example I can think of immediately) but no DM is perfect.

Don't get me wrong I wouldn't ditch a regular group for something like this, but the OP said this was an online game they had little investment in and this isn't a great start. If they talk to the DM and the DM makes them play with the rolls anyway, it's an indication the DM isn't taking their individual enjoyment seriously (and it's not like the alternative is a super jacked stat line up, it's the very mediocre standard array or point buy) red flags early on are always the biggest.

[JellyPooga]

Watching someone else be better then you for no reason then random luck is pretty annoying IME.

It is, but on the same page there is also an awful lot of luck in actual gameplay; moreso than during character creation.

It's all well and good calling yourself a master swordsman if you have godlike Str and abilities to match, but if all you roll is 1's on those d20, while Mr.Average with his 12 Str consistently rolls high, then which character is actually the better swordsman? No doubt, having good Ability Scores contributes to better rates of success on average, but I've seen more than one underdog character come out looking much better than characters that should, on paper, be consistently better.

On top of the massive swinginess of the d20 and Bounded Accuracy, Class features contribute much more to how most characters actually perform than Abiltiy Scores ever do. For Example; no matter how high or low your Dexterity or any other Ability Score, you aren't able to Dash as a bonus action unless you have a feature or buff that allows you to do so. Yes, some features function better/worse with higher/lower Ability Scores, but that rarely stops you using them at all and in many cases Ability Scores don't come into it.

Rolling the dice on a risky move is often a lot more satisfying than resolving a foregone conclusion! Playing as a Plucky Underdog can be just as fun as playing the Big Damned Hero. To the OP, I say play your character; you might enjoy it!

[diplomancer]

Eh... A single foible is not the end of the world. Or at least, wouldn't be for me.

If the DM is, aside from their insistence on rolls, is a good DM, I wouldn't let one thing get in the way of a good time.

I had a DM-a fantastic DM-who houseruled that 1s always failed and 20s always succeeded on saves. I didn't like that-made my Paladin's Aura Of Protection a lot less useful, especially since we had a lot of casters who liked Concentration spells. But I had fun anyway-sure, that minor thing bothered me (among some other stuff too, but that's the example I can think of immediately) but no DM is perfect.

This is a good point. I still don't know the DM well*. My thoughts are to try and play it to my best, but, if not having fun, either just quit or go out in a blaze of glory.

*though his insistence on rolling, not allowing standard array as a fallback, and saying "this makes the game more fun" are big points against him, in my perspective. Honestly, I don't even understand HOW it can make the game more fun to have characters be so different when they are all starting at the same time and with the same level of investment.

[Tvtyrant]

It is, but on the same page there is also an awful lot of luck in actual gameplay; moreso than during character creation.

It's all well and good calling yourself a master swordsman if you have godlike Str and abilities to match, but if all you roll is 1's on those d20, while Mr.Average with his 12 Str consistently rolls high, then which character is actually the better swordsman? No doubt, having good Ability Scores contributes to better rates of success on average, but I've seen more than one underdog character come out looking much better than characters that should, on paper, be consistently better.

On top of the massive swinginess of the d20 and Bounded Accuracy, Class features contribute much more to how most characters actually perform than Abiltiy Scores ever do. For Example; no matter how high or low your Dexterity or any other Ability Score, you aren't able to Dash as a bonus action unless you have a feature or buff that allows you to do so. Yes, some features function better/worse with higher/lower Ability Scores, but that rarely stops you using them at all and in many cases Ability Scores don't come into it.

Rolling the dice on a risky move is often a lot more satisfying than resolving a foregone conclusion! Playing as a Plucky Underdog can be just as fun as playing the Big Damned Hero. To the OP, I say play your character; you might enjoy it!

Here is the thing though, stat rolling is a single roll that permanently advantages or penalizes you for the duration o the game. Imagine if you rolled the first time in combat and that was the roll you used for the rest of the game. The nature of averages means that rolling 400 attacks will even out temporary attack luck, stat luck is forever.

[JNAProductions]

This is a good point. I still don't know the DM well*. My thoughts are to try and play it to my best, but, if not having fun, either just quit or go out in a blaze of glory.

*though his insistence on rolling, not allowing standard array as a fallback, and saying "this makes the game more fun" are big points against him, in my perspective. Honestly, I don't even understand HOW it can make the game more fun to have characters be so different when they are all starting at the same time and with the same level of investment.

Okay. I'd still say give it a chance-your stats aren't unusable, just a little mediocre.

If you aren't having fun, tell the DM. If the DM refuses to let you have fun, THEN walk.

[Sigreid]

Ultimately, you're not obligated to play if you're unhappy.

That said, there is another choice and one I've had a great deal of fun with over the years. Take the sub optimal character and try to compensate for the scores with superior play. It can be a lot of fun, and quite an ego boost if you take the disadvantaged character and play him/her so masterfully that the party sees them as an invaluable ally.

Edit: I guess it could be put as I see a weaker character as a puzzle to be solved. And I like solving puzzles.

[diplomancer]

Thinking now more generally... standard array is, for many characters, slightly less optimized than point-buy. So letting players choose between either point-buy or rolled stats with Standard Array as a floor might be a way of keeping "the fun of rolling stats" with some level of risk. Roll well, congratulations, your character will be better than point-buy. Roll poorly you are still reasonably effective, but not as effective as you would have been had you chosen point-buy in the first place.

[Friv]

Rolled stats were 13 13 13 12 11 11; the 2 14s are AFTER racials.

Not horrible stats, sure. Just boring. But again, this is not comparing to standard array. The rest of the group is a lot more powerful than standard array (2nd worse, the one with just 2 16s after racials, still doesn't have anything below 12).

Okay, if you want to stick it out, here is my suggestion: You have, for a change, rolled the perfect standard human. The +1 to everything will give you a final stat array of 14, 14, 14, 13, 12, 12: a +1 or +2 in every stat. I would be tempted to say, "go for bard, jack of all trades, have a decent bonus on literally anything you try" but you committed to cleric. That's fine. Pick a domain that doesn't use Wisdom as much. Take heavy armor so you don't need high Dexterity. Drop your +2s into, say, Wisdom, Constitution, and Strength, and you've got a solid second-row fighter with great buffs who can also handle knowledge and face time in a pinch.

You grew up rich and powerful. You're a third child, no inheritance, so you joined a temple and discovered that you liked the work. You try to be humble, but really, you kind of think that you're good at everything, and there is not a lot of evidence that you're wrong. No matter what happens, you're willing to pitch in and lend a hand, and you've always got a positive bonus to anything you roll.

You won't be quite as good at turning undead, but it's a difference of 5-10%.

[KorvinStarmast]

Thinking now more generally... standard array is, for many characters, slightly less optimized than point-buy. So letting players choose between either point-buy or rolled stats with Standard Array as a floor might be a way of keeping "the fun of rolling stats" with some level of risk. Roll well, congratulations, your character will be better than point-buy. Roll poorly you are still reasonably effective, but not as effective as you would have been had you chosen point-buy in the first place. Yep. Standard array suxors IMO. Point buy? While I think it ought to be 28 or 29 (math wise), I do like it since it lets you customize the PC.

[Sigreid]

Okay, if you want to stick it out, here is my suggestion: You have, for a change, rolled the perfect standard human. The +1 to everything will give you a final stat array of 14, 14, 14, 13, 12, 12: a +1 or +2 in every stat. I would be tempted to say, "go for bard, jack of all trades, have a decent bonus on literally anything you try" but you committed to cleric. That's fine. Pick a domain that doesn't use Wisdom as much. Take heavy armor so you don't need high Dexterity. Drop your +2s into, say, Wisdom, Constitution, and Strength, and you've got a solid second-row fighter with great buffs who can also handle knowledge and face time in a pinch.

You grew up rich and powerful. You're a third child, no inheritance, so you joined a temple and discovered that you liked the work. You try to be humble, but really, you kind of think that you're good at everything, and there is not a lot of evidence that you're wrong. No matter what happens, you're willing to pitch in and lend a hand, and you've always got a positive bonus to anything you roll.

You won't be quite as good at turning undead, but it's a difference of 5-10%.

I actually think overall they are in a much better position than standard array. /shrug

[KorvinStarmast]

Okay, if you want to stick it out, here is my suggestion: You have, for a change, rolled the perfect standard human. The +1 to everything will give you a final stat array of 14, 14, 14, 13, 12, 12: a +1 or +2 in every stat. Forge Cleric. Make a +1 Warhammer or +1 Mace.
Use bless a lot.
All ASIs to Wisdom up to level 12.
Probably works.

[Dork_Forge]

I actually think overall they are in a much better position than standard array. /shrug

They have a higher floor so to speak (no -1s is a benefit unto itself) but odd numbers mean nothing, so it's still two 0s and 4 +1s vs one -1, one 0, two +1s and two +2s. Personally I'd take the standard array over it and if I had to use those stats I'd either take V.Human for the feat (since all my ASIs are definitely going on bumps) or HElf to bump three stats at once.

[Sigreid]

They have a higher floor so to speak (no -1s is a benefit unto itself) but odd numbers mean nothing, so it's still two 0s and 4 +1s vs one -1, one 0, two +1s and two +2s. Personally I'd take the standard array over it and if I had to use those stats I'd either take V.Human for the feat (since all my ASIs are definitely going on bumps) or HElf to bump three stats at once.

I'd take normal human and have all bonuses personally. 3 ASI's will put my primary stat to max, and I'd play the others as shown.

[diplomancer]

Forge Cleric. Make a +1 Warhammer or +1 Mace.
Use bless a lot.
All ASIs to Wisdom up to level 12.
Probably works.

Forge cleric is the one I had in mind from the beginning. And here's why it sucks I rolled so poorly... it's clearly more effective to put the +1 on the crossbow of the ranger with crossbow expert. But I have to play sub-par just to feel effective.

But I did have some good ideas for this character from this chat. Thanks guys!

[truemane]

This is one of those things where you think you're arguing about the stats, but really you're arguing over what you value and what you don't in your role-playing. It's like a married couple talking about money. They can spend months calling each other Cheap and Spoiled before they dig down to the meta-values that inform the conversation.

So, if the way you see stats doesn't match the way the GM sees stats, then not only is it going to be that problem, but probably you and that GM don't share the same philosophy of gaming. Everyone wants to have fun, but everyone has fun in different ways.

Some GM's like low stats for a number of reasons, some GM's like high stats for a number of reasons. Whether or not their reasons are 'valid' isn't the point. That's how they game, and it's how they like to game, and fighting with them isn't going to get you very far.

Personally, as a GM, my feeling on stats is that their impact on overall game is minuscule compared to the impact they have on player enjoyment. Generally speaking, that one person with the jacked up 24 Strength is going to have WAY more fun with that +7 than extra +7 damage is ever going to cause me while I control all of time and space. But that's how I play. But if someone thought that removed some of the fun from the game for whatever reason, then we wouldn't be a good fit.

For what it's worth, I also very much like rolling + some sort of minimum fallback. PbP gaming takes forever, which means the pain of stats you hate just goes on and on and on.

[Dork_Forge]

I'd take normal human and have all bonuses personally. 3 ASI's will put my primary stat to max, and I'd play the others as shown.

I'd always be hard pressed to take vanilla Human because they're nothing but the stats, so you're basically dependent on your class for everything. If I were to play one though it'd probably be one of those odd characters that had levels in everything to take advantage of probably meeting all the prereqs and just load up on all the front loaded abilities.

[Sigreid]

I'd always be hard pressed to take vanilla Human because they're nothing but the stats, so you're basically dependent on your class for everything. If I were to play one though it'd probably be one of those odd characters that had levels in everything to take advantage of probably meeting all the prereqs and just load up on all the front loaded abilities.

They're good for special cases like this where most or all of the rolled stats are odd. In this case, their special power that they bring to the table is being above average in literally everything.

[Dark.Revenant]

Some time ago, I joined a campaign that offered a choice of stat generation methods:
1. 4d6r1*6, rearrange as needed
2. 3d6*6 down the line, roll six sets and pick the one to use
3. Point buy / standard array

The party was well-established, having magic items, fairly high stats, a mix of moderately optimized (like a war cleric with 16 str and 20 wis) to heavily optimized characters (like a revised ranger gloom stalker with 20 dex and sharpshooter), and about 9th level. Since I wanted to play a monk—specifically, arguably the weakest monk subclass (sun soul)—I opted for Option 1.

My rolls: 12 12 11 11 8 6.

I was looking at having 57 HP, 15 AC, +8 to hit, 1d8/1d6+4 damage, and a DC of 13 for my stunning strikes and blasts... at 9th level. For comparison, the average standard array / point buy monk at 9th level will have 66 HP, 17 AC, +9 to hit, 1d8/1d6+5 damage, and a DC 14 save, with many having 18 AC and a DC 15 save. Meanwhile, I'd have to roleplay at least a 6 and an 8 in Str, Int, and/or Cha, making the character either a noodly pipsqueak with no business being able to punch dragons to death, or alternatively a lobotomy patient, neither of which sounded fun to me.


My DM allowed me to reroll, so I (reluctantly) did, and the second result was far better. Was I wrong to have rerolled? I don't think I was. Using those terrible stats would not have been much fun for me, and neither would the party have appreciated yet another weak ally. It also wouldn't have made much sense for someone with such terrible stats to go on a divine mission to help a group of adventurers save the world. My new stats fit the story I wanted to tell much better, and my fellow players agree that I was right to take the reroll.


So I ask you: will the stats you rolled offer the greatest play experience for yourself and the party?

[Arkhios]

Rolled stats were 13 13 13 12 11 11; the 2 14s are AFTER racials.


A perfect opportunity to play a standard human fighter (Champion), with maybe...

Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 13, Cha 12

So what, if you don't get a feat at first level. You'll be just like the other races then! Besides, it's called a Variant for a reason; it's not a given that every DM even allows it because it's a variant.

As a fighter you get a total of 7 ASI. Go nuts! You'll easily get at least one score to 20 with 3 ASI, and you still have 4 to spend for Feats, if you want them. Or you could do like I would:

Aim for getting both Str and Con to 20 and take Resilient (wisdom), take Defense and Dueling fighting styles, becoming quite an impressive tank.

Plate and Shield, plus Defense fighting style, your AC starts at 21, before any magic is involved.

224 max hit points, four attacks with one action, all potentially dealing 1d8+7 (12 on average), landing criticals on rolls 18, 19, and 20.

You make all Strength and Constitution checks you're not proficient with at a bonus of +8, and all Dexterity checks at a bonus of +5 (including initiative!)

You jump farther and higher than others, even in plate.

Honestly, fighter is amazing.

[Democratus]

Watching someone else be better then you for no reason then random luck is pretty annoying IME.

Ya. This is what I don't get. Nothing wrong with rolling dice and then playing with the consequences.

Especially in 5e where "better" is a marginal value at best. I've played characters for years-long campaigns who didn't have a stat above 12. And I didn't have a rant or tantrum when someone else rolled an 18. I had fun with my character and was happy for my fellow player.

Different strokes, different folks I suppose.

[Dork_Forge]

Ya. This is what I don't get. Nothing wrong with rolling dice and then playing with the consequences.

Especially in 5e where "better" is a marginal value at best. I've played characters for years-long campaigns who didn't have a stat above 12. And I didn't have a rant or tantrum when someone else rolled an 18. I had fun with my character and was happy for my fellow player.

Different strokes, different folks I suppose.

What edition was that in? And were you happy to roll said dice to begin with?

[diplomancer]

What edition was that in? And were you happy to roll said dice to begin with?

This makes a big difference. On older editions, some stats were almost irrelevant, they basically gave you extra XP.

[Democratus]

What edition was that in? And were you happy to roll said dice to begin with?

Several times in earlier editions, of course. In 5th I played an 'Out of the Abyss' character who had no stat above 12. That campaign ran 3 years.

Indeed I was happy with my rolls to begin with. Why wouldn't I be? It's 5e, so high stats really weren't important and I was starting a new character in a new campaign. That's always super exciting!

In 2e/3e it could cap your max spell levels as a caster since they were limited by your stats. Not so in 5th. :smallcool:

[Bobthewizard]

I have come around to realizing that your stats don't matter that much. I've made characters with great stats and then still not enjoyed the game for other reasons, and I've been stuck with worse rolls than other players and still had a great time. An extra +2 is only a 10% better chance of hitting. It still comes down to the roll for most things. Don't worry about it too much and make the character you want. Take the class and race you want, take the feats you want, and then increase your stats. I'd argue against normal human. It's boring and only two or maybe 3 stats even mean anything most of the time. So the other +1's, even if they round numbers to even, don't mean a whole lot. The feat from variant human or the abilities of other races are usually a lot more fun, even if your dump stats are odd numbers.

[WaroftheCrans]

maybe an unpopular opinion here, but I'm of the mind:
"go for the roll, pay the toll"
Rolling for stats has the odds in your favour of getting better than the standard array, but there's still the chance at getting under.
That's the gamble that you sign up for when electing to roll instead of standard array.

Rolling for stats 4d6b3*6 is actually the same as point buy statistically (Standard array being a variation). Don't have the numbers on this right now, but it is true. It's the reason why 4d6b3*6 is the suggestion in the front of the book for rolling stats. Rerolling 1's only makes it at most 1 or 2 points better than the 27 points of point buy.

To those saying that they prefer his stats to point buy/standard array, if it were point buy he'd have 2 points left over, and would likely have never chosen this array anyhow.

I'd ask the DM if you can either add 2 points, or push down one of your normal dump stats to get a higher wisdom

[Azuresun]

Another possibility might be, if you're on good terms with any of the other players, ask them if you could switch stat lineups with them? Maybe they feel like a bit of a challenge.

[MaxWilson]

I'm starting play now in a campaign with rolled ability scores. I told DM I prefer point-buy or standard array, even though DM uses a generous rolling method (4d6b3, reroll 1s)

As luck would have it, out of 6 characters, 1 has a 20 at level 1, 3 have at least 1 18, 1 has 2 16s, and my character has 2 14s.

Result of that-> I tried to optimize as best as possible, but still I know I will be struggling to keep up. Even making smart choices would just be to compensate for my terrible rolls. It's the first character I've played I'm not excited about. I'm just tempted to be reckless with him and let him die an honorable death, maybe saving the rest of the party, and then either reroll a new character or just stop playing with this group.

I did ask the DM to at least have the standard array, he said he feels "it's more fun that way".

Playgrounders, what should I do?
1- Just leave the group? It's an online game, and I'm not terribly invested in it. I just don't like quitting... and I did accept the DM's rules when I accepted rolling the dice.
2- Try my best to keep the character alive? That feels like the "honorable thing to do" but it means playing a game where I'm feeling subpar all the time.
3- Kill the character, preferably in a way that saves the bacon of the rest of the party? They get to keep their nice characters, and I either make a character I actually enjoy playing or leave.

One important detail- I may be overthinking this, I know, and maybe ability scores don't matter as much as I think they do. I just feel bad looking at my character sheet. I know I can play someone who basically focus on buffing his teammates and be very effective that way. Oddly enough, that WAS the character I was trying to play, as long as I could be reasonably effective on my own, now I feel like I HAVE to focus on myself and forget the rest of the party, they are good enough already. If it was a game with close friends, I would probably keep to that support idea, as they would be able to realize what I was doing. But again, online game with strangers, why do I have to sacrifice my character's fun so that others can feel even more awesome than they are already?

Give it a shot (Goblin Moon Druid with Skulker at level 4 is terrific) and if you don't like it, politely discontinue participation. There's no point spending time on something that isn't fun for you. But you may have an epiphany that stats really don't matter as much as you thought they did, compared to feats and actual features.

FWIW, I love rolled stats, even 3d6 in order where you sometimes roll stuff like Str 7, Dex 6, Con 9, Int 7, Wis 8, Cha 4 and decide to play a wizard anyway--but it's an acquired taste. As a DM I therefore allow point buy as a fallback for those who don't like their rolls. (I also have a procedure that can earn you a reroll, if you donate your unwanted PC for me the DM to use as an NPC and also roll up five NPCs on 3d6 and donate them to me too.)

[fbelanger]

IMO you got really decent stat rolls.
Bad stats are much like: 11, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7 and sometime worst!

[Dork_Forge]

Several times in earlier editions, of course. In 5th I played an 'Out of the Abyss' character who had no stat above 12. That campaign ran 3 years.

Indeed I was happy with my rolls to begin with. Why wouldn't I be? It's 5e, so high stats really weren't important and I was starting a new character in a new campaign. That's always super exciting!

In 2e/3e it could cap your max spell levels as a caster since they were limited by your stats. Not so in 5th. :smallcool:

I love your enthusiasm for the game, but I feel like you're answering were you happy to be playing, not were you happy with your stats. Stats aren't crippling in 5e, but they do affect a lot of different aspects of the game depending on your build.


I have come around to realizing that your stats don't matter that much. I've made characters with great stats and then still not enjoyed the game for other reasons, and I've been stuck with worse rolls than other players and still had a great time. An extra +2 is only a 10% better chance of hitting. It still comes down to the roll for most things. Don't worry about it too much and make the character you want. Take the class and race you want, take the feats you want, and then increase your stats. I'd argue against normal human. It's boring and only two or maybe 3 stats even mean anything most of the time. So the other +1's, even if they round numbers to even, don't mean a whole lot. The feat from variant human or the abilities of other races are usually a lot more fun, even if your dump stats are odd numbers.

It's not just the extra +10% to hit (though missing 10% more than everyone else doesn't exactly sound appealing), for Clerics it's also reducing the spells you can prepare, less hp to heal, less damage you do and depending on your domain it can limit the amount of times you can use a defining ability. I can imagine that it will sting all the more when you fail a save by 1-2 as well.

[KorvinStarmast]

My DM allowed me to reroll, so I (reluctantly) did, and the second result was far better. Was I wrong to have rerolled? Nope. The game's bounded accuracy model and the general WoTC model requires that PC's have a few decent scores. The DM called that one right. (I'd have had you re roll; a lot of the games I play we roll scores; in a few and in play tests, it is point buy.

For Arkhios: great post. thanks!

[Cry Havoc]

I'm starting play now in a campaign with rolled ability scores. I told DM I prefer point-buy or standard array, even though DM uses a generous rolling method (4d6b3, reroll 1s)

As luck would have it, out of 6 characters, 1 has a 20 at level 1, 3 have at least 1 18, 1 has 2 16s, and my character has 2 14s.

Result of that-> I tried to optimize as best as possible, but still I know I will be struggling to keep up. Even making smart choices would just be to compensate for my terrible rolls. It's the first character I've played I'm not excited about. I'm just tempted to be reckless with him and let him die an honorable death, maybe saving the rest of the party, and then either reroll a new character or just stop playing with this group.

I did ask the DM to at least have the standard array, he said he feels "it's more fun that way".

Playgrounders, what should I do?
1- Just leave the group? It's an online game, and I'm not terribly invested in it. I just don't like quitting... and I did accept the DM's rules when I accepted rolling the dice.
2- Try my best to keep the character alive? That feels like the "honorable thing to do" but it means playing a game where I'm feeling subpar all the time.
3- Kill the character, preferably in a way that saves the bacon of the rest of the party? They get to keep their nice characters, and I either make a character I actually enjoy playing or leave.

One important detail- I may be overthinking this, I know, and maybe ability scores don't matter as much as I think they do. I just feel bad looking at my character sheet. I know I can play someone who basically focus on buffing his teammates and be very effective that way. Oddly enough, that WAS the character I was trying to play, as long as I could be reasonably effective on my own, now I feel like I HAVE to focus on myself and forget the rest of the party, they are good enough already. If it was a game with close friends, I would probably keep to that support idea, as they would be able to realize what I was doing. But again, online game with strangers, why do I have to sacrifice my character's fun so that others can feel even more awesome than they are already?

Firstly, I hate rolled stats.

Secondly, you consented to rolled stats when you signed up to the game. You need to harden up and roll with it.

It's the mark of a good player when you can have a kick ass character with poor ability scores. Look at it as a test of your skill, not as a handicap.

[Dark.Revenant]

It bothers me that so many of these replies seem to imply "You should man up and take the bad stats to earn our respect!"


Indeed I was happy with my rolls to begin with. Why wouldn't I be? It's 5e, so high stats really weren't important and I was starting a new character in a new campaign. That's always super exciting!
Not picking on you in particular, but I'd just like to point out that 5e is more dependent on stats than most previous editions of the game, specifically because they're one of very few ways to increase the odds of success. Bounded accuracy actually emphasizes raw ability scores. Between 12 in your main attack stat and 20, you can easily see a 30% decrease in likelihood to hit average targets (let alone tough, high-AC targets) and a 40% decrease in damage even if you hit, which adds up to about a 60% overall reduction in effectiveness for your character. Having literally less than half your potential combat power doesn't strike me as "unimportant."


Rolling for stats 4d6b3*6 is actually the same as point buy statistically (Standard array being a variation). Don't have the numbers on this right now, but it is true. It's the reason why 4d6b3*6 is the suggestion in the front of the book for rolling stats. Rerolling 1's only makes it at most 1 or 2 points better than the 27 points of point buy.
4d6r1*6 on average adds up to a higher stat total than point buy. It's marginal (like 1.5 points), but it's there.

[MaxWilson]

Rolled stats were 13 13 13 12 11 11; the 2 14s are AFTER racials.

Not horrible stats, sure. Just boring. But again, this is not comparing to standard array. The rest of the group is a lot more powerful than standard array (2nd worse, the one with just 2 16s after racials, still doesn't have anything below 12).


Another possibility might be, if you're on good terms with any of the other players, ask them if you could switch stat lineups with them? Maybe they feel like a bit of a challenge.

Yeah, as a player I'd be willing to do this. 13 13 13 12 11 11 isn't horrible (it's better than straight 10s and 11s, so boring).

For me I'd make this PC into:

Absalom the Bear, a gentle giant with a surprisingly large vocabulary and a love of both books and gadgets
Human [Heavy Armor Master] Forge Cleric 1/Enchanter X
Str 15 (13, +1 for human, +1 for HAM) Dex 11 Con 12 Int 14 (13, +1 for human) Wis 13 Cha 11
Background: Hermit
Proficiencies: Insight, Persuasion, Stealth, Perception, Athletics

AC: 19 at level 1, AC 21 eventually w/ plate

Future ASIs:
Level 5: Int 16
Level 9: Resilient (Con)
Level 13: Int 18
Level 17: Warcaster
Level 20: Int 20

Signature spells and tactics:
Invisibility + Hypnotic Gaze + Instinctive Charm for tanking/disables in consecutive medium-ish encounters, all a single 2nd level spell slot
Invisibility + sneaking + Charm Monster V + asking for help (no disadvantage on Charm Monster before combat starts, two targets because Charm Monster V) to try to leverage monsters against each other
Round 1: twin Tasha's Hideous Laughter on two monsters, Round 2: Grapple a third monster + Sanctuary, Round 3: Dodge
Round 1: Hypnotic Pattern or Fear, Round 2: Hypnotic Gaze on a monster which made its save
Expeditious Retreat + cantrip spam against tough melee monsters or those with short-ranged gaze attacks
Tiny Servant to turn gadgets into minions, have them Help other PCs or Dodge to prolong tanking
Plus the usual wizard stuff like Polymorph, Confusion, Fireball


Not picking on you in particular, but I'd just like to point out that 5e is more dependent on stats than most previous editions of the game, specifically because they're one of very few ways to increase the odds of success. Bounded accuracy actually emphasizes raw ability scores. Between 12 in your main attack stat and 20, you can easily see a 30% decrease in likelihood to hit average targets (let alone tough, high-AC targets) and a 40% decrease in damage even if you hit, which adds up to about a 60% overall reduction in effectiveness for your character. Having literally less than half your potential combat power doesn't strike me as "unimportant."

In AD&D you can play a wizard who even at 20th level is unable to cast spells above 4th level because his Int is only 9 (http://ancientscrossroads.com/adnd_tools/int_table.htm), and has a crummy spell selection due to taking forever to learn the good spells once he even finds them. (35% chance to learn a spell you gain access to, and if you fail you can't re-try until you go up a level. And you can only know 6 total spells of each level, ever.) It can still be fun, but 5E wizards have it much, much easier: you have a 100% chance to gain two spells of your choice automatically every time you level up, and you can still cast 9th level spells even with Int 3.

[Lupine]

See Zee Bashew’s “weak d&d characters are better.” You may lack in mechanics, but lean into it.

[Dark.Revenant]

See Zee Bashew’s “weak d&d characters are better.” You may lack in mechanics, but lean into it.
Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but wasn't that referring to a whole party of weak characters?

[MaxWilson]

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but wasn't that referring to a whole party of weak characters?

No, it's about how weakness creates drama and a platform for other characters to interact with (and look awesome), and how playing a weak-stats PC also comes with benefits like the fact that you don't have to feel psychological stress about keeping the PC alive. Quote:

There are three outcomes which I've seen a pattern in, and they're all pretty great.

1.) Lean into the RP, swing for the fences with your roleplaying, chew the [unintellligible] to pieces, and then die a glorious death.
2.) Hardcore mode: you survive one nail-biting episode to the next, your weaknesses reinforcing the party's strength and grounding the adventures' twists and turns.
3.) And finally, you pull a full Bill Murray and you bumble your way to glory.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yjq3ohDAeM

I've done #1 and #2, don't think I've ever achieved a full #3 by accident.

[Dark.Revenant]

No, it's about how weakness creates drama and a platform for other characters to interact with (and look awesome), and how playing a weak-stats PC also comes with benefits like the fact that you don't have to feel psychological stress about keeping the PC alive. Quote:

There are three outcomes which I've seen a pattern in, and they're all pretty great.

1.) Lean into the RP, swing for the fences with your roleplaying, chew the [unintellligible] to pieces, and then die a glorious death.
2.) Hardcore mode: you survive one nail-biting episode to the next, your weaknesses reinforcing the party's strength and grounding the adventures' twists and turns.
3.) And finally, you pull a full Bill Murray and you bumble your way to glory.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yjq3ohDAeM

I've done #1 and #2, don't think I've ever achieved a full #3 by accident.

Ah, that's the one. Still, that kind of character style isn't always what one is intending to play. My point has always been that the player should make a character they find enjoyable. For some, having a weakling is an opportunity for fun times. For others, it's painfully frustrating.

[diplomancer]

I decided going Variant Human, HAM, forge cleric. Stats are Str 15, Dex 11, Con 12, Wis 14, Int 13, Cha 11. Maybe take a level in Wizard. Having shield spell, plate mail, shield, and the dodge action will make it very hard to hit me if I'm concentrating on an important spell, so hopefully that will be enough for concentration. All ASI's go towards increasing Wis, assuming I survive that far with that bad Con and on the frontlines. Well, if I don't survive, no great loss. Still feels weird playing a character I don't mind dying.

I could have gone with 14 Con and 11 Int. Probably would live longer. But since it doesn't matter I might as well put the points where they will be fun. I'm even thinking of bumping Int or Cha (probably Int, no wizard in the party) and leaving Con at 11. Probably will end up doing that.

[MaxWilson]

I decided going Variant Human, HAM, forge cleric. Stats are Str 15, Dex 11, Con 12, Wis 14, Int 13, Cha 11. Maybe take a level in Wizard. Having shield spell, plate mail, shield, and the dodge action will make it very hard to hit me if I'm concentrating on an important spell, so hopefully that will be enough for concentration.

*Magical* plate mail at that, with Sanctuary as a no-concentrating bonus action to boot. (Depends on what you're concentrating on of course--not compatible with Spirit Guardians, but works fine with Animate Objects.)

What made you choose Cleric over Wizard as your main class? Are there spells/combos you find exciting, or is it more about the party needing someone who can Revivify/Greater Restoration?

[Rynjin]

I don't get how having your friend and ally being awesome is somehow a bad thing.

Tell you what, why don't we start up a game. I get to be Superman, and you can be Jimmy Olsen.

[Rynjin]

That's 25 points if it were done by point buy. If it's really bothering you, as for 2 points to bring it up to par with point buy. Then change a 13 to a 14.

While technically true, it's not a statline anyone would purposefully buy. The raw point buy equivalent doesn't mean a whole ton with rolled stats. I think people kind of fail to connect those two thoughts in this kind of thread.

[diplomancer]

In the end, the more I realize I don't care if the character survives, the more I appreciate him, means I don't have to worry at all about constitution, which is a boring stat anyway. Still going for the HAM because of that movement penalty, but final stat array will be Str 15, Dex 11, Con 11, Wis 14, Int 14, Cha 11. I get to be the brains of the group, at least while I'm alive.


*Magical* plate mail at that, with Sanctuary as a no-concentrating bonus action to boot. (Depends on what you're concentrating on of course--not compatible with Spirit Guardians, but works fine with Animate Objects.)

What made you choose Cleric over Wizard as your main class? Are there spells/combos you find exciting, or is it more about the party needing someone who can Revivify/Greater Restoration?

3 reasons
1- I'm playing a wizard in a different campaign, never played a cleric
2- It's an undead heavy campaign, which is one of the reasons I thought would be a fun one to play a cleric
3- I like being in melee when I can. Even the wizard I'm playing is a melee wizard. But going melee wizard with these stats is too suicidal, even for me.

[MaxWilson]

While technically true, it's not a statline anyone would purposefully buy. The raw point buy equivalent doesn't mean a whole ton with rolled stats. I think people kind of fail to connect those two thoughts in this kind of thread.

"Never" is an exaggeration.

I've seen a player buy almost that exact stat line. (13 13 13 12 12 12, identical except for the 11s are 12s. He turned out into a Blac Dragonborn Death Cleric.) I wouldn't myself, but... it does happen. Some people just don't want to have any negative modifiers, ever.


In the end, the more I realize I don't care if the character survives, the more I appreciate him, means I don't have to worry at all about constitution, which is a boring stat anyway. Still going for the HAM because of that movement penalty, but final stat array will be Str 15, Dex 11, Con 11, Wis 14, Int 14, Cha 11. I get to be the brains of the group, at least while I'm alive.

3 reasons
1- I'm playing a wizard in a different campaign, never played a cleric
2- It's an undead heavy campaign, which is one of the reasons I thought would be a fun one to play a cleric
3- I like being in melee when I can. Even the wizard I'm playing is a melee wizard. But going melee wizard with these stats is too suicidal, even for me.

Thanks for explaining. (Melee wizards are awesomecool IME, very tough to kill if they leverage stuff like Booming Blade, Blur/Protection From Evil, Shield, and occasionally Invisibility, Dodge, and/or Sanctuary, but your other reasons are sufficient.)

I don't see BTW how you can have two 14s and a 15. I get that HAM + human +1 gets you a 15, but how then can you afford to bump both 13s to 14s? I think it's a mistake. Also one of your 11s should be a 12.

[diplomancer]

"Never" is an exaggeration.

I've seen a player buy almost that exact stat line. (13 13 13 12 12 12, identical except for the 11s are 12s. He turned out into a Blac Dragonborn Death Cleric.) I wouldn't myself, but... it does happen. Some people just don't want to have any negative modifiers, ever.



Thanks for explaining. (Melee wizards are awesomecool IME, very tough to kill if they leverage stuff like Booming Blade, Blur/Protection From Evil, Shield, and occasionally Invisibility, Dodge, and/or Sanctuary, but your other reasons are sufficient.)

I don't see BTW how you can have two 14s and a 15. I get that HAM + human +1 gets you a 15, but how then can you afford to bump two 13s to 14s? You should only be able to bump one of them.

You're right, I don't know where I got that from. 13 Int and 12 Con it is.

[CTurbo]

With those stats I would probably build an "Abserd" type character. Couple levels of Cleric, couple levels of Wizard, couple levels of Fighter, couple levels of Druid, etc...

[Mad_Saulot]

As a DM i'd rather roll 4d6x6 drop lowest, but my players always want point buy, I think they realise they wouldn't be happy with perceived stat differences but its rather bland imo

If I were you i'd try to ignore stats, create a skil based roleplay orientated character that is always useful like a healer, or bard, or go for shapeshifter so you always have beast stats, and go full Disney.

Do you know if the game is gonna be roleplay and player driven or is it gonna be battle-grid story naratives, if the latter maybe it'd be better joining another game.

You could create a "Jester" character literally go for the foolish heel, it might be fun, less so if its all done on battle grids tho.

PS, whats the meaning of the b3 in 4d6b3?

[Zhorn]

Except that the OP specifically WANTED Point Buy or Array.

The DM is the one who refused to allow it.

I don't disagree with you in concept, Zhorn, it's just not applicable here.

I'll elaborate a bit more.

My comment is directly at the title of the thread, I don't agree with the standard array being a floor.
We could be talking about a floor in a different manner. If it just means as an option to take instead of rolling at all, yes I agree it should ALWAYS be an option before rolling.

But I'm not taking 'floor' as meaning 'option' here. If I hear floor, I'm taking that meaning as being the lowest possible result.
The moment those dice hit the table, standard array is off said table. and you get what the dice give you.

If the OP had rolled BEFORE voicing their preference to the DM, I'm on the DM's side
If the OP had voicing their preference BEFORE rolling and the DM refused and forced the roll, I'm on the OP's side

[MaxWilson]

PS, whats the meaning of the b3 in 4d6b3?

"Best" maybe?

[Arkhios]

"Best" maybe?

That's correct.

[FaerieGodfather]

I think your suggestion of allowing the array as a floor is a reasonable one, though not sure if I'd implement that on an "every stat" basis or just "you can choose to swap your rolled stats for the array".

One of my default houserules for anything even vaguely D&Dish is that you use two separate systems for determining your ability scores and then take the best result for each ability-- for D&D itself, I prefer to go with Standard Point Buy versus 3d6 in order.

Or do Standard Point Buy capped at 16, then roll 4d4 in order for each ability, but every 1 on the dice is +1 to the final result.

[elyktsorb]

I'm very conflicted with rolled stats tbh. Since if you don't roll stats your spend your first x levels usually buffing the stats you'd need to, which is boring in my opinion. But rolling for stats sucks when you have multiple people because, well, I mean I know I feel like **** when I get a better character than someone else just because I rolled better, then on the flip side, if you roll lower than standard array you get the additional ****ty feeling of wishing you'd just gone with standard array. I'd definitely agree that there's no point to rolling if you go under the standard array. Even if you get like one 18 but then a bunch of ****ty numbers.

[BurgerBeast]

The time to be unhappy was before you rolled your stats. You accepted the rules the moment you decided to roll. Nobody threw the dice for you. You get what you get.

If you rolled 18, 18, 16, 15, 13, 12, would you request that the DM lower some stats? If not, you’re being a poor sport.


If the OP had rolled BEFORE voicing their preference to the DM, I'm on the DM's side
If the OP had voicing their preference BEFORE rolling and the DM refused and forced the roll, I'm on the OP's side

But the DM has the right to say no. The player can decide he doesn’t like it and decide to not play.

Once you roll, you have agreed. Be a good sport. Take on the challenge of playing the best character you can, despite the stats. Enjoy the game.

[diplomancer]

The time to be unhappy was before you rolled your stats. You accepted the rules the moment you decided to roll. Nobody threw the dice for you. You get what you get.

If you rolled 18, 18, 16, 15, 13, 12, would you request that the DM lower some stats? If not, you’re being a poor sport.



But the DM has the right to say no. The player can decide he doesn’t like it and decide to not play.

Once you roll, you have agreed. Be a good sport. Take on the challenge of playing the best character you can, despite the stats. Enjoy the game.

I will. But I will also heavily prioritize fun over keeping the character alive (intelligence over constitution, being in melee instead of being at range, those 2 things make the character more fun for me). Whether that will be fun for everyone involved, I don't know. If the party cleric dies and puts the party in a bad situation, I won't feel the least bit bad about it. Do I wish the character was more durable? Yes. But it's not my fault he's not.

[BurgerBeast]

I will. But I will also prioritize fun over keeping the character alive (intelligence over constitution, being in melee instead of being at range, those 2 things make the character more fun for me). Whether that will be fun for everyone involved, I don't know. If the party cleric dies and puts the party in a bad situation, I won't feel the least bit bad about it. Do I wish the character was more durable? Yes. But it's not my fault he's not.

It’s not your fault that the character is weak overall. It is your fault that the character is not durable because you chose where to put your stats. It is your fault that you are handling the situation the way in which you are. You could have built a durable ranged character focused on improving the party. It’s not hard to be a functional life cleric, for example, using bless and other buffs to bolster the party.

You are choosing to build your character without regard for the rest of the party’s enjoyment. You are the one saying you won’t feel bad if the party cleric dies, while admitting you are purposely playing him sub-optimally.

That is inconsiderate at best. It’s selfish, really. These are choices. You could take a less resentful approach. You could try to make the most of a bad situation. It’s not even that bad, to be honest. Cleric is exactly the class I would play.

[BurgerBeast]

Hill Dwarf Life Cleric

Str 12, Dex 11, Con 15, Int 11, Wis 14, Cha 13

11 hp, AC 18 (chain mail + shield)

Cantrips: guidance, thaumaturgy, toll the dead, (any)

Level 1: bless (D), cure wounds (D), healing word, sanctuary, shield of faith

- - - - -

Very survivable with 18 AC and +1 hp/level (because Hill Dwarf). Added survivability if needed (probably not) from sanctuary.

None of your spells require Wis. Sit back and fire Toll the Dead, focussing on injured enemies where possible for 1d12 damage.

Get over the fact that you’ll mostly miss and have fun making your allies stronger.

[diplomancer]

It’s not your fault that the character is weak overall. It is your fault that the character is not durable because you chose where to put your stats. It is your fault that you are handling the situation the way in which you are. You could have built a durable ranged character focused on improving the party. It’s not hard to be a functional life cleric, for example, using bless and other buffs to bolster the party.

You are choosing to build your character without regard for the rest of the party’s enjoyment. You are the one saying you won’t feel bad if the party cleric dies, while admitting you are purposely playing him sub-optimally.

That is inconsiderate at best. It’s selfish, really. These are choices. You could take a less resentful approach. You could try to make the most of a bad situation. It’s not even that bad, to be honest. Cleric is exactly the class I would play.

I want to play a melee forge cleric that has a wizard dip once we reach tier 2, so at higher levels I can get in monster's faces and use booming blade with advantage from my familiar. That was my plan from the beginning. Should I give that up and play a character I don't enjoy playing because I rolled poorly? Either he will survive, and I will have fun playing him, or he won't, and I will have a chance to have a better character.

Notice that the feat I chose was Heavy Armor Master, probably the most defensive feat in the game, definitely so at level 1. I'm not trying to kill him. But I am prioritizing my fun over his survival.

[BurgerBeast]

I want to play a melee forge cleric that has a wizard dip once we reach tier 2, so at higher levels I can get in monster's faces and use booming blade with advantage from my familiar. That was my plan from the beginning. Should I give that up and play a character I don't enjoy playing because I rolled poorly?

Not necessarily. See my Life Cleric above as a starting point. Adjust options to taste. Also take a look at Tempest cleric - it’s my personal favourite (although I haven’t played Forge yet) and lots of fun.

Also, does your DM allow non-core races? Maybe take on an unusual race to provide some fun for yourself on the RP side of things.

Edit to reply to edit:


I want to play a melee forge cleric that has a wizard dip once we reach tier 2, so at higher levels I can get in monster's faces and use booming blade with advantage from my familiar. That was my plan from the beginning. Should I give that up and play a character I don't enjoy playing because I rolled poorly? Either he will survive, and I will have fun playing him, or he won't, and I will have a chance to have a better character.

No, you shouldn’t give it up, but you should be flexible and work a little harder on the build and play strategy to compensate for the rolls. Your tone here sounds a lot more positive.

Magic Initiate might be better than a wizard dip, netting you booming blade and find familiar plus one more cantrip (GFB?). Then Int is not required.


Notice that the feat I chose was Heavy Armor Master, probably the most defensive feat in the game, definitely so at level 1. I'm not trying to kill him. But I am prioritizing my fun over his survival.

Fair play. I would sit back from melee for a level or two because of the high mortality at level 1. Usually only one session. Then get in there. But I think you will see increased frustration as melee because you will (1) constantly be attacking with a lower modifier than your party mates, and (2) you’ll lose more concentration spells. The reason I like Tempest is because Wrath of the Storm is big at the lower levels.

Once you get Spiritual weapon at level 3, you’ll be firing off a toll the dead and attacking with the spiritual weapon most rounds, if you’re ranged.

An alternative would be to go magic initiate druid for shillelagh. Then you’re less MAD. Pumping Wis instead of feats will get you more overall, I think.

- - -

I guess I’m saying I’d re-assign ability scores, reconsider the wizard MC, and consider staying out of melee for the early levels. Other than thatI think you’re good.

[Dork_Forge]

I want to play a melee forge cleric that has a wizard dip once we reach tier 2, so at higher levels I can get in monster's faces and use booming blade with advantage from my familiar. That was my plan from the beginning. Should I give that up and play a character I don't enjoy playing because I rolled poorly? Either he will survive, and I will have fun playing him, or he won't, and I will have a chance to have a better character.

Notice that the feat I chose was Heavy Armor Master, probably the most defensive feat in the game, definitely so at level 1. I'm not trying to kill him. But I am prioritizing my fun over his survival.

You don't need to dip Wizard to pull that off, you could take Magic Initiate and get what you want without losing Cleric progression or take Arcana Cleric and the Heavy Armor feat.

[diplomancer]

Not necessarily. See my Life Cleric above as a starting point. Adjust options to taste. Also take a look at Tempest cleric - it’s my personal favourite (although I haven’t played Forge yet) and lots of fun.

Also, does your DM allow non-core races? Maybe take on an unusual race to provide some fun for yourself on the RP side of things.

Your life cleric is a full support build, that does not get in monster's faces, and cannot have a wizard dip. It's a good build, but it's not the character I want to play.

Those are the requisites, for the character I want to play
1-melee cleric (preferably forge, as the DM told us there won't be many magic items. Forge allows me to help 2 of my team with magical damage if needed)
2- wizard dip, to help him be effective in melee (booming blade, find familiar, shield, absorb elements)

With the stats I rolled, I cannot accomplish that without sacrificing Constitution.

Magic initiate, when my wisdom already is sub-par, will be an option around level 12 or 16, i.e, not a real option. It also gives me 1 familiar a day, if it dies, there's no way to re-summon it. And it does not give me shield/absorb elements, so it's a worse choice for durability. Only feat I can afford is the V. human feat, which means I have to have 15 str, which means HAM at level 1.

Hill dwarf Cleric was actually my first idea. But at lower levels, it's actually less durable than the HAM V. human. And the low speed is problematic if running away is required.

[DwarfDM]

I let my players use the Mathew Mercer method:
4d6, (drop the lowest) six times, arrange as desired. Re-roll the whole lot if they don't add up to at least 70 (without racial bonuses).

Most of the time it is better than point buy. It only sucks when you have 12, 12, 12, 12, 11, 11. This has not happened with my players but I would let them rerol if there is not a single 14 or higher in the rolls. (this has never been happened at my table)

[BurgerBeast]

Your life cleric is a full support build, that does not get in monster's faces, and cannot have a wizard dip. It's a good build, but it's not the character I want to play.

In fairness, the character you want to play doesn’t have a 13, 13, 13, 12, 11, 11 stat array, either. But it’s what you have. You’ll need to be willing to compromise.


Those are the requisites, for the character I want to play
1-melee cleric
2- wizard dip, to help him be effective in melee.

With the stats I rolled, I cannot accomplish that without sacrificing Constitution.

If those are firm requisites, then it’ll be harder. But those requisites are self-imposed. You can build a cleric that only requires Wis and Con. You are choosing a particular build that requires two other stats when you rolled poorly. That’s on you.


Magic initiate, when my wisdom already is sub-par, will be an option around level 12 or 16, i.e, not a real option. It also gives me 1 familiar a day, if it dies, there's no way to re-summon it.

You could take it at 1 as Vuman. If you’re a forge cleric you start with 19 AC and 10 hp. That’s not bad at all.

You also don’t need high Wis as a cleric, if you limit your spell selection. Mountain Dwarf for 15/15 Str/Con. ASI 16/16 at level 4. With forge cleric +1 weapon you’re only 1 point behind a 20-Str character for attack/damage.

[diplomancer]

In fairness, the character you want to play doesn’t have a 13, 13, 13, 12, 11, 11 star array, either. But it’s what you have. You’ll need to be willing to compromise.



If those are firm requisites, then it’ll be harder. But those requisites are self-imposed. You can build a cleric that only requires Wis and Con. You are choosing a particular build that requires two other stats when you rolled poorly. That’s on you.



You could take it at 1 as Vuman. If you’re a forge cleric you start with 19 AC and 10 hp. That’s not bad at all.

You also don’t need high Wis as a cleric, if you limit your spell selection. Mountain Dwarf for 15/15 Str/Con. ASI 16/16 at level 4. With forge cleric +1 weapon you’re only 1 point behind a 20-Str character for attack/damage.

They are self-imposed, true. Not being in melee is a big hit in the fun of the game for me. And it's not what I had in view for this character. I am compromising, by sacrificing Con. I think that the worst part of doing this will be the constitution saves (especially concentration), not the hit points, HAM should be a big help in that direction.

And I do need high wis; undead heavy campaign, if I'm not going to pump wisdom it would be better to play a Fighter or a Rogue.

If I take magic initiate at level 1, my Str is 14 at best, which means I'm limited to either chain mail, or being so slow that I can't get to melee, or run away from melee if needed. This is even less durable than the character I'm building (Str 13, Dex 11, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 14, Cha 11, with Magic Initiate, vs Str 15, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 11, with Heavy Armor Master)

[Magicspook]

@OP I really like how you went from 'should I quit' to being determined to make the most out of it. Kudos to you. I don't know if I could've done the same.

[diplomancer]

@OP I really like how you went from 'should I quit' to being determined to make the most out of it. Kudos to you. I don't know if I could've done the same.

That is mostly due to our fellow playgrounders and their words of encouragement :)

And ranting helps us deal with frustrations; just venting here helped me feel a bit better about it all.

[Chronos]

Why does everyone always have the idea that the purpose of rolling for stats is to get better than the standard array? (4d6b3) *6 is roughly equivalent to the standard array, and so yes, re-rolling ones on top of that is, in fact, fairly generous. The purpose of rolling for stats is that it's a gamble: You might get better than standard, or you might get worse. The uncertainty is why you're rolling.

Now, some might argue that stats that'll be with you for the whole game are too big a thing to roll for. That's a fair point, but the solution is to not roll for them. Rolling but then using the standard array as a floor just makes things worse, not better.

[KorvinStarmast]

a mark of a good player Yeah, that's a way to look at it.


1.) Lean into the RP, swing for the fences with your roleplaying, chew the [unintellligible] to pieces, and then die a glorious death. I am going to guess either 'curtains' or 'scenery' for the unintelligible.

I'm very conflicted with rolled stats tbh. There's another way to approach rolled stats: everyone roll, and then you can select from any array any of the players roll. That's not in the books but plenty of people do that so that everyone starts from the same basis.

[Sigreid]

Still going for the HAM because of that movement penalty, but final stat array will be Str 15, Dex 11, Con 11, Wis 14, Int 14, Cha 11. I get to be the brains of the group, at least while I'm alive.


There's another way to approach rolled stats: everyone roll, and then you can select from any array any of the players roll. That's not in the books but plenty of people do that so that everyone starts from the same basis.

What I do when I DM is the players can roll or use array. But you're stuck with your choice. So far, everyone rolls.

[MrStabby]

So generally, I think the question about sucking it up or moving on comes down to the other players.

I don't think stats are about being "best" but about having a niche. You can be the smartest guy in the room with an int of 14 as long as everyone else dumped int. You can be the most perceptive if your wisdom is higher than everyone elses. I can't say what you would find fun, but for me I couldmakesomethingwork as long as there was some area for me to shine, and that that is relative. I would rather play an Int 16 character in a party of Int 10 characters than and Int 18 character when there was an Int 20 character in the same party. If you can find something that you want to do that you can do better than anyone else I would guess you could have a good time.


As a DM i'd rather roll 4d6x6 drop lowest, but my players always want point buy, I think they realise they wouldn't be happy with perceived stat differences but its rather bland imo

If I were you i'd try to ignore stats, create a skil based roleplay orientated character that is always useful like a healer, or bard, or go for shapeshifter so you always have beast stats, and go full Disney.

Do you know if the game is gonna be roleplay and player driven or is it gonna be battle-grid story naratives, if the latter maybe it'd be better joining another game.

You could create a "Jester" character literally go for the foolish heel, it might be fun, less so if its all done on battle grids tho.

PS, whats the meaning of the b3 in 4d6b3?

I think this is a good point. Push for an RP heavy game where you only go into combat very occasionally - find alternative non violent solutions to problems. If you can still adjust character you could consider a knowledge cleric for this - expertise and a moderately good int can still help you be the go-to person for a lot of tasks. Add in theat these casters get some good divination spells and you will be useful.


It’s not your fault that the character is weak overall. It is your fault that the character is not durable because you chose where to put your stats. It is your fault that you are handling the situation the way in which you are. You could have built a durable ranged character focused on improving the party. It’s not hard to be a functional life cleric, for example, using bless and other buffs to bolster the party.

You are choosing to build your character without regard for the rest of the party’s enjoyment. You are the one saying you won’t feel bad if the party cleric dies, while admitting you are purposely playing him sub-optimally.

That is inconsiderate at best. It’s selfish, really. These are choices. You could take a less resentful approach. You could try to make the most of a bad situation. It’s not even that bad, to be honest. Cleric is exactly the class I would play.

I don't think there is anything wrong with playing a low Con character. I especially don't think there is anything wrong with playing a low con character you enjoy over a more durable character you don't. In a game played for fun, the only metric that matters is whether people are having fun. Now normally I would say that people have a responsability to help everyone at the table have fun, but in this case I think that the responsability falls a little more on others than the OP. Just showing up in that environment is good going.


I want to play a melee forge cleric that has a wizard dip once we reach tier 2, so at higher levels I can get in monster's faces and use booming blade with advantage from my familiar. That was my plan from the beginning. Should I give that up and play a character I don't enjoy playing because I rolled poorly? Either he will survive, and I will have fun playing him, or he won't, and I will have a chance to have a better character.

Notice that the feat I chose was Heavy Armor Master, probably the most defensive feat in the game, definitely so at level 1. I'm not trying to kill him. But I am prioritizing my fun over his survival.

This is entirely appropriate. Have fun. Enjoy it. If not, no game is better than a bad game. Do be sure to let the others know if you are not having fun after a couple of sessions - they can adapt as well.

[kyoryu]

Watching someone else be better then you for no reason then random luck is pretty annoying IME. My very first game ever one of the players was a half-orc fighter with an 18, 16 and 14. So 20 strength, 16 con and 14 dex while my cleric was right down the 10-12 line in all stats. That was an older edition but the problem of rewarding players for random chance is still there.

Well, the way Gary ran things (and thus what he designed the game around) was that lethality was a thing, and that typically players would have multiple characters.

Also stats didn't matter quite as much.

So the party that came together a given night was just whoever showed up, and whichever character they decided to play. As such, there was never an assumption that everyone would be equally powered anyway.... and certainly not the exact same level. So the weak-statted character that happened to be higher level could be the most powerful person in a given party, but wouldn't be the next time. The high-statted character could die due to chance.

That dynamic allowed it to work. There was a whole "make the best of what you've got" ethos/gameplay involved in that style.

And that's why I don't really like rolling for stats in a "one true party" game. If you get the low stats, you're always going to be the weak one, as everything else is locked in place. A lot of other things worked in that style, too, that fall apart with "one true party" play. Like, LFQW worked because a) wizards could die, so actually leveling one was a challenge and b) even if you were the LF one week, you might play your QW the next week and c) since actually getting out of the dungeon mattered, the more power you had the better, and the sustained power of the fighter actually mattered too.

Note that I'm not saying 1e was some kind of Best Game Ever. I'm just saying that the decisions it had in it mostly made sense for how it was intended to be played (aka how Gary played it), and that a lot of those things don't actually work in a lot of "modern" games.

[Democratus]

Tell you what, why don't we start up a game. I get to be Superman, and you can be Jimmy Olsen.

Sounds like a blast. Sign me up! :smallcool:

[diplomancer]

Well, the way Gary ran things (and thus what he designed the game around) was that lethality was a thing, and that typically players would have multiple characters.

Also stats didn't matter quite as much.

So the party that came together a given night was just whoever showed up, and whichever character they decided to play. As such, there was never an assumption that everyone would be equally powered anyway.... and certainly not the exact same level. So the weak-statted character that happened to be higher level could be the most powerful person in a given party, but wouldn't be the next time. The high-statted character could die due to chance.

That dynamic allowed it to work. There was a whole "make the best of what you've got" ethos/gameplay involved in that style.

And that's why I don't really like rolling for stats in a "one true party" game. If you get the low stats, you're always going to be the weak one, as everything else is locked in place. A lot of other things worked in that style, too, that fall apart with "one true party" play. Like, LFQW worked because a) wizards could die, so actually leveling one was a challenge and b) even if you were the LF one week, you might play your QW the next week and c) since actually getting out of the dungeon mattered, the more power you had the better, and the sustained power of the fighter actually mattered too.

Note that I'm not saying 1e was some kind of Best Game Ever. I'm just saying that the decisions it had in it mostly made sense for how it was intended to be played (aka how Gary played it), and that a lot of those things don't actually work in a lot of "modern" games.

That's another good point. The game has changed in many ways. And at least 2 of these made having somewhat balanced stats within the party matter, no matter if they are high or low; adjusting the math if the party is too powerful or too weak is trivial.
1- the "one true party dynamic". If all the party is stuck with the same characters for months, maybe years, they should have a similar start. And having a situation where the best way of dealing with a character is to kill it is not good either for immersion, fun, or playability (my character is functional, though I had to make him more fragile than I'd like to for it. If I'd been more unlucky, killing him would be the best play. And that's just wrong)
2- the changes in the game that made all the stats more relevant. In BECMI D&D the mental stats hardly mattered, and Str only mattered if you were a frontliner. The difference between a wizard with a 9 intelligence and an 18 intelligence is that the 18 intelligence wizard knew more languages and leveled up faster (but would never be more than 1 level in advance) The difference between a 9 and an 18 was also a +3, not a +5.

Now, as a grognard, I understand the allure of rolling for stats, and also tend to agree with the "cookie-cutter" criticism of point-buy or standard array. But when there is great power disparity from rolling stats, the only way the DM can "balance" around that is by playing favorites, which is cheating, it's easily detectable, and it makes the game less fun.

So, probably the best way of detetmining stats is that all the party has the 2nd best roll (3rd best roll if it's a party of 5 or 6). If the difference between best and 2nd best is not very great, the one who rolled the best gets to keep his roll. Small variance within the party, everyone is competent, and you mostly avoid the cookie-cutter pitfalls.

[Tvtyrant]

Well, the way Gary ran things (and thus what he designed the game around) was that lethality was a thing, and that typically players would have multiple characters.

Also stats didn't matter quite as much.

So the party that came together a given night was just whoever showed up, and whichever character they decided to play. As such, there was never an assumption that everyone would be equally powered anyway.... and certainly not the exact same level. So the weak-statted character that happened to be higher level could be the most powerful person in a given party, but wouldn't be the next time. The high-statted character could die due to chance.

That dynamic allowed it to work. There was a whole "make the best of what you've got" ethos/gameplay involved in that style.

And that's why I don't really like rolling for stats in a "one true party" game. If you get the low stats, you're always going to be the weak one, as everything else is locked in place. A lot of other things worked in that style, too, that fall apart with "one true party" play. Like, LFQW worked because a) wizards could die, so actually leveling one was a challenge and b) even if you were the LF one week, you might play your QW the next week and c) since actually getting out of the dungeon mattered, the more power you had the better, and the sustained power of the fighter actually mattered too.

Note that I'm not saying 1e was some kind of Best Game Ever. I'm just saying that the decisions it had in it mostly made sense for how it was intended to be played (aka how Gary played it), and that a lot of those things don't actually work in a lot of "modern" games.
Another post I made in this thread agreed with what you are saying. If you are playing a character grinder where characters die constantly stat rolling is fine, if you are playing under the assumption that everyone is going to live to see the end it permanently unbalances a party that designers have spent 9 editions trying to balance. Old fashioned Dark Sun would be great with stat rolls, you start with two replacement characters rolled up because they are all going to die.

[KorvinStarmast]

So, probably the best way of detetmining stats is that all the party has the 2nd best roll (3rd best roll if it's a party of 5 or 6). If the difference between best and 2nd best is not very great, the one who rolled the best gets to keep his roll. Small variance within the party, everyone is competent, and you mostly avoid the cookie-cutter pitfalls. I like your idea.

I also like your point in an 18 being +3, 13-15 being +1, and 16-17 being +2 from BECMI. And the XP benefits of higher stats.

Old fashioned Dark Sun would be great with stat rolls, you start with two replacement characters rolled up because they are all going to die. Of all of the things that 5e needs, it is Dark Sun. But what we'll more likely see is Planescape. :smallyuk:

[Xervous]

I’m struggling to comprehend all the posts joining the siren chorus of “suck it up you rolled don’t whine about PB/array after the fact” when the opening lines are a request for such options/protest of the limitations the GM imposed. Are some people just not reading?

[Willie the Duck]

I’m struggling to comprehend all the posts joining the siren chorus of “suck it up you rolled don’t whine about PB/array after the fact” when the opening lines are a request for such options/protest of the limitations the GM imposed. Are some people just not reading?
That, or they don't care, and are answering the question they consider more interesting (to be fair, actually addressing what is essentially, 'I signed up for a group with a playstyle outside of my preference, should I stay?' doesn't really end up in a better place. It would just break down into roughly equal camps of 'suck it up,' 'never compromise,' 'see how it goes, you can always bail later.').


*though his insistence on rolling, not allowing standard array as a fallback, and saying "this makes the game more fun" are big points against him, in my perspective. Honestly, I don't even understand HOW it can make the game more fun to have characters be so different when they are all starting at the same time and with the same level of investment.

It's probably never going to make sense to someone who didn't start out steeped in that gameplay style, but think of it this way: there are thousands and thousands of board games and computer games out there where your initial setup is determined by some level of random allotment -- from your initial hand in a bidding game like bridge, to the initial settling area/barbarian placement in a game of Civilization, to your first roll (and thus first chance to buy a property) in Monopoly. And while plenty of people do not like one or all of those games, it's rarely simply because everyone doesn't start out with absolute parity. There's fun in the discovery of how this end up, and perhaps even some joy in adversity.

Beyond that, a huge part of the value of low rolls is that they make the high rolls have meaning. As much as Truename doesn't consider that one character with the 24 strength to be all that much of a problem, I bet that character wouldn't really enjoy that 24 strength nearly as much (as has been said, it's just a higher number) unless it were a rare accomplishment. Someone has to open their cracker jack box and get the booklet of lame knock knock jokes to make getting the Major League Baseball stickers seem like a success, since either way they are penny prizes (which, in 5e and basic/classic D&D, they really kind of are, as they don't have that big of an effect, except psychologically).

[diplomancer]

That, or they don't care, and are answering the question they consider more interesting (to be fair, actually addressing what is essentially, 'I signed up for a group with a playstyle outside of my preference, should I stay?' doesn't really end up in a better place. It would just break down into roughly equal camps of 'suck it up,' 'never compromise,' 'see how it goes, you can always bail later.').



It's probably never going to make sense to someone who didn't start out steeped in that gameplay style, but think of it this way: there are thousands and thousands of board games and computer games out there where your initial setup is determined by some level of random allotment -- from your initial hand in a bidding game like bridge, to the initial settling area/barbarian placement in a game of Civilization, to your first roll (and thus first chance to buy a property) in Monopoly. And while plenty of people do not like one or all of those games, it's rarely simply because everyone doesn't start out with absolute parity. There's fun in the discovery of how this end up, and perhaps even some joy in adversity.

Beyond that, a huge part of the value of low rolls is that they make the high rolls have meaning. As much as Truename doesn't consider that one character with the 24 strength to be all that much of a problem, I bet that character wouldn't really enjoy that 24 strength nearly as much (as has been said, it's just a higher number) unless it were a rare accomplishment. Someone has to open their cracker jack box and get the booklet of lame knock knock jokes to make getting the Major League Baseball stickers seem like a success, since either way they are penny prizes (which, in 5e and basic/classic D&D, they really kind of are, as they don't have that big of an effect, except psychologically).

That IS a different perspective I suppose; 2 things though:
1- Even if I rolled well, I would feel bad about someone rolling poorly in the group. Maybe not as far to suggest to the DM that we switch rolls, but it still would subtract from my fun.
2- Those games you mentioned are all not designed to last for hundreds of hours, AND the starting advantage is designed to not be too big; if they were, since they are competitive, it would simply mean that the games are badly designed. For instance, a bridge hand lasts about 5-7 minutes (I happen to be a very high level Bridge player, and I can tell you, the luck of the draw has basically 0 to do with a player's overall success in a game. Being "lucky" in 1 hand simply won't cut it) . A 5e Campaign is not like that at all.

[MaxWilson]

I will. But I will also heavily prioritize fun over keeping the character alive (intelligence over constitution, being in melee instead of being at range, those 2 things make the character more fun for me). Whether that will be fun for everyone involved, I don't know. If the party cleric dies and puts the party in a bad situation, I won't feel the least bit bad about it. Do I wish the character was more durable? Yes. But it's not my fault he's not.

What you're about to discover is that Con 12 isn't bad at all, and that it's still really hard to die in vanilla 5E due to poor stats. (Anything that kills you was probably due to decisions, not stats, e.g. splitting the party at a bad time, or starting a fight you can't win--Con 14 or 16 won't save you from those problems.)


That IS a different perspective I suppose; 2 things though:
1- Even if I rolled well, I would feel bad about someone rolling poorly in the group. Maybe not as far to suggest to the DM that we switch rolls, but it still would subtract from my fun.
2- Those games you mentioned are all not designed to last for hundreds of hours, AND the starting advantage is designed to not be too big; if they were, since they are competitive, it would simply mean that the games are badly designed. For instance, a bridge hand lasts about 5-7 minutes (I happen to be a very high level Bridge player, and I can tell you, the luck of the draw has basically 0 to do with a player's overall success in a game. Being "lucky" in 1 hand simply won't cut it) . A 5e Campaign is not like that at all.

[Climbs on soapbox]

Games that are meant to last for hundreds of hours have inherent problems, completely orthogonal to the stat issue. Issues like player commitment and dramatic pacing, and how to make actions have meaningful consequences that don't invalidate your hundreds of hours of planning (i.e. consequences that aren't really very consequential but feel like they are).

I try to make D&D games last only four to at most ten hours. When you play the same character in repeated games it becomes a campaign, but it's crucial for each adventure to function, emotionally and mechanically, as a game, not just a single turn of a hundred-turn game. Sometimes this means simplifying the rules if time is running short at the end of a session, even resolving entire plot points with a single die roll + DM narration, because you have to give *closure*. When the clock strikes twelve and everybody has to go home, you want them to feel their PCs accomplished something (found the MacGuffin, or failed to find it and had to evacuate their home villages instead), instead of leaving the outcome unresolved, having spent four to six hours of real life making nothing of consequence happen.

[Chaosmancer]

I'm writing this part before reading more than the first page, but there are a few points in particular about this particular situation that I want to talk about.

First off, bad stats on a spellcaster (and especially a cleric) is big detriment. At 14, 14, 13, 12, 11, 11, the character is heavily below on strength, wisdom and Con. They are not going to be able to wear the heaviest armors, they will not be able to reliable keep concentration (and have low health) and in prepping spells and Save DCs you are going to fail often.

I've DMd for a Dragonborn Cleric and played a Gnome Cleric, and while I loved my Gnome Cleric, both characters had a very similar problem. Not strong enough to wear the heavy armors they needed. Too few spell prepared, no point in casting the spells because the DC is too low.

With a 14, you are looking at a DC 12, enemies with no bonus have nearly a 50/50 odds of succeeding.

It ends up being very frustrating and unfun. Because you feel like you can do nothing. My Gnome I eventually got into a good place, but the player with the Dragonborn cleric never once felt effective or enjoyed his character for that entire campaign. He pushed through, and I tried giving him things to balance out, but it just never quite worked out.


I have come around to realizing that your stats don't matter that much. I've made characters with great stats and then still not enjoyed the game for other reasons, and I've been stuck with worse rolls than other players and still had a great time. An extra +2 is only a 10% better chance of hitting. It still comes down to the roll for most things. Don't worry about it too much and make the character you want. Take the class and race you want, take the feats you want, and then increase your stats. I'd argue against normal human. It's boring and only two or maybe 3 stats even mean anything most of the time. So the other +1's, even if they round numbers to even, don't mean a whole lot. The feat from variant human or the abilities of other races are usually a lot more fun, even if your dump stats are odd numbers.


I don't disagree with this, but it is an opinion I see often that makes me wonder.

If your stats don't matter, high or low it doesn't massively affect the game. Why not give every character a minimum of 14's in every stat?

It shouldn't matter, right?


It's the mark of a good player when you can have a kick ass character with poor ability scores. Look at it as a test of your skill, not as a handicap.


Really?

Tell me, oh good player, how does your skill involve changing the D20 rolled by the DM? How does it affect the D20 you roll?

Sure, you might be able to do perfectly fine with fewer hp, spells, and fewer uses of your scores, but this isn't some "git gud scrub" challenge. The DM can fudge numbers in any direction, so the players skill will always matter where it actually counts, and low scores aren't one of those areas.


In fairness, the character you want to play doesn’t have a 13, 13, 13, 12, 11, 11 stat array, either. But it’s what you have. You’ll need to be willing to compromise.

I sure do like how you are trying to make this his fault. "Well, if you wanted to have the character you desired to play, you should have rolled better, you didn't so suck it up and do this instead to be efficient, because your desires are unimportant."

Know what this also makes me realize I would hate, and I do mean actually hate, running into the person who quit every game until they rolled the character they wanted. Not asked for rerolls, just quit the game and walked away from the table because somehow that is "better".

[MaxWilson]

I'm writing this part before reading more than the first page, but there are a few points in particular about this particular situation that I want to talk about.

First off, bad stats on a spellcaster (and especially a cleric) is big detriment. At 14, 14, 13, 12, 11, 11, the character is heavily below on strength, wisdom and Con. They are not going to be able to wear the heaviest armors, they will not be able to reliable keep concentration (and have low health) and in prepping spells and Save DCs you are going to fail often.

I've DMd for a Dragonborn Cleric and played a Gnome Cleric, and while I loved my Gnome Cleric, both characters had a very similar problem. Not strong enough to wear the heavy armors they needed. Too few spell prepared, no point in casting the spells because the DC is too low.

With a 14, you are looking at a DC 12, enemies with no bonus have nearly a 50/50 odds of succeeding.

Wis 16 and DC 13 is apparently fine, but Wis 14 and DC 12 makes spellcasting pointless, really?


Tell me, oh good player, how does your skill involve changing the D20 rolled by the DM? How does it affect the D20 you roll?

Choosing the wrong spell to cast (or the wrong place to stand) because you lack skill is far worse for play outcomes than missing out on +1 to your spell DC.

An 11th level Wis 20 cleric who spends a 6th level spell slot to cast Harm on an opponent, say a Devourer, does 14d6 (save for half). The Devourer succeeds against DC 17 on a 12 or higher, 45% of the time, and on average takes 0.55 * 14 * 3.5 + 0.45 * 7 * 3.5 = 37.975 HP of damage.

An 11th level Wis 18 cleric (who started off with Wis 14) who spends a 6th level spell slot to cast Harm on an opponent, say a Devourer, does 14d6 (save for half). The Devourer succeeds against DC 16 on a 11 or higher, 50% of the time, and on average takes 0.50 * 14 * 3.5 + 0.50 * 7 * 3.5 = 36.75 HP of damage. It's barely 1 HP of difference!

In either case, the problem isn't the stats, it's the fact that player skill is leading you to cast a terrible spell when you should be casting e.g. Holy Weapon or Banishment if you're not already concentrating on something, or Command or Spiritual Weapon if you are. If you're playing well, you'll see good outcomes even with a lower-than-average Wisdom stat.

[Friv]

I'm writing this part before reading more than the first page, but there are a few points in particular about this particular situation that I want to talk about.

First off, bad stats on a spellcaster (and especially a cleric) is big detriment. At 14, 14, 13, 12, 11, 11, the character is heavily below on strength, wisdom and Con. They are not going to be able to wear the heaviest armors, they will not be able to reliable keep concentration (and have low health) and in prepping spells and Save DCs you are going to fail often.

I think you are fairly dramatically overstating things, frankly.

Using standard array, the top three stats before mods are 15, 14, 13. Even if you only take races that give +1 to two of Wisdom, Strength, and Constitution, which I think is pretty much only dwarves and humans, you end up with 16, 14, 14 for your three high stats.

14, 14, 13 compared to 16, 14, 14 leaves your highest stat and your third stat a single +1 lower than the standard array. That's not "heavily" below. Assuming that the cleric was planning on Wisdom 16, Strength 14, Constitution 14, that's a 5% lower chance of landing spells with saves, -1 to hit and damage, and exactly the same HP and Concentration. You can't wear the heaviest armor, but you couldn't do that without spending an ASI anyway, so if you want it, you are spending the same resources.

If you were planning on Strength 16, Wisdom 14, Constitution 14, you have -1 to hit and damage, 1 pt less of concentration, and 1 fewer HP per level, but the exact same spellcasting abilities. You will have to give up an ASI if you want the heaviest armor. Or you could take advantage of your very broad spread of stats and stick with medium armor, and end up only 1 AC short.

I recognize the frustration of getting poor stats, especially when other players get good stats. The very last time I used random stat rolling was a 3.5 campaign in which one player rolled a fighter with Strength 16, Dex 12, Con 11, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 7, and the elf wizard rolled (after elf modifiers) Strength 14, Dexterity 18, Constitution 14, Intelligence 18, Wisdom 14, Charisma 17. The elf had better AC, a better to-hit with their rapier, almost as much damage, better saves on every front, and spells to boot. The fighter was garbage.

This is not that situation. This is a situation in which someone has boringly generic stats, but they're not ineffective.

[Corran]

1) Be determined. Prepare yourself to accept the outcome of the rolls, whatever it may be, and do that before you even start rolling. No backsies. How do you prepare yourself for this? Perhaps you tell yourself (and others, if that helps even more) that you dont mind playing with a higher difficulty setting (in case of low stats) because you are a pro, and view the rolling of the stats as a potential challenge that you might need to overcome. Whatever helps you commit to sticking with the stats you'll roll. For stubborn people this might be simpler I suppose. Just telling themselves that they'll take what they roll could be enough to prevent them from accepting the GM's offer at a reroll even when they rolled terribly. Not sure what will work for you, but you probably have an idea, or at least you should be able to find out.

2) Be versatile (in regard to concept). If a character concept requires of you rolls you dont have, adjust it, or save it for another time and play something else. Likewise, in the extreme scenario that your DM does not let you lower your rolls, in case you really wanted a very noticeable weakness. For example, with low stats you might not want to try playing Legolas, cause you might end up not enjoying it. So save the Legolas idea for another adventure, and play Pippin on this one. In other words, adjust the expectation bar.

3) Concept > build. The uncertainty of rolled stats place extra importance on focusing on character concepts rather than on character builds. A (fitting) character concept will never be less enjoyable because of low rolls, but a character build might be. Because there is no reason to get attached to the average Joe on a mechanical level (as opposed to the superman Joe), but you could get attached to Joe's character concept, so start there.

4) Be versatile (in regard to build). If you want to play (what at the very basic level would be) the curious priest that experiments with arcane magic, or the mage that found god, and the stats dont support as well as you would like the obvious multiclass, then play singleclass and pick the appropriate background to represent that duality. Stubbornness wont serve you well here (as opposed to #1). This is still optimization at its core. Only the parameters have changed (ie your options are a little narrower with low stats), but the process is still the same. Yes, changing the parameters significantly (low rolls instead of the most likely usual, in your case, point buy) could take someone out of their comfort zone, since ''this is not the way I am used to doing things''. Adapting to that is not as hard as it might seem though.

===================================

As for the statement in the title. I disagree. I dont like having standard array or point buy as a back up to rolling. I dont have a good reason for not liking this, but I just dont. I guess I like being on edge whenever rolling stats. Though I generally dont like rolling for stats. But when I do, I like for it to matter more...? Instead of just being just a chance at getting something extra...? Something like that.

[thereaper]

This is why I'm against rolling for stats (and hp, for that matter). You either roll a point buy array, roll better than a point buy array and end up overpowered, or roll worse than a point buy array and end up underpowered. If the best case scenario for the game is to roll a point buy array, then why not just use Point Buy in the first place?

[Pex]

Wis 16 and DC 13 is apparently fine, but Wis 14 and DC 12 makes spellcasting pointless, really?


If WI 14 is ok why not WI 12? WI 10? WI 8?

Wisdom 14 is the dividing line. At some point the math of the game determines your casting stat to be too low to be overall effective because you miss more than you hit on spell attacks and bad guys make saves more than fail against your DC. For one instance the difference is only by 1, but over the course of the campaign it is a big deal.

[CTurbo]

As a player, and as a DM, I love to play with characters who are relatively even. That's why when we roll stats, anybody can use anybody's array. I've been the guy in the group with the best rolls and I didn't like having "relatively" hapless characters in the group. It wasn't fun for them either. The last time I played in a group that rolled stats and didn't allow a reroll or 'point buy floor' as the OP put it, resulted in my having a 20 Str, 16 Dex, 16 Con Barbarian at level 1 while the War Cleric had a good Wis, but was stuck with a 7 Dex, and only 10 Con. Yes he could have had a better Con at the expense of his Str, but he didn't want to play a dwarf and he wanted to actually use his weapon. Dumping Str would have killed his character idea completely. He wanted to have a decent Int and take a single Wiz level, but he couldn't because of stats.

+1/-1 doesn't make too much difference
+2/-2 starts to show up quite a bit in gameplay.
+3/-3 is huge.

I played in a campaign where we had 2 Battlemaster Fighters and we went by point buy.
I was a Vhuman Dual Wielding battleaxe using Fighter who started with 16 Str and had it maxed by level 6. My friend played a Half-Orc Fighter who started with 16 Str and had both PAM and Sentinel by level 6. He could do all this fancy flashy stuff with his feats except he missed all the time compared to me. It actually got to a point where he was really annoyed by it. He thought he was building this all time DPR champion character, but almost certainly did less DPR than me on most occasions. He actually intended on taking GWM at level 8, but took the Str bump instead. So that's just a single example, but my +2 advantage on attacks on his was clearly evident in gameplay pretty much every session.

[BurgerBeast]

I’m struggling to comprehend all the posts joining the siren chorus of “suck it up you rolled don’t whine about PB/array after the fact” when the opening lines are a request for such options/protest of the limitations the GM imposed. Are some people just not reading?

What? It’s literally option (2) of the answers presented by the OP himself. He calls it the “honourable” thing to do. It’s honourable to stick with the rules to which you formerly implicitly agreed.


I sure do like how you are trying to make this his fault. "Well, if you wanted to have the character you desired to play, you should have rolled better, you didn't so suck it up and do this instead to be efficient, because your desires are unimportant."

I explicitly said that the rolls themselves are not his fault. How he chose to behave after rolling poorly, however, is his fault. If you set your expectations high and the rolls prevent you from reaching them, then you shouldn’t have set those expectations.


Know what this also makes me realize I would hate, and I do mean actually hate, running into the person who quit every game until they rolled the character they wanted. Not asked for rerolls, just quit the game and walked away from the table because somehow that is "better".

Me too. That’s why I didn’t recommend he do that. I recommended that he accept the rolls and play, and not complain. I suggested that he might be surprised that his character is enjoyable.

But the OP insists on creating a MAD character, and this, combined with unsuccessfully masked resentment, will inevitably and unavoidably lead to a poor experience. But the type of person who builds a MAD character in these circumstances is not likely to blame the build. Blame will fall on some external factor, be it the DM or the rolls or the other players or what have you. And then more resentment follows.

The beauty of recognizing your own agency in your unhappiness is that you can change it. If everyone else and everything else is to blame, you continue to behave in the same way, and blame others for your actions.

[MaxWilson]

This is why I'm against rolling for stats (and hp, for that matter). You either roll a point buy array, roll better than a point buy array and end up overpowered, or roll worse than a point buy array and end up underpowered. If the best case scenario for the game is to roll a point buy array, then why not just use Point Buy in the first place?

Arrays aren't a total ordering, so there's a fourth option: roll something different but not obviously better or worse than point buy.

Have you ever rolled an array like 4 6 11 8 9 18? It sends your thoughts down interesting directions that wouldn't ever come out of point buy, while not necessarily being better.

[Christew]

Tell you what, why don't we start up a game. I get to be Superman, and you can be Jimmy Olsen.

Wait, you want to play one of the most uninteresting and narratively stagnant characters of all time? Deal I guess. I'll take the opportunity for character growth and a narrative arc over raw power any day of the week.

[Rynjin]

Wait, you want to play one of the most uninteresting and narratively stagnant characters of all time? Deal I guess. I'll take the opportunity for character growth and a narrative arc over raw power any day of the week.

Fun thing about power is it doesn't reduce opportunities for roleplaying, though that's a pretty common fallacy on boards like this.

Even taking what you said at face value, a flat character arc is still a valid character arc, even if people give them unwarranted derision. forcing the world to change around you can be as narratively interesting as changing with it.

[thereaper]

Arrays aren't a total ordering, so there's a fourth option: roll something different but not obviously better or worse than point buy.

Have you ever rolled an array like 4 6 11 8 9 18? It sends your thoughts down interesting directions that wouldn't ever come out of point buy, while not necessarily being better.

If you want something like that, you can just ask your DM for it. It's not even remotely worth the risk of having one person with nothing below a 14 while someone else maxes out with a 13.

[Chaosmancer]

Wis 16 and DC 13 is apparently fine, but Wis 14 and DC 12 makes spellcasting pointless, really?

I don't remember saying that.

In actual fact, I tend to find casters need an 18 to be fully effective.




Choosing the wrong spell to cast (or the wrong place to stand) because you lack skill is far worse for play outcomes than missing out on +1 to your spell DC.

The whole rest of this is all very interesting, but it sort of misses the entire point.

The poster I was responding too said that is the mark if a "good player" to do well in spite of bad scores. That in fact, having bad scores is a challenge of your skill.

Your example showing all that math for a 1 hp difference actually proves my point. That is bollocks. Having low stats in no way challenges your skill. Your skill is determined by your choices, and frankly, even talking about it that way feels entirely wrong.

Does a "skilled" player charge a giant solo, starting a combat the players could have avoided and the party was better off not fighting?

What if the giant just pulled out the corpse of their character's mother and took a big chomp? Does that change your view of their "skill" as a player?

The entire premise I was responding to is flawed.



I explicitly said that the rolls themselves are not his fault. How he chose to behave after rolling poorly, however, is his fault. If you set your expectations high and the rolls prevent you from reaching them, then you shouldn’t have set those expectations.

What expectations should you have before rolling then? I've seen people roll 16, 8,8, 11, 6, 5. Sure, they could play a SAD character and potentially be effective at combat, but if they wanted to play anything other than a charisma caster then combat is all they are going to be even effective at.

I mean, not to rant too hard against rolling for stats, but if you can't even effectively sit down and say "I want to play an X" and be able to play whatever class that was, then what is the point of rolling?



Me too. That’s why I didn’t recommend he do that. I recommended that he accept the rolls and play, and not complain. I suggested that he might be surprised that his character is enjoyable.

But the OP insists on creating a MAD character, and this, combined with unsuccessfully masked resentment, will inevitably and unavoidably lead to a poor experience. But the type of person who builds a MAD character in these circumstances is not likely to blame the build. Blame will fall on some external factor, be it the DM or the rolls or the other players or what have you. And then more resentment follows.

The beauty of recognizing your own agency in your unhappiness is that you can change it. If everyone else and everything else is to blame, you continue to behave in the same way, and blame others for your actions.

You told them to build it differently because of your priorities. And, I'm not sure claiming they have "unsuccessfully masked resentment" and implying they are trying to sabotage their own enjoyment is really the way to go.

I mean, you are essentially saying "if you do it your way, you will be unhappy, it is your own fault and you did it on purpose. But if you do it my better way, then you will be happy."

[CTurbo]

Arrays aren't a total ordering, so there's a fourth option: roll something different but not obviously better or worse than point buy.

Have you ever rolled an array like 4 6 11 8 9 18? It sends your thoughts down interesting directions that wouldn't ever come out of point buy, while not necessarily being better.

I rolled a Stout Halfling Berserker Barbarian with 14 Str, 18 Dex, 18 Con, 4 Int, 12 Wis, 6 Cha and played him like a feral animal. It was a great character and a lot of fun. He was pretty much the party's pet. I love playing characters with 1 or 2 super dump stats. I like playing characters with low overall stats, but only when the entire party is. We had a campaign in which all characters used a sub-standard array of 14, 13, 12, 11, 9, 7 and it was a lot of fun too.

[Dork_Forge]

If some people are cool rolling with lower stats that's great, but if your stats are the only meh ones in a team of super stats that will highlight things but having lower stats overall means: you're behind the math of the game, if you're not hitting 16 at start, 18 at 4th and 20 at 8th you're behind (as far as I remember from a thread on here). Being 5% worse at your job might be okay, but when your stats overall are lower it means you're playing with less hp, you're failing saves more often, it means you might not be able to wear the armor you want or qualify for the multiclass/feat you want. Then there's the opportunity cost of it, if you're already behind then you're less likely to spend your few and far between ASIs on feats, whether they're combat orientated or roleplay orientated.

You can still have fun definitely and you can mitigate it with play decisions, but at the end of the day you're less effective (perhaps significantly) than your party.

[diplomancer]

You told them to build it differently because of your priorities. And, I'm not sure claiming they have "unsuccessfully masked resentment" and implying they are trying to sabotage their own enjoyment is really the way to go.

I mean, you are essentially saying "if you do it your way, you will be unhappy, it is your own fault and you did it on purpose. But if you do it my better way, then you will be happy."

Precisely. Yes, I could play a "full-support Cleric", that never gets close to monsters. The result of that would be that I would come to the conclusion that clerics are boring. And that would not be the fault of clerics, but my fault, in that I chose to play this cleric in a way that does not appeal to me. To sacrifice the fun of the character you want to play to perhaps keep him alive longer is almost masochistic. And "will to live" is a thing. If I'm having fun with the character, the odds of him actually surviviving are higher than if I "grit my teeth" and resent that I'm not playing the character I want. The more I enjoy him, the more I will want to do my best to keep him alive, and the greater the chances that I will not simply stop playing because I'm bored.

And this without mentioning the fact that, apart from the Paladin, the other characters in the party are all better at range. This "hanging in the back" plan is not even very likely to work.


If some people are cool rolling with lower stats that's great, but if your stats are the only meh ones in a team of super stats that will highlight things but having lower stats overall means: you're behind the math of the game, if you're not hitting 16 at start, 18 at 4th and 20 at 8th you're behind (as far as I remember from a thread on here). Being 5% worse at your job might be okay, but when your stats overall are lower it means you're playing with less hp, you're failing saves more often, it means you might not be able to wear the armor you want or qualify for the multiclass/feat you want. Then there's the opportunity cost of it, if you're already behind then you're less likely to spend your few and far between ASIs on feats, whether they're combat orientated or roleplay orientated.

You can still have fun definitely and you can mitigate it with play decisions, but at the end of the day you're less effective (perhaps significantly) than your party.

I think the math of the game can work starting with a 14, but it does mean that my next 2, maybe next 3 ASI's are set (my impression is that the expectation is to hit 18 at 8th level at worse, and 20 at 16th level. Martials at least mostly work that way, specially in a game with magic weapons. Casters might be less fortunate- but then they need less feats), which means I can't get the feats that help improve concentration saves.

[BurgerBeast]

What expectations should you have before rolling then?

That what you roll is what you get. You could always ask the DM if he has rules which apply for extremely bad rolls, and factor those rules, if they exist, into it.


I've seen people roll 16, 8,8, 11, 6, 5. Sure, they could play a SAD character and potentially be effective at combat, but if they wanted to play anything other than a charisma caster then combat is all they are going to be even effective at.

I’m not sure what your point is. If you agree to roll and those are your rolls, then that’s what you get. You must’ve realized that this distribution was possible, as were worse distributions. What you should not do is expect the DM to make an exception to the rule because you decided, after agreeing to the rules, that you didn’t like the outcome.


I mean, not to rant too hard against rolling for stats, but if you can't even effectively sit down and say "I want to play an X" and be able to play whatever class that was, then what is the point of rolling?

You’ve hit the nail on the head. If you roll, you can’t necessarily make the character you want. End of story.


You told them to build it differently because of your priorities.

I suggested a different build because the OP’s claim was that he couldn’t build a capable cleric. Granted, I suggested a build that he didn’t want to play, but he doesn’t want to play the character anyway. After realizing he didn’t like it, I offered alternatives.


And, I'm not sure claiming they have "unsuccessfully masked resentment" and implying they are trying to sabotage their own enjoyment is really the way to go.

The OP is telling us that he resents the lack of a point buy option. That’s the fundamental premise of the thread. He’s demonstrated admirable honesty about that. He is going to be a good sport and try it out, anyway. There is a serious potential for that resentment to re-appear, and it would be a shame if it came out. Resigning yourself to playing a different character might be a better choice than trying to play a “weaker” version of your originally envisioned character, because those weaknesses will be highlighted by, more or less, every roll you make at the table. It’s hard to remain positive in such circumstances.

I don’t think I’ve made any claims about the OP’s state of mind that he hasn’t made already. If I have, it was an honest mistake, and I’m happy to apologize for it.


I mean, you are essentially saying "if you do it your way, you will be unhappy, it is your own fault and you did it on purpose.

No, I’m not. The OP is unhappy. I’m suggesting that, if the reason he’s unhappy is because, by his own estimation, his rolls are preventing him from building the character he wanted... then building that character anyway will - by definition - not be what he wants. Again, the OP has openly said as much.

So there’s no way out of this situation unless you reconsider the character you originally wanted to play.


But if you do it my better way, then you will be happy."

If your way cannot lead to happiness because it creates the very conditions that cause your unhappiness, then almost any alternative is better. I offered one suggestion.

The notion that a level of wizard is essential to a melee build is bizarre. When the reasons for that dip are attainable through a feat, and also improve the main problem of MAD... it’s strange to insist on its necessity.

I was going to suggest a battle master fighter, as well. Why not? You get a SAD melee character that is totally playable.

There are totally viable options with a minimal amount of flexibility. The stance of the OP is pretty inflexible, if it comes down to: I had the expectation to build a melee forge cleric with a wizard dip who has good scores in Str, Con, Int, and Wis, and since that was the character I wanted to play despite knowing I would have to roll my stats, I am justifiably unhappy because I should have been able to roll stats that fit what I wanted.

No. You can’t roll what you want. That’s the fundamental principle of randomness: you don’t know what you’re going to get. You can be mad at reality, but it won’t get you very far.

[diplomancer]

That what you roll is what you get. You could always ask the DM if he has rules which apply for extremely bad rolls, and factor those rules, if they exist, into it.



I’m not sure what your point is. If you agree to roll and those are your rolls, then that’s what you get. You must’ve realized that this distribution was possible, as were worse distributions. What you should not do is expect the DM to make an exception to the rule because you decided, after agreeing to the rules, that you didn’t like the outcome.



You’ve hit the nail on the head. If you roll, you can’t necessarily make the character you want. End of story.



I suggested a different build because the OP’s claim was that he couldn’t build a capable cleric. Granted, I suggested a build that he didn’t want to play, but he doesn’t want to play the character anyway. After realizing he didn’t like it, I offered alternatives.



The OP is telling us that he resents the lack of a point buy option. That’s the fundamental premise of the thread. He’s demonstrated admirable honesty about that. He is going to be a good sport and try it out, anyway. There is a serious potential for that resentment to re-appear, and it would be a shame if it came out. Resigning yourself to playing a different character might be a better choice than trying to play a “weaker” version of your originally envisioned character, because those weaknesses will be highlighted by, more or less, every roll you make at the table. It’s hard to remain positive in such circumstances.

I don’t think I’ve made any claims about the OP’s state of mind that he hasn’t made already. If I have, it was an honest mistake, and I’m happy to apologize for it.



No, I’m not. The OP is unhappy. I’m suggesting that, if the reason he’s unhappy is because, by his own estimation, his rolls are preventing him from building the character he wanted... then building that character anyway will - by definition - not be what he wants. Again, the OP has openly said as much.

So there’s no way out of this situation unless you reconsider the character you originally wanted to play.



If your way cannot lead to happiness because it creates the very conditions that cause your unhappiness, then almost any alternative is better. I offered one suggestion.

The notion that a level of wizard is essential to a melee build is bizarre. When the reasons for that dip are attainable through a feat, and also improve the main problem of MAD... it’s strange to insist on its necessity.

I was going to suggest a battle master fighter, as well. Why not? You get a SAD melee character that is totally playable.

There are totally viable options with a minimal amount of flexibility. The stance of the OP is pretty inflexible, if it comes down to: I had the expectation to build a melee forge cleric with a wizard dip who has good scores in Str, Con, Int, and Wis, and since that was the character I wanted to play despite knowing I would have to roll my stats, I am justifiably unhappy because I should have been able to roll stats that fit what I wanted.

No. You can’t roll what you want. That’s the fundamental principle of randomness: you don’t know what you’re going to get. You can be mad at reality, but it won’t get you very far.

In the end, there are basically 2 differences between the character I wanted and the one I'm "stuck with"

1- I had to choose V. Human instead of Aereni Wood Elf; I'm usually not a big fan of the V. Human, and the stealth expertise would be of great utility in not ruining the stealth of the party. Too bad, but not crippling.
2- my concentration saves are bad, and the only way I have of mitigating that, since I can't afford feats like War Caster or Resilient Constitution for it until I reach around level 16, is to try my best to not get hit. The Wizard dip helps that immensely, far more than a +1 difference in Constitution, while Magic Initiate, a feat which I can't afford, does not help at all (or at best, it helps in 1 round of the day).

What about hit points? At low levels at least, HAM is worth more hit points than having 14 Constitution AND being a Hill Dwarf. IF it's not enough, the party makes bad tactical or strategic decisions, and the character dies, yes, I admit I won't feel it as a terrible loss, as I might with a more fortunate character.

Another difference, which no possible choice could mitigate as long as I was the party cleric is the 1 or 2 points lower DC on my spells and Turn Undead, and the 1 or 2 fewer spells prepared. Many people here are telling me that the difference is smaller than it feels, I guess I will find out.

[Democratus]

Fun thing about power is it doesn't reduce opportunities for roleplaying, though that's a pretty common fallacy on boards like this.

Which is why playing a lower powered character is no hinderance at all. You get a complete and satisfying story if you want it.

[Willie the Duck]

That IS a different perspective I suppose; 2 things though:
1- Even if I rolled well, I would feel bad about someone rolling poorly in the group. Maybe not as far to suggest to the DM that we switch rolls, but it still would subtract from my fun.

Within the framework of the gameplay style, it is too bad that someone else in the group rolled poorly. You'd love it if everyone rolled really well, but the times when some or everyone didn't roll well is why those good rolls are notable.


2- Those games you mentioned are all not designed to last for hundreds of hours, AND the starting advantage is designed to not be too big; if they were, since they are competitive, it would simply mean that the games are badly designed. For instance, a bridge hand lasts about 5-7 minutes (I happen to be a very high level Bridge player, and I can tell you, the luck of the draw has basically 0 to do with a player's overall success in a game. Being "lucky" in 1 hand simply won't cut it) . A 5e Campaign is not like that at all.

I'm not sure I agree. I don't think Bridge and D&D (with rolled stats) are all that different. The initial starting advantage for D&D is there, but it isn't necessarily huge (except for hugely poor rolls, which are hugely rare, have escape clauses, and of course there's always attribute substitution items or, in 5e, the Moon Druid). Yes, attributes are 'permanent,' (for the dozens to hundreds of hours one tends to play a given character), but there are a huge number of other factors that lead into character success -- the hit points you roll at every level, magic item accumulation (the difference between a 14 Str fighter with a +1 sword and a 16 strength fighter without a magic sword is possibly in the 14 str fighter's favor), character decision, player decision, the 'non-permanent' rolls which nonetheless have a huge impact on the game (how much damage you roll at a crucial moment in a boss fight, the persuasion roll you make when convincing the king that your party should be conscripted as privateers instead of charged with piracy, etc.). So while a 5e campaign might not be exactly like your impression of bridge, I disagree that it is 'not like it at all.' I think it is a lot closer than the psychological effect of attributes being semi-permanent makes it feel.

Regardless, some games absolutely have the potential for real screw-jobs. Settlers of Catan can randomly distribute only 3 good starting points for a 4-player game, Monopoly you can have the first two players land on properties they can buy on their first rolls while third spends their first two rolls landing on the other players' properties (I'm considering this part of setup since it happens before there are any meaningful decision points), Civilization can land you on a desert island right next to barbarian tribes from both sides. I suppose all of these could be badly designed (I'm certainly not a fan of Monopoly, although playing without $ on Free Parking does help immensely), but I don't think it is obvious that 'capacity to randomly screw over a player' is inherently a game state that proves the game poorly designed. Mind you, most games have an escape hatch, be it TSR-era D&D's 'hopeless character' clause, to a cultural expectation that when the setup ends up being to lopsided (and perhaps the outcome a long-time-coming-but-foregone conclusion) that you simply scoop and redraw.

[KorvinStarmast]

Arrays aren't a total ordering, so there's a fourth option: roll something different but not obviously better or worse than point buy.
2d6 + 6. I think the first time I saw that was in AD&D 1e. One of the DM's liked that as a method. He also like to have us roll seven rolls and take the best six of seven. (I think four of my PCs died in that campaign; his reroll scheme was fast and easy).

Have you ever rolled an array like 4 6 11 8 9 18? It sends your thoughts down interesting directions that wouldn't ever come out of point buy, while not necessarily being better. We had a cleric in 5e who rolled an low int and low cha; can't recall which was a 5 and which was a 6.

[Chaosmancer]

[/B]
I rolled a Stout Halfling Berserker Barbarian with 14 Str, 18 Dex, 18 Con, 4 Int, 12 Wis, 6 Cha and played him like a feral animal. It was a great character and a lot of fun. He was pretty much the party's pet. I love playing characters with 1 or 2 super dump stats. I like playing characters with low overall stats, but only when the entire party is. We had a campaign in which all characters used a sub-standard array of 14, 13, 12, 11, 9, 7 and it was a lot of fun too.

Stories like this always make me wonder though. What did the stats actually accomplish?

Did you try and be the party face and that -2 really hurt you? I doubt it since you played him like a feral animal. And if you had a +2 instead, but still wanted to play him like a feral animal... would it have changed anything?



This next part isn't specifically directed at you, but when these threads come up there is usually a subset of people who put forth the idea that they find character's with weaknesses more interesting. But, "weakness" is generally put forth as something like anti-social, or dum or naive, but you don't need low stats for that.

Let us say I wanted to make a paladin who was a terrible singer. Just, couldn't carry a tune if someone else held the bucket for them. But, they have the performance skill. Why? Because they are an excellent dancer. And they are a paladin and a great orator, so high charisma. But they still can't sing.

Or, we have a paladin in a group I'm in. The entire town hates him. It does not matter what his charisma score is, he is despised, because not only is he dumber than a box of rocks (mechanically, but mostly because of how he is played) but he is also just annoying, violent, and a bit deranged. The player is having a blast, and we all love his antics, but I want to point out. He never once rolled a die about him being dum or him failing a persuasion check. In fact, if he rolled, he'd probably succeed, but what he is doing doesn't require rolls.

I have a druid who has a good wisdom. He's also naive and doesn't understand people, despite having a lot of insight. He was raised in a very different culture. He can tell that someone is upset, but he doesn't understand why they are upset, what about his actions were upsetting to them.

None of this requires bad ability scores. /rant


That what you roll is what you get. You could always ask the DM if he has rules which apply for extremely bad rolls, and factor those rules, if they exist, into it.

snipping

You’ve hit the nail on the head. If you roll, you can’t necessarily make the character you want. End of story.

So, if you roll stats expect nothing at all.

A very good reason to remove it as an option from the game.



I suggested a different build because the OP’s claim was that he couldn’t build a capable cleric. Granted, I suggested a build that he didn’t want to play, but he doesn’t want to play the character anyway. After realizing he didn’t like it, I offered alternatives.

The OP is telling us that he resents the lack of a point buy option. That’s the fundamental premise of the thread. He’s demonstrated admirable honesty about that. He is going to be a good sport and try it out, anyway. There is a serious potential for that resentment to re-appear, and it would be a shame if it came out. Resigning yourself to playing a different character might be a better choice than trying to play a “weaker” version of your originally envisioned character, because those weaknesses will be highlighted by, more or less, every roll you make at the table. It’s hard to remain positive in such circumstances.

I don’t think I’ve made any claims about the OP’s state of mind that he hasn’t made already. If I have, it was an honest mistake, and I’m happy to apologize for it.

No, I’m not. The OP is unhappy. I’m suggesting that, if the reason he’s unhappy is because, by his own estimation, his rolls are preventing him from building the character he wanted... then building that character anyway will - by definition - not be what he wants. Again, the OP has openly said as much.

So there’s no way out of this situation unless you reconsider the character you originally wanted to play.

If your way cannot lead to happiness because it creates the very conditions that cause your unhappiness, then almost any alternative is better. I offered one suggestion.

The notion that a level of wizard is essential to a melee build is bizarre. When the reasons for that dip are attainable through a feat, and also improve the main problem of MAD... it’s strange to insist on its necessity.

And you kept pushing after the OP explained why they where going to use the build they were going to use.

Stop pushing. It is their character. They have decided to stick it out, and they decided how they would best deal with the bad hand they were dealt. It isn't up to you to understand why they think this is the best path forward. You aren't their DM.




Which is why playing a lower powered character is no hinderance at all. You get a complete and satisfying story if you want it.


But, the story has nothing to do with your stats. I can have a complete and satisfying story with straight 20's too. Usually, during the story, either not rolling because you suck at that skill or rolling poorly, means that you've hit a dead end.

Actually, yeah, I'm going to talk about my Druid more. And I want to preface this by saying, I don't want people's opinions about my DM and how they are handling things. This is a bit of a rant.

We had a mission to infiltrate an auction and stealthily steal everything to help ruin this horrific businessman. This is a play by post game, and so the planning phase took somewhere around two weeks, as we talked about it and slowly made our way to the warehouse where the auction was being held.

My Druid does not have stellar charisma, but he is proficient in diplomacy, and he is a chef and a servant at heart. So, my role was to sneak through the servant's entrance, posing as a chef on a rant and get to the item storage. So, I posted a quite excellent rant.

I failed the very first roll I made, putting the entire plan in immediate jeopardy. But, the DM gave me advantage because I did have party members with me who could help, and I was putting on a good show. I barely squeaked by.

I get to the storage room, where people are loading the items. Again, I put down a good post, switching roles into something more natural for my character, pulling upon his experience as a servant in a noble house... and utterly failed my first roll, nearly ruining the entire plan again. Luckily, my DM once more let me reroll, because of a party member who was with me but not posting because of IRL. And again, I barely squeaked by, and frankly I bet the DM just gave it to me.

And, when a third option came up where I had to roll? I failed again. At this point, the DM didn't have me reroll, because it isn't going to matter. The plan was ruined when the businessman called his own wife a slave and our Rogue went nuts and stabbed the guy repeatedly whom we weren't supposed to directly injure. But, that's fine, in fact, it is amazing and perfectly in character that that is the point where our plan failed.

However, we had a plan. A good plan with lots of thought put into it, all the props necessary and all the information we could possibly have had to pull it off. And I'm not saying we should always succeed at everything. But, that feeling when two weeks of planning and build up goes up in smoke, because a random number generator decided to spit out a 2 instead of a 10. It frankly makes me not want to devote time to making these plans. If we are going to fail anyways based on pure chance with no way to mitigate the outcome, why bother trying to mitigate the outcome by planning things out, by scouting ahead, by gathering materials, by role-playing.

I've caught myself saying it more often than not. "guys, why are we bothering to make a plan, the dice are just going to screw us over and none of our planning will matter." And it happens, again and again and again.

What does this have to do with stats? Even middling stats can't prevent this sort of thing from happening.

Yeah, they can't. But they do make it less likely. When I've got a +0 in something, I go all out trying to find any possible way to get advantage, because I know I'm going to fail otherwise. Even at a +2, I just accept that I'm going to fail the roll more often than not. So, "hey this is a clever idea, what if I-" ends up feeling pointless. Heck, I've got a rogue with a +8 to stealth, who has failed every stealth roll that has mattered for the past year (another play by post game)

So, no, I don't think having a character with a -3 intelligence is going to let me play someone interesting and quirky. I'm doing that anyways, usually when I have the idea for the character. But it does mean I'm never going to bother trying to search a room. With -3 investigation, there is no point. I can play a fool who mixing up people's names and thinks kittens are dragons with a 14 intelligence or a 5 intelligence. But I can't perform actions that progress the plot like finding a letter, or seeing if there is a secret room with one of those. And having played games where failing dozens of times in a row has ground the plot to a halt, where we as players are just sitting around with a frustrated DM and saying "sorry, we don't know what to do. Every roll has been below a 5 and we know there is something to find, but we can't find it. You're just going to have to tell us." the inability to make better rolls, is the worst.

/second rant.

[Christew]

Fun thing about power is it doesn't reduce opportunities for roleplaying, though that's a pretty common fallacy on boards like this.

Even taking what you said at face value, a flat character arc is still a valid character arc, even if people give them unwarranted derision. forcing the world to change around you can be as narratively interesting as changing with it.
You'll have to unpack that first bit or let it hang as an unsubstantiated claim. Being overpowered prevents you being challenged, which prevents you from overcoming challenges, which prevents compelling roleplay. If you think "I punch it into the stratosphere" or "I ignore all non-kryptonite threats" is compelling roleplay, do you.

Derision for the flat arc comes from both the oxymoronic nature of the term and the propensity for such characters to be one dimensional and/or preachy. I would concede that such an arc can be interesting in literature if the character is also flawed, fluid and interesting. Given that this is a party based game and not a protagonist based narrative, "forcing the world to change around you" sounds like a recipe for a character that nobody wants to be around.

I'd also watch the "common fallacy" and "unwarranted derision" stuff. Defend your point of view, don't take nonspecific jabs at the validity of the point of view of others.

[D.U.P.A.]

There are several reason why I dislike rolling for stats:

The game is balanced between items and stats. For example the most important character property, AC, you get from stats for one type of classes (Monk, DEX+WIS) and from items for the others (Fighter, Chain mail). Barely anyone rolls for starting equipment that could give a chance for plate armor, so you can quickly end with a Wood elf monk having 19 AC without anything, the only way you can reach it with items is from Fighter with chain mail, shield and defense fighting style.

While may seem fun on paper, having lower stats than other players, it only means they will be able to have fun with feats earlier than you, nothing more.

Because of some high powered PCs, DM is forced to crank up the difficulty of the monsters so the combat is not trival, which means with lower stats you have harder time hitting and getting hit and knocked unconscious easier. Dunno what is fun for you, but missing and being unconscious is not for me. Yes, that +1 or +2 to hit can mean a lot.

Also can screw your character concept. As preparing a story, preparing an interesting character you will have fun with also is not a 15 min job. If they are not able to do what they you had in mind, it is really a letdown.

In case a very low rolls, the character can be very awkward and very few players can roleplay it properly.


It makes sense in high lethal and like d100 systems with minimal combat like Call of Cthulhu, but in D&D and such games were optimization is a thing, I do not see place for rolling stats.

[BurgerBeast]

And you kept pushing after the OP explained why they where going to use the build they were going to use.

This is a public forum for discussion. I’m having a public discussion. If you don’’t like it, you don’tneed to be a part of it.

And - even assuming I was being impolite - do you think it’s polite to patronize the OP by standing up for him as if he can’t defend himself. I think he’s comported himself quite well. I still disagree with the phrasing of his decisions as though he “has to” to it the way he chooses, or “can’t do” other things. That is what I am discussing.

There is a big difference between “I am playing this character because I want to,” and “I am playing this character in exactly this way because nothing else can possibly work because my rolls are bad. MCing into Wizard because you need it to be effective at melee is a bit of an unconventional view, and will take work to defend. And HAM is not the only way to survive low level play with a character who is probably starting out with an 18 AC and at worst 8 hp.

Hell, you could spend level one off-tanking by using the dodge action and you’ll be fine. And it won’t be catastrophic to your intended build, nor destroy the fun to follow in the hopefully long-lasting campaign.


Stop pushing. It is their character.

When have implied that it’s not the OP’s character? What are you on about?

I am “pushing” against the OP’s reasons and justifications. That’s what a discussion is.

I am not pushing him to relinquish his autonomy.


They have decided to stick it out, and they decided how they would best deal with the bad hand they were dealt. It isn't up to you to understand why they think this is the best path forward. You aren't their DM.

Well, first of all, it isn’t his DM’s job, either. And second of all, the OP is posting this publicly and explaining his reasoning precisely so that he can hear alternative opinions. I think that’s pretty explicit. In order to be as helpful as possible, it is very important to“understand why [he thinks] it is the best path forward.”

Then I can give feedback on his reasons and make suggestions. Trust me, I’m not planning to show up at his table and enforce my opinion.

- - -

Option 1. Playing a support cleric is less attribute dependent than a melee cleric.

Option 2. It’s possible to build a melee cleric that is pretty SAD (Nature with Shillelagh).

Option 3. It’s possible to build a cleric, domain of your choice, that is melee and depends only on three stats (Str, Wis, Con).

Option 4. You can have Booming blade by other means and using find familiar to get advantage is not the only way, not necessarily even a good way depending on how your DM treats familiars in combat.

Option 5. Sometimes you can play a character build that you don’t like but find alternative ways to make it fun by giving it unusual abilities, combinations, or twists. Hence the suggestion to try an unusual race.

These are all valid alternatives for consideration. I don’t see the problem with presenting them, nor do I see a problem with the OP disagreeing, and nor do I see a problem with the OP agreeing but not doing it anyway because it’s his choice - not mine.

I’m not sure what you think the problem is.

[Christew]

Stories like this always make me wonder though. What did the stats actually accomplish? ... None of this requires bad ability scores. /rant

So, if you roll stats expect nothing at all.
A very good reason to remove it as an option from the game.
Why remove options from the game? They are definitionally optional, so if you don't like it don't use it, but why advocate that it be taken away from others? You seem stuck in a "I want to build the character I have in my head" mindset. That's totally cool (and what point buy is for), but what about those who come to session zero saying "I have no idea what I want to play" or veterans who have done it all and want to play something random? Rolled stats. You see the strengths and weaknesses of the character based on their attributes and then develop a class and backstory to fit. Not for everyone, but a very satisfying option for some. It is not that roleplaying requires bad scores, it's that a bad score can promote creativity. Don't come to a rolled stats game with a design in mind because you are setting yourself up for probable disappointment, instead come excited to see what interesting character you can develop out of random chance.


Heck, I've got a rogue with a +8 to stealth, who has failed every stealth roll that has mattered for the past year.
I'm struggling to follow your reasoning here. You need good stats because stats are really important, but even with good stats you can still fail all the time because stats aren't that important?

[Chaosmancer]

I’m not sure what you think the problem is.

Maybe I'm just being touchy about this, but the flow I saw was this.

OP posts about wondering if they should keep the character, or try to get better stats.
People gave advice.
OP posted about the fact they were going to stick it out, and they were going to use this build.

You posted about how that build wouldn't work and that they should play a build you came up with that uses a style they explicitly said they didn't want to use.

They said no, they wanted to do their build instead, with these plans, because that was closer to what they wanted.

You posted they were trying to sabotage their own fun because they still resented their poor stats, and that they should really listen to you, because your build is superior and they weren't going to have fun.


I'm not trying to defend the OP because I somehow don't think they can defend themselves, but your posts just rubbed me the wrong way.




I'm struggling to follow your reasoning here. You need good stats because stats are really important, but even with good stats you can still fail all the time because stats aren't that important?

This bit was honestly me just ranting a little. But, there is a point in here.

There are a lot of people that put forth the idea that you can have fun regardless of your stats, that being bad at things is freeing and leads to interesting stories. And maybe for them it is true.

But the most frustration and anger I've ever seen or experienced at a table comes from when people fail consistently to achieve anything.

Sure, missing once in a combat isn't a big deal. What about your tenth miss of the night? What about when you are three rounds into combat and all you've done is a fling a pool noodle around because you haven't connected once? What if you have multiple games over the week and you've had three different characters suffer this same run of bad luck?

In one of my online games, about a month ago, we almost had a TPK. The enemy, who we hadn't sought out, he was literally dropped in front of us, had the fear spell, and everyone except 1 character kept failing their saves. It didn't feel like a fun night. It felt frustrating because every round we were forced to run away, and then roll and the dice told us that no, you were not participating in tonight's game.

Maybe I've just had a run of it recently, maybe that is why this is hitting close to home so to speak, but when I see people saying "don't worry, you can still have fun if your highest stat is a 12" I think of the character I DMd for who that was literally true for, I think maybe they used an ASI to get a 14. And they didn't have fun. There was always a party member who could do whatever skill challenge was presented better, they rarely hit in combat, their AC was poor, their health was poor. They felt like an extra in a movie instead of one of the stars. To the point where a few sessions in, they wanted to kill their character and roll a new one. I just let them roll new stats, but it makes me think.

When I see these people you say things like "low stats are just your chance to show your skill as a player" or "low stats just make for more interesting stories", that isn't my experience, that isn't the experience of my fellow players or DMs. Low stats just increase the chances that the dice will tell you "sorry, you aren't important to the story today. Try again later." "Sorry, you can't contribute to this fight, try again later." "sorry, your plan wasn't actually clever, try again later."

I get it is a dice game, and sometimes you fail. But, I've had more interesting stories, more fun advneturers, and better dynamics with well-played characters who were effective, than I have ever had with characters who were well-played, but mediocre.



Why remove options from the game? They are definitionally optional, so if you don't like it don't use it, but why advocate that it be taken away from others? You seem stuck in a "I want to build the character I have in my head" mindset. That's totally cool (and what point buy is for), but what about those who come to session zero saying "I have no idea what I want to play" or veterans who have done it all and want to play something random? Rolled stats. You see the strengths and weaknesses of the character based on their attributes and then develop a class and backstory to fit. Not for everyone, but a very satisfying option for some. It is not that roleplaying requires bad scores, it's that a bad score can promote creativity. Don't come to a rolled stats game with a design in mind because you are setting yourself up for probable disappointment, instead come excited to see what interesting character you can develop out of random chance.

Sure, some people like it, but it isn't like that option is ever going to actually go away, even if it was never printed in a DnD book again.

But, I think you are missing something here, something rather important.

I've built a lot of characters for one-shots at conventions, using the standard array. Do you know the two stats I am always most tempted to put the the 8 in? Strength or Intelligence. What creativity is in that choice? It is purely mechanical. Only Barbarians and heavy armor characters truly need strength, and only wizards truly need intelligence.

If I rolled a 17, 16, 16, 15, 18, 6 array, I just won't play a wizard and rely on other people to roll investigation. Or maybe I'll play a bard or a rogue and just not care about strength. There is nothing interesting here. Until we are doing something like climbing a wall to sneak into a warehouse and the DM has me roll athletics to climb the rope. Frankly, I'd try and get out of it, tell the party to just tie a harness around me and lift me up, even if it ends up being funny, it is better than failing and being told I'm preventing the party from reaching our goal, or worse, being forced to derail our entire plan.

So, a single bad stat doesn't make me creative. How many do I need? Am I going to be even more creative with a 6,5, 8, 9, 7, 4 array then I would be with the high array? Am I going to be able to look at those numbers and say "Wow, I have so many options I never considered before?"

And, the point I was referring to was talking about expectations. That you shouldn't sit down to roll and have expectations. But, that is a lie to a degree. Once you have enough system mastery, you know the secrets of how to build SAD characters. You know about warlocks really only needing the one stat, or how to get shillelagh on a character, or how to optimize dex characters.

So, you sit down to roll, and you rely on a simple thing. No matter what, I should at least be able to get one good number. People have literally said it when they insist on rolling at my tables, and roll three or four mediocre numbers. "I need at least one 16 and I'll be fine." because they know they are going to build a character who is going to have few options, so they are looking at characters and concepts that work with only a single good stat.


And I contrast that with a friend whose dice were blazing hot, and his favorite character. The wizard who could do anything. This character's lowest stat was a 15, we couldn't believe the rolls that went into him. And something weird happened. He had more fun. He liked to joke that his character could accomplish anything, and to a degree he was right. The character was a physically strong individual, which I'd never seen on a wizard before. He was the most likely character to succeed on con checks, his dex was good, making him less likely to be hit in combat, so he took a few bigger risks, like making one of his favorite spells be Vampiric touch, because he was tough enough and had high enough AC, that the regen from the spell kept him alive.

He actually was a more interesting character. He actually was less of a cookie cutter build who did the same thing everyone else always did. not because he had poor stats, but because his stats were so good, that things that would normally be too suboptimal to attempt, were things he was willing to risk.

I've never seen a gnome fighter. Even with point-buy, I'd never be tempted to try it, because the stats would be too poor. But, thinking about it. If I had an array that was 14, 15, 16, 16, 17, 18... I might be willing to try it, because with those stats, I could be anything and still be effective. While if I have 10, 11, 12, 12, 13, 14... I'm likely going to play a half elf warlock, because I can just barely get enough abilities in sync to feel like that character could be effective in play.

[Democratus]

But, the story has nothing to do with your stats. I can have a complete and satisfying story with straight 20's too. Usually, during the story, either not rolling because you suck at that skill or rolling poorly, means that you've hit a dead end.


Yup. Which is why it doesn't matter if you rolled a max stat of 14 and your friend a max of 20.

Won't stop the game from working and won't stop the story from happening.

[BurgerBeast]

Maybe I'm just being touchy about this, but the flow I saw was this.

Maybe. Yeah. Maybe you were being touchy.

The posts are still there.


You posted about how that build wouldn't work and that they should play a build you came up with that uses a style they explicitly said they didn't want to use.

No. Not that the build “wouldn’t work.” That the build didn’t solve the problem the OP claimed to be concerned about (The initial concern was that he wouldn’t be effective in melee, so he’d ignore Con and who cares if he dies. It was borderline I’m going to die on purpose.”)

I didn’t tell him he should play my build. I suggested that it was one example of a workable character that could be played with his stats. Again, no cleric needs a wizard dip, ever. A low Con melee cleric needs it even less.

Let’s be honest. This whole thread can e summarized as this: “I can’t have what I want. I’m unhappy. How should I behave?”

Answer 1: be a poor sport and die on purpose out of resentment for the DM’s decision to use a rule that I hate.

Answer 2: forget about what I want and have fun anyway.

Answer 3: force the character I want to play into a stat array that won’t work so that I am perpetually reminded about (1) how useless such a character is, or (2) how much I had to sacrifice to make it work, and have it still suck compared to how good it could have been.

We all (including the OP) know the right answer. He’s predicting his future unhappiness, right here in the thread, at the same time as he proposes the build he plans to use.


...your posts just rubbed me the wrong way.

So what? That’s not reason to misrepresent me and attribute attitude to my posts. If anything it’s the opposite.

[MaxWilson]

Answer 1: be a poor sport and die on purpose out of resentment for the DM’s decision to use a rule that I hate.

Answer 2: forget about what I want and have fun anyway.

Answer 3: force the character I want to play into a stat array that won’t work so that I am perpetually reminded about (1) how useless such a character is, or (2) how much I had to sacrifice to make it work, and have it still suck compared to how good it could have been.

We all (including the OP) know the right answer. He’s predicting his future unhappiness, right here in the thread, at the same time as he proposes the build he plans to use.

So what? That’s not reason to misrepresent me and attribute attitude to my posts. If anything it’s the opposite.

Ironically, you're greatly misrepresenting the OP's attitude toward his Cleric+Wizard build. Contrary to "useless" he's predicted enjoying being the brains of the party for however long he happens to live with 12 Con, and he's clearly planning on *not* suiciding or he wouldn't be planning on acquiring Shield.

[Christew]

I get it is a dice game, and sometimes you fail. But, I've had more interesting stories, more fun advneturers, and better dynamics with well-played characters who were effective, than I have ever had with characters who were well-played, but mediocre.
I get what you are saying, I just don't buy the idea that a point or two in a starting stat is the difference between "effective" and "mediocre.". There is a twenty point RNG for any roll, so the difference between a 12 and a 20 attribute is 2-21 and 6-25. It's just not that crazy a difference unless you are min maxing and playing at the razor edge of mathematical probability, which just isn't that fun an idea to me. Possibility of failure, disrupted plans, and even death is part of what makes the game entertaining to me. Our brains are wired to enjoy success more than failure, but that's pretty juvenile storytelling. "The hero succeeded at everything because he is just that awesome" stopped appealing to me as a narrative around adolescence.



But, I think you are missing something here, something rather important.
...
And, the point I was referring to was talking about expectations. That you shouldn't sit down to roll and have expectations. But, that is a lie to a degree. Once you have enough system mastery, you know the secrets of how to build SAD characters. You know about warlocks really only needing the one stat, or how to get shillelagh on a character, or how to optimize dex characters.
Not missing something, just referring to rolled stats in order. Taking this model you are forced in to options you may not otherwise have considered because you can't move the stats. In your example, that 6 is in CHA so you are not playing a Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer, or Warlock. You take the stats and develop the character from there. Different philosophies, both equally valid, optimization is not the end all be all, especially if that mind set keeps you from being able to have fun in some situations. Yes, a veteran is going to be able to look at a given stat array and pick the best class race combo to build off of it, but so what? The game works even if you are "underpowered.". Commoner stats are between 8-12, so as long as you have a stat higher than that you are still heroic in terms of game mechanics. I mean otherwise why don't we just give everyone 20s in everything because "it's more fun that way?"

[Rynjin]

Which is why playing a lower powered character is no hindrance at all. You get a complete and satisfying story if you want it.

In theory, yes.

The problem comes when you mix the two types of characters into the same story.

Superman and Jimmy Olsen do not, and cannot face the same challenges save for a slight level of intersection. Both can have relationship issues, feel grief, etc. But that's not what most D&D games are about.

Anything designed to challenge Superman will absolutely cream Jimmy, and anything designed to be challenging but doable for Jimmy is a cakewalk for Superman. This is the primary issue when it comes to interparty balance, and has always been the balance issue that has plagued TTRPGs.

Mind, the gap isn't as big here. But it's still along the lines of characters like Spiderman and Thor sharing an opponent. Spidey is gonna struggle with anything that's even a mild match for Thor. And quite frankly, most GMs are not up to the task of making that gap work. Particularly not most GMs who think rolling for stats is a good idea in the first place.

[diplomancer]

Ironically, you're greatly misrepresenting the OP's attitude toward his Cleric+Wizard build. Contrary to "useless" he's predicted enjoying being the brains of the party for however long he happens to live with 12 Con, and he's clearly planning on *not* suiciding or he wouldn't be planning on acquiring Shield.

Yes. My attitude changed during the course of this conversation. It was "I don't care if he dies, I'm probably better off that way". It became "wait, IF I don't care if he dies, I don't need to worry about his hit points, now let's see how I can make him work despite his low concentration saves", and the answer to that problem is " With this low wisdom (which means I can't afford feats to boost my concentration saves until level 12) and con (honestly, what's the difference between a +1 and a +2 in Concentration saves), I need a wizard level for Shield."

This character is looking at a 26 AC with Shield, no magical items needed. From level 6 I can wade into battle with spirit guardians, with Shield to protect me if needed, and from round 2 hit opponents with Spiritual Weapon and take the dodge action to avoid crits. If DM rolls exceptionally well, I cast Shield again.

Will it work? I have no idea. But I believe I will have fun.

[Chaosmancer]

Yup. Which is why it doesn't matter if you rolled a max stat of 14 and your friend a max of 20.

Won't stop the game from working and won't stop the story from happening.

But does it stop you from being effective in the game?

If the story doesn't care that you rolled a 14 or a 20, then when you are constantly missing in combat and they are hitting, is there a problem there? For you just sitting around the table planning and interacting with the world, no dice are being rolled, but the moment the dice come out, you are less effective than your friend by a noticeable margin.

What does that add?




So what? That’s not reason to misrepresent me and attribute attitude to my posts. If anything it’s the opposite.

If I felt I was misrepresenting you, I would stop, but I don't think I am. Just to break some things down



No. Not that the build “wouldn’t work.” That the build didn’t solve the problem the OP claimed to be concerned about

"It isn't that the build won't work, it is that the build doesn't solve his problem"
Wouldn't that mean... it isn't working?


(The initial concern was that he wouldn’t be effective in melee, so he’d ignore Con and who cares if he dies. It was borderline I’m going to die on purpose.”)

"The OP is almost being a bad and selfish player by dying on purpose"

Which, the OP has expressly said is not their intent, so, are they lying?


I didn’t tell him he should play my build. I suggested that it was one example of a workable character that could be played with his stats. Again, no cleric needs a wizard dip, ever. A low Con melee cleric needs it even less.

"I didn't tell him he needed to play my build, I just showed him a build that would work with the stats he has. After all, he is wrong about his build"

Which when we go back up to the first point... if his build were actually working, would you feel the need to declare that he doesn't need to take the multi-class he intends to take? That is his build, so if it works, why are you feeling the need to specifically call it out as wrong?



Let’s be honest. This whole thread can e summarized as this: “I can’t have what I want. I’m unhappy. How should I behave?”

Answer 1: be a poor sport and die on purpose out of resentment for the DM’s decision to use a rule that I hate.

Answer 2: forget about what I want and have fun anyway.

Answer 3: force the character I want to play into a stat array that won’t work so that I am perpetually reminded about (1) how useless such a character is, or (2) how much I had to sacrifice to make it work, and have it still suck compared to how good it could have been.

We all (including the OP) know the right answer. He’s predicting his future unhappiness, right here in the thread, at the same time as he proposes the build he plans to use.

And how is this not judgemental in the extreme?

You've practical accused the OP of being a whiner and needing to man up and stick with decisions that were forced upon him. In fact, you are ignoring Answer #4, the one he was contemplating. Just leave the group.

After all, he didn't want to roll for stats, the DM forced him to. So, he should just suck it up and do what the DM wanted, because what? It is the more honorable way to suffer?

I mean, look at the very first part of your "right" answer. "Forget what you want"

Why is this the correct path? Forget the thing you wanted out of your relaxing gaming time, and submit yourself to the desires of fate and your GM like a real man does? Why? We play this game to have fun, why should we look at a situation of being forced into a crappy scenario and say "well, your desires don't matter for your fun time. This is serious business."


I get what you are saying, I just don't buy the idea that a point or two in a starting stat is the difference between "effective" and "mediocre.". There is a twenty point RNG for any roll, so the difference between a 12 and a 20 attribute is 2-21 and 6-25. It's just not that crazy a difference unless you are min maxing and playing at the razor edge of mathematical probability, which just isn't that fun an idea to me. Possibility of failure, disrupted plans, and even death is part of what makes the game entertaining to me. Our brains are wired to enjoy success more than failure, but that's pretty juvenile storytelling. "The hero succeeded at everything because he is just that awesome" stopped appealing to me as a narrative around adolescence.

Yeah, but "the hero never succeeded" isn't fun.

See, this is the line that gets drawn. It is adolescent to want to succeed at everything, but DnD isn't meant to showcase stories like "The Green Mile" or "Schindler's list" either. We are playing adventure games.

And, I want to bring back up the story of my druid and our assault on that warehouse. In a real way (the scene is ongoing) we lost. We did not succeed. But it wasn't that we failed because my character rolled a 1 on deception. We failed, because our Rogue lost his cool and brutally attacked our target, whom we were not supposed to attack.

We didn't succeed. We have flaws in our characters and we struggle against those flaws. My druid is struggling with the cleric in the party, because we have different outlooks on how the world works, and we can't seem to find the words to explain to each other what we mean, and my character is a servant at heart, once he was told to back off and stop speaking to her, he did. He can't imagine not doing it, but. he still felt guilty which is why he snuck 900 gold to the Rogue, who is in a good relationship with the cleric.

None of this needed a d20, none of this needed a skill check and the DM saying "you failed to succeed"

It isn't that I don't want to fail to meet the objective. I don't want to be forced to fail to meet the objective in a silly manner.





Not missing something, just referring to rolled stats in order. Taking this model you are forced in to options you may not otherwise have considered because you can't move the stats. In your example, that 6 is in CHA so you are not playing a Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer, or Warlock. You take the stats and develop the character from there. Different philosophies, both equally valid, optimization is not the end all be all, especially if that mind set keeps you from being able to have fun in some situations. Yes, a veteran is going to be able to look at a given stat array and pick the best class race combo to build off of it, but so what? The game works even if you are "underpowered.". Commoner stats are between 8-12, so as long as you have a stat higher than that you are still heroic in terms of game mechanics. I mean otherwise why don't we just give everyone 20s in everything because "it's more fun that way?"

What if I didn't consider it because I didn't find it fun? What if I am very tired of being the party face, but my only good stat is a 16 charisma? What if I want to play a spellcaster, but all my mental stats are trash and I only have good physical stats?

I guess some people like it, I know some people like rolling for their race and class to.

But, it is that ending part of your paragraph that annoys me, the same thing from your last paragraph

"Why don't we just make everyone perfect, that will be fun right?" with that hefty dose of judgemental sarcasm. But, the thing is, if all the fun in the game comes from the role-playing, comes from the decisions you make as a player, why is it wrong to want those decisions to be the point that matters? I'm not just white rooming. I've seen people force themselves to play characters with poor stats, because like Burger Beast put it, the "right" answer is "Answer 2: forget about what I want and have fun anyway." But, they aren't having fun anyways. They are constantly running into restraints they are forcing themselves to deal with, because they feel it is the more noble and true gamer path.

Why is it my story needs to involve me pulling a Goofy and slapping the King's wife, and that is why we failed, instead of us failing because my character can't refuse a direct order, and that led to us failing.

I mean, think about this for a moment. The point seems to be that low stats aren't going to stop you from dealing with the challenges of the game. But, when I try to suggest people having high stats might be better, you go immediately to this being an adolescent power fantasy of never wanting to fail.

But how is it that high stats would mean I never fail, if the challenges of the game are stat agnostic? If low or high, the story is the same and the challenges equal, then why are low stats "a creative challenge for veteran players" but high stats are "adolescent power fantasies" ?

[Segev]

Why does having a 6 Charisma automatically mean you "pull a Goofy and slap the Queen?" For one thing, "Keep your mouth shut and let the party Face do the talking," is perfectly acceptable in most situations, and doesn't require a roll, certainly not on Charisma. For another, you should feel free to come up with whatever expression of your low Charisma you want to determine why you did poorly on whatever Charisma check you just made.

I think the reason "standard array should be a floor" is problematic is because it makes rolling strictly an improvement, rather than an alternate method. This is fine if you want to do it that way, but it's important to recognize that it is a power-up. If you're not having fun, however, because you perceive that enemies make all their saves, you fail all yours, and/or you can't hit anything, then discuss with your DM ways to make that better. Maybe your character needs a magic item or a boon or a charm.

[MaxWilson]

Why does having a 6 Charisma automatically mean you "pull a Goofy and slap the Queen?" For one thing, "Keep your mouth shut and let the party Face do the talking," is perfectly acceptable in most situations, and doesn't require a roll, certainly not on Charisma. For another, you should feel free to come up with whatever expression of your low Charisma you want to determine why you did poorly on whatever Charisma check you just made.

I think the reason "standard array should be a floor" is problematic is because it makes rolling strictly an improvement, rather than an alternate method. This is fine if you want to do it that way, but it's important to recognize that it is a power-up. If you're not having fun, however, because you perceive that enemies make all their saves, you fail all yours, and/or you can't hit anything, then discuss with your DM ways to make that better. Maybe your character needs a magic item or a boon or a charm.

Or better-balanced dice. If you're "constantly" missing for lack of a +1 bonus, you're rolling an improbable number of 8s and 9s (for example).

[Segev]

Or better-balanced dice. If you're "constantly" missing for lack of a +1 bonus, you're rolling an improbable number of 8s and 9s (for example).

While improbable, some people do have demonstrably bad luck. And...again, it's sensible that this would be so, for the same reason that sometimes you roll outliers on a bell-curve. A given human's average dice results relative to the expected value of the dice he rolls is also, essentially, a random number on a bell curve. Some humans will have abnormally high or abnormally low averages, variances, etc. I'm not discounting that there can ALSO be observer bias, but I do personally know two people who have abnormal dice luck that all who know them agree is, in fact, abnormal. One who tends to roll almost ludicrously well, and one who rolls comically poorly more than his fair share of the time. The former, I watched roll 14 10s on a d10 in a row (followed by a 2), instantly killing a fellow PC because he'd had an uncharacteristic miss that the GM, for reasons, ruled hit said other PC for 1k1 damage (it was a spear in L5R...2e, I think). The latter, I have witnessed roll 4d6k3 to generate a 6x6 matrix of D&D stats, and every single row, column, or diagonal he could possibly pick out of it wound up qualifying for a re-roll under 3e's base rules for rolling stats. Neither is the only example, just the most memorable to me.

Again, observer bias is possible, but it is also possible this poor fellow is just an outlier in terms of dice luck. As always, the gambler fallacy and inverse gambler fallacy are both to be considered, if that's the case, but if he's not having fun, he's not having fun.

[BurgerBeast]

If I felt I was misrepresenting you, I would stop, but I don't think I am. Just to break some things down

You are misrepresenting me. It doesn't matter how you feel. You are saying that I am saying things that I am not. That is what misrepresenting is.


"It isn't that the build won't work, it is that the build doesn't solve his problem"
Wouldn't that mean... it isn't working?

No, it would not. So, you are misrepresenting me.

Plenty of builds work at doing things that are not what you want them to do. I would have thought this was obvious. A working hammer will not drill a hole. As you yourself have said, in an argument against me, a working support build will not help the OP to make the character he wants.


"The OP is almost being a bad and selfish player by dying on purpose"

This is not a quote. That is misrepresentation.

Also, the OP did say this, in the OP:


...I'm just tempted to be reckless with him and let him die an honorable death, maybe saving the rest of the party, and then either reroll a new character or just stop playing with this group.

1- Just leave the group?...
3- Kill the character, preferably in a way that saves the bacon of the rest of the party? They get to keep their nice characters, and I either make a character I actually enjoy playing or leave.

One important detail- I may be overthinking this, I know, and maybe ability scores don't matter as much as I think they do. I just feel bad looking at my character sheet. I know I can play someone who basically focus on buffing his teammates and be very effective that way. Oddly enough, that WAS the character I was trying to play, as long as I could be reasonably effective on my own, now I feel like I HAVE to focus on myself and forget the rest of the party, they are good enough already. If it was a game with close friends, I would probably keep to that support idea, as they would be able to realize what I was doing. (Emphasis added.)


Which, the OP has expressly said is not their intent, so, are they lying?

See above. The proof is in the pudding.


"I didn't tell him he needed to play my build, I just showed him a build that would work with the stats he has. After all, he is wrong about his build"

This is not what I said. This is misrepresentation.


Which when we go back up to the first point... if his build were actually working, would you feel the need to declare that he doesn't need to take the multi-class he intends to take? That is his build, so if it works, why are you feeling the need to specifically call it out as wrong?

What?


And how is this not judgemental in the extreme?

It's a statement of fact. (Nice try with the rhetorical technique, though... phrasing in the negative does not put the onus of proof on me. If you are asserting that I am being judgmental, then provide the evidence. I'm not seeing it.)


You've practical accused the OP of being a whiner and needing to man up and stick with decisions that were forced upon him. In fact, you are ignoring Answer #4, the one he was contemplating. Just leave the group.

First of all, no decision was forced upon him. That is flat out wrong. Second of all, I did not ignore the option to leave the group. I advised against it. It would be terrible to agree to the rules, then quit because it didn't go your way.


After all, he didn't want to roll for stats, the DM forced him to.

This is ridiculous. Nobody is forced to do anything. He made a choice. He threw the dice. The DM didn't literally force his hand.


So, he should just suck it up and do what the DM wanted, because what? It is the more honorable way to suffer?

Given a choice to suffer honourably or dishonourably, yes, you should try to suffer honourably. But that has nothing to do with this conversation. We're talking about a game of pretend-to-be-elves. Nobody is suffering.


I mean, look at the very first part of your "right" answer. "Forget what you want"

That's damned good advice. Did I really say that? I guess I'm better than I thought.


Why is this the correct path? Forget the thing you wanted out of your relaxing gaming time, and submit yourself to the desires of fate and your GM like a real man does? Why? We play this game to have fun, why should we look at a situation of being forced into a crappy scenario and say "well, your desires don't matter for your fun time. This is serious business."

You're totally misrepresenting the facts of the situation. The OP was never forced to do anything. He had a choice every step of the way, and he still does.

[Friv]

If WI 14 is ok why not WI 12? WI 10? WI 8?

Wisdom 14 is the dividing line. At some point the math of the game determines your casting stat to be too low to be overall effective because you miss more than you hit on spell attacks and bad guys make saves more than fail against your DC. For one instance the difference is only by 1, but over the course of the campaign it is a big deal.

This is drifting off diplomancer's problem, but that seems to be largely solved so I'm going to engage with this.

There are two things about WI 14 that are not true of a WI that drops lower. The first is how many ASIs you need to reach a score of 20; the difference ramps up in a big way. 16 to 14 is not necessarily ideal because it moves that post back from Level 8 to Level 12, but that's still inside the timeframe of most campaigns. 14 to 12 pushes things back to Level 16, which is outside the area of most campaigns. 12 to 10 pushes it to Level 19, which is very bad, and 12 to 10 makes it impossible.

The larger thing, however, is this: The game's standard array assumes that your two highest stats, before racial modifiers, are 15 and 14. In addition, quite a lot of the given races do not have boosts to one or more of the mental stats. However, these are still assumed to be playable combinations by the game's designers. Therefore, I have to assume that having a +2 to your casting stat is designed to be a playable option.

It is certainly an option wherein I would want to spend my first couple ASIs boosting my casting, unless I was going pure buff. But it's doable.

[Chaosmancer]

Why does having a 6 Charisma automatically mean you "pull a Goofy and slap the Queen?" For one thing, "Keep your mouth shut and let the party Face do the talking," is perfectly acceptable in most situations, and doesn't require a roll, certainly not on Charisma. For another, you should feel free to come up with whatever expression of your low Charisma you want to determine why you did poorly on whatever Charisma check you just made.

Put another way, "Shut up and don't interact with the plot."

I remember I made a massive skill challenge in one of my games, the party was fixing an arcane engine. I had specifically put multiple ways for every party member to participate, including very specifically multiple broken sections that the Barbarian could use strength to move into place.

The Barbarian's response when I asked everyone what they were doing to start? "My character is too dumb to help, I'm going to go and get something to eat."

And they did, complete disengagement from the word go. They spent the next half an hour bored, not because I had nothing for them to do, but because they assumed immediately that "this isn't something I'm even competent at, I shouldn't even try."

And that is exactly what you are advocating here. If you have low stats in something, don't engage. Stand still, stand out of the way, and wait til you are allowed to participate again. But, what if you have low stats in everything?



I think the reason "standard array should be a floor" is problematic is because it makes rolling strictly an improvement, rather than an alternate method. This is fine if you want to do it that way, but it's important to recognize that it is a power-up. If you're not having fun, however, because you perceive that enemies make all their saves, you fail all yours, and/or you can't hit anything, then discuss with your DM ways to make that better. Maybe your character needs a magic item or a boon or a charm.

So, if the result of rolling poorly and not having fun means you need a magic item, a boon, a charm or... I don't know... a power up to bring your stats in line, why is it a bad thing to just start with a power up from the beginning? Why wait til you are bored and frustrated and have to go complain to the DM that you aren't having fun, before we fix the problem?




No, it would not. So, you are misrepresenting me.

Plenty of builds work at doing things that are not what you want them to do. I would have thought this was obvious. A working hammer will not drill a hole. As you yourself have said, in an argument against me, a working support build will not help the OP to make the character he wants.

So the OP says he has the right tool, and you are telling them they are wrong about the tool they grabbed.

You are still deciding that your choice is superior to their choice.




See above. The proof is in the pudding.

And then they said they weren't going to do that.

And you are saying that they secretly are sabotaging themselves to justify doing it anyways.

So you think they are lying.


It's a statement of fact. (Nice try with the rhetorical technique, though... phrasing in the negative does not put the onus of proof on me. If you are asserting that I am being judgmental, then provide the evidence. I'm not seeing it.)

A statement of fact? Let us go over your "there are only three answers" again.

1) Answer 1: be a poor sport and die on purpose out of resentment for the DM’s decision to use a rule that I hate.

Well, I guess that is an option. Of course, you've called them a poor sport and said they would be doing it out of resentment and implying spite. Which is fairly judgemental.

2) Answer 3: force the character I want to play into a stat array that won’t work so that I am perpetually reminded about (1) how useless such a character is, or (2) how much I had to sacrifice to make it work, and have it still suck compared to how good it could have been.

Wow, so, this is saying that the OP is doing it all wrong. They are forcing the character into an array to purposefully make them useless, all so they can feel martyred and justified for their resentment.

Glad you are talking about facts, you know, able to prove that they want to be martyred on the pyre of their character's potential that they themselves personally sunk... despite the fact they themselves have said they are not doing that.

3) Answer 2: forget about what I want and have fun anyway.

Which, you say is the right answer. Have fun anyways means, what, this isn't a real problem for them? That is they just sucked it up and did the right thing they are going to have fun? That abandoning what they wanted to do and doing what they need to do is the superior choice?

Man, so glad these are facts and not judgements. Glad forgetting your own desires cannot possibly lead to not having fun.


You also neglect Answer 4, leave the game. Answer 5, talk to the DM and try and convince them you aren't going to have fun this way.

And, for the topping on the view that you are being judgemental, how did you phrase the OPs problem? "I can't have what I want." That implies that they are being selfish and whiny. That makes them sound like a child. And that was your choice in wording.





First of all, no decision was forced upon him. That is flat out wrong. Second of all, I did not ignore the option to leave the group. I advised against it. It would be terrible to agree to the rules, then quit because it didn't go your way.

This is ridiculous. Nobody is forced to do anything. He made a choice. He threw the dice. The DM didn't literally force his hand.

Really?

He asked the DM if he could use the point-buy or standard array. The DM said no. So, should they have left the group then? Because that was the choice the DM gave them.

Use this random system to determine your character's usefulness for the future or get out.

He made the choice to try and make the best of it, then he made the choice to try and make the best of it again. But, the choice to take the option he wanted, was not something he could do. It was no game, or random stats. Nothing else. That is not being given a choice.




Given a choice to suffer honourably or dishonourably, yes, you should try to suffer honourably. But that has nothing to do with this conversation. We're talking about a game of pretend-to-be-elves. Nobody is suffering.

Right, this is a game of pretend. A game where you should have fun. A game where the random allocation of stats has said you are going to be incompetent compared to every other person at the table.

They aren't the most effective combat character.
They aren't the party face
They only have a +1 Int I believe, so they won't be the best investigator
They only have a +2 Wis, so they likely won't be the most perceptive.

Exploration, Combat, Social... where is their character supposed to shine compared to everyone else? If they are behind every other person, and as Segev pointed out, most people end up with a "let the experts handle this" mentality, then where is their fun supposed to be in this game?


That's damned good advice. Did I really say that? I guess I'm better than I thought.

Remember when you called this a game? A game of "pretend-to-be-elves"?

Glad "forget doing what you want to do" is great advice for game. Kind of like Calvinball right? As long as someone else is having fun, it doesn't matter if you are?


You're totally misrepresenting the facts of the situation. The OP was never forced to do anything. He had a choice every step of the way, and he still does.

Those choices were to leave the game, or suck it up and be forced to be less effective.

Like being told to starve or eat bread, while everyone else has steak.

[MaxWilson]

This is drifting off diplomancer's problem, but that seems to be largely solved so I'm going to engage with this.

There are two things about WI 14 that are not true of a WI that drops lower. The first is how many ASIs you need to reach a score of 20; the difference ramps up in a big way. 16 to 14 is not necessarily ideal because it moves that post back from Level 8 to Level 12, but that's still inside the timeframe of most campaigns. 14 to 12 pushes things back to Level 16, which is outside the area of most campaigns. 12 to 10 pushes it to Level 19, which is very bad, and 12 to 10 makes it impossible.

The larger thing, however, is this: The game's standard array assumes that your two highest stats, before racial modifiers, are 15 and 14. In addition, quite a lot of the given races do not have boosts to one or more of the mental stats. However, these are still assumed to be playable combinations by the game's designers. Therefore, I have to assume that having a +2 to your casting stat is designed to be a playable option.

It is certainly an option wherein I would want to spend my first couple ASIs boosting my casting, unless I was going pure buff. But it's doable.

A third thing that may be even more consequential: Wis 12 prevents you from multiclassing. 13, 13, 13, 12, 11, 11 is perfectly playable as the OP has since discovered, but 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11 constrains your options much more severely. At that point you're limited to things like Hobgoblin or Githyanki Iron Wizards (use 4th level ASI to pick up Medium Armor), Moon Druids, and fairly squishy half-elf Hexblade/Bards who use the racial bonus to boost Cha high enough to support multiclassing.

Pure 11s can still work but it's a radically different play experience than the one you get with the OP's array, which is essentially indistinguishable in actual play from standard array. An outside observer who didn't get to see die rolls would have trouble guessing from gameplay events which PCs had been built using standard array vs. OP's array.

[Christew]

Yeah, but "the hero never succeeded" isn't fun.

See, this is the line that gets drawn. It is adolescent to want to succeed at everything, but DnD isn't meant to showcase stories like "The Green Mile" or "Schindler's list" either. We are playing adventure games.
The comparison to "always succeeds" isn't "never succeeds," it's "doesn't always succeed." There is a huge spectrum between adolescent power fantasies and "The Green Mile or Schindler's List." For me, that spectrum includes adventure games that feature flaws, frailties, insecurities, failure, growth, etc. You are trying to create a false binary.


And, I want to bring back up the story of my druid and our assault on that warehouse. In a real way (the scene is ongoing) we lost. We did not succeed. But it wasn't that we failed because my character rolled a 1 on deception. We failed, because our Rogue lost his cool and brutally attacked our target, whom we were not supposed to attack.

We didn't succeed. We have flaws in our characters and we struggle against those flaws. My druid is struggling with the cleric in the party, because we have different outlooks on how the world works, and we can't seem to find the words to explain to each other what we mean, and my character is a servant at heart, once he was told to back off and stop speaking to her, he did. He can't imagine not doing it, but. he still felt guilty which is why he snuck 900 gold to the Rogue, who is in a good relationship with the cleric.

None of this needed a d20, none of this needed a skill check and the DM saying "you failed to succeed"

It isn't that I don't want to fail to meet the objective. I don't want to be forced to fail to meet the objective in a silly manner.
You've lost me again. You keep telling these long tales of your gameplay without context and then slap a "moral" on the end that is unconnected. "It isn't that I don't want to fail to meet the objective" -- Greek to me. As to your gameplay -- yeah, there are many ways to fail and many ways to succeed. The fact that you had fun without rolling kind of reinforces the idea that stats aren't that important. This is a nuanced game that combines player creativity, character design, responsiveness, tactics, etc -- that's why most of us like it.


What if I didn't consider it because I didn't find it fun? What if I am very tired of being the party face, but my only good stat is a 16 charisma? What if I want to play a spellcaster, but all my mental stats are trash and I only have good physical stats?

I guess some people like it, I know some people like rolling for their race and class to.
Then don't sign up to play in a rolled stats in order game? Then don't be the party face, because the game doesn't really require such rigid role adherence? Then don't come to a rolled stats in order table with something you "want to play?"

You are entirely missing the point that some people like to play with randomly generated characters and don't freak out about things like tank, face, and healer. 5e is a very forgiving system and it allows for all sorts of play.


But, it is that ending part of your paragraph that annoys me, the same thing from your last paragraph

"Why don't we just make everyone perfect, that will be fun right?" with that hefty dose of judgemental sarcasm. But, the thing is, if all the fun in the game comes from the role-playing, comes from the decisions you make as a player, why is it wrong to want those decisions to be the point that matters? I'm not just white rooming. I've seen people force themselves to play characters with poor stats, because like Burger Beast put it, the "right" answer is "Answer 2: forget about what I want and have fun anyway." But, they aren't having fun anyways. They are constantly running into restraints they are forcing themselves to deal with, because they feel it is the more noble and true gamer path.

Why is it my story needs to involve me pulling a Goofy and slapping the King's wife, and that is why we failed, instead of us failing because my character can't refuse a direct order, and that led to us failing.
Sorry to annoy you, but you are reading tone and judgement that isn't there. I was merely providing the extreme example to illustrate your proposed valuation of the game. If we have to have stats that are above 14 or otherwise the game isn't fun and the game only allows (most) stats to go to 20, why not just play with all 20s? I'm using an example to point out what I see as a flaw in your reasoning. I think that all 20s would be boring for the same reason that I don't play videogames with godmode on, but again it wouldn't matter that much because stats don't matter that much. The wizard with 20 STR is still going to be worse at it than a class that has abilities that use and reinforce that stat.

If you want a game that avoids RNG because you "want those decisions to be the point that matters" D&D may not be the best bet. It has kind of a lot of dice rolling in it. There are games that don't though.


I mean, think about this for a moment. The point seems to be that low stats aren't going to stop you from dealing with the challenges of the game. But, when I try to suggest people having high stats might be better, you go immediately to this being an adolescent power fantasy of never wanting to fail.

But how is it that high stats would mean I never fail, if the challenges of the game are stat agnostic? If low or high, the story is the same and the challenges equal, then why are low stats "a creative challenge for veteran players" but high stats are "adolescent power fantasies" ?
The perceived need for high stats is the problem. You have framed 14 as "mediocre" and that stats must be higher in order for a character to "be effective."

[MaxWilson]

The perceived need for high stats is the problem. You have framed 14 as "mediocre" and that stats must be higher in order for a character to "be effective."

In point of fact, Chaosmancer also said that 16 was too low, and that 18+ is needed.

[Christew]

If low or high, the story is the same and the challenges equal, then why are low stats "a creative challenge for veteran players" but high stats are "adolescent power fantasies" ?
Also, not to pile on, but in terms of misrepresentation -- placing quotation marks around something I said verbatim (adolescent power fantasy) and something that I neither said nor implied (a creative challenge for veteran players) in the same sentence is at best ambiguous punctuation usage and more likely deliberate misquoting for rhetorical effect.

[Pex]

This is drifting off diplomancer's problem, but that seems to be largely solved so I'm going to engage with this.

There are two things about WI 14 that are not true of a WI that drops lower. The first is how many ASIs you need to reach a score of 20; the difference ramps up in a big way. 16 to 14 is not necessarily ideal because it moves that post back from Level 8 to Level 12, but that's still inside the timeframe of most campaigns. 14 to 12 pushes things back to Level 16, which is outside the area of most campaigns. 12 to 10 pushes it to Level 19, which is very bad, and 12 to 10 makes it impossible.

The larger thing, however, is this: The game's standard array assumes that your two highest stats, before racial modifiers, are 15 and 14. In addition, quite a lot of the given races do not have boosts to one or more of the mental stats. However, these are still assumed to be playable combinations by the game's designers. Therefore, I have to assume that having a +2 to your casting stat is designed to be a playable option.

It is certainly an option wherein I would want to spend my first couple ASIs boosting my casting, unless I was going pure buff. But it's doable.

I disagree with the game's assumption then. I absolutely hate Point Buy refuses to let you have an 18 at first level. Changeling somehow slipped by them. I categorically deny there is anything wrong with having an 18 at first level. I don't demand it. I don't require it to play a character, but I totally without apology refuse to accept forbiddance.

However, Point Buy is the variant. The game allows for dice rolling. You can be lucky and roll an 18. You can put that 18 in a score and play a race that gives +2 to that score. Therefore, 5E equally allows for having a 20 in your prime at first level, and the game doesn't fall apart into an unplayable mess should that happen. Someone in the OP's game is so fortunate.

Starting with 14 does mean you can get 18 by 8th level, 6th level for fighters. Good for that class, seriously. In unrelated threads in the past I've advocated it's best to have the 18 at 8th level, so I can agree it's not crippling. The cost though is you don't get a feat unless you play variant human. That could matter. Maybe not. It matters to me. It's the dividing line, so it will be close to acceptable given acceptable is above that line. The dividing line exists, and I choose to place it at 14. The math of the game matters, and a feat is a nice perk. The difference between 14 and 16 is only a +1 on rolls, but as I said only for a particular instance. Over the course of the game it makes a difference and I'll add or being deprived of a feat fun.

As for the OP's problem he's in a game where he has mediocre stats while everyone else is superb. That will make a difference. They'll likely be taking feats to use on top of their 20s and 18s. He's stuck spending +2s on ASI to catch up at 8th level where they were at 1st level. The experience of play is diminished. He should have been allowed to reroll. It takes nothing away from what the other players got and hopefully he'll get a better array to match theirs or at least be good enough. One can acknowledge the inherent luck factor disadvantage of dice rolling and just reroll when it doesn't work out. His array might be fine if it was a Point Buy game despite my not caring for it either. I believe someone said he'd have 2 more points to spend. In the game he's in it's not.

One is not inherently a better roleplayer for willingness or desire to play a character with a poor array. You're welcome to play such and have fun in your games, but it's not badwrongfun to desire something mathematically better.

[diplomancer]

Why does having a 6 Charisma automatically mean you "pull a Goofy and slap the Queen?" For one thing, "Keep your mouth shut and let the party Face do the talking," is perfectly acceptable in most situations, and doesn't require a roll, certainly not on Charisma. For another, you should feel free to come up with whatever expression of your low Charisma you want to determine why you did poorly on whatever Charisma check you just made.

I think the reason "standard array should be a floor" is problematic is because it makes rolling strictly an improvement, rather than an alternate method. This is fine if you want to do it that way, but it's important to recognize that it is a power-up. If you're not having fun, however, because you perceive that enemies make all their saves, you fail all yours, and/or you can't hit anything, then discuss with your DM ways to make that better. Maybe your character needs a magic item or a boon or a charm.

Standard Array is, for most builds, worse than point-buy. So giving players a choice of point-buy or rolling with standard array as a floor is not a straight power-up. Even if it was, it's easier to adjust the game's challenges if the disparities of power within the party are not so great. Having the standard array as a floor helps with balance issues within the party, which are more relevant than balance issues outside the party. Take this particular case; if the DM ups the challenge to the party's average capabilities, he will be penalizing my character. If he keeps it balanced to a standard array party, most challenges will be too easy for the other characters. If my character had the standard array, he could up the difficulty slightly, it would be challenging for my character, but not punishingly so.

I also found your suggestion odd. Don't have the standard array as a floor, ask your DM for charms or magical items that makes your character function pretty much as if they had the standard array. And if it's magical items, why should the weaker character in the party get them? Is it a crutch? Is it fun to be that guy in the party to whom everyone says "poor you, here you go with magic items, we're so awesome we don't need it", assuming that's how it will go in the first place?



(Snip)
That's damned good advice. Did I really say that? I guess I'm better than I thought.
You're totally misrepresenting the facts of the situation. The OP was never forced to do anything. He had a choice every step of the way, and he still does.

You are misrepresenting, both my attitude right now, and the situation. I did not have a choice of playing without rolling, it was "roll, or don't play". Specially considering that, there would be nothing "dishonorable" about saying, after the roll "you know what, I guess I won't play, this will not be fun for me". If I had rolled so terribly that I thought I couldn't have fun with the character, that would probably be the right thing to do. It's better, for everyone, not to play than to play without having fun*. But this is not the choice I made. It would be "dishonorable" to try to kill the character. That was a choice I was tempted to do at the time I started this thread, but, again, it's not the choice I made.

The choice I made was to build a melee cleric, sacrificing my race of choice and going with V. Human, giving him a defensive feat to increase his survivability, and, assuming he survives that far, trying the "cheapest way" to improve his odds of maintaining concentration on spirit guardians, i.e, a wizard level for Shield.

"Forget what you want" is terrible advice. The odds of having fun playing a character you don't want to play are nil. And this will affect the way you treat the character, and this will affect the whole table. It's definitely a better idea, for everyone at the game, not to play than to play a character you don't want to play.

I admit I won't mind too terribly if the character, despite my best efforts, dies, specially if it happens at level 1 or 2. But isn't expecting character death part and parcel of old-school D&D, when rolling for stats was the only option?

* if you've ever played Axis and Allies (2nd edition), you know that if Germans are very unlucky in the first round, losing most of their air force without making a dent in UK's navy, it's almost impossible to recover from it, assuming players with similar skill level. It's probably more fun for everyone involved to declare "Allies win, now let's play again", than to play for several hours to a foregone conclusion. Being very unlucky with rolled stats in D&D creates a similar situation (not my case, I was unlucky, but not very unlucky)

[MaxWilson]

I admit I won't mind too terribly if the character, despite my best efforts, dies, specially if it happens at level 1 or 2. But isn't expecting character death part and parcel of old-school D&D, when rolling for stats was the only option?

Yep. It's why rolling fantastic stats can be really stressful, because you know if you blow it and this amazing guy with Str 18/00, Con 17, and Int 18 (!) gets killed by Su-Monsters at 2nd level, you will never in your whole life get another shot this good at making a dual-classed Fighter 20/Mage 20.

Conversely, if you just roll Str 13 Con 9 Int 12, you can relax and just enjoy your weapon specialization in longswords as you play through various adventures. You'll die someday but everyone does.

[Chaosmancer]

The comparison to "always succeeds" isn't "never succeeds," it's "doesn't always succeed." There is a huge spectrum between adolescent power fantasies and "The Green Mile or Schindler's List." For me, that spectrum includes adventure games that feature flaws, frailties, insecurities, failure, growth, etc. You are trying to create a false binary.

Flaws, Frailties, insecurities, growth.

None of these are a -2 on all intelligence checks. I've pretty much never seen a character flaw of "I'm physically weak" it is generally things like "I'm indecisive", "I'm paranoid", "I'm a diva"

I'm not creating a false binary at all. I'm saying that the types of things that we talk about are not the types of things that low ability scores lead us to.

For example, I've seen the story of "I am a noble scion of a house, but I am weak and scrawny and not the mighty warrior I wish to be, but over the course of my adventures I've learned my mind is my greatest weapon and gained confidence in myself" It is a pretty fun coming of age story, and can be done very well.

A DnD wizard with an 8 strength and 16 Int doesn't have that story. In fact, if someone went out and played a human wizard for three levels, always taking levels in wizard, but tried to sword fight with a longsword they weren't proficient in and had a negative value in, most players would just be confused and angry. They are clearly not using the class as intended.

Because DnD isn't really a good game for the story of discovering your talents. It is a better game for the story of refining your talents.



You've lost me again. You keep telling these long tales of your gameplay without context and then slap a "moral" on the end that is unconnected. "It isn't that I don't want to fail to meet the objective" -- Greek to me. As to your gameplay -- yeah, there are many ways to fail and many ways to succeed. The fact that you had fun without rolling kind of reinforces the idea that stats aren't that important. This is a nuanced game that combines player creativity, character design, responsiveness, tactics, etc -- that's why most of us like it.

Right, keep that idea. "Stats aren't that important"

Except, they define how effective you are allowed to be. They aren't the part of the game that we enjoy the most, they play nearly no part in our creativity our responsiveness or our tactics, but a character with low charisma shouldn't be involved in the social scene. The character with low strength shouldn't try and tackle and restrain another character. The character with a low wisdom shouldn't be the lookout or the scout.

Low stats constantly put up walls and say "you should not participate in this section of the game", and if I put forth the idea of everyone having high stats, then I get accused of wanting adolescent power fantasies.

But, "stat's aren't that important".

I'm trying to wrap my head around this weird dichotomy. The people saying they aren't important are advocating low stats as a good thing, and wanting high stats as a bad thing. But, my personal experience says that characters with high stats are more fun and engaged at the table than people with low or mediocre stats. I'm putting forth these questions, but the defense of low stats I get revolve around claims like "some people like the challenge" while simultaneously saying "the challenge has nothing to do with the stats, they don't matter."

Well, which is it?




Then don't sign up to play in a rolled stats in order game? Then don't be the party face, because the game doesn't really require such rigid role adherence? Then don't come to a rolled stats in order table with something you "want to play?"

You are entirely missing the point that some people like to play with randomly generated characters and don't freak out about things like tank, face, and healer. 5e is a very forgiving system and it allows for all sorts of play.

I'm not freaking out, I'm looking to see the answers.

I asked about the value of rolling and getting low stats, and people claimed "It forces you to be creative"
I pointed out that... no, it really doesn't. I think it makes me less creative.
You responded with "well, you have to roll them in order, not just move them around however you like"

And when I challenge that, when I ask, but what if that doesn't give me something I feel like playing, then the response is "then just don't do it, the game doesn't require these rigid roles that you are freaking out about"

But, that misses the larger point here. Take Burger Beast's posts. He has put forth the idea that if you roll, then the only good choice you can make is to abandon your own desires and play what you rolled. Even if you roll, get a high charisma character and the thought of another high charisma caster after you've played six and you were specifically rolling to avoid that outcome makes you sick to your stomach... well, forget what you want and play what you received and be happy about it. Good, skilled players take the characters they are given and have fun despite their character.

But, when seeing opinions like that, I have to ask... why? Why is it that we have this perception that after rolling only a self-entitled whiner who wants a power fantasy would ever want to change what they got. Would ever be unhappy with it and want to do something else?

That was the question in the OP to a degree. Should the standard array be a floor? Should we have an option that if you end up being forced to roll, you can sub-in a different set of scores. And one poster a few pages ago said "No, if you did that then rolling would only be about doing better than the standard."

Why is that a bad thing? If stats don't matter that much, then only doing better or standard shouldn't make a difference. And if they do matter to the point where you need to have low stats as well as high stats... why? What are they adding to the game if all of our biggest personality traits we use to describe characters have nothing to do with stats?




The perceived need for high stats is the problem. You have framed 14 as "mediocre" and that stats must be higher in order for a character to "be effective."

But this isn't a perception I just pulled out of thin air. This is a perception based on quite a few different characters that I have seen actually at the table. I'm not framing it this way out of some narrow viewpoint, but from literally watching players struggle and get frustrated in trying to be effective with a poor array of stats.

And I'm pulling the numbers from what I have seen. Casters have been usually under effective in getting their spells to stick and feel like they have enough options to prepare until they have an 18 in their stat. 16 might work, but they always want to get out of that and get an 18 as soon as possible, and below a 16, they stop bothering to take spells that require any sort of roll. No attacks, no save or sucks, because those spells will never stick. They look to spells that do half damage and rely on that half damage, because they are rarely getting the full damage if ever. They look to spells like haste or bless that buff the team without ever needing a single roll.

I didn't pick this cut off point because it was convenient. These are my personal observations after running 5e for all these years.



Also, not to pile on, but in terms of misrepresentation -- placing quotation marks around something I said verbatim (adolescent power fantasy) and something that I neither said nor implied (a creative challenge for veteran players) in the same sentence is at best ambiguous punctuation usage and more likely deliberate misquoting for rhetorical effect.

I'm sorry, I was quoting someone else at the same time.

[Segev]

On my phone, so only answering One of the questions directed at me right now. “Why give items later to fix it rather than fix it with standard array to begin with?”

Because they have different effects on play style. For example, the low-stat-line fighter who gets gauntlets of ogre power sees a bigger swing and has a different narrative than the mediocre strength fighter who either gets the same thing, or doesn’t get it at all because he doesn’t “need” it.

Additionally, items et al in-game, where it seems the player is now, can be directed at specific problems and shortcomings that are making the character no fun to play. Rebuilding him with a new stat line is a duller solution that involves retconning or at least greater fiat and less gameplay-story integration.

As to why he should get them? Why would the party give an item that yields lower marginal utility to a character that is doing fine? This is bad tactics and strategy in a team game. If there would be hard feelings at the table over this, that’s an OOC issue that really needs discussion with the group; we can’t really help, there.

But the big thing is the first two points: where the OP seems to be now, with an active character he feels is underperforming, items or similar buffs that can be acquired in-game that address the specific concerns he has seem to me to be the superior solution.

[diplomancer]

On my phone, so only answering One of the questions directed at me right now. “Why give items later to fix it rather than fix it with standard array to begin with?”

Because they have different effects on play style. For example, the low-stat-line fighter who gets gauntlets of ogre power sees a bigger swing and has a different narrative than the mediocre strength fighter who either gets the same thing, or doesn’t get it at all because he doesn’t “need” it.

Additionally, items et al in-game, where it seems the player is now, can be directed at specific problems and shortcomings that are making the character no fun to play. Rebuilding him with a new stat line is a duller solution that involves retconning or at least greater fiat and less gameplay-story integration.

As to why he should get them? Why would the party give an item that yields lower marginal utility to a character that is doing fine? This is bad tactics and strategy in a team game. If there would be hard feelings at the table over this, that’s an OOC issue that really needs discussion with the group; we can’t really help, there.

But the big thing is the first two points: where the OP seems to be now, with an active character he feels is underperforming, items or similar buffs that can be acquired in-game that address the specific concerns he has seem to me to be the superior solution.

Ah, I understand your position better now, but I think I didn't make the situation clear. That was session 0. First session will be tomorrow, there's no active character yet, which is why I said in the OP that I may be overthinking it.

So, allowing standard array would be the pro-active way of dealing with the situation, allowing me to try the character out and "fix him" if necessary would be a reactive way (but with an advantage if in the end there's nothing to be "fixed")

[CTurbo]

Ah, I understand your position better now, but I think I didn't make the situation clear. That was session 0. First session will be tomorrow, there's no active character yet, which is why I said in the OP that I may be overthinking it.

So, allowing standard array would be the pro-active way of dealing with the situation, allowing me to try the character out and "fix him" if necessary would be a reactive way (but with an advantage if in the end there's nothing to be "fixed")


If I were you, I would STILL talk to your DM about your concerns. It couldn't hurt.

Anyway, let us know how it works out and most importantly have fun!

[diplomancer]

If I were you, I would STILL talk to your DM about your concerns. It couldn't hurt.

Anyway, let us know how it works out and most importantly have fun!

When I talked with him about it after rolling, he got a bit defensive (he's young and has been playing for only a few years, not a veteran DM), I don't think it would be very productive to bring it up again. Better to try the character I want and be "outcome-independent" (meaning, if he survives, great, if he doesn't, great).

[Arkhios]

To be honest, I've found it rather rewarding when a character, against all expectations, proves to be invaluable member of the group, even if (or perhaps especially because) their lower than average stats are the root cause for those expectations. Not long ago, we had a ranger in our group (and this was in 3.5 "Core a.k.a. SRD Only" game) whose best score was 15 (dex) and the rest were 11 or lower. She deciced she wants to play an archer, despite the fact that the build is very feat intensive and can't really diverge from the chosen path. In the end, however, her role in our group turned out to be undeniably important and when she got downed at a crucial moment, the whole group suffered from it. Even the front-line brute with god-like stats.

As I tried to convey with the "standard human, champion fighter" -build/suggestion earlier, don't get upset with what you've got. Make the best of what you've got and see how it goes. Who knows, you might even grow to like the character.

[Corran]

You are misrepresenting, both my attitude right now, and the situation. I did not have a choice of playing without rolling, it was "roll, or don't play". Specially considering that, there would be nothing "dishonorable" about saying, after the roll "you know what, I guess I won't play, this will not be fun for me".
Dishonorable is the wrong word here, since we are talking about a game after all. Let's just say that this style of generating stats (and as a far fetched implication, this style of gaming) is not the one suited to you. Of course you must knew that, the moment you picked up those dice. Nothing wrong about having an argument with the GM about whether rolling for stats is good or bad, but the argument must have been resolved one way or the other before and if you end up picking the dice for rolling stats. Willing to give up playing with people just because you didn't get the stat array you wanted, says something about how much you appreciate the prospect of gaming with these people. Worse, telling your GM that you want out because you didnt roll as well as you'd want, could be interpreted as an effort to persuade the GM to create special rules just for you and after the fact. You should never have to play a game you dont enjoy, but I think in the future it would be better if you made that decision at the right time, instead of gambling whether you'll end up joining the game or not (especially if the others counted on your presence).

[diplomancer]

Dishonorable is the wrong word here, since we are talking about a game after all. Let's just say that this style of generating stats (and as a far fetched implication, this style of gaming) is not the one suited to you. Of course you must knew that, the moment you picked up those dice. Nothing wrong about having an argument with the GM about whether rolling for stats is good or bad, but the argument must have been resolved one way or the other before and if you end up picking the dice for rolling stats. Willing to give up playing with people just because you didn't get the stat array you wanted, says something about how much you appreciate the prospect of gaming with these people. Worse, telling your GM that you want out because you didnt roll as well as you'd want, could be interpreted as an effort to persuade the GM to create special rules just for you and after the fact. You should never have to play a game you dont enjoy, but I think in the future it would be better if you made that decision at the right time, instead of gambling whether you'll end up joining the game or not (especially if the others counted on your presence).

I believe that there is a limit to "how low can you go" before you stop having fun, or before it even makes sense to have this person have a high-risk career such as adventuring. Where this limit is varies from person to person, I suppose. After all this conversation, I believe, for now, that my rolls were not under this limit. But if I'd rolled all 10s, for instance, they'd be. Even more so if the rest of the party is rocking 18s and 20s (because intra-party balance is more important than out-party balance). Someone mentioned that a start of 14 or 15 on your primary stat is the game's expected cut-off point (otherwise halfling wizards would be unplayable), and I'm inclined to agree.

Saying "you know, John Doe recognizes he's not fit for the rigours of adventuring life. He wants to grow potatoes instead. Can I play someone else, or do you want to every now and then to cut from the adventure to focus on his life on the farm?" is a very reasonable, and even "in-character" thing to do.

And before someone brings up the Hobbits in Tolkien (or other "everyman becomes a Hero" literary tropes), I will point out that:
1- They were exceptional Hobbits. And this is explicit in the books. Fatty Bolger is the Hobbit who "rolled all 10s". He had a role to play in the "hobbit resistance" (a not very effective one, but it did inspire others), but not in the Adventure.
2- They are characters in a book, not in a game. What they accomplish depends on the author's decisions, not on their "stats"

[Christew]

Flaws, Frailties, insecurities, growth.

None of these are a -2 on all intelligence checks. I've pretty much never seen a character flaw of "I'm physically weak" it is generally things like "I'm indecisive", "I'm paranoid", "I'm a diva"

I'm not creating a false binary at all. I'm saying that the types of things that we talk about are not the types of things that low ability scores lead us to.

For example, I've seen the story of "I am a noble scion of a house, but I am weak and scrawny and not the mighty warrior I wish to be, but over the course of my adventures I've learned my mind is my greatest weapon and gained confidence in myself" It is a pretty fun coming of age story, and can be done very well.

A DnD wizard with an 8 strength and 16 Int doesn't have that story. In fact, if someone went out and played a human wizard for three levels, always taking levels in wizard, but tried to sword fight with a longsword they weren't proficient in and had a negative value in, most players would just be confused and angry. They are clearly not using the class as intended.

Because DnD isn't really a good game for the story of discovering your talents. It is a better game for the story of refining your talents.
I can't speak to what you have and haven't seen in your specific experience. As for Wizards that might swing a sword: Bladesinger, Abjurer, War Wizard, any elf, any dwarf, any hobgoblin, Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade, Shadow Blade ... there are options for those that want them. You seem to think anything but optimized play is badwrongfun. I disagree.


Right, keep that idea. "Stats aren't that important"

Except, they define how effective you are allowed to be. They aren't the part of the game that we enjoy the most, they play nearly no part in our creativity our responsiveness or our tactics, but a character with low charisma shouldn't be involved in the social scene. The character with low strength shouldn't try and tackle and restrain another character. The character with a low wisdom shouldn't be the lookout or the scout.

Low stats constantly put up walls and say "you should not participate in this section of the game", and if I put forth the idea of everyone having high stats, then I get accused of wanting adolescent power fantasies.

But, "stat's aren't that important".

I'm trying to wrap my head around this weird dichotomy. The people saying they aren't important are advocating low stats as a good thing, and wanting high stats as a bad thing. But, my personal experience says that characters with high stats are more fun and engaged at the table than people with low or mediocre stats. I'm putting forth these questions, but the defense of low stats I get revolve around claims like "some people like the challenge" while simultaneously saying "the challenge has nothing to do with the stats, they don't matter."

Well, which is it?
Your imagination, your creativity, and your DM determine "how effective you are allowed to be.". A character with an 8 in CHA can still roll a 20 and successfully deceive, persuade, or intimidate someone. If you play in games where only the player with the highest stat attempts any given task, I'm sorry. I don't.


I'm not freaking out, I'm looking to see the answers.

I asked about the value of rolling and getting low stats, and people claimed "It forces you to be creative"
I pointed out that... no, it really doesn't. I think it makes me less creative.
You responded with "well, you have to roll them in order, not just move them around however you like"

And when I challenge that, when I ask, but what if that doesn't give me something I feel like playing, then the response is "then just don't do it, the game doesn't require these rigid roles that you are freaking out about"

But, that misses the larger point here. Take Burger Beast's posts. He has put forth the idea that if you roll, then the only good choice you can make is to abandon your own desires and play what you rolled. Even if you roll, get a high charisma character and the thought of another high charisma caster after you've played six and you were specifically rolling to avoid that outcome makes you sick to your stomach... well, forget what you want and play what you received and be happy about it. Good, skilled players take the characters they are given and have fun despite their character.

But, when seeing opinions like that, I have to ask... why? Why is it that we have this perception that after rolling only a self-entitled whiner who wants a power fantasy would ever want to change what they got. Would ever be unhappy with it and want to do something else?

That was the question in the OP to a degree. Should the standard array be a floor? Should we have an option that if you end up being forced to roll, you can sub-in a different set of scores. And one poster a few pages ago said "No, if you did that then rolling would only be about doing better than the standard."

Why is that a bad thing? If stats don't matter that much, then only doing better or standard shouldn't make a difference. And if they do matter to the point where you need to have low stats as well as high stats... why? What are they adding to the game if all of our biggest personality traits we use to describe characters have nothing to do with stats?
You are all over the place here, taking pieces from earlier parts of the discussion while ignoring the context. It's about options. There are many ways to play the game, none of them are wrong. Feel free to go back and read my first post in this thread. It points out that rolling stats should be about RNG. If the goal is to just have higher stats than the standard array, just use point buy with a higher point allowance. If you roll stats and then complain that yours are lower than another player's, I don't know what to tell you. "I chose a random generation method and I don't like that the results aren't equal" doesn't make sense to me.


But this isn't a perception I just pulled out of thin air. This is a perception based on quite a few different characters that I have seen actually at the table. I'm not framing it this way out of some narrow viewpoint, but from literally watching players struggle and get frustrated in trying to be effective with a poor array of stats.

And I'm pulling the numbers from what I have seen. Casters have been usually under effective in getting their spells to stick and feel like they have enough options to prepare until they have an 18 in their stat. 16 might work, but they always want to get out of that and get an 18 as soon as possible, and below a 16, they stop bothering to take spells that require any sort of roll. No attacks, no save or sucks, because those spells will never stick. They look to spells that do half damage and rely on that half damage, because they are rarely getting the full damage if ever. They look to spells like haste or bless that buff the team without ever needing a single roll.

I didn't pick this cut off point because it was convenient. These are my personal observations after running 5e for all these years.
I have also been playing 5e since it was released. My experiences do not match yours. That's okay.


I'm sorry, I was quoting someone else at the same time.
Apology accepted.

[opaopajr]

Those stats look fun! :smallsmile: I would have chosen regular human (five odd numbers), then roll for my class and background. If I am a veteran player with a new GM I am perfectly fine playing a randomized supportive role.

But then I don't invest so much of my self into ttrpg spotlight time, let alone find such stats an affront to my divinity. :smallbiggrin: I mean I probably did when younger, but that age has passed. It's the time shared and the experiences made that resonate upon reflection. I guess I am not so competitive about "let's pretend" as I may have been before. Maybe it matters now, but be open to be surprised in your future by your changes in tastes. :smallcool:

[Amechra]

OP, I'm glad you're taking a crack at playing your character - I'm fond of rolled characters, even though D&D 5e isn't a good game for that for a bunch of reasons. The thing is that most games with randomly-rolled characters use them so you can blaze through character creation in a couple minutes and be back to playing, and 5e just isn't designed in a way that makes that a reasonable goal.

I think Warhammer Fantasy is a good example of how to handle random stats - you rolled 20+2d10 in order for your eight stats, and they were super important (it was a percentile game, so you were usually trying to roll under your stat on a d100). The reason this works is because character creation let you set a stat to the average value after rolling and gave you a +5 to one stat after that. You also got six stat bumps by the time you left your first career (read: Tier 1).

The end result is that, while random rolls might make it entirely possible that one party member has Fellowship (read: Charisma) 22 to start and another has Fellowship 40, your party face is going to range between Fellowship 36 and Fellowship 45 instead, and the game is balanced so that starting with that 36 is actually pretty decent.

In 5e... I'd probably go with "Roll 2d6 + 6 down the line. You can set one ability score to 14. Then you pick your race/class/background"? But I feel like it'd still be too slow.

[Corran]

I believe that there is a limit to "how low can you go" before you stop having fun, or before it even makes sense to have this person have a high-risk career such as adventuring. Where this limit is varies from person to person, I suppose. After all this conversation, I believe, for now, that my rolls were not under this limit. But if I'd rolled all 10s, for instance, they'd be. Even more so if the rest of the party is rocking 18s and 20s (because intra-party balance is more important than out-party balance). Someone mentioned that a start of 14 or 15 on your primary stat is the game's expected cut-off point (otherwise halfling wizards would be unplayable), and I'm inclined to agree.
There is a fine line you are not noticing here. Yes, not enjoying playing a character with low stats (regardless of how you define that) is entirely your prerogative and a valid way to approach the game. I didn't see anyone denying that. I certainly dont. But what does this mean? And what can this excuse? It means that just like everyone else, you have your own preferences regarding how you want to play the game, and some of these preferences are so strong that they end up being prerequisites for any game you would consider joining. I argue that you should treat them as such, but more importantly, that you should be upfront and fair about it. There are far better and more appropriate ways to go about such a situation, than resorting to rolling for stats and bailing if you didn't roll to your liking. The latter is unnecessarily inconsiderate.



Saying "you know, John Doe recognizes he's not fit for the rigours of adventuring life. He wants to grow potatoes instead. Can I play someone else, or do you want to every now and then to cut from the adventure to focus on his life on the farm?" is a very reasonable, and even "in-character" thing to do.
I wouldn't agree with that. It is the player's job to create (with some help from the DM, if needed) character motivation. I certainly expect of my players to join the game with characters who are excited about going on adventures (loosely defined). Saying that John Doe wants to grow potatoes is an obvious a cop-out anyway. The root of the problem here is not with character motivation, it's with player motivation, and that's how it should be addressed instead of dancing around it.





And before someone brings up the Hobbits in Tolkien (or other "everyman becomes a Hero" literary tropes), I will point out that:
1- They were exceptional Hobbits. And this is explicit in the books. Fatty Bolger is the Hobbit who "rolled all 10s". He had a role to play in the "hobbit resistance" (a not very effective one, but it did inspire others), but not in the Adventure.
2- They are characters in a book, not in a game. What they accomplish depends on the author's decisions, not on their "stats"
I will presume that you are arguing about the value of inter-party balance here, because (and I am paraphrasing) that's a team game played by actual people, and not a book. If not, feel free to correct me. I like to encourage inter-party balance. Well, maybe not encourage it per se, but I at least dont like to push in the opposite direction. Yes, rolling for stats can be the cause of inter-party imbalance, but imo less than what many people think. From a mechanical level, it's the players' choices (such as class, race, feats, spells, etc, and the various combinations of those) that will end up creating imbalance. So, player experience for he most part (which should be taken into account also when thinking of in game decisions, which also influence how effective a character can be). You can bet that a newbie playing a sorcerer with great stats will compare very poorly to a savvy player playing a wizard with average stats.

About stats and heroics. Low stats are not a huge detriment to doing heroic acts. You are playing with a d20 system after all. Lower odds? Yes. Prohibitive? No. Rolling stats is not that much about what your character will or will not accomplish. It's about limiting or expanding the number of concepts (assuming a high level of detail) you can reliably explore with your set of given stats.

[Chaosmancer]

Additionally, items et al in-game, where it seems the player is now, can be directed at specific problems and shortcomings that are making the character no fun to play. Rebuilding him with a new stat line is a duller solution that involves retconning or at least greater fiat and less gameplay-story integration.

But, what about at session 0? No retconning, just cutting off the problem before the character is played.



I can't speak to what you have and haven't seen in your specific experience. As for Wizards that might swing a sword: Bladesinger, Abjurer, War Wizard, any elf, any dwarf, any hobgoblin, Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade, Shadow Blade ... there are options for those that want them. You seem to think anything but optimized play is badwrongfun. I disagree.

You are ignoring what I said. I didn't say an elf bladesinger, I didn't say a dwarf.

I said a human wizard. With a -1 str and no proficiency. Not making a magical sword or using a sword cantrip, they are swinging a normal longsword trying to be a fighter.

Because that is what happens in stories. Like with "The Dragon Prince" you have a prince who wants to be a powerful warrior for the first episode. He is clearly bad at it, he is clearly better off as a wizard or an artist or literally anything except a warrior. but he wants to be a warrior and won't accept that he just isn't cut out for it.

But that doesn't happen in DnD. You just listed a bunch of ways to be an "effective" sword wielding wizard, but that wasn't what I was talking about. I was saying that no one goes purposefully playing an "ineffective" sword wielding wizard. No one takes that trope of being ineffective in the extreme, like you see in stories, to learn and grow of their own unique way of fighting and winning. Because your party is going to be frustrated and tell you to just use the spells like you are supposed to, or if you wanted to play a fighter so bad, play a fighter.



Your imagination, your creativity, and your DM determine "how effective you are allowed to be.". A character with an 8 in CHA can still roll a 20 and successfully deceive, persuade, or intimidate someone. If you play in games where only the player with the highest stat attempts any given task, I'm sorry. I don't.

I'm sorry, that bolded part sounds like the dice decided how effective I was going to be, not my creativity or my DM. How creatively did I roll that die to get that 20? Did I just have a powerful enough imagination that the die did what I wanted?

I mean, what if I had been incredibly creative and inspired and come up with something amazing. The DM declared that I should roll with advantage... and I get a 8 and a 9 on the dice. Failure.

Of course, the DM could just declare I succeeded... but then what is the point of having the low scores then? They could just declare I succeed no matter what my scores are. Low scores aren't making my play more creative, unless we mean that they are causing me to work harder to avoid ever having to pick up the dice.



You are all over the place here, taking pieces from earlier parts of the discussion while ignoring the context. It's about options. There are many ways to play the game, none of them are wrong. Feel free to go back and read my first post in this thread. It points out that rolling stats should be about RNG. If the goal is to just have higher stats than the standard array, just use point buy with a higher point allowance. If you roll stats and then complain that yours are lower than another player's, I don't know what to tell you. "I chose a random generation method and I don't like that the results aren't equal" doesn't make sense to me.

But the OP didn't get to choose their generation method. It was chosen for them.

And then, when they were unhappy with that result, there were posts about how they had made their choice and so they had to stick by it, but they weren't given a choice.

And, if it is all about options... why not have an option that allows for the floor? Why was that idea met with the response that such things would only increase the power of the players and that is a bad thing?

And again, the "defense of low stats" constantly has nothing to do with stats. It doesn't make more interesting characters, it doesn't make the player suddenly more creative, it doesn't seem to do anything. And yet, there are people talking about how this is the challenge of skilled play, that if you are somehow creative or skilled enough you can still have fun... But you could also have fun with a decent array, so if the goal is fun, why talk about how much fun you can have in spite of your stats and instead look towards how much fun you could have because of your stats?



I have also been playing 5e since it was released. My experiences do not match yours. That's okay.

I'm curious, how many full casters have you seen with a 14 or less in their casting stat? Ever or after level 4?

How many times have you seen one with an 18 by level 4?

Because I am specifically talking about the experience of a player who started a cleric with a 14 wisdom, who desperately and frustratedly did nothing but take ASI's to increase that number in an attempt to feel effective in the party. And, if you've never seen a full caster character with a casting stat of 14... that might explain why your experience differs.

[Segev]

5e is, in theory, designed such that you don't need high numbers to succeed regularly. The d20 is (nearly) always dominant. That said, I do understand frustration.

My advice is, if he's not willing to let you have the stat line you want, just try it out. If he's new and defensive, give it a bit, and track how effective you are. Try to take honest notes about how much you do contribute vs. how much you fail to; it's VERY easy to convince yourself you're doing worse than you are if you try to do this strictly from memory.

If you find you're not having fun...talk to him about it. Be specific about what you want to be doing better.

It just seems to me that the focus on too low stats is premature, here. While I'd say "sure, talk to him about better stats" under many circumstances, if he's defensive about it, I don't think it's worth pushing when you're not yet sure how things will go.

It's also probable that he'll respond to higher bonuses with higher resistances/target numbers/DCs, possibly without even meaning to, if he's really that inexperienced and defensive. It's a seductive trap for a DM. "I'm not challenging them enough!"

[GentlemanVoodoo]

I'm starting play now in a campaign with rolled ability scores. I told DM I prefer point-buy or standard array, even though DM uses a generous rolling method (4d6b3, reroll 1s)

As luck would have it, out of 6 characters, 1 has a 20 at level 1, 3 have at least 1 18, 1 has 2 16s, and my character has 2 14s.

Result of that-> I tried to optimize as best as possible, but still I know I will be struggling to keep up. Even making smart choices would just be to compensate for my terrible rolls. It's the first character I've played I'm not excited about. I'm just tempted to be reckless with him and let him die an honorable death, maybe saving the rest of the party, and then either reroll a new character or just stop playing with this group.

I did ask the DM to at least have the standard array, he said he feels "it's more fun that way".

Playgrounders, what should I do?
1- Just leave the group? It's an online game, and I'm not terribly invested in it. I just don't like quitting... and I did accept the DM's rules when I accepted rolling the dice.
2- Try my best to keep the character alive? That feels like the "honorable thing to do" but it means playing a game where I'm feeling subpar all the time.
3- Kill the character, preferably in a way that saves the bacon of the rest of the party? They get to keep their nice characters, and I either make a character I actually enjoy playing or leave.

One important detail- I may be overthinking this, I know, and maybe ability scores don't matter as much as I think they do. I just feel bad looking at my character sheet. I know I can play someone who basically focus on buffing his teammates and be very effective that way. Oddly enough, that WAS the character I was trying to play, as long as I could be reasonably effective on my own, now I feel like I HAVE to focus on myself and forget the rest of the party, they are good enough already. If it was a game with close friends, I would probably keep to that support idea, as they would be able to realize what I was doing. But again, online game with strangers, why do I have to sacrifice my character's fun so that others can feel even more awesome than they are already?

Leave the group. It is clear that you have a different playstyle than the rest of the group. Without more specifics, it seems the DM and other players do not care much about the number crunching aspect of the mechanics such as yourself. Nothing wrong with focusing on mechanics maximumization but there is a clear enough image of the different playing styles. If you are adamant about staying with the group petition to your DM to let you reroll.

In any case if you are not having fun with the character that was created for this game, then there is no sense in staying and going through a miserable experience.

[KorvinStarmast]

Put another way, "Shut up and don't interact with the plot." Not every D&D game has a plot. :smallwink: Beyond that, I have a sorcerer player with a good charisma who barely interacts with NPCs. he doesn't like face interactions very much. I had a 9 Charisma cleric who was very into social pillar. Worked out fine.
When I talked with him about it after rolling, he got a bit defensive (he's young and has been playing for only a few years, not a veteran DM), I don't think it would be very productive to bring it up again. Better to try the character I want and be "outcome-independent" (meaning, if he survives, great, if he doesn't, great). Then your approach should be successful. Would love to hear how things went when you all get to level 4 or 5.

[Christew]

You are ignoring what I said. I didn't say an elf bladesinger, I didn't say a dwarf.
No. You are ignoring available options and then asking why you don't have options. I don't want to play that game.


I'm sorry, that bolded part sounds like the dice decided how effective I was going to be, not my creativity or my DM. How creatively did I roll that die to get that 20? Did I just have a powerful enough imagination that the die did what I wanted?

I mean, what if I had been incredibly creative and inspired and come up with something amazing. The DM declared that I should roll with advantage... and I get a 8 and a 9 on the dice. Failure.

Of course, the DM could just declare I succeeded... but then what is the point of having the low scores then? They could just declare I succeed no matter what my scores are. Low scores aren't making my play more creative, unless we mean that they are causing me to work harder to avoid ever having to pick up the dice.
Rolling is specifically for challenged RNG to determine the outcome of events that can't just be roleplayed through. DM/creativity are king during the non-rolling portion of the game (which, IMHO should be most of it, but it sounds like that is not the case for you), the dice are king during the rolling portion of the game. Stats are not that important to either.


But the OP didn't get to choose their generation method. It was chosen for them.

And then, when they were unhappy with that result, there were posts about how they had made their choice and so they had to stick by it, but they weren't given a choice.

And, if it is all about options... why not have an option that allows for the floor? Why was that idea met with the response that such things would only increase the power of the players and that is a bad thing?

And again, the "defense of low stats" constantly has nothing to do with stats. It doesn't make more interesting characters, it doesn't make the player suddenly more creative, it doesn't seem to do anything. And yet, there are people talking about how this is the challenge of skilled play, that if you are somehow creative or skilled enough you can still have fun... But you could also have fun with a decent array, so if the goal is fun, why talk about how much fun you can have in spite of your stats and instead look towards how much fun you could have because of your stats?
We, as players, are in a constant state of "choosing to play." OP signed up for a game, found out that game was rolled stats, rolled stats, had anxiety about said stats, and now seems to have come to terms with the character they are going to build (kudos btw, hope you have fun and sorry this has discourse has been hijacking the thread). Lots of choice points in there where he could have said "I'm going to find a different game more suited to my tastes."


I'm curious, how many full casters have you seen with a 14 or less in their casting stat? Ever or after level 4?

How many times have you seen one with an 18 by level 4?

Because I am specifically talking about the experience of a player who started a cleric with a 14 wisdom, who desperately and frustratedly did nothing but take ASI's to increase that number in an attempt to feel effective in the party. And, if you've never seen a full caster character with a casting stat of 14... that might explain why your experience differs.
Several? I'm currently DMing for a Cleric who started with 14 WIS (and a Barbarian with 12 CON for that matter). I have previously played a Wizard with 14 INT (and am currently playing a rogue with 14 DEX). No problems with any of the players or builds. I think we just approach the game differently.

[Amechra]

5e is, in theory, designed such that you don't need high numbers to succeed regularly. The d20 is (nearly) always dominant. That said, I do understand frustration.

So, part of the problem here is that people in general have really poor intuitions about probability. And that goes double when you start using loose terms like "regularly" to describe them. (https://flowingdata.com/2018/07/06/how-people-interpret-probability-through-words/) And, for me at least, linear changes in probability don't feel linear.

One of the "thresholds" for me is at around 60%-65% - that's where it goes from feeling like a coin-flip to feeling like I've got a serious chance of success. That means that a +4 to attack rolls against AC 14 feels like a coin flip, while a +5 feels like I've got a really good chance of landing that hit. So at early levels where 14-15 is what decent enemy AC looks like, I'm going to be aiming at getting that sweet +5 to attack rolls ASAP, because otherwise my attacks will feel much more whiffy. And if I pass that threshold due to Advantage, I start feeling like I need Advantage to hit.

This might also be an optimism/pessimism thing - I played with someone who insisted that he had terrible dice luck. What was really happening is that he dismissed sessions when he rolled well as flukes, and laser-focused on sessions where he rolled poorly.

I'd be pretty interested to hear how other people define "succeed regularly" in terms of actual percentages. That could be an interesting little survey.


Not every D&D game has a plot. :smallwink: Beyond that, I have a sorcerer player with a good charisma who barely interacts with NPCs. he doesn't like face interactions very much. I had a 9 Charisma cleric who was very into social pillar. Worked out fine. Then your approach should be successful. Would love to hear how things went when you all get to level 4 or 5.

The social pillar is a weird one, because it's the one spot where a lot of people skip rolling entirely, and mostly go off of player RP. It's a little different once you get into the exploration pillar (I've been in games where not taking Perception proficiency was really punished by the DM, though I've also been in games where pixel-hunting was the order of the day) and very different once you get to the combat pillar.

[Pex]

Leave the group. It is clear that you have a different playstyle than the rest of the group. Without more specifics, it seems the DM and other players do not care much about the number crunching aspect of the mechanics such as yourself. Nothing wrong with focusing on mechanics maximumization but there is a clear enough image of the different playing styles. If you are adamant about staying with the group petition to your DM to let you reroll.

In any case if you are not having fun with the character that was created for this game, then there is no sense in staying and going through a miserable experience.

That's not the problem at all. It's not about number crunching or playstyle. Nothing was optimized; it was forced randomness. The OP just happened to be the unlucky one and rolled a poor array when everyone else got 20s, 18s, and 16s. The DM won't let him reroll or even just take the standard array to get a better array that fits with everyone else. His character is significantly mathematically weaker in all ways compared to everyone else by the luck of the dice and DM stubbornness.

If the players and DM involved were all complete strangers I'd probably not play myself. There's no trust yet to know it would all work out, but I already know I'll be miserable missing so often with a 14 while others are rocking a 20 and 18s compounded with the likelihood of them taking feats, but I can't because I need to catch up mathematically. They're having fun with their agreed and not an objectionable thing to have power while I'm subpar in comparison. Good luck to the OP for trying. It's not a problem for another player to have a better array than me when using rolled scores. It's only a problem when my array is not in the same ballpark. Of course it's the downside disadvantage of rolling for scores, but you can remedy it by allowing a reroll. The reroll is NOT to get all 18s potential. It's to get an array that fits with everyone else.

[Christew]

That's not the problem at all. It's not about number crunching or playstyle. Nothing was optimized; it was forced randomness. The OP just happened to be the unlucky one and rolled a poor array when everyone else got 20s, 18s, and 16s. The DM won't let him reroll or even just take the standard array to get a better array that fits with everyone else. His character is significantly mathematically weaker in all ways compared to everyone else by the luck of the dice and DM stubbornness.

If the players and DM involved were all complete strangers I'd probably not play myself. There's no trust yet to know it would all work out, but I already know I'll be miserable missing so often with a 14 while others are rocking a 20 and 18s compounded with the likelihood of them taking feats, but I can't because I need to catch up mathematically. They're having fun with their agreed and not an objectionable thing to have power while I'm subpar in comparison. Good luck to the OP for trying. It's not a problem for another player to have a better array than me when using rolled scores. It's only a problem when my array is not in the same ballpark. Of course it's the downside disadvantage of rolling for scores, but you can remedy it by allowing a reroll. The reroll is NOT to get all 18s potential. It's to get an array that fits with everyone else.
But if we need to "fit with everyone else" why are we rolling in the first place?

[diplomancer]

There is a fine line you are not noticing here. Yes, not enjoying playing a character with low stats (regardless of how you define that) is entirely your prerogative and a valid way to approach the game. I didn't see anyone denying that. I certainly dont. But what does this mean? And what can this excuse? It means that just like everyone else, you have your own preferences regarding how you want to play the game, and some of these preferences are so strong that they end up being prerequisites for any game you would consider joining. I argue that you should treat them as such, but more importantly, that you should be upfront and fair about it. There are far better and more appropriate ways to go about such a situation, than resorting to rolling for stats and bailing if you didn't roll to your liking. The latter is unnecessarily inconsiderate.



I wouldn't agree with that. It is the player's job to create (with some help from the DM, if needed) character motivation. I certainly expect of my players to join the game with characters who are excited about going on adventures (loosely defined). Saying that John Doe wants to grow potatoes is an obvious a cop-out anyway. The root of the problem here is not with character motivation, it's with player motivation, and that's how it should be addressed instead of dancing around it.

I think this is a big difference in the way we create our characters. For me, the personality of the character and his approach to life is very much a result of his stats. This character I rolled for instance, S15,D11,C12,I13,W14,Ch11.

Those are not, as I see them, the stats of "a 5e adventurer", i.e, a special person, full of ambition, with a possible great destiny in front of him. But they ARE the stats of someone who might be admired within his relatively small community. He's stronger, smarter, and wiser than most, and so he has an important role to play in keeping order.

And IF something happens and propels him into adventure, he might try his best to survive, and eventually come to enjoy such a life, but it's not something that he would normally choose. So I made him someone already in his 40s, happy with his role in the village of smith/priest, and with no further ambitions. But working out with the DM which sort of event would "kick him out" so to speak. I already established a bond with another player of a more "adventurous" type, but with lower Str, so we could have said that he raised some ruckus, I grappled him, and after that tuss we became friends. That might be a connection to lead my character into the adventuring life, for instance.

But an all 10s character? He wants to grow potatoes, and the idea of anything adventurous terrifies him. I can't fathom him wanting to live the adventurous life, or enjoy it if it's thrust on him. At best, he will live it vicariously reading adventure stories and playing RPGs ;).

[KorvinStarmast]

The social pillar is a weird one, because it's the one spot where a lot of people skip rolling entirely, and mostly go off of player RP. IMO (style preference) that's the right way to do it. Only roll when you get to a failure point. I don't like roll playing for social encounters. The game itself is a social setting, so it lends itself for social elements of role play to be organic and need the dice less, not more.

If ever WoTC made a massive mistake, it was in creating Charisma as a spell casting stat.

[Pex]

But if we need to "fit with everyone else" why are we rolling in the first place?

Because dice rolling gives you array combinations you can't get with Point Buy. It can facilitate non-stereotypes. If you roll a 16 or lucky enough an 18 and put it in strength it might be worth trying the halfling or gnome fighter or barbarian. Put it in charisma and play the half-orc bard. Put it in intelligence and play the dwarf wizard. Obviously you already can with Point Buy, but there's disincentive to do so. If you play to the stereotypes it's certainly a more high powered game than Point Buy. You're likely to take more feats. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[Christew]

Because dice rolling gives you array combinations you can't get with Point Buy. It can facilitate non-stereotypes. If you roll a 16 or lucky enough an 18 and put it in strength it might be worth trying the halfling or gnome fighter or barbarian. Put it in charisma and play the half-orc bard. Put it in intelligence and play the dwarf wizard. Obviously you already can with Point Buy, but there's disincentive to do so. If you play to the stereotypes it's certainly a more high powered game than Point Buy. You're likely to take more feats. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I feel like a broken record in this thread. Rolling is for RNG - whether it is for a skill check or a character stat roll, any time you drop the dice you are generating a RANDOM number. If you don't want your stats to be random then use point buy with a higher point total and/or remove the 15 ceiling. If the only reason you roll is for higher stats just admit that and use a more balanced system so everyone has those higher stats.

[HappyDaze]

I believe that there is a limit to "how low can you go" before you stop having fun, or before it even makes sense to have this person have a high-risk career such as adventuring. Where this limit is varies from person to person, I suppose. After all this conversation, I believe, for now, that my rolls were not under this limit. But if I'd rolled all 10s, for instance, they'd be. Even more so if the rest of the party is rocking 18s and 20s (because intra-party balance is more important than out-party balance). Someone mentioned that a start of 14 or 15 on your primary stat is the game's expected cut-off point (otherwise halfling wizards would be unplayable), and I'm inclined to agree.

Saying "you know, John Doe recognizes he's not fit for the rigours of adventuring life. He wants to grow potatoes instead. Can I play someone else, or do you want to every now and then to cut from the adventure to focus on his life on the farm?" is a very reasonable, and even "in-character" thing to do.

And before someone brings up the Hobbits in Tolkien (or other "everyman becomes a Hero" literary tropes), I will point out that:
1- They were exceptional Hobbits. And this is explicit in the books. Fatty Bolger is the Hobbit who "rolled all 10s". He had a role to play in the "hobbit resistance" (a not very effective one, but it did inspire others), but not in the Adventure.
2- They are characters in a book, not in a game. What they accomplish depends on the author's decisions, not on their "stats"

Steve Rogers was eager to sign up to save lives fighting Nazis, and that was before the Super Soldier serum.

[Christew]

Maybe it's the participation trophy era at work here. Personally, if I am roleplaying a character (regardless of his/her stats) and recruiting teammates, I am looking for the strongest, smartest, most capable ones I can find (ergo celebrating my fellow player's high rolls). I am not lamenting my own weaknesses in comparison to said teammates (or, heavens forfend, contemplating suicide because that other guy is stronger than me).

[Chaosmancer]

No. You are ignoring available options and then asking why you don't have options. I don't want to play that game.

I am not ignoring options, you are not listening to my point.

Do you remember Taran from the Black Cauldron? The Pig Farmer. He is a young boy who dreams of being a great warrior. He isn't, and part of his story is coming to terms with the fact that he isn't a great warrior.

That story doesn't happen in DnD. You don't have the character with no proficiency in martial weapons and a -1 str putting on plate armor and swinging a longsword. If you want to be a fighter... you roll a fighter. If you want to be a wizard who uses a sword, you take the options to be a wizard with a sword.

Despite the story being a good story, it isn't a story that gets played at the DnD table. Because being purposefully ineffective is annoying to your party members.




Rolling is specifically for challenged RNG to determine the outcome of events that can't just be roleplayed through. DM/creativity are king during the non-rolling portion of the game (which, IMHO should be most of it, but it sounds like that is not the case for you), the dice are king during the rolling portion of the game. Stats are not that important to either.

If stats are never important, why do we have them determine things?



We, as players, are in a constant state of "choosing to play." OP signed up for a game, found out that game was rolled stats, rolled stats, had anxiety about said stats, and now seems to have come to terms with the character they are going to build (kudos btw, hope you have fun and sorry this has discourse has been hijacking the thread). Lots of choice points in there where he could have said "I'm going to find a different game more suited to my tastes."

I don't think it is fair to say that you don't get to have a say in the game after you make the decision to play, especially if choosing to leave after seeing you would have bad stats compared to everyone else would be seen as being self-entitled and a whiner.

Because then, you no longer have the choice to leave without it being the wrong thing to do.



Several? I'm currently DMing for a Cleric who started with 14 WIS (and a Barbarian with 12 CON for that matter). I have previously played a Wizard with 14 INT (and am currently playing a rogue with 14 DEX). No problems with any of the players or builds. I think we just approach the game differently.

There must be a major difference in our games then, because every character I've had with those numbers has seen it as a problem to be overcome, and struggled with that fact.


But if we need to "fit with everyone else" why are we rolling in the first place?

Is the point of rolling to have some character's be superior to others? Why would I want my allies being weaker?



Steve Rogers was eager to sign up to save lives fighting Nazis, and that was before the Super Soldier serum.

But, no one plays Steve Rogers in DnD. Steve Rogers would be a fighter with his highest physical stat being a 10 Dex, everything else being an 8. He also has no proficiency in medium or heavy armor.

No one is taking that character and putting him in a DnD party as the fighter.

[Chaosmancer]

Maybe it's the participation trophy era at work here. Personally, if I am roleplaying a character (regardless of his/her stats) and recruiting teammates, I am looking for the strongest, smartest, most capable ones I can find (ergo celebrating my fellow player's high rolls). I am not lamenting my own weaknesses in comparison to said teammates (or, heavens forfend, contemplating suicide because that other guy is stronger than me).

Right.

So why did your teammates take you on if you aren't the strongest, smartest or most capable?


I mean this is a story of a group of powerful people with great abilities.... and their roadie. Why is he even there?

[HappyDaze]

But, no one plays Steve Rogers in DnD. Steve Rogers would be a fighter with his highest physical stat being a 10 Dex, everything else being an 8. He also has no proficiency in medium or heavy armor.

No one is taking that character and putting him in a DnD party as the fighter.

But you could... But the armor proficiency just comes with the class, so just accept it. And... perhaps you'll get some magical super soldier juice too (an Amulet of Health and some Gauntlets of Ogre Power and he can keep up with anyone). Of course, I see Steve as being a Paladin (Oath of Devotion) all the way, and he has plenty of Wisdom and Charisma to shine.

[HappyDaze]

Right.

So why did your teammates take you on if you aren't the strongest, smartest or most capable?


I mean this is a story of a group of powerful people with great abilities.... and their roadie. Why is he even there?

Maybe because the strongest guy isn't interested, the smartest is totally evil (has the goatee), and the most capable is totally mercenary jackhole that nobody wants to be around?

[MaxWilson]

Right.

So why did your teammates take you on if you aren't the strongest, smartest or most capable?

Maybe because they appreciate what class abilities you bring to the table, e.g. that you can turn two of them into T Rexes and see through walls, and you're fast enough on your feet that you don't need babysitting (Mobile feat).

Stats in 5e matter less than feats and class abilities, usually. You don't need to be the strongest and fastest and best to be useful.

[Corran]

Maybe because they appreciate what class abilities you bring to the table, e.g. that you can turn two of them into T Rexes and see through walls, and you're fast enough on your feet that you don't need babysitting (Mobile feat).

Stats in 5e matter less than feats and class abilities, usually. You don't need to be the strongest and fastest and best to be useful.
I was about to say something similar about the character with all 10s that was mentioned above. While moon druid is one of the most obvious paths that average Joe could conveniently choose, I like the rogue approach. The killing machines (ie the other pc's) are happy to take you with them because you are the one who knows best about how to spot and disarm traps. A ranged rogue is also very good at surviving, sneak attack does not really care for your dex (especially if you spend a feat on something like crossbow expert), and with expertise you can still be the best at a few things (especially if others consciously leave you some room in skill/tool selection, so that you can shine). Sure, you wont be as good as killing things, and yes, there were a few times when you pretended to be dead during some encounters, but your contribution is enough for the other pc's to want you around (the fools!), and as long as you are getting a fair share of the pie you are happy to continue helping them with whatever glorious quest they have once again taken on. Being called a hero is an acceptable side benefit, but honestly, you are doing this because ... [enter character motivation].



I mean this is a story of a group of powerful people with great abilities.... and their roadie. Why is he even there?
It's important to note that, generally speaking, this is not necessarily the assumption when rolling for stats is involved. For example, if you are generating stats by using a less generous method, like rolling 3d6 six times, it might even be the intention for one or two roadies to exist. Because someone has to roleplay the paladin's squire or whatever.



I think this is a big difference in the way we create our characters. For me, the personality of the character and his approach to life is very much a result of his stats.
I certainly agree but up to a certain degree. I think there's much more to a character's personality than whatever it is that can be derived just from the stats. To steal a scene from Kingdom of Heaven, consider the following scenario. The enemy army has been spotted approaching the city that the pc's are defending. About 200 mounted enemy troops are closing in fast, trying to catch up to the villagers who are rushing towards the city gates from the nearby countryside. The 20 pc's (it's an unusually large group) are outside the city gates, on top of their mounts. All of them human champion fighters with the exact same attribute stats (let's say all 12s). The DM describes the scene, and in the end he presents the players with a choice. Charge against the far superior enemy cavalry, or enter the city and prepare for a siege. If they charge, all retreating villagers will make it inside the city safely, but the pc's will almost certainly be defeated (the DM knows this because he planned for the encounter appropriately, and he is cautious enough to make it clear to the players so that there wont be any bad feelings). Defeated could mean killed in action, captured, or captured followed by a quick execution (the DM has figured a method for deciding this, but he does not disclose it to the players at this time).

15 of the pc's decide to charge. Most of them because they feel honor bound to do so. One of them because he is trying to prove to himself that he is brave. And another one because she has a deathwish due to a prior event.

2 pc's decide to fall back into the city. 1 of them because she is a master tactician and feels obligated to organize the defenses, much to her regret, as she would like to join the glorious charge. The other one because it's his job to stay and guard the young prince, much to his relief, as he was not keen on charging at an enemy force of that size.

Another 2 players inform the GM that their pc's will take the 3rd option, the one he didn't mention. They will have their pc's pretend to be charging at the enemy, but when outside of bow range, they will turn their horses in a different direction and they'll try to flee. Turns out these 2 pc's had talked about fleeing beforehand, and now seemed a good opportunity. The GM laughs and agrees.

The last player tells the GM that her pc is also entering the city, but she is heading towards the gatehouse. She intends to keep her part of the deal with the enemy warlord, that is to try to raise the gates open when the warlord's army is at the city gates.
Character personality, traits, ideals, flaws.... all these stuff that you dont even have to look at the books to decide on, these things define your character's ... character, more than any of the stats. The stats are not meaningless, but on their own they tell only a small part of the story.

[MaxWilson]

I was about to say something similar about the character with all 10s that was mentioned above. While moon druid is one of the most obvious paths that average Joe could conveniently choose, I like the rogue approach. The killing machines (ie the other pc's) are happy to take you with them because you are the one who knows best about how to spot and disarm traps. A ranged rogue is also very good at surviving, sneak attack does not really care for your dex (especially if you spend a feat on something like crossbow expert), and with expertise you can still be the best at a few things (especially if others consciously leave you some room in skill/tool selection, so that you can shine). Sure, you wont be as good as killing things, and yes, there were a few times when you pretended to be dead during some encounters, but your contribution is enough for the other pc's to want you around (the fools!), and as long as you are getting a fair share of the pie you are happy to continue helping them with whatever glorious quest they have once again taken on. Being called a hero is an acceptable side benefit, but honestly, you are doing this because ... [enter character motivation].

After all, the PCs, unlike the players, have no reason to think that the rogue is taking up a "slot" that would otherwise belong to another PC with higher stats. Thanks to bounded accuracy, almost any group of N PCs is better off with N+1 PCs, as long as the +1 is trustworthy and competent at decision-making, than with only N PCs.


It's important to note that, generally speaking, this is not necessarily the assumption when rolling for stats is involved. For example, if you are generating stats by using a less generous method, like rolling 3d6 six times, it might even be the intention for one or two roadies to exist. Because someone has to roleplay the paladin's squire or whatever.

You don't wind up with a "roadie" in an small party unless someone goes out of their way to overlap niches unnecessarily. That Stats 10s guy could make himself quite useful as a tank, a scout, a summoner, a healer, an artillerist, a grappler, a source of Haste or Polymorph or Pass Without Trace, an Ancestral Barb to cripple solo enemies, a Mounted Combatant who climbs on the Moon Druid or a Polymorphed T Rex to protect the druid's or T Rex's concentration, or more than one of these. There's no way you already have all possible roles and needs covered; he'll find a good niche if he wants to and be a valuable member of the party.

Assuming he wants to and the player knows what he's doing anyway.

One place I do have sympathy for though is when starting characters at high level. If the DM asks you to roll up a 13th level PC and you roll stats low enough that you're pretty sure you wouldn't have played this character all the way up to level 13, and would have retired them e.g. around level 7-9 after a few major adventures, that can be irksome. It messes with your suspension of disbelief. In that case, I would prefer to ask the DM for a reroll at a level penalty (maybe -1 level per reroll), and if that's not allowed I'd just make them a level 7 to 9 PC instead of 13, and this adventure is bringing them out of retirement.

High-level Rincewind-like characters must earn their implausible levels in play, not in backstory, in order to be fun.

[Christew]

I am not ignoring options, you are not listening to my point.

Do you remember Taran from the Black Cauldron? The Pig Farmer. He is a young boy who dreams of being a great warrior. He isn't, and part of his story is coming to terms with the fact that he isn't a great warrior.

That story doesn't happen in DnD. You don't have the character with no proficiency in martial weapons and a -1 str putting on plate armor and swinging a longsword. If you want to be a fighter... you roll a fighter. If you want to be a wizard who uses a sword, you take the options to be a wizard with a sword.

Despite the story being a good story, it isn't a story that gets played at the DnD table. Because being purposefully ineffective is annoying to your party members.
I mean, it totally can be a story told at the table. Pig farmer with, say 6 - 15 starting hp goes one a series of quests, meets some wild characters, faces some hardships, learns some things about himself and his place in the larger world, overcomes some obstacles, passes some thresholds, and eventually becomes high king. I feel like I've seen a version of that in a side majority of the games I've ever played/run. Or do you mean Taran's bad at combat so therefore he's not a character worth exploring? If that's the case, then no ... that's not a view I understand or sympathize with.



If stats are never important, why do we have them determine things?
1) They are an objective tool from which to derive subjective character traits
2) They provide variance on the otherwise raw RNG that provides excitement and agency

They are not that important in terms of this conversation topic, they still exist and have an effect on the game. Really?



I don't think it is fair to say that you don't get to have a say in the game after you make the decision to play, especially if choosing to leave after seeing you would have bad stats compared to everyone else would be seen as being self-entitled and a whiner.

Because then, you no longer have the choice to leave without it being the wrong thing to do.
I don't think that what I said could be interpreted that way. Play the D&D you want to play. Any given DM is doing the legwork to provide players an experience; if you don't appreciate that legwork or the restrictions that might come along with it then don't play in that game.
Truisms in my life:
1) I like D&D
2) Not everyone views D&D the way I do
3) Better no D&D than bad D&D



There must be a major difference in our games then, because every character I've had with those numbers has seen it as a problem to be overcome, and struggled with that fact.
Clearly. One that I've been highlighting since the start of this discourse.



Is the point of rolling to have some character's be superior to others? Why would I want my allies being weaker?
V-A-R-I-A-N-C-E. I feel like I'm self plagiarizing from above, but here we go again in a more egregiously clear format ...
Dice are random number generators.
We roll them to generate random numbers.
Random numbers are random.
There will be variance if you generate random numbers.
If you roll dice, some will be low and some will be high.
If you roll stats, some will be low and some will be high.
If multiple players roll stats, some totals will be low and some will be high.
If stats are equivalent to superiority in your mind, and you roll stats, either a) you will be superior to others, or b) others will be superior to you.

Genuinely, what are you talking about?

[Pex]

I feel like a broken record in this thread. Rolling is for RNG - whether it is for a skill check or a character stat roll, any time you drop the dice you are generating a RANDOM number. If you don't want your stats to be random then use point buy with a higher point total and/or remove the 15 ceiling. If the only reason you roll is for higher stats just admit that and use a more balanced system so everyone has those higher stats.

That's fine with me. I converted to preferring Point Buy last year, but I still hate 5E's implementation of it. My current favorite method is Pathfinder, P1 for being Point Buy and intrigued by P2's way of build your stats via background. Unfortunately 5E doesn't provide guidelines for that, so it's easier to use dice rolling. Some DMs do use their own higher standard array. That's great. It doesn't solve the OP's problem of a stubborn DM not letting him reroll, but the OP is willing to play it out.


Steve Rogers was eager to sign up to save lives fighting Nazis, and that was before the Super Soldier serum.

But he did get the serum to buff his scores suitable for a soldier.

[Christew]

Right.

So why did your teammates take you on if you aren't the strongest, smartest or most capable?


I mean this is a story of a group of powerful people with great abilities.... and their roadie. Why is he even there?
Because I am there and willing to participate in whatever quest is at hand? You seem to default to reductio ad absurdum with a startling ease. We do not seem to be able to bridge the gap between our perspectives. "That guy has a 14 in one of his relevant stats, why is he even here?" I don't even know what to say to that.

Also, clear logic puzzle: if every adventurer will only take the smartest and the strongest with him, all adventurers adventure alone.

[Rynjin]

But he did get the serum to buff his scores suitable for a soldier.

Yeah, I think it's easy to forget that Steve would have washed out of basic due to not meeting the minimum required fitness without said serum.

[BurgerBeast]

You are misrepresenting, both my attitude right now, and the situation.

To be fair, I’ve acknowledged that you have changed your mind and commended you for it. However, the particular discussion in which I “misrepresented you” was a long, dragged out conversation referencing back to your position in the OP (i.e. before you changed your mind). So that’s why I say I was not misrepresenting you.


I did not have a choice of playing without rolling, it was "roll, or don't play".

That is a choice. You didn’t have the choice you wanted, but you did have a choice.


Specially considering that, there would be nothing "dishonorable" about saying, after the roll "you know what, I guess I won't play, this will not be fun for me".

Of course there would. It would mean that you were not sincere about your intentions at the moment you rolled. That’s disingenuous and worse.


If I had rolled so terribly that I thought I couldn't have fun with the character, that would probably be the right thing to do.

No. It would not. Once you decided to roll the dice, you should have been committed. Anything else is insincere.

You knew that you could have rolled much worse than you actually did. You ought to have been prepared for that.


It's better, for everyone, not to play than to play without having fun*.

I disagree with this. Part of the agreement, every session, is that you don’t know how fun it will be. It’s a gamble every session. You try your best.


But this is not the choice I made. It would be "dishonorable" to try to kill the character. That was a choice I was tempted to do at the time I started this thread, but, again, it's not the choice I made.

I was talking about the chalice you explained at the start.


The choice I made was to build a melee cleric, sacrificing my race of choice and going with V. Human, giving him a defensive feat to increase his survivability, and, assuming he survives that far, trying the "cheapest way" to improve his odds of maintaining concentration on spirit guardians, i.e, a wizard level for Shield.

Right. And I disagreed that it was the best way to accomplish the goal of maintaining concentration in melee.


"Forget what you want" is terrible advice. The odds of having fun playing a character you don't want to play are nil.

It really depends on you. If you can have fun seeing other people have fun, then your character doesn’t matter much.


And this will affect the way you treat the character, and this will affect the whole table.

Not necessarily. Some people do not have this problem. And I posit that it is a better way to be. For everyone.


It's definitely a better idea, for everyone at the game, not to play than to play a character you don't want to play.

I wouldn’t be so sure about that.


I admit I won't mind too terribly if the character, despite my best efforts, dies, specially if it happens at level 1 or 2. But isn't expecting character death part and parcel of old-school D&D, when rolling for stats was the only option?

Yes, but you’re just rationalizing you’re attitude. The measure of whether your behaviour is affected is whether you’d behave differently if you’d rolled higher. You are admitting that you would. So, your behaviour is affected. In a negative way: you care less about the character, which translates into how much you care about the campaign. And you’re okay wi Th letting that manifest at the table, which will affect everyone.

[Chaosmancer]

But you could... But the armor proficiency just comes with the class, so just accept it. And... perhaps you'll get some magical super soldier juice too (an Amulet of Health and some Gauntlets of Ogre Power and he can keep up with anyone). Of course, I see Steve as being a Paladin (Oath of Devotion) all the way, and he has plenty of Wisdom and Charisma to shine.

Right, wear armor you don't have the strength for, reducing your speed to 20 ft. No strength so you would be swinging with a +1 to hit for 1d8-1 damage. And starting health would be 9?

But as long as the DM has you use all your attunement slots to buff your stats to acceptable levels, you can what? Be behind the party who got magic items that increased their versatility instead of increasing their already good stats? Take ASIs while they get feats to be able to do even more cool things?

No one would want to play that character except to prove a point.




Maybe because the strongest guy isn't interested, the smartest is totally evil (has the goatee), and the most capable is totally mercenary jackhole that nobody wants to be around?

Ah, so the single person who rolled poor stats has to be the party mom/dad who forces all the others to work together. Glad to know that my role in the party is pre-determined.




Maybe because they appreciate what class abilities you bring to the table, e.g. that you can turn two of them into T Rexes and see through walls, and you're fast enough on your feet that you don't need babysitting (Mobile feat).

Stats in 5e matter less than feats and class abilities, usually. You don't need to be the strongest and fastest and best to be useful.


Except, that isn't what Christew claimed, was it? To requote:

"Maybe it's the participation trophy era at work here. Personally, if I am roleplaying a character (regardless of his/her stats) and recruiting teammates, I am looking for the strongest, smartest, most capable ones I can find (ergo celebrating my fellow player's high rolls). I am not lamenting my own weaknesses in comparison to said teammates (or, heavens forfend, contemplating suicide because that other guy is stronger than me).

So, why recruit you instead the other guy who has your class abilities who is stronger, faster and better than you?

See, the claim of "participation trophy era" misses the point, because it is saying that you (the weak character) should be happy to have powerful teammates, but if you flip it why do those powerful teammates want you around? You say things like "two t-rexes" but we haven't determined any classes at all, what is the guy who is starting with a 20 is playing a sorcerer? Then he can make two of them t-rexes, so what is your point? "I'm good at running away and carrying your bags, sirs?"

If the premise is "I would seek the strongest companions" then that premise holds true for them as well, and you are demonstrably less powerful than them.



It's important to note that, generally speaking, this is not necessarily the assumption when rolling for stats is involved. For example, if you are generating stats by using a less generous method, like rolling 3d6 six times, it might even be the intention for one or two roadies to exist. Because someone has to roleplay the paladin's squire or whatever.

A) Why would I want to roleplay the paladin's servant boy

B) What happens when it is one person and not two? Why go into the game and draw straws for "one of us will be the weak link"?





I mean, it totally can be a story told at the table. Pig farmer with, say 6 - 15 starting hp goes one a series of quests, meets some wild characters, faces some hardships, learns some things about himself and his place in the larger world, overcomes some obstacles, passes some thresholds, and eventually becomes high king. I feel like I've seen a version of that in a side majority of the games I've ever played/run. Or do you mean Taran's bad at combat so therefore he's not a character worth exploring? If that's the case, then no ... that's not a view I understand or sympathize with.

NO!! No, that is not what I am saying. How can I not say this more clearly.

No one takes a character, takes the wizard class, then goes around for 4 or 5 levels pretending to be a knight. Wearing armor they aren't proficient in, wielding weapons they can't use, making attacks that are never going to hit and never do enough damage it they did.

No one goes out of their way to play a bad character. No one looks at the game and says "I want to play the commoner stat block, no class abilities, no proficiencies, none of it."

All that stuff I put in the blue text in your quote? That has NOTHING to do with what I am trying to say. A character who is worthless until they find their worth is a fun character to read about, to watch a movie about, but every single first level character in the game is created to know what their basic attack action is, what their basic role in the party is. You don't play bards who are trying to be berserkers until they learn the value of diplomacy and realize they are actually good at it, you don't play smart weaklings who realize they need to rely on their brains instead of trying to punch every problem. All of that character development happens before level 1 . The part of the story where the farm boy learns how to be the effective adventurer is the back story.




V-A-R-I-A-N-C-E. I feel like I'm self plagiarizing from above, but here we go again in a more egregiously clear format ...

*snipping*

Genuinely, what are you talking about?


So, the part you posted about participation trophy culture, where you as the weak character would seek out the best of the best is... a lie? You don't want people who are the best or the strongest companions. You just want people to be different?

Well, if you are all playing different classes... aren't you all different? Isn't there "V-A-R-I-A-N-C-E"?




Because I am there and willing to participate in whatever quest is at hand? You seem to default to reductio ad absurdum with a startling ease. We do not seem to be able to bridge the gap between our perspectives. "That guy has a 14 in one of his relevant stats, why is he even here?" I don't even know what to say to that.

Also, clear logic puzzle: if every adventurer will only take the smartest and the strongest with him, all adventurers adventure alone.

Then why did you make the claim that the (weak) character would seek out the strongest and the smartest if you think that is a stupid lie?

If you seem to have forgotten your own quote, I'll post it again, with bolded text: "Maybe it's the participation trophy era at work here. Personally, if I am roleplaying a character (regardless of his/her stats) and recruiting teammates, I am looking for the strongest, smartest, most capable ones I can find (ergo celebrating my fellow player's high rolls). I am not lamenting my own weaknesses in comparison to said teammates (or, heavens forfend, contemplating suicide because that other guy is stronger than me).


So, I reversed the script. You aren't the guy who rolled a 14 on your highest stat, you are the guy starting level 1 with a 20 (actually in the OPs party), why do you go and recruit mister barely above average? You went to seek the strongest, the smartest, the most capable... and that guy.

You put forth confusion "why would I be upset that my companions are stronger than me?" Well, let me flip the question "Why would I be okay with my companions being a lot weaker than me?"

If you are proposing that a person at the table should be estactic that their companions are starting with 18's and 20's, then how should those people feel about the guy starting with 14's?

Personally, I'd feel guilty as heck if I rolled stats and my lowest score was as good as one of my companions best scores. It would bug the heck out of me and I'd ask the DM to let them reroll.

[Amechra]

A) Why would I want to roleplay the paladin's servant boy

I've actually played someone else's butler in a game - it's plenty of fun when you get set it up so that you're the Jeeves to someone else's Wooster. It definitely isn't something I'd like to be pressured into, though.

[Segev]

The important thing here is to focus on helping the OP figure out a solution.

IF the DM isn't willing to let him change his stats between session 0 and session 1, then complaining about how unfair that is doesn't change the situation, and can only make it worse.

The OP can obviously leave the game if it isn't fun and nobody is willing to help him find a way to make it fun. But I suspect he's looking for advice other than that.

My advice remains, if the DM isn't willing to let him change his stats, to play it out as best he can. Heck, if he plays it to his best ability and his character still dies, that just proves the bad stats were, in fact, not good enough, and he gets what he wants. If he plays it with the intent to die, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and he's guaranteed not to have fun until he succeeds at his autocidal goal.

All of this boils down to communication. I personally think he can have fun with the constraints laid down, but I am not him, and I don't know. If the numbers are a problem, play a build that obviates them as much as possible. A support bard, or a battlefield controller, or the like. If the party ever does call you "useless," feel free to agree and offer to build a new character; don't let them bully you. But if they don't, then consider that you may well be useful.

But above all, focus on playing a fun character. It is always frustrating to fail, but if you're really focused on it, you'll only get more and more frustrated because expectation bias will set in.

And, if all of this sounds like tripe, then talk to the DM, and, if he won't let you play something you'll find fun, don't play. But I still think you should give it a chance. What's the worst that could happen? You can always leave if you don't find it entertaining.

[SLOTHRPG95]

I've actually played someone else's butler in a game - it's plenty of fun when you get set it up so that you're the Jeeves to someone else's Wooster. It definitely isn't something I'd like to be pressured into, though.

That sounds like a lot of fun! On the flip side, I've played the Wooster to someone else's Jeeves. In other words, they brought the brains, common sense, and practical knowledge while I brought the social status and excessive number of ranks in Fashion Sense (this wasn't D&D). Between the two, I'd think that Jeeves rolled way better for stats, but Wooster rolled better for social standing, or in the 5e context, he happened to take the Noble background.

[Amechra]

That sounds like a lot of fun! On the flip side, I've played the Wooster to someone else's Jeeves. In other words, they brought the brains, common sense, and practical knowledge while I brought the social status and excessive number of ranks in Fashion Sense (this wasn't D&D). Between the two, I'd think that Jeeves rolled way better for stats, but Wooster rolled better for social standing, or in the 5e context, he happened to take the Noble background.

Yeah, it's something that I don't think would sell well in a lot of D&D games (I also played my butler in a different system) - the game kinda sells you on being a Big Damn Hero, and being a competent man-servant doesn't fit the style very well.

I'd definitely say that you could play Jeeves quite comfortably as a Rogue - you'd have Expertise in History and Stealth plus solid mental stats. I'd probably go for Inquisitive or Thief for the subclass...

I just realized that there isn't a very good "Servant" background, so "you're a scullery maid/stable boy/valet who left that role and ran off to adventure" isn't on the "default" list. Huh. I'd probably give them Insight and Stealth as skills. They'd be proficient in one type of Artisan's tools and a language, and their background feature would help you out when you're meeting with servants/trying to learn gossip about nobles.

[Tosamu]

I think that most people have some lower bound for rolled stats, below which they would consider a character unsalvageable. Or at least not worth the effort of trying to make work. For the OP, it sounds like that threshold is somewhere between the array they rolled, 13 13 13 12 11 11, and an array of all 10's. People might disagree with where that threshold should be set, but I think that if pressed eventually everyone would have their limit. Would you be willing to play a character who rolled all 3's?

Personally I think my floor would depend on the rest of the party. I try to make sure my characters have a niche, even a small one, so that there's at least some tasks that I'd be the best suited for. If I roll poorly on stats, maybe that niche is a support caster, or a rogue that's good at scouting and finding traps, but flounders in combat. But if it ended up that there was always someone better for the job, I would probably not enjoy myself.

[diplomancer]

Of course there would. It would mean that you were not sincere about your intentions at the moment you rolled. That’s disingenuous and worse.



No. It would not. Once you decided to roll the dice, you should have been committed. Anything else is insincere.

Insincere is to pretend you are enjoying yourself when you're not. It's also a waste of time.


You knew that you could have rolled much worse than you actually did. You ought to have been prepared for that.

If I had rolled much worse, to the point I thought the character was unplayable, I would not play him. Again, it's an Online game with strangers and a 6 person party, I'm very much fungible. Saying "I will not have fun playing this character, but you guys enjoy yourselves, nice to meet you" is better than to be miserable at the gaming table. And saying "you can choose to enjoy yourself" is simply not true and it's people-pleasing behaviour.




I disagree with this. Part of the agreement, every session, is that you don’t know how fun it will be. It’s a gamble every session. You try your best.

It's a gamble when your character is capable. When he should be a potato farmer, he won't enjoy himself being killed by goblins.



Right. And I disagreed that it was the best way to accomplish the goal of maintaining concentration in melee.
And this is a difference in our mechanical evaluation of the character, which exists probably because you, not having this sub-par character, did not have to think as hard on how to make him work. The suggestions you gave had crippling drawbacks, like a 10' movement penalty or not raising wisdom with my ASIs. The difference has nothing to do with my attitude towards the character, which right now is actually quite positive.


Yes, but you’re just rationalizing you’re attitude. The measure of whether your behaviour is affected is whether you’d behave differently if you’d rolled higher. You are admitting that you would. So, your behaviour is affected. In a negative way: you care less about the character, which translates into how much you care about the campaign. And you’re okay wi Th letting that manifest at the table, which will affect everyone.

No, my behaviour will not be different. It will be the same, which, with a lower Constitution, will be more risky. But if I'd rolled higher, I would have the same behaviour, with less risk, because I would be able to have a better constitution, or have other ways of helping my concentration rolls than trying to get my AC to be as high as possible.




IF the DM isn't willing to let him change his stats between session 0 and session 1, then complaining about how unfair that is doesn't change the situation, and can only make it worse.

The OP can obviously leave the game if it isn't fun and nobody is willing to help him find a way to make it fun. But I suspect he's looking for advice other than that.

My advice remains, if the DM isn't willing to let him change his stats, to play it out as best he can. Heck, if he plays it to his best ability and his character still dies, that just proves the bad stats were, in fact, not good enough, and he gets what he wants. If he plays it with the intent to die, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and he's guaranteed not to have fun until he succeeds at his autocidal goal.


Thank you, yes, that is exactly the advice I'm taking "play him to my best ability and if he dies, that just proves the bad stats were, in fact, not good enough".


Regarding Steve Rogers... He's a very good example. For my point. He's the guy who rolled bad stats and the DM let him change them before he went on adventuring, because that's exactly what happened in his story. All the serum does is change his stats. It doesn't give him class abilities, or weapons and armor proficiencies (those come after). Before the serum, all he accomplishes is getting punched by bullies, and he is rejected by army recruiters even as cannon fodder, much less special-ops. Not the life of an adventurer at all. After the serum, he can lead a special ops team (i.e, an adventuring party).

[Pex]

The important thing here is to focus on helping the OP figure out a solution.

IF the DM isn't willing to let him change his stats between session 0 and session 1, then complaining about how unfair that is doesn't change the situation, and can only make it worse.

The OP can obviously leave the game if it isn't fun and nobody is willing to help him find a way to make it fun. But I suspect he's looking for advice other than that.

My advice remains, if the DM isn't willing to let him change his stats, to play it out as best he can. Heck, if he plays it to his best ability and his character still dies, that just proves the bad stats were, in fact, not good enough, and he gets what he wants. If he plays it with the intent to die, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and he's guaranteed not to have fun until he succeeds at his autocidal goal.

All of this boils down to communication. I personally think he can have fun with the constraints laid down, but I am not him, and I don't know. If the numbers are a problem, play a build that obviates them as much as possible. A support bard, or a battlefield controller, or the like. If the party ever does call you "useless," feel free to agree and offer to build a new character; don't let them bully you. But if they don't, then consider that you may well be useful.

But above all, focus on playing a fun character. It is always frustrating to fail, but if you're really focused on it, you'll only get more and more frustrated because expectation bias will set in.

And, if all of this sounds like tripe, then talk to the DM, and, if he won't let you play something you'll find fun, don't play. But I still think you should give it a chance. What's the worst that could happen? You can always leave if you don't find it entertaining.

It's also possible for the character not to die and still be miserable playing it. The bad guys may be conveniently not attacking him so often, but the player is still frustrated his attacks keep missing. The bad guys are attacking him normally, but his AC is almost irrelevant to his stats. He's taking a wizard level for Shield spell AC, so the character at least isn't getting hit more than anyone else. The character still misses with attacks. As a cleric the character can buff party members. That is a viable tactic. Buffing is great. Support characters do work well, but even support characters at times go on the offensive but the character will keep missing. He helps a little for everyone else to get the glory, and he gets none. That's the problem in this scenario. The character survives despite everything, but the player doesn't feel he's contributing. He's just there.

Clarification: Not meaning to imply the OP feels this way, just using the character as a hypothetical in how a player could be miserable playing a character even though it won't be killed off to be replaced by something better.

[HappyDaze]

It's also possible for the character not to die and still be miserable playing it. The bad guys may be conveniently not attacking him so often, but the player is still frustrated his attacks keep missing. The bad guys are attacking him normally, but his AC is almost irrelevant to his stats. He's taking a wizard level for Shield spell AC, so the character at least isn't getting hit more than anyone else. The character still misses with attacks. As a cleric the character can buff party members. That is a viable tactic. Buffing is great. Support characters do work well, but even support characters at times go on the offensive but the character will keep missing. He helps a little for everyone else to get the glory, and he gets none. That's the problem in this scenario. The character survives despite everything, but the player doesn't feel he's contributing. He's just there.

Clarification: Not meaning to imply the OP feels this way, just using the character as a hypothetical in how a player could be miserable playing a character even though it won't be killed off to be replaced by something better.

That hypothetical player needs to take charge of those feelings and actively change that viewpoint. That's a player issue, not a DM issue. If the player can't, then the player has failed and the game is better without them.

[Christew]

NO!! No, that is not what I am saying. How can I not say this more clearly.

No one takes a character, takes the wizard class, then goes around for 4 or 5 levels pretending to be a knight. Wearing armor they aren't proficient in, wielding weapons they can't use, making attacks that are never going to hit and never do enough damage it they did.

No one goes out of their way to play a bad character. No one looks at the game and says "I want to play the commoner stat block, no class abilities, no proficiencies, none of it."

All that stuff I put in the blue text in your quote? That has NOTHING to do with what I am trying to say. A character who is worthless until they find their worth is a fun character to read about, to watch a movie about, but every single first level character in the game is created to know what their basic attack action is, what their basic role in the party is. You don't play bards who are trying to be berserkers until they learn the value of diplomacy and realize they are actually good at it, you don't play smart weaklings who realize they need to rely on their brains instead of trying to punch every problem. All of that character development happens before level 1 . The part of the story where the farm boy learns how to be the effective adventurer is the back story.
People playing wizards are not playing fighters. Why is that a significant insight?


So, the part you posted about participation trophy culture, where you as the weak character would seek out the best of the best is... a lie? You don't want people who are the best or the strongest companions. You just want people to be different?

Well, if you are all playing different classes... aren't you all different? Isn't there "V-A-R-I-A-N-C-E"?
I mean, we can't all be the strongest because that's not how superlatives work.


Then why did you make the claim that the (weak) character would seek out the strongest and the smartest if you think that is a stupid lie?

If you seem to have forgotten your own quote, I'll post it again, with bolded text: "Maybe it's the participation trophy era at work here. Personally, if I am roleplaying a character (regardless of his/her stats) and recruiting teammates, I am looking for the strongest, smartest, most capable ones I can find (ergo celebrating my fellow player's high rolls). I am not lamenting my own weaknesses in comparison to said teammates (or, heavens forfend, contemplating suicide because that other guy is stronger than me).


So, I reversed the script. You aren't the guy who rolled a 14 on your highest stat, you are the guy starting level 1 with a 20 (actually in the OPs party), why do you go and recruit mister barely above average? You went to seek the strongest, the smartest, the most capable... and that guy.

You put forth confusion "why would I be upset that my companions are stronger than me?" Well, let me flip the question "Why would I be okay with my companions being a lot weaker than me?"

If you are proposing that a person at the table should be estactic that their companions are starting with 18's and 20's, then how should those people feel about the guy starting with 14's?

Personally, I'd feel guilty as heck if I rolled stats and my lowest score was as good as one of my companions best scores. It would bug the heck out of me and I'd ask the DM to let them reroll.
Perhaps I was highlighting a perspective that might make you a little less worried about playing anything but 18s+. I assumed that you could understand that we are talking about a game with players and the "ones I can find" are limited to those sitting at the table with me. My mistake.

[Chaosmancer]

I've actually played someone else's butler in a game - it's plenty of fun when you get set it up so that you're the Jeeves to someone else's Wooster. It definitely isn't something I'd like to be pressured into, though.

Yes, going to another player and asking to tell a story of a relationship between two characters is fine. It can be amazing in fact.

However, your choice of example makes me wonder. It could be just a cultural thing (I hadn't heard of the show since it was a British comedy until I just looked up who Wooster was) but "Jeeves" is a name that gets thrown around with competence.


But how about Short Round from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom? I've never watched the movie from beginning to end, but it seems the kid's main role was either to say "Yes Doctor Jones" and be amazed at Indy, or to be off screen for 15 minutes so he could appear next to the thing they need (an elephant and airplane ect) and imply that he got it and around just in the nick of time. But we never see him actually doing anything better than Indy could.



That hypothetical player needs to take charge of those feelings and actively change that viewpoint. That's a player issue, not a DM issue. If the player can't, then the player has failed and the game is better without them.


How do you change the view of missing every attack? How do you change the view of failing to contribute in every social situation? How do you change the view of failing every stealth mission? How do you change the view of someone else in the party always doing better than you at every role in that comes up?


"You need to adjust your attitude and if you can't you have failed the game and you are better off leaving" is crap. Because again, if this is a game where we are meant to have fun, why is "I have low stats and I don't think this will be fun" a failure of the player's own personal character, and advice being to man up and just roll with the punches?




People playing wizards are not playing fighters. Why is that a significant insight?

Because you keep talking about character growth, and presenting low stats as an opportunity for character growth. That story? That type of character growth?

That is a player taking a wizard with an 8 strength and no proficiecies and insisting on playing a like a Fighter, as a character who dreams of being a brave knight slaying monsters and has to learn that they aren't that person.

But no one plays that way. No one plays the incompetent person trying to do what is impossible for them at the table. That type of character growth is not something we do in DnD.

Because if you are playing a wizard, you are not playing a fighter.




Perhaps I was highlighting a perspective that might make you a little less worried about playing anything but 18s+. I assumed that you could understand that we are talking about a game with players and the "ones I can find" are limited to those sitting at the table with me. My mistake.

But your "perspective" makes no sense when flipped on it's head.

"I am very glad that Otto the Barbarian is stronger than me and Reese the Wizard is smarter than me because we are going to do dangerous things and strong companions will help me survive" Great, that makes sense.

But then we have to ask, why are Otto and Reese bringing Joe if he doesn't bring anything to the table? The OP is part of a six man band, everyone else rolled at least a 16 or higher in their stats. Con has no skills or anything to build off of rather than being tough. This means that assuming the party did an even split between all the ability scores, there is literally someone better than them in every single score, every single skill and ability there is someone in their party who can do it better.

Now, the OP has figured out how they are going to have fun, and that is great for them. But they were asking if there should be a floor for stats. If you should not be able to fall below a certain threshold. And if literally not having a viable role in the party, if literally having someone else who can do every single thing better than you isn't a reason to have a floor... then the rebuttal is that no there shouldn't be a stat floor. No matter what.

But then, with no floor, we have to start thinking, what is the value of playing a character (unlikely as they might be to exist) whose highest stat is an 8. Who has negatives in every single category? There is no floor, so this character should be a viable and fun character right? But does it sound like something you'd actually want to play?

Yes, purposefully suiciding your character is frowned upon, and is probably more a myth than a reality for most people, but the reason the idea even exists is because past a certain point, the character isn't going to be fun to play, but just rolling a different character smacks of cheating and entitlement, so that is frowned upon too.

[BurgerBeast]

Insincere is to pretend you are enjoying yourself when you're not. It's also a waste of time.

I said “at the time that you rolled.” If, at the time you rolled, you did not consider the possibility of rolling poorly and how you would handle it, then you were being insincere at that moment. You had no intention of honouring a wide range of the possible outcomes.


If I had rolled much worse, to the point I thought the character was unplayable, I would not play him.

So you were being insincere at the moment you rolled the dice. You knowingly were going to abandon the game under a broad range of possible outcomes.


Again, it's an Online game with strangers and a 6 person party, I'm very much fungible.

A comment like this seems to indicate that you aren’t particularly invested. But this thread seems to contradict that. Play if you want. Don’t play if you don’t want to. But try not to waste people’s time by initiating the process (of starting up a campaign) if you have already pre-planned to ditch the game a particular percentage of the time.


Saying "I will not have fun playing this character, but you guys enjoy yourselves, nice to meet you" is better than to be miserable at the gaming table.

You’re forgetting to factor in the part about the time it took for this scenario to come about and the time invested by other people.

Perhaps you’ve never thought about commitment before. If you join a team or a club, you usually do so for a season or a tournament. If you quit the moment you stop enjoying yourself, that’s not better than standing by your commitment.

Would you quit a D&D game mid-session, if you stopped having fun? Why or why not?


And saying "you can choose to enjoy yourself" is simply not true and it's people-pleasing behaviour.

You’re missing the point. You can choose not to manifest your lack of enjoyment, thereby not making your emotions become other peoples’ problem.

Not acting miserable is not “people pleasing behaviour.” It’s common courtesy. Going out of your way to be positive or agreeable is people pleasing. There is a vast gulf of possibility between being a people a pleaser and just not being miserable.


It's a gamble when your character is capable. When he should be a potato farmer, he won't enjoy himself being killed by goblins.

It’s still a gamble when your character is capable. Any session can be a poor session.


And this is a difference in our mechanical evaluation of the character, which exists probably because you, not having this sub-par character, did not have to think as hard on how to make him work. The suggestions you gave had crippling drawbacks, like a 10' movement penalty or not raising wisdom with my ASIs. The difference has nothing to do with my attitude towards the character, which right now is actually quite positive.

I can make the character work in a variety of ways. The fact that you are not willing to consider them is a choice on your part.

The fact that you abandoned a support build, which is much easier to accomplish, for a melee build, which is harder to accomplish, because you were unhappy with the rolls and decided that you’d rather not help your teammates anymore... is... also a choice on your part.

Also: What are you talking about? What ten foot movement penalty?


No, my behaviour will not be different. It will be the same, which, with a lower Constitution, will be more risky. But if I'd rolled higher, I would have the same behaviour, with less risk, because I would be able to have a better constitution, or have other ways of helping my concentration rolls than trying to get my AC to be as high as possible.

In the OP, you said you had been planning to build a support build before you rolled.

After you rolled, you decided to change your approach.

That is the change in behaviour I’m talking about. My advice has always been that you should have stuck to the general plan you had before you rolled, with minor changes.

You decided to overhaul the character, which is an overreaction in my opinion, and is motivated by all the wrong reasons.

[False God]

Yeah, I think it's easy to forget that Steve would have washed out of basic due to not meeting the minimum required fitness without said serum.

And even if he didn't ('cause lets cause it, those folks get through sometimes), he would likely be placed in a situation he was not physically capable of handling and get killed because of it. His "bad stats" would have gotten him killed.

He clearly had the wisdom to be a druid though, and then his bad stats wouldn't have mattered. The lowered saves on most creatures early game really do make spell saves a lot more functional without a high score (last druid I had had a 15 wis). Or you can just summon wolves and then turn into a wolf.


That's fine with me. I converted to preferring Point Buy last year, but I still hate 5E's implementation of it. My current favorite method is Pathfinder, P1 for being Point Buy and intrigued by P2's way of build your stats via background. Unfortunately 5E doesn't provide guidelines for that, so it's easier to use dice rolling. ...

Hmmmm....not impossible to replicate. Everyone starts with 10 across the board. They can raise one score by 2 and lower another by 2 once. Classes would go next, probably giving a +2,+2,+1. Each race already provides bonuses to specific scores. Backgrounds should be fairly easy to figure out, probably with a final +1, +1. Should come out comparable to the standard array before racial mods at least.

Wonder if anyone's already put the work into that?

[Amechra]

Yes, going to another player and asking to tell a story of a relationship between two characters is fine. It can be amazing in fact.

However, your choice of example makes me wonder. It could be just a cultural thing (I hadn't heard of the show since it was a British comedy until I just looked up who Wooster was) but "Jeeves" is a name that gets thrown around with competence.


But how about Short Round from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom? I've never watched the movie from beginning to end, but it seems the kid's main role was either to say "Yes Doctor Jones" and be amazed at Indy, or to be off screen for 15 minutes so he could appear next to the thing they need (an elephant and airplane ect) and imply that he got it and around just in the nick of time. But we never see him actually doing anything better than Indy could.

Wooster and Jeeves were short-story and novel characters long before they were a show - the books are good fun if you're into the whole comedy-of-manners thing. But yeah, an important part of the character is that Jeeves is incredibly competent, and that he's a co-protagonist with his "master" Bertie Wooster.

Short Round, on the other hand, would be kinda awful to play. Maybe if you made him into a really good support character, and flavored it less as "I help everyone be awesome!" and more as "oh man, you guys are all so cool"? It'd be a harder sell, though - like I said, the thing with Jeeves is that he's still protagonist material.

[Christew]

Because you keep talking about character growth, and presenting low stats as an opportunity for character growth. That story? That type of character growth?

That is a player taking a wizard with an 8 strength and no proficiecies and insisting on playing a like a Fighter, as a character who dreams of being a brave knight slaying monsters and has to learn that they aren't that person.

But no one plays that way. No one plays the incompetent person trying to do what is impossible for them at the table. That type of character growth is not something we do in DnD.

Because if you are playing a wizard, you are not playing a fighter.
Me: I don't think a 14 makes you useless.
You: People don't play wizards as fighters!
Me: ...


But your "perspective" makes no sense when flipped on it's head.

"I am very glad that Otto the Barbarian is stronger than me and Reese the Wizard is smarter than me because we are going to do dangerous things and strong companions will help me survive" Great, that makes sense.

But then we have to ask, why are Otto and Reese bringing Joe if he doesn't bring anything to the table? The OP is part of a six man band, everyone else rolled at least a 16 or higher in their stats. Con has no skills or anything to build off of rather than being tough. This means that assuming the party did an even split between all the ability scores, there is literally someone better than them in every single score, every single skill and ability there is someone in their party who can do it better.

Now, the OP has figured out how they are going to have fun, and that is great for them. But they were asking if there should be a floor for stats. If you should not be able to fall below a certain threshold. And if literally not having a viable role in the party, if literally having someone else who can do every single thing better than you isn't a reason to have a floor... then the rebuttal is that no there shouldn't be a stat floor. No matter what.

But then, with no floor, we have to start thinking, what is the value of playing a character (unlikely as they might be to exist) whose highest stat is an 8. Who has negatives in every single category? There is no floor, so this character should be a viable and fun character right? But does it sound like something you'd actually want to play?

Yes, purposefully suiciding your character is frowned upon, and is probably more a myth than a reality for most people, but the reason the idea even exists is because past a certain point, the character isn't going to be fun to play, but just rolling a different character smacks of cheating and entitlement, so that is frowned upon too.
You are creating an either/or that doesn't make sense. Either you have the best ability score in the group or you don't bring anything to the table? No. I disagree with your reasoning.

Random number generation is a gamble. You are risking rolling a low number for the possible reward of rolling a high number. Adding a floor means you no longer risk anything. HP is similar, on level up you can either roll or take the average. If you roll, you are hoping to get the reward of higher than average at the risk of rolling lower than average. It is pretty simple.

I don't think anyone is advocating playing a character with all 8s. That guy is a commoner (and a rather mediocre one at that). He should probably stay home and tend his potatoes. Having 14s is a different story. The fact that you are using a character with all negative modifiers as a counterexample to a discussion about 14s is reductio ad absurdum.
Me: I don't think a 14 makes you useless.
You: But what if you were bad at everything!?
Me: ...

[Pex]

That hypothetical player needs to take charge of those feelings and actively change that viewpoint. That's a player issue, not a DM issue. If the player can't, then the player has failed and the game is better without them.

Risk of failure is needed for success to be sweet. When the majority of your attempts is failure the successes are fleeting. This is compounded when you're in a party and everyone else succeeds more than they fail and their failure rate is less than yours.

[Friv]

But then we have to ask, why are Otto and Reese bringing Joe if he doesn't bring anything to the table? The OP is part of a six man band, everyone else rolled at least a 16 or higher in their stats. Con has no skills or anything to build off of rather than being tough. This means that assuming the party did an even split between all the ability scores, there is literally someone better than them in every single score, every single skill and ability there is someone in their party who can do it better.

Chaosmancer, you are ardently arguing against a position that no one else is taking.

Because here's the thing - someone else being better than you at a thing does not mean you can't contribute. If the other fighter swings their sword better, but you can still swing a sword, they are going to do better in a fight with you at their side fighting. It doesn't matter if they kill four goblins and you kill two, because you being there means they don't have to fight six goblins. It doesn't matter if the wizard can throw 8 different spells and you can only throw 6, because together you can throw 14 spells. It doesn't matter if the rogue is sneakier, you can give them the buff to make them silent. Etc.

And in this case, what the OP is bringing to the table is cleric spells, because he's in a six-person party, sure, but he's still the only cleric. So there's his niche, right there. He's not as strong as the fighter or as fast as the rogue or as smart as the wizard, but what he provides is a lot of healing, holding off the undead, and useful buffs.

You've constructed a strawman of "every stat below 8", and obviously, there's a point at which a character stops being a help and becomes an active hindrance, and someone who is an active hindrance is not going to be a useful adventurer. But everyone else is discussing an adventurer who is fully capable of contributing, they're just not likely to be the "best" in certain fields, and you're discussing Ogdar The Foolish, Who Decided To Become A Wizard With Int 8.

[Pex]

Hmmmm....not impossible to replicate. Everyone starts with 10 across the board. They can raise one score by 2 and lower another by 2 once. Classes would go next, probably giving a +2,+2,+1. Each race already provides bonuses to specific scores. Backgrounds should be fairly easy to figure out, probably with a final +1, +1. Should come out comparable to the standard array before racial mods at least.

Wonder if anyone's already put the work into that?

If you're going to end up with something close to the standard array there's no point to doing it differently than now. The idea is to use Point Buy or an equivalent method to get something better than standard array or current Point Buy instead of dice rolling when you want everyone to have a higher threshold of stats. Just giving everyone 17 15 14 13 11 10 would be an idea. Give more points to spend and provide a reasonable cost for 16, 17, and 18 would work. That's up to the DM. 5E won't do it. It's not a hard thing to do, but it doesn't help everyone else not in that game.


Me: I don't think a 14 makes you useless.
You: People don't play wizards as fighters!
Me: ...


You are creating an either/or that doesn't make sense. Either you have the best ability score in the group or you don't bring anything to the table? No. I disagree with your reasoning.

Random number generation is a gamble. You are risking rolling a low number for the possible reward of rolling a high number. Adding a floor means you no longer risk anything. HP is similar, on level up you can either roll or take the average. If you roll, you are hoping to get the reward of higher than average at the risk of rolling lower than average. It is pretty simple.

I don't think anyone is advocating playing a character with all 8s. That guy is a commoner (and a rather mediocre one at that). He should probably stay home and tend his potatoes. Having 14s is a different story. The fact that you are using a character with all negative modifiers as a counterexample to a discussion about 14s is reductio ad absurdum.
Me: I don't think a 14 makes you useless.
You: But what if you were bad at everything!?
Me: ...

The problem is not the 14. The problem is having the 14 while everyone else has 16s, 18s, and 20s.

In my opinion the DM should have let the OP reroll, but since that's not happening the OP is making do with what he can.

[Corran]

A) Why would I want to roleplay the paladin's servant boy
You dont have to, as long as you are willing to optimize. That's the big issue with rolling stats. You dont go into the game thinking that you'll play what you had already thought of (though you can sure do that, but sometimes it might be easier to rationalize it by adopting an unconventional roleplaying angle, and that's might be a goal for some groups). You go into the game and you are deciding what to play after you get your rolls. Little less agency, but more of a puzzle, assuming the possible change in roleplaying angle is not something you are interested in.


B) What happens when it is one person and not two? Why go into the game and draw straws for "one of us will be the weak link"?

What happens when you roll decently but someone else rolls superbly? What happens when a very competent player plays with a bunch of newbies? What happens when someone lags behind xp-wise? What happens when I sabotage my optimization process for conceptual reasons and no one else does the same? Pick your games.

Btw, I am not a fan of rolling for stats. I just dont find it as problematic as you make it out to be.






You don't wind up with a "roadie" in an small party unless someone goes out of their way to overlap niches unnecessarily. That Stats 10s guy could make himself quite useful as a tank, a scout, a summoner, a healer, an artillerist, a grappler, a source of Haste or Polymorph or Pass Without Trace, an Ancestral Barb to cripple solo enemies, a Mounted Combatant who climbs on the Moon Druid or a Polymorphed T Rex to protect the druid's or T Rex's concentration, or more than one of these. There's no way you already have all possible roles and needs covered; he'll find a good niche if he wants to and be a valuable member of the party.

Assuming he wants to and the player knows what he's doing anyway.
That's the point though, isn't it? Not everyone would be willing or in a position to optimize their way through. I wonder if there can be a deeper meaning, so to speak, in a DM's insistence on rolling for stats. Maybe it's a conscious effort on the DM's part to have their players not get attached too much on one particular character, but instead have several characters in mind to choose from, depending on how the dice roll (or so that they can create one at the spot). So that when inevitably some of them die during the adventures to come (GM style), it wont be as a big deal as it would be if that same player chose to play the character he was planning for some time already.


One place I do have sympathy for though is when starting characters at high level. If the DM asks you to roll up a 13th level PC and you roll stats low enough that you're pretty sure you wouldn't have played this character all the way up to level 13, and would have retired them e.g. around level 7-9 after a few major adventures, that can be irksome. It messes with your suspension of disbelief. In that case, I would prefer to ask the DM for a reroll at a level penalty (maybe -1 level per reroll), and if that's not allowed I'd just make them a level 7 to 9 PC instead of 13, and this adventure is bringing them out of retirement.

Never thought of it like that. Cant fully get my head around it either. Maybe it's because I've never really played with the low stats you probably had in mind for this particular scenario. Still, I think it requires thinking that the pc must assumed to be played by someone (who strangely thinks similarly to how you are) in order to do adventuring things when the spotlight is not on them. That's my suspension of disbelief gone right there.


High-level Rincewind-like characters must earn their implausible levels in play, not in backstory, in order to be fun.
I get this one (after googling about Rincewind), and I agree. I would probably have a feeling that I didn't really earn it.

[Christew]

The problem is not the 14. The problem is having the 14 while everyone else has 16s, 18s, and 20s.

In my opinion the DM should have let the OP reroll, but since that's not happening the OP is making do with what he can.
But, again, if it is a problem for there to be variance in player ability scores, why are we using an RNG stat generation method in the first place?

As you point out above, point buy negates this issue. If you find disparate stats unacceptable, then don't roll stats. The whole point of rolling is that it does not yield the same numbers. I find it confusing to use randomly generated stats and then complain that they are random.

[Amechra]

Hmmmm....not impossible to replicate. Everyone starts with 10 across the board. They can raise one score by 2 and lower another by 2 once. Classes would go next, probably giving a +2,+2,+1. Each race already provides bonuses to specific scores. Backgrounds should be fairly easy to figure out, probably with a final +1, +1. Should come out comparable to the standard array before racial mods at least.

Wonder if anyone's already put the work into that?

I poked at it a while ago - an issue I ran into is that it leads to most classes being very same-y, since it'd probably look something like this (incredibly rough) draft:

Barbarian: +2 Strength, +2 Constitution, +1 Dexterity
Bard: +2 Charisma, +2 Dexterity, +1 Intelligence or Wisdom.
Cleric: +2 Wisdom, +2 Strength, +1 Charisma or Intelligence.
Druid: +2 Wisdom, +2 Dexterity, +1 Charisma or Intelligence.
Fighter: +2 Strength or Dexterity, +2 Constitution, +1 to a mental ability score.
Monk: +2 Dexterity, +2 Wisdom, +1 Constitution.
Paladin: +2 Strength, +2 Charisma, +1 Constitution.
Ranger: +2 Strength or Dexterity, +2 Wisdom, +1 Constitution.
Rogue: +2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma or Wisdom, +1 to another mental ability score.
Sorcerer: +2 Charisma, +2 Constitution, +1 Intelligence or Wisdom.
Warlock: +2 Charisma, +2 Intelligence or Wisdom, +1 Dexterity.
Wizard: +2 Intelligence, +2 Dexterity, +1 Charisma and Wisdom.

And it doesn't get you the one advantage of rolling for characters, which is that ability scores are decoupled. If you roll for stats in order, your Barbarian rolling an 18 Intelligence (so that they're the brains and the brawn (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAZaLqQ5Jhk)) doesn't mean that they'll have a bad Strength score.

---

Thinking about it a bit more, I think that part of the problem with rolling for stats in 5e is that the game kinda expects you to spend ASIs on increasing your "main" stat, and a good roll can let you skip that entirely, because the absolute cap for player ability scores is so low.

So, here's an idea:

• Roll 6 + 1d6 + 1d4 for each ability score, in order.
• After rolling, you may set one ability score to 14.

One of the advantages is that, while everyone's ability scores will range from 8 to 18, a Cleric's Wisdom (for example) will only range from 14 to 18, and will mostly fall in the 16 to 18 range. It also means that everyone needs at least one ASI to hit the ability score cap regardless of how well they roll. It's still kinda punitive if you want to play a really good Barbarian (I hope you rolled a 15 in Strength or Constitution), Monk (same, but for Dexterity or Wisdom), or Paladin (same, but for Strength and Charisma), but that's a problem for the next iteration.

[opaopajr]

I think this is a big difference in the way we create our characters. For me, the personality of the character and his approach to life is very much a result of his stats. This character I rolled for instance, S15,D11,C12,I13,W14,Ch11.

Those are not, as I see them, the stats of "a 5e adventurer", i.e, a special person, full of ambition, with a possible great destiny in front of him. But they ARE the stats of someone who might be admired within his relatively small community. He's stronger, smarter, and wiser than most, and so he has an important role to play in keeping order. [...]

Wait... 15,14,13,12,11,11 are not what you see "as the stats of a 5e adventurer" in a topic titled "Rant: even when rolling for ability scores, standard array should be a floor"? :smalltongue: You know there's a ten and an eight in the Standard Array, right? :smallbiggrin:

Is there some sort of 'hero inflation' going on in this seemingly 'youthful expectation'? :smallcool:

I mean, yeah, we all have our feelings of what heroes and heroic can mean... but the game deliberately does not have a "You have to be this tall to ride to higher levels" once the method of character creation is chosen. The stat generation has always been a range of variance from its earliest editions so GMs can explore what means heroic to them. :smallwink: You are at your GM friend's table as an invited guest to explore what they believe can be a hero. Next time you can switch places and baseline your hero threshold as high as you feel you need to help suspend your disbelief. :smallsmile:

[diplomancer]

Wait... 15,14,13,12,11,11 are not what you see "as the stats of a 5e adventurer" in a topic titled "Rant: even when rolling for ability scores, standard array should be a floor"? :smalltongue: You know there's a ten and an eight in the Standard Array, right? :smallbiggrin:

Is there some sort of 'hero inflation' going on in this seemingly 'youthful expectation'? :smallcool:

I mean, yeah, we all have our feelings of what heroes and heroic can mean... but the game deliberately does not have a "You have to be this tall to ride to higher levels" once the method of character creation is chosen. The stat generation has always been a range of variance from its earliest editions so GMs can explore what means heroic to them. :smallwink: You are at your GM friend's table as an invited guest to explore what they believe can be a hero. Next time you can switch places and baseline your hero threshold as high as you feel you need to help suspend your disbelief. :smallsmile:

This is after racials. The stats rolled were 13 13 13 12 11 11, which is considerably worse than 15 14 13 12 10 8.

[HappyDaze]

But, again, if it is a problem for there to be variance in player ability scores, why are we using an RNG stat generation method in the first place?

As you point out above, point buy negates this issue. If you find disparate stats unacceptable, then don't roll stats. The whole point of rolling is that it does not yield the same numbers. I find it confusing to use randomly generated stats and then complain that they are random.

Exactly. I don't even allow point buy in my games either--it's "standard array or don't play" every time.

However, for those that insist on random generation, I say let them take the bad with the good. If they can't handle that, they shouldn't pick up the dice. If the DM didn't give them a choice on that, well... they still have a choice on whether to play in that game, but should make that choice before they pick up the dice. That's how gambling works, and random character creation is gambling.

[Christew]

However, for those that insist on random generation, I say let them take the bad with the good. If they can't handle that, they shouldn't pick up the dice. If the DM didn't give them a choice on that, well... they still have a choice on whether to play in that game, but should make that choice before they pick up the dice. That's how gambling works, and random character creation is gambling.
100% agree.

[Christew]

This is after racials. The stats rolled were 13 13 13 12 11 11, which is considerably worse than 15 14 13 12 10 8.
"Considerably worse" feels strong. You are only two points off the standard array (25/27 vs 27/27). Certainly suboptimal, but such is the nature of random number generation.

Out of curiosity, would 18 8 8 8 8 8 be playable? How many high stats do we have to have before a character becomes reasonable?

[opaopajr]

This is after racials. The stats rolled were 13 13 13 12 11 11, which is considerably worse than 15 14 13 12 10 8.

Ah, I see. :smallbiggrin: Point still stands. They, the GM, are enjoying their idea of who can be heroes (cue Bowie & Nico song). I am glad you are going along with the ride, you just might surprise yourself having fun.

:smallwink: Still think you should have chosen basic human. At first ASI you'll likely go 16,14,14,12,11,11 when as basic human at first ASI you could be 16,14,14,13,12,12. But that's just me powergaming all those odd numbers. Mmm, that extra save resistance. :smalltongue:

[Chaosmancer]

You’re forgetting to factor in the part about the time it took for this scenario to come about and the time invested by other people.

Perhaps you’ve never thought about commitment before. If you join a team or a club, you usually do so for a season or a tournament. If you quit the moment you stop enjoying yourself, that’s not better than standing by your commitment.

Would you quit a D&D game mid-session, if you stopped having fun? Why or why not?

Why do you play DnD?

Do you play DnD because it is good for your future scholarships? Do you play for the honor of the trophy you get for being the state champions? Do you play DnD to make your parents proud of how good you are at it?

Or do you play DnD to have fun?


If you play DnD to have fun, and you are not having fun, then why are you playing DnD?




You’re missing the point. You can choose not to manifest your lack of enjoyment, thereby not making your emotions become other peoples’ problem.

Not acting miserable is not “people pleasing behaviour.” It’s common courtesy. Going out of your way to be positive or agreeable is people pleasing. There is a vast gulf of possibility between being a people a pleaser and just not being miserable.

I'm sorry, those two bolded and underlined parts are contradictory.

"Choosing not to manifest" your misery means hiding how you are really feeling. It means you are miserable and just doing so secretly

"Just not being miserable" is, well, not being miserable. Secretly or not, it is not being miserable.

Hiding your feelings isn't changing your feelings. It is suffering in secret.



Wooster and Jeeves were short-story and novel characters long before they were a show - the books are good fun if you're into the whole comedy-of-manners thing. But yeah, an important part of the character is that Jeeves is incredibly competent, and that he's a co-protagonist with his "master" Bertie Wooster.

Short Round, on the other hand, would be kinda awful to play. Maybe if you made him into a really good support character, and flavored it less as "I help everyone be awesome!" and more as "oh man, you guys are all so cool"? It'd be a harder sell, though - like I said, the thing with Jeeves is that he's still protagonist material.

Exactly. "co-protagonist" is how the game should work. Not hero and "sidekick"



Me: I don't think a 14 makes you useless.
You: People don't play wizards as fighters!
Me: ...

Well, if lost the thread of discussion because you kept thinking I was saying something I wasn't saying, I'd recommend going back and rereading the posts to see where my original point with that example got blown up because you kept refusing to listen to what I was actually saying and trying to alter it to say what you thought I was saying.




You are creating an either/or that doesn't make sense. Either you have the best ability score in the group or you don't bring anything to the table? No. I disagree with your reasoning.

Random number generation is a gamble. You are risking rolling a low number for the possible reward of rolling a high number. Adding a floor means you no longer risk anything. HP is similar, on level up you can either roll or take the average. If you roll, you are hoping to get the reward of higher than average at the risk of rolling lower than average. It is pretty simple.

I don't think anyone is advocating playing a character with all 8s. That guy is a commoner (and a rather mediocre one at that). He should probably stay home and tend his potatoes. Having 14s is a different story. The fact that you are using a character with all negative modifiers as a counterexample to a discussion about 14s is reductio ad absurdum.
Me: I don't think a 14 makes you useless.
You: But what if you were bad at everything!?
Me: ...

14's is the point below PC competence in my opinion, the point where the math of the game starts sliding towards you being bad enough that you fail to make an impact on most turns.

But, okay, you agree that all 8's is too low. that is a floor.

All 10's?

Let us take a character with a 12 as their highest stat. They are in a party with a Fighter who has a strength of 16, a Cleric with a wisdom of 16, A Rogue with a dex of 16, a Bard with a Cha of 16, and a Wizard with a Int of 16.

What does out 12 max stat character bring to this party? What is your role? Where do you fit in? What are you going to offer to the party beyond another warm body? And what is wrong with wanting to have a 16, just like everyone else?


Chaosmancer, you are ardently arguing against a position that no one else is taking.

Because here's the thing - someone else being better than you at a thing does not mean you can't contribute. If the other fighter swings their sword better, but you can still swing a sword, they are going to do better in a fight with you at their side fighting. It doesn't matter if they kill four goblins and you kill two, because you being there means they don't have to fight six goblins. It doesn't matter if the wizard can throw 8 different spells and you can only throw 6, because together you can throw 14 spells. It doesn't matter if the rogue is sneakier, you can give them the buff to make them silent. Etc.

And in this case, what the OP is bringing to the table is cleric spells, because he's in a six-person party, sure, but he's still the only cleric. So there's his niche, right there. He's not as strong as the fighter or as fast as the rogue or as smart as the wizard, but what he provides is a lot of healing, holding off the undead, and useful buffs.

You've constructed a strawman of "every stat below 8", and obviously, there's a point at which a character stops being a help and becomes an active hindrance, and someone who is an active hindrance is not going to be a useful adventurer. But everyone else is discussing an adventurer who is fully capable of contributing, they're just not likely to be the "best" in certain fields, and you're discussing Ogdar The Foolish, Who Decided To Become A Wizard With Int 8.

I would say that people are taking the position I'm arguing against though. They are saying that if you roll your stats instead of walking away then and there, that no matter what you get, you must play that character and have fun. No matter what, otherwise you are being dishonest.

You are part of the "Participation culture"
You are afraid of commitment to a cause
You should just pretend to be happy.
You should be glad that your companions are powerful and you can play their squire.


But, why should your companions be glad that you are meh? Why should we be okay with being less powerful than the other players at the table, due to random chance? The question in the title was "should there be a floor to stats" and the only answers that question has received is "No, there is no need for a floor"

Because people need to suck it up and have fun despite themselves and if they don't have fun they should have fun anyways.

[Amechra]

"Considerably worse" feels strong. You are only two points off the standard array (25/27 vs 27/27). Certainly suboptimal, but such is the nature of random number generation.

Out of curiosity, would 18 8 8 8 8 8 be playable? How many high stats do we have to have before a character becomes reasonable?

That 18 8 8 8 8 8 array would certainly be playable for certain classes, if a little dull - having your best stat be low is much worse than having one high stat a bunch of low ones. The game is designed with an expectation that you're going to have a +2 ~ +3 to your class's "main" stat at level 1, with a strong preference for that being a +3.

---

Let's make three 1st-level Half-Elf Bards - one with the 13/13/13/12/11/11 array, one with the Standard array, and one with the 18/8/8/8/8/8 array:

Alice: Str 11/Dex 14/Con 14/Int 11/Wis 12/Cha 15.
Barry: Str 10/Dex 16/Con 14/Int 08/Wis 12/Cha 16.
Carl: Str 08/Dex 09/Con 09/Int 08/Wis 08/Cha 20.

If you compare Alice to Barry, Barry looks way better - sure, Alice has +1 to Intelligence-based ability checks and saves, but he has +1 AC, +1 to weapon attacks and damage, +1 to spell attacks, +1 to his spells' save DCs, +1 to his Bardic Inspiration uses...

And if you look at Barry and Carl, Barry still comes out on top in survivability (he has +3 HP per level and +4 AC over Carl), but he's behind when it comes to being good at Bard stuff (Carl effectively has +2 to spell attacks, +2 to spell save DCs, and +2 to Bardic Inspiration uses compared to Barry). If you sat down to play Carl, it'd be much easier to get around his low stats with clever play, since he has more of the stat that Bard's crave.

[Christew]

Well, if lost the thread of discussion because you kept thinking I was saying something I wasn't saying, I'd recommend going back and rereading the posts to see where my original point with that example got blown up because you kept refusing to listen to what I was actually saying and trying to alter it to say what you thought I was saying.
Haha, that's a good one. I assume you are being facetious here since you are clearly the one refusing to listen and altering people's contentions so that your arguments seem halfway plausible.


14's is the point below PC competence in my opinion, the point where the math of the game starts sliding towards you being bad enough that you fail to make an impact on most turns.

But, okay, you agree that all 8's is too low. that is a floor.

All 10's?

Let us take a character with a 12 as their highest stat. They are in a party with a Fighter who has a strength of 16, a Cleric with a wisdom of 16, A Rogue with a dex of 16, a Bard with a Cha of 16, and a Wizard with a Int of 16.

What does out 12 max stat character bring to this party? What is your role? Where do you fit in? What are you going to offer to the party beyond another warm body? And what is wrong with wanting to have a 16, just like everyone else?
You are totally entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately, as pointed out by others, the game mechanics disagree with your opinion. Taking the standard array yields a highest stat of 15, if you take a race that does not boost said stat you have a modifier of +2 (exactly the same as a 14). Unless you contend that only races that boost the main stat are playable for a given class, the game implies that a +2 modifier in your main stat is playable.

[blackjack50]

I'm starting play now in a campaign with rolled ability scores. I told DM I prefer point-buy or standard array, even though DM uses a generous rolling method (4d6b3, reroll 1s)

As luck would have it, out of 6 characters, 1 has a 20 at level 1, 3 have at least 1 18, 1 has 2 16s, and my character has 2 14s.

Result of that-> I tried to optimize as best as possible, but still I know I will be struggling to keep up. Even making smart choices would just be to compensate for my terrible rolls. It's the first character I've played I'm not excited about. I'm just tempted to be reckless with him and let him die an honorable death, maybe saving the rest of the party, and then either reroll a new character or just stop playing with this group.

I did ask the DM to at least have the standard array, he said he feels "it's more fun that way".

Playgrounders, what should I do?
1- Just leave the group? It's an online game, and I'm not terribly invested in it. I just don't like quitting... and I did accept the DM's rules when I accepted rolling the dice.
2- Try my best to keep the character alive? That feels like the "honorable thing to do" but it means playing a game where I'm feeling subpar all the time.
3- Kill the character, preferably in a way that saves the bacon of the rest of the party? They get to keep their nice characters, and I either make a character I actually enjoy playing or leave.

One important detail- I may be overthinking this, I know, and maybe ability scores don't matter as much as I think they do. I just feel bad looking at my character sheet. I know I can play someone who basically focus on buffing his teammates and be very effective that way. Oddly enough, that WAS the character I was trying to play, as long as I could be reasonably effective on my own, now I feel like I HAVE to focus on myself and forget the rest of the party, they are good enough already. If it was a game with close friends, I would probably keep to that support idea, as they would be able to realize what I was doing. But again, online game with strangers, why do I have to sacrifice my character's fun so that others can feel even more awesome than they are already?

Thus us the way to deal with rolled stats. If you roll em? You keep em. As you mention: you do feel bad looking at your stats. But it will still play. I would suggest that you play the game and recognize your character limits. I tend to think putting yourself into a bad situation is a bit fatalistic. I would say roleplay your character well and let people get attached to you. Then if the numbers never work out in your favor and you die? It has meaning. EVERYONE can tell when you are trying to just get killed off though.

[Pex]

But, again, if it is a problem for there to be variance in player ability scores, why are we using an RNG stat generation method in the first place?

As you point out above, point buy negates this issue. If you find disparate stats unacceptable, then don't roll stats. The whole point of rolling is that it does not yield the same numbers. I find it confusing to use randomly generated stats and then complain that they are random.

The DM in this particular case forced it. The one having the problem is the player who wanted to use point buy, didn't want to roll but had to, and ended up being the unlucky one who rolled a poor array while everyone else rolled well to superb.

As I've said previously you can acknowledge the inherent luck factor disadvantage that comes when rolling poor. The solution is to allow a reroll. It doesn't take away from those who were lucky, and you get the unlucky person into the ballpark.

[MaxWilson]

I think that most people have some lower bound for rolled stats, below which they would consider a character unsalvageable. Or at least not worth the effort of trying to make work. For the OP, it sounds like that threshold is somewhere between the array they rolled, 13 13 13 12 11 11, and an array of all 10's. People might disagree with where that threshold should be set, but I think that if pressed eventually everyone would have their limit. Would you be willing to play a character who rolled all 3's?

That's a tough one. Mechanically, sure. (Moon Druid.) But I have no idea how to roleplay Int 3, Wis 3, and Cha 3 together. Maybe something like a wild cat on catnip? High energy, but not necessarily doing things that are important or even comprehensible.

I could give it a shot but I'm afraid other players might get tired of the PC rather quickly, and I myself would also rapidly grow tired of RPing the same manic energy. I don't see wanting to RP this PC for more than five or six adventures, tops.

But if it were an pure hack-and-slash campaign where roleplaying your stats was actively discouraged ("pawn stance"), I could play that PC indefinitely.

[Pex]

I poked at it a while ago - an issue I ran into is that it leads to most classes being very same-y, since it'd probably look something like this (incredibly rough) draft:

Barbarian: +2 Strength, +2 Constitution, +1 Dexterity
Bard: +2 Charisma, +2 Dexterity, +1 Intelligence or Wisdom.
Cleric: +2 Wisdom, +2 Strength, +1 Charisma or Intelligence.
Druid: +2 Wisdom, +2 Dexterity, +1 Charisma or Intelligence.
Fighter: +2 Strength or Dexterity, +2 Constitution, +1 to a mental ability score.
Monk: +2 Dexterity, +2 Wisdom, +1 Constitution.
Paladin: +2 Strength, +2 Charisma, +1 Constitution.
Ranger: +2 Strength or Dexterity, +2 Wisdom, +1 Constitution.
Rogue: +2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma or Wisdom, +1 to another mental ability score.
Sorcerer: +2 Charisma, +2 Constitution, +1 Intelligence or Wisdom.
Warlock: +2 Charisma, +2 Intelligence or Wisdom, +1 Dexterity.
Wizard: +2 Intelligence, +2 Dexterity, +1 Charisma and Wisdom.

And it doesn't get you the one advantage of rolling for characters, which is that ability scores are decoupled. If you roll for stats in order, your Barbarian rolling an 18 Intelligence (so that they're the brains and the brawn (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAZaLqQ5Jhk)) doesn't mean that they'll have a bad Strength score.

---


I wouldn't be opposed to something like this if it replaced racial modifiers. Let the races be different in their unique other ways. The trouble is to balance the races. For example I doubt many people would want to play dragonborn in its current state without the +2 ST/+1 CH. Solve that and you'll have gnome fighters and half orc bards. Personal bias I'd want the ability in Point Buy to buy a 16 at a reasonable cost without gimping myself so that there's a possibility of an 18 at 1st level, but there should also be incentive not to have one so that not everyone does the same thing to get it. Maybe tie it in with multiclassing somehow. You might have to tone down the bonuses. At its most simple everyone just gets a floating +2 and +1 to do with as they please. That's been proposed before in past threads. Alternatively don't have any bonuses but give a generous Point Buy value and reasonable cost, definitely better than what 5E provides now. Something that allows you to buy 18 but you'll have two 10s or 12 and 8, but you could instead get two 16s. If you wanted to buy 18 and 16 you will most likely have an 8 somewhere. Devil is in the details. I'm not married to this idea.

[diplomancer]

Some variance is good. I agree. But this does not mean that "the more variance the better". Quite the contrary, too much variance makes it impossible to balance challenges to the party. Furthermore, since everyone except me rolled BETTER than the standard array, having the standard array as a floor would still keep all characters being different, but making the party overall more balanced.

I have to say, I can't understand the attitude "well, you agreed to it, so bite it". We are not talking about a one-shot, we are talking about a campaign that is expected to last about a year, about 200 hours of my life. If I'm not having fun during a majority of those hours, you bet I'm not going to keep to it.

Suppose I'd rolled exceptionally well. But didn't like the party or the DM. Would it be alright to quit then? Haven't I "agreed to play the campaign, so bite it"? If it would be alright to quit, what's the difference? In both hypothetical cases (horrible rolls-not exactly this one- or bad party), I'd be quitting because I'm not having fun.

[druid91]

Honestly, I prefer rolling. Simply because it does give you a bit of variance in characters. Standard Array and point buy have never sat well with me.

But then I also prefer death march D&D where characters die constantly and surviving feels like an accomplishment.

[Pex]

"Considerably worse" feels strong. You are only two points off the standard array (25/27 vs 27/27). Certainly suboptimal, but such is the nature of random number generation.

Out of curiosity, would 18 8 8 8 8 8 be playable? How many high stats do we have to have before a character becomes reasonable?

I wouldn't want to play that character. Too many poor scores. I'm inherently biased in that I believe all PCs should have at least a 14 CO. If I can't have that I'm already bummed out. I could accept having 17 in prime and 13 CO to make it 18 and 14 at 4th level. As for the example in question the saving throws are horrible, hit points are atrocious presuming 18 goes into prime, and the skill checks are abysmal. Proficiency is not enough.

As my own personal quirk one 8 I'm fine with. Two I'm not. 18 16 16 14 8 8 I might play with. 18 12 11 10 8 8 I don't want to. I will not play three 8s. 5E Point Buy allows 15 15 15 8 8 8. I've seen a player take that and play human to get 16 16 16 9 9 9 for a barbarian. I could not make the choice.

[Corran]

I have to say, I can't understand the attitude "well, you agreed to it, so bite it".
Because the people saying that, dont have the same aversion to below average stats like you do. In which case, sticking with what you got is the expected thing to do. Not doing so will leave a bad taste in some people's mouths (for reasons that needn't be explained again), because choosing to roll the dice sends the message that you have accepted a possible poor outcome. Sticking with what you get kind of validates the whole point of randomly rolling for stats without any kind of safety net anyway.

Look, it's worse (not only for you, but for others too) to stick with a character you wont enjoy than backing out of an implied agreement. But this does not have to be a dilemma. Just pick under what circumstances you'll join a game more carefully from now on. Everyone who has strong prerequisites about how they get their dnd fun has to.

[druid91]

Some variance is good. I agree. But this does not mean that "the more variance the better". Quite the contrary, too much variance makes it impossible to balance challenges to the party. Furthermore, since everyone except me rolled BETTER than the standard array, having the standard array as a floor would still keep all characters being different, but making the party overall more balanced.

I have to say, I can't understand the attitude "well, you agreed to it, so bite it". We are not talking about a one-shot, we are talking about a campaign that is expected to last about a year, about 200 hours of my life. If I'm not having fun during a majority of those hours, you bet I'm not going to keep to it.

Suppose I'd rolled exceptionally well. But didn't like the party or the DM. Would it be alright to quit then? Haven't I "agreed to play the campaign, so bite it"? If it would be alright to quit, what's the difference? In both hypothetical cases (horrible rolls-not exactly this one- or bad party), I'd be quitting because I'm not having fun.

The issue with that is your implicit assumption that this particular character will survive 200 hours of adventuring. Depending on circumstances, that adventurer might not even make it through ONE hour of an adventure. I've had characters in my campaigns literally killed in the first encounter, thirty minutes into the campaign.

And while simply quitting because you're not having fun is valid, your reasons for not having fun aren't immune to criticism. And to some, choosing to quit over something like poor rolls can be in poor taste. While not nearly as extreme...

But how would you feel about trying to game with someone who threatened to quit over consistently poor rolls on saving throws? Or attack rolls. Or any of the other thousands upon thousands of dice rolls over the course of the game? Would you argue that some sort of non-rolling mechanic should be introduced so they could take an 'average' saving throw over having to roll?

[Christew]

18 16 16 14 8 8 I might play with. 18 12 11 10 8 8 I don't want to. I will not play three 8s. 5E Point Buy allows 15 15 15 8 8 8. I've seen a player take that and play human to get 16 16 16 9 9 9 for a barbarian. I could not make the choice.

You MIGHT play 18 16 16 14 8 8? Wow, it is like we are talking about completely different games. I would be ecstatic to have such an array and might even feel bad about it being overpowered.

[Amechra]

You are totally entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately, as pointed out by others, the game mechanics disagree with your opinion. Taking the standard array yields a highest stat of 15, if you take a race that does not boost said stat you have a modifier of +2 (exactly the same as a 14). Unless you contend that only races that boost the main stat are playable for a given class, the game implies that a +2 modifier in your main stat is playable.

14 in your main stat is kinda on the low end of what the game expects - it really wants you to have that sweet 16, but it can live with a 14 to 15. You also want a 13-15 in the stat that gives you AC (14-15 for Dexterity-based characters, 13+ for Strength-based characters with heavy armor proficiency) and a 12-14 in Constitution (and you really want that 14 in Con if you're a melee character).

That's not to say that you can't make a stat array like 13/11/11/11/11/11 work... but it'd be very rough. With the right races, you could make a passable character, but you'd be really constrained as to what you could play without getting absolutely mangled by level-appropriate enemies (a Battle-Master Fighter wearing heavy armor and going full sword-and-board would probably be OK - a Bard would crumple like paper if you looked at them funny).

---

You also have to consider table culture - if most of the people at the table are picking races that boost their main stat, starting off with a 14-15 is going to feel bad. If people don't try to line it up perfectly, then your Half-Orc Bard with a Charisma of 15 isn't going to feel that out of place.

[Christew]

Some variance is good. I agree. But this does not mean that "the more variance the better". Quite the contrary, too much variance makes it impossible to balance challenges to the party. Furthermore, since everyone except me rolled BETTER than the standard array, having the standard array as a floor would still keep all characters being different, but making the party overall more balanced.

I have to say, I can't understand the attitude "well, you agreed to it, so bite it". We are not talking about a one-shot, we are talking about a campaign that is expected to last about a year, about 200 hours of my life. If I'm not having fun during a majority of those hours, you bet I'm not going to keep to it.

Suppose I'd rolled exceptionally well. But didn't like the party or the DM. Would it be alright to quit then? Haven't I "agreed to play the campaign, so bite it"? If it would be alright to quit, what's the difference? In both hypothetical cases (horrible rolls-not exactly this one- or bad party), I'd be quitting because I'm not having fun.
You are welcome to quit things for whatever reason you see fit, free country and all that. You are not free from critique for doing so though.

This DM presumably put in hard work in order to provide the players with a game. He took his rightful purview to define rules and mechanics for his game (i.e. rolled stats). You quitting would have an adverse effect on his and everyone else's fun because the game was presumably planned for X players and would now run with only X-1. You have freedom of action, but your DM, fellow player's, and now everyone on this forum have freedom to judge your reasons for doing so.

[Rynjin]

You are welcome to quit things for whatever reason you see fit, free country and all that. You are not free from critique for doing so though.

This DM presumably put in hard work in order to provide the players with a game. He took his rightful purview to define rules and mechanics for his game (i.e. rolled stats). You quitting would have an adverse effect on his and everyone else's fun because the game was presumably planned for X players and would now run with only X-1. You have freedom of action, but your DM, fellow player's, and now everyone on this forum have freedom to judge your reasons for doing so.

Yeah, no. The DM can work as hard as they want, but at the end of the day they are not ENTITLED to players just because they've done so. If this is the case, you know they probably should have thought to run charop guidelines for the players before planning for X number of people. Maybe this isn't what you're actually trying to say, but it's what it currently read like to me.

I've run into this attitude a bit too much to take it seriously, and completely lost patience with it after a guy for a PbP had us all make characters, in a Recruitment that ran for nearly a month, only to reveal once the game started that the primary plot hook is that magic no longer works right in the world; it produces random effects whenever you cast a spell or use a Su ability.

Of course, everyone with a magic based character dropped out immediately, leaving him with 2 out of the 6 players he started with.

To be clear to you (and to him, since he seemed confused), he was not the victim in this scenario.

[Pex]

You MIGHT play 18 16 16 14 8 8? Wow, it is like we are talking about completely different games. I would be ecstatic to have such an array and might even feel bad about it being overpowered.

I know how much of an impact having an 8 is. Two makes it worse. The other scores being so good can make up for it. It would depend more on my mood at the time and the class I wanted to play. This does lean more to would play than wouldn't.

[Christew]

Yeah, no. The DM can work as hard as they want, but at the end of the day they are not ENTITLED to players just because they've done so. If this is the case, you know they probably should have thought to run charop guidelines for the players before planning for X number of people. Maybe this isn't what you're actually trying to say, but it's what it currently read like to me.

I've run into this attitude a bit too much to take it seriously, and completely lost patience with it after a guy for a PbP had us all make characters, in a Recruitment that ran for nearly a month, only to reveal once the game started that the primary plot hook is that magic no longer works right in the world; it produces random effects whenever you cast a spell or use a Su ability.

Of course, everyone with a magic based character dropped out immediately, leaving him with 2 out of the 6 players he started with.

To be clear to you (and to him, since he seemed confused), he was not the victim in this scenario.
A DM is no more entitled to players than a player is entitled to a DM. Not sure how you gleaned that from what I said. Full freedom on all parties part, merely an acknowledgment that our actions have an effect on others. I assume the rest of the players aren't considering quitting over their stats, so the game will go on regardless of OPs decision (which is purely hypothetical at this point since he said he wasn't quitting). I would say the same thing about your DM revealing such a plot hook, his actions have an effect on others and he should consider that when deciding on a course of action.

Find a game with people who view the game the way you do. Play game, have fun.

[HappyDaze]

A DM is no more entitled to players than a player is entitled to a DM. Not sure how you gleaned that from what I said. Full freedom on all parties part, merely an acknowledgment that our actions have an effect on others. I assume the rest of the players aren't considering quitting over their stats, so the game will go on regardless of OPs decision (which is purely hypothetical at this point since he said he wasn't quitting). I would say the same thing about your DM revealing such a plot hook, his actions have an effect on others and he should consider that when deciding on a course of action.

Find a game with people who view the game the way you do. Play game, have fun.

Agreed.

However, occasionally try playing it with people that do it differently to see if their way appeals to you.

[diplomancer]

You are welcome to quit things for whatever reason you see fit, free country and all that. You are not free from critique for doing so though.

This DM presumably put in hard work in order to provide the players with a game. He took his rightful purview to define rules and mechanics for his game (i.e. rolled stats). You quitting would have an adverse effect on his and everyone else's fun because the game was presumably planned for X players and would now run with only X-1. You have freedom of action, but your DM, fellow player's, and now everyone on this forum have freedom to judge your reasons for doing so.

This is getting very close to badwrongfun and "you don't enjoy playing D&D the way I do, and you should". When someone quits a game, no matter for what reason, the effect on the game and on the DM work is the same. If I quit because I think my character is unplayable, or because I don't like the playstyle, or because life intervenes, or because another more fun game beckons (all of those reasons can happen at the same time, by the way), in all these cases, I'm giving more work to the DM. I don't give the DM more work if I quit for what you think is a bad reason than if I quit for a reason of which you happen to approve. If anything, quitting because you think your character is unplayable is, of all the reasons I mentioned, the one EASIER for the DM to fix (giving the player a character he thinks is playable) In all these cases, this is a perfectly fine choice to make, even more nowadays, where finding new players on the internet is trivially easy; this is not the 80s anymore, when finding a fellow D&D lover was something to be treasured.

The way I see it (as someone who has both played and DM'd for more than 20 years now), it's better for everyone involved to have one less player than to have a disengaged player. The way I see it, before every session, all players, DM included, should ask themselves "is there a better, more enjoyable, use of my time, than playing this game with these people for the next 3-4 hours?", and if there is good reason to believe the answer is "yes, there is a better use" they should not be playing with those people. Maybe one session they are feeling off and can "push through". But after some number of sessions that the player feels this way he should come out and say it, not think "Oh, the DM has put too much work into this, all I can do is to keep to my agreement and force myself to play this game I don't enjoy, and learn to enjoy it, willy nilly!". This is not funtime. This is a mother forcing her 4 year-old to eat brocolli, saying "I like brocolli, so does your brother, and brocolli is good for you, and you said you were hungry, and I took some time to prepare this brocolli, so you're eating it".

[Chaosmancer]

Haha, that's a good one. I assume you are being facetious here since you are clearly the one refusing to listen and altering people's contentions so that your arguments seem halfway plausible.

Really? Because when I started this point about the wizard I said "take a human wizard" and your response was to say "play and elf or a dwarf".

I mentioned "no one plays a character who isn't good with melee weapons by picking up a longsword" you responded with all the ways to make them good with melee weapons.

But, I am the one not listening, and being facetious.



You are totally entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately, as pointed out by others, the game mechanics disagree with your opinion. Taking the standard array yields a highest stat of 15, if you take a race that does not boost said stat you have a modifier of +2 (exactly the same as a 14). Unless you contend that only races that boost the main stat are playable for a given class, the game implies that a +2 modifier in your main stat is playable.

The game implies it, my experience refutes it. That was exactly the scenario that the Dragonborn Cleric in one of my games faced, and they struggled the entire campaign.

So, it seems like the only effective choice with arrays is to match a class and race combo. After all, pretty much never see Gnome Fighters or Halfling Paladins.


You are welcome to quit things for whatever reason you see fit, free country and all that. You are not free from critique for doing so though.

This DM presumably put in hard work in order to provide the players with a game. He took his rightful purview to define rules and mechanics for his game (i.e. rolled stats). You quitting would have an adverse effect on his and everyone else's fun because the game was presumably planned for X players and would now run with only X-1. You have freedom of action, but your DM, fellow player's, and now everyone on this forum have freedom to judge your reasons for doing so.

No

As a DM and as a player, I don't want people to stick around while being miserable. Would I be upset if I had out hours into building a campaign and someone left? Yeah. But I'd feel worse if they stayed and hated every moment of it, or were constantly struggling.

Again, personal expeirence. I hated running for that Dragonborn cleric, because while he kept trying to make it work and I kept trying to give him the choicest items and ways to mitigate his problems, and it never helped. And it made me feel like a bad DM, because my player was miserable and I couldn't get them around to having fun.



A DM is no more entitled to players than a player is entitled to a DM. Not sure how you gleaned that from what I said. Full freedom on all parties part, merely an acknowledgment that our actions have an effect on others. I assume the rest of the players aren't considering quitting over their stats, so the game will go on regardless of OPs decision (which is purely hypothetical at this point since he said he wasn't quitting). I would say the same thing about your DM revealing such a plot hook, his actions have an effect on others and he should consider that when deciding on a course of action.

Find a game with people who view the game the way you do. Play game, have fun.


You know, you might be right. I think that guy starting with a 20 in their main stat is going to swallow their disappointment and soldier on. The guy with the 18 probably really struggled to come up with a good build, but he's willing to give it a shot.

Oh wait. All those are amazing rolls that they were probably ecstatic about. They were probably over the moon and ready to start.

[Christew]

This is getting very close to badwrongfun and "you don't enjoy playing D&D the way I do, and you should". When someone quits a game, no matter for what reason, the effect on the game and on the DM work is the same. If I quit because I think my character is unplayable, or because I don't like the playstyle, or because life intervenes, or because another more fun game beckons (all of those reasons can happen at the same time, by the way), in all these cases, I'm giving more work to the DM. I don't give the DM more work if I quit for what you think is a bad reason than if I quit for a reason of which you happen to approve. If anything, quitting because you think your character is unplayable is, of all the reasons I mentioned, the one EASIER for the DM to fix (giving the player a character he thinks is playable) In all these cases, this is a perfectly fine choice to make, even more nowadays, where finding new players on the internet is trivially easy; this is not the 80s anymore, when finding a fellow D&D lover was something to be treasured.

The way I see it (as someone who has both played and DM'd for more than 20 years now), it's better for everyone involved to have one less player than to have a disengaged player. The way I see it, before every session, all players, DM included, should ask themselves "is there a better, more enjoyable, use of my time, than playing this game with these people for the next 3-4 hours?", and if there is good reason to believe the answer is "yes, there is a better use" they should not be playing with those people. Maybe one session they are feeling off and can "push through". But after some number of sessions that the player feels this way he should come out and say it, not think "Oh, the DM has put too much work into this, all I can do is to keep to my agreement and force myself to play this game I don't enjoy, and learn to enjoy it, willy nilly!". This is not funtime. This is a mother forcing her 4 year-old to eat brocolli, saying "I like brocolli, so does your brother, and brocolli is good for you, and you said you were hungry, and I took some time to prepare this brocolli, so you're eating it".
Again, purely highlighting that quitting has an effect on others. You are reading the rest into what I wrote.

Honestly, if you are coming to the table with the notion that you won't have fun unless you roll high stats, you probably shouldn't be signing up for rolled stat games in the first place. But again, do whatever you think is right (preferably, but not necessarily, acknowledging your actions effects on others).


Really? Because when I started this point about the wizard I said "take a human wizard" and your response was to say "play and elf or a dwarf".

I mentioned "no one plays a character who isn't good with melee weapons by picking up a longsword" you responded with all the ways to make them good with melee weapons.

But, I am the one not listening, and being facetious.
I never signed up to discuss your weird hypothetical builds in the same way I never signed up to discuss your gameplay experiences. You referenced wizards trying to do melee and I pointed out that there are options for that.


The game implies it, my experience refutes it. That was exactly the scenario that the Dragonborn Cleric in one of my games faced, and they struggled the entire campaign.

So, it seems like the only effective choice with arrays is to match a class and race combo. After all, pretty much never see Gnome Fighters or Halfling Paladins.
Cool. My experiences reinforce it.


No

As a DM and as a player, I don't want people to stick around while being miserable. Would I be upset if I had out hours into building a campaign and someone left? Yeah. But I'd feel worse if they stayed and hated every moment of it, or were constantly struggling.

Again, personal expeirence. I hated running for that Dragonborn cleric, because while he kept trying to make it work and I kept trying to give him the choicest items and ways to mitigate his problems, and it never helped. And it made me feel like a bad DM, because my player was miserable and I couldn't get them around to having fun.
Again, didn't advocate sticking around to be miserable, merely advocated a less self centered approach to decision making. Do with that what you will.


You know, you might be right. I think that guy starting with a 20 in their main stat is going to swallow their disappointment and soldier on. The guy with the 18 probably really struggled to come up with a good build, but he's willing to give it a shot.

Oh wait. All those are amazing rolls that they were probably ecstatic about. They were probably over the moon and ready to start.
I mean the guy with the 18 probably had to suffer through a pretty serious existential crisis knowing that there's this other guy who has a 20. I mean, can I even hero without a 20? Should I even attempt to hero when there are mathematically superior heroes out there in the world? I'm assuming they survived, but I guess you never know.

[Chaosmancer]

I never signed up to discuss your weird hypothetical builds in the same way I never signed up to discuss your gameplay experiences. You referenced wizards trying to do melee and I pointed out that there are options for that.

Right, so you don't get to complain about people not listening when you are admitting that you didn't care enough to even try and understand the point I was making about the type of stories and gameplay that is done at the table for DnD. You stopped listening and just assumed I was spewing nonsense, so nothing I said was even worth typing.




Again, didn't advocate sticking around to be miserable, merely advocated a less self centered approach to decision making. Do with that what you will.

Less self centered, by doing what? Earlier in this post you were telling diplomancer about how they should consider how them deciding to quit for whatever reason "has an effect on others"

The DM forcing them to roll stats when they didn't want to had an effect on others too. The people who rolled high had an effect on others as well.

You keep trying to say that you are being "neutral" just "saying there was an effect, and you should think about that," but, much like Burger Beast, you aren't coming across that way.




I mean the guy with the 18 probably had to suffer through a pretty serious existential crisis knowing that there's this other guy who has a 20. I mean, can I even hero without a 20? Should I even attempt to hero when there are mathematically superior heroes out there in the world? I'm assuming they survived, but I guess you never know.

Since we both agree that is ridiculous, why did you feel the need to try and guilt the OP with "well, the other players aren't thinking about quitting because of their stats" when they clearly had amazing stats.

It'd be like telling someone upset by their house catching on fire "why are you upset, the johnson's down the street won the lottery and are renovating their home. They aren't complaining about their lives being disrupted. Why are you?"

Perhaps, because the situation is completely different between "I rolled amazingly" and "I rolled poorly"

[druid91]

Right, so you don't get to complain about people not listening when you are admitting that you didn't care enough to even try and understand the point I was making about the type of stories and gameplay that is done at the table for DnD. You stopped listening and just assumed I was spewing nonsense, so nothing I said was even worth typing.


Less self centered, by doing what? Earlier in this post you were telling diplomancer about how they should consider how them deciding to quit for whatever reason "has an effect on others"

The DM forcing them to roll stats when they didn't want to had an effect on others too. The people who rolled high had an effect on others as well.

You keep trying to say that you are being "neutral" just "saying there was an effect, and you should think about that," but, much like Burger Beast, you aren't coming across that way.



Since we both agree that is ridiculous, why did you feel the need to try and guilt the OP with "well, the other players aren't thinking about quitting because of their stats" when they clearly had amazing stats.

It'd be like telling someone upset by their house catching on fire "why are you upset, the johnson's down the street won the lottery and are renovating their home. They aren't complaining about their lives being disrupted. Why are you?"

Perhaps, because the situation is completely different between "I rolled amazingly" and "I rolled poorly"


And stories and gameplay are influenced by dicerolls. If you don't like rolling dice, then you probably won't like D&D. Frankly, best to get that out of the way sooner rather than later. So you can move on to systems that allow diceless play.


Of course, the reasons for quitting can be reasonable or unreasonable. If I were to threaten to walk from your game because I had to roll, rather than just assume a 15 or so on every attack.... well wouldn't you balk a little? Think it unreasonable?

And likewise, it doesn't matter what they rolled, or what he rolled. Rolling stats is a valid form of stat generation, and can be fun if you aren't determined to hate it. What he's saying is he wants rolling stats but with none of the fun/risk of rolling stats. I honestly despise arrays, and point buy in D&D. I find they make characters that are dull, lifeless cutouts. You have the same 'standardly optimized' whatever it is 9/10. And I quite honestly hate it.

[Christew]

Right, so you don't get to complain about people not listening when you are admitting that you didn't care enough to even try and understand the point I was making about the type of stories and gameplay that is done at the table for DnD. You stopped listening and just assumed I was spewing nonsense, so nothing I said was even worth typing.
I have read every word you have written in this thread. You brought up a human wizard that has no proficiencies but still wants to fight with a sword presumably in order to illustrate your belief that optimized play is a necessity. I pointed out that if we are hypothesizing a player that wants to both be a wizard and use a melee weapon, there are plenty of avenues to achieve that. Sorry if you feel unheard, but I am just exercising my right to respond to that which I feel is cogent. I understand you, I just disagree with you.


Less self centered, by doing what? Earlier in this post you were telling diplomancer about how they should consider how them deciding to quit for whatever reason "has an effect on others"

The DM forcing them to roll stats when they didn't want to had an effect on others too. The people who rolled high had an effect on others as well.

You keep trying to say that you are being "neutral" just "saying there was an effect, and you should think about that," but, much like Burger Beast, you aren't coming across that way.
I mean, you are re-referencing the post that I was already explaining here. The DM didn't "force them to roll stats," he made a decision for how character generation would work in his game. That is a DM's purview.


Since we both agree that is ridiculous, why did you feel the need to try and guilt the OP with "well, the other players aren't thinking about quitting because of their stats" when they clearly had amazing stats.

It'd be like telling someone upset by their house catching on fire "why are you upset, the johnson's down the street won the lottery and are renovating their home. They aren't complaining about their lives being disrupted. Why are you?"

Perhaps, because the situation is completely different between "I rolled amazingly" and "I rolled poorly"
Go back and read what I wrote again. I wasn't "guilting the OP." I was pointing out that the game would probably go on without him even if he did choose to quit (which as noted, he had already stated he does not intend to do).

Also, really? You think comparing someone's complaint about a 14 highest stat to someone's house burning down is reasonable? So in this simile of yours, a 14 is equivalent to having your house catching on fire and an 18 is equivalent to winning the lottery and renovating your home. *Slow clap*

[Pex]

Again, purely highlighting that quitting has an effect on others. You are reading the rest into what I wrote.

Honestly, if you are coming to the table with the notion that you won't have fun unless you roll high stats, you probably shouldn't be signing up for rolled stat games in the first place. But again, do whatever you think is right (preferably, but not necessarily, acknowledging your actions effects on others).



That is not what he's saying at all. He never demanded high stats. He would have been happy just having the standard array. The problem is he has mediocre stats while everyone else has high stats. He was forced into rolling as the price to play and was unlucky to roll garbage while all the other players got amazing stuff. His character is in poor shape compared to everyone else.

[druid91]

That is not what he's saying at all. He never demanded high stats. He would have been happy just having the standard array. The problem is he has mediocre stats while everyone else has high stats. He was forced into rolling as the price to play and was unlucky to roll garbage while all the other players got amazing stuff. His character is in poor shape compared to everyone else.

... Is he going to be fighting the other characters? If not then it's irrelevant.

[Chaosmancer]

And likewise, it doesn't matter what they rolled, or what he rolled. Rolling stats is a valid form of stat generation, and can be fun if you aren't determined to hate it. What he's saying is he wants rolling stats but with none of the fun/risk of rolling stats. I honestly despise arrays, and point buy in D&D. I find they make characters that are dull, lifeless cutouts. You have the same 'standardly optimized' whatever it is 9/10. And I quite honestly hate it.

Who is saying that? The OP specifically said they don't want to roll stats. The DM said they had to roll stats.


See, according to the people I've been debating with, that is impossible. Stats don't matter to play, low, high, middle, it does not matter. So no matter how you generate the stats, you should never end up with a dull lifeless character.

And of course, to quote Burger Beast and his favorite advice, if your DM forces you to do point buy "just forget what you want and have fun anyways."


Or, we can acknowledge that things are a bit more nuanced.



I have read every word you have written in this thread. You brought up a human wizard that has no proficiencies but still wants to fight with a sword presumably in order to illustrate your belief that optimized play is a necessity. I pointed out that if we are hypothesizing a player that wants to both be a wizard and use a melee weapon, there are plenty of avenues to achieve that. Sorry if you feel unheard, but I am just exercising my right to respond to that which I feel is cogent. I understand you, I just disagree with you.

The point was not that optimized play is a necessity.

The point was that some stories, some character developments, do not fit in DnD. The wizard with no proficiencies? Novels and tv shows can pull off that character, that is a legitimate character that can be very interesting. But not in DnD.

Steve Rogers pre-serum isn't a character who works in DnD. The idea of being the 90 lbs weakling with heart, who will just get beaten up again and again? They aren't who the character is when the campaign starts. Instead, the player usually wants to play Steve right after the serum. They were a 90lbs weakling, now, they aren't because something fixed that problem, but they still need to figure out how to use that new strength.


Yes, the point of fun in DnD is usually the character, dealing with flaws and issues and working with that. But, that is not what a poor stat array is. It isn't a creative challenge, it isn't a heroic flaw that story can be built on. It is just being bad at something.




I mean, you are re-referencing the post that I was already explaining here. The DM didn't "force them to roll stats," he made a decision for how character generation would work in his game. That is a DM's purview.

The DM didn't force them to roll stats... they just said that if you want to play you have to roll stats.

It is their purview, but I have to wonder what the benefit of this situation is to the DM? What have they gained in a lot of players who are better than the last member of the party?

If Diplomancer isn't cleared from criticism because they decided to play the game, why is the DM cleared from criticism just because they are the DM?



Go back and read what I wrote again. I wasn't "guilting the OP." I was pointing out that the game would probably go on without him even if he did choose to quit (which as noted, he had already stated he does not intend to do).

Also, really? You think comparing someone's complaint about a 14 highest stat to someone's house burning down is reasonable? So in this simile of yours, a 14 is equivalent to having your house catching on fire and an 18 is equivalent to winning the lottery and renovating your home. *Slow clap*

So, why mention "no one else is leaving because of their stats"? What were trying to accomplish?

"Well, the game will go with or without you?" What does that accomplish? Especially this point in the discussion, when it has been almost 72 hours since they decided they were going to stay in the game.



... Is he going to be fighting the other characters? If not then it's irrelevant.

Wrong.

Doing worse than your party members makes you feel like an anchor. People don't want to be the weak link.

If you are spending an ASI to get a +1 to hit so you can start getting closer to where they are, while your party members are discussing which feat will give them new options to add even more, are you going to feel like you are doing a good job?

If you get a magic item that sets your stats to equal your party members, while they get magic items that let them do new and interesting things, are you going to feel like you are doing well, or that you are getting life support from the DM to catch up.


Being significantly weaker than your teammates is a problem.

[druid91]

Who is saying that? The OP specifically said they don't want to roll stats. The DM said they had to roll stats.


See, according to the people I've been debating with, that is impossible. Stats don't matter to play, low, high, middle, it does not matter. So no matter how you generate the stats, you should never end up with a dull lifeless character.

And of course, to quote Burger Beast and his favorite advice, if your DM forces you to do point buy "just forget what you want and have fun anyways."


Or, we can acknowledge that things are a bit more nuanced.

Wrong.

Doing worse than your party members makes you feel like an anchor. People don't want to be the weak link.

If you are spending an ASI to get a +1 to hit so you can start getting closer to where they are, while your party members are discussing which feat will give them new options to add even more, are you going to feel like you are doing a good job?

If you get a magic item that sets your stats to equal your party members, while they get magic items that let them do new and interesting things, are you going to feel like you are doing well, or that you are getting life support from the DM to catch up.


Being significantly weaker than your teammates is a problem.

And not rolling stats wasn't an option, so they're complaining that they can't have the benefits of not rolling stats, while rolling stats. I mean, it doesn't matter how high or low your stats are. But when everyone has the same set of stats every time it's dull and boring.

And I never said you should just 'go along' with whatever your DM says and ignore your own fun, but neither are you immune to criticism for what you find unplayable.

I mean.... unless you literally just want to be a big dumb fighter who does nothing but sword swing then there's a thousand things you could be doing to contribute without needing peak stats. You could buy a horse, and specialize in mounted combat for mobility. You could play an Entrenchment wizard. You could play an alchemist or do any number of things to allow you to contribute without needing to have a 20 or whatever arbitrary number you decide is playable.

Your minimum of 8, you need 14 to hit a goblin.

At a maximum of 20, you need a 9 to hit that same goblin.

It's significant, but not all that much. It's a variance of 5 at max. And that's comparing the most extreme ends. Your ability score variance is effectively eliminated by level 13 at the latest by proficiency bonus.

The idea that you have to play catchup at all is the issue. Not your stats.

[Rynjin]

Your minimum of 8, you need 14 to hit a goblin.

At a maximum of 20, you need a 9 to hit that same goblin.

It's significant, but not all that much. It's a variance of 5 at max. And that's comparing the most extreme ends. Your ability score variance is effectively eliminated by level 13 at the latest by proficiency bonus.



That is a 25% difference in success rate, or to put it in other terms, that is a 60% chance of success vs a 35% chance of success. Well over half, vs a little over a third.

You recognize it as "significant" but I'm not sure you recognize HOW significant a 25% difference in success or failure is. And that's against one of the weakest monsters in the book. Which by your own admission is only negated at level 13, a level which historically does not see very much play; unless 5e is wildly different than every other d20 game ever made, most games end around level 9-10 at the latest.

Even taking a less extreme viewpoint, we have in the actual scenario presented, a character with an 18 vs a 14. That's a 10% difference in success. That is still quite significant, and will in point of fact never be made up.

Even in your extreme scenario you fail to take into account that everyone in the party levels. The Proficiency bonus will NEVER make up that difference.

[Amechra]

To make it even more concrete, druid91, the person with a 20 in their stat is almost twice as likely to succeed at hitting that goblin as the person with an 8 in their stat. On top of that, they'll have a much larger effect when they do succeed.

And the same goes for other stuff - a 1st level Wizard with an Intelligence of 8 would have a save DC of 9, compared to the DC 15 that their much smarter colleague would have. A goblin would have a 70% chance of passing a save vs. the first Wizard's Burning Hands, and only a 40% of passing their save vs. the second.

EDIT: Also, both of you are slightly off - the difference is 30%, not 25%.

[druid91]

Again, that's honestly not a huge deal there are all manner of things you can do that don't require saves or attack rolls, or allow you to boost them. And also again, your only stuck with that character until they die.

It's not that significant.

[MaxWilson]

Even taking a less extreme viewpoint, we have in the actual scenario presented, a character with an 18 vs a 14. That's a 10% difference in success. That is still quite significant, and will in point of fact never be made up.

Are we really claiming that a 10% difference in success is enough to render a PC un-playable? If I cast Fear and scare away 6 out of 10 orcs instead of 7 out of 10 orcs because my Int is "only" 14 instead of 18 (DC 13 vs. 15), am I really so bad that the party would rather have no wizard than me as a wizard? I'm incredibly skeptical of that perspective.

10% difference in success rates: significant? Sure, in a statistical sense. If you pay careful attention to two spellcasters over multiple sessions, you'll probably be able to guess fairly well which of them has a higher spellcasting stat. But it's still much less significant in its effect on play than player skill is: casting the right spell with DC 13 is far better than casting the wrong spell with DC 15. (You'll know what I mean if you've ever seen a player upcast Chromatic Orb with 9th level spell slots in one of the first encounters of the session.)

Look, if someone wants to argue that they only have fun with high stats, go ahead and admit it. I have certainly gone through phases myself, back in the day, where only Str 18/00 was remotely fun for me. In 5E the equivalent would be wanting multiple 18s in your starting stat array and maybe a couple of extra feats. 5E is a game and there's no shame in wanting to enjoy a little power fantasy.

But that's an emotional argument based on preference, and let's just acknowledge that the actual magnitude of the effect of stats on play is pretty small, especially for spellcasters instead of warriors, because (1) most spellcasters don't get to add their spellcasting stat to damage anyway, unlike warriors, and (2) spellcasters have various options that would still be good even with a spellcasting DC of 0, including Wall of Force, Twin (friendly) Polymorph, Aura of Vitality, Conjure Elemental, Dimension Door, Teleport, etc. (3) since you can prepare only a limited number of spells, not taking spells that require high DCs to be effective (like Hold Monster) opens up more space for the spells that don't. Two steps back, one step forward.

No stat array can make you useless to the party or helpless in the game unless you choose to be useless/helpless.

[Avonar]

Here's the thing though, the rolled stats weren't a surprise. If you know that you will be rolling for stats going in and still choose to, you don't have much of a foot to stand on if things don't turn out fantastically. You can say that you don't like stat rolling but you still agreed to it, if you aren't willing to deal with low stats then don't agree in the first place.

Now, as for how to deal with it, it's not hard. I've seen players play characters with significantly worse stats than that and both still have fun and be useful. Hell, I had a guy roll 11, 11, 9, 9, 7, 7 once and despite me offering him a reroll, he took the stats, played them and was actively useful. The problem comes when people think that having worse stats makes you useless. Don't forget, this isn't a board game or video game, you're not trying to game the system to beat the system, you're trying to play your character in this story. It's entirely possible to play a character who is less effective in combat and still have fun. Sure, the CHARACTER might feel like they aren't carrying their weight, but the PLAYER shouldn't. Could even turn it into a character moment, trying to keep up with the rest of the part that they feel are just better.

If you contribute to the group having fun, stats are 100% irrelevant.

Also, having +2 instead of +4 makes an overall minor difference, so I don't know why this was an issue to begin with.

[huttj509]

Here's the thing though, the rolled stats weren't a surprise. If you know that you will be rolling for stats going in and still choose to, you don't have much of a foot to stand on if things don't turn out fantastically. You can say that you don't like stat rolling but you still agreed to it, if you aren't willing to deal with low stats then don't agree in the first place.


The player's choice was "roll or don't play."

[Rynjin]

To make it even more concrete, druid91, the person with a 20 in their stat is almost twice as likely to succeed at hitting that goblin as the person with an 8 in their stat. On top of that, they'll have a much larger effect when they do succeed.

And the same goes for other stuff - a 1st level Wizard with an Intelligence of 8 would have a save DC of 9, compared to the DC 15 that their much smarter colleague would have. A goblin would have a 70% chance of passing a save vs. the first Wizard's Burning Hands, and only a 40% of passing their save vs. the second.

EDIT: Also, both of you are slightly off - the difference is 30%, not 25%.

I had 30% at first but second guessed myself. The dangers of posting while doing 2 other things at once.

[diplomancer]

And stories and gameplay are influenced by dicerolls. If you don't like rolling dice, then you probably won't like D&D. Frankly, best to get that out of the way sooner rather than later. So you can move on to systems that allow diceless play.


Of course, the reasons for quitting can be reasonable or unreasonable. If I were to threaten to walk from your game because I had to roll, rather than just assume a 15 or so on every attack.... well wouldn't you balk a little? Think it unreasonable?

And likewise, it doesn't matter what they rolled, or what he rolled. Rolling stats is a valid form of stat generation, and can be fun if you aren't determined to hate it. What he's saying is he wants rolling stats but with none of the fun/risk of rolling stats. I honestly despise arrays, and point buy in D&D. I find they make characters that are dull, lifeless cutouts. You have the same 'standardly optimized' whatever it is 9/10. And I quite honestly hate it.

Interestingly enough, I was planning on taking a non-standard race for a Forge Cleric with point-buy (wood-elf), which is normally a Str/Wis build. Because even optimizers like to vary.

What happened when I rolled poorly? I picked a variant human, the most overused race in the game. So, ironically, in this particular case, rolling with no floor, led me into the "standard optimized" approach, when I was planning on something else.

For someone who cares at all about build optimization, rolling only allows "unusual" characters when you roll well, if you roll poorly you basically don't have a choice but to get the more optimized races. (If I'd rolled really well, I'd probably have tried yet another race, even less optimized for a Forge Cleric than wood elf).

Rolling with a floor, on the other hand:
1- will keep the characters different (unless they all roll poorly, in which case the DM can still suggest that they keep their characters and he'll adjust the game difficulty)
2- will ensure that intra-party stat variance will not be too big, keeping the DM's job of creating appropriate challenges for the whole party easier.
3- allows unlucky optimizers the chance to try non-optimal but still viable race/class combinations
I still think this approach keeps the best of both worlds (rolling stats with standard array, not point buy, as a floor), and I haven't seen one cogent argument against it, though I have received good advice on how to cope and still try to have fun with the worse method the DM insisted on.

@Christew, you may think you are "just purely highlighting that quitting has an effect on others", but this is really not how you sound. Let's switch perspectives for a moment; suppose, instead of the unhappy player, it was the unexperienced DM that posted here, saying:
"I prefer rolled stats, and even give players a more powerful than standard rolled stats method, but I have one player, who'd stated his preference for point-buy beforehand, who's rolled poorly, and asked me to use standard array. All the other players rolled better than standard array, so it's not like I am making him more powerful than the others. I said no, and he hasn't pushed the issue further, but I don't think he's happy about it. In fact, he dumped his constitution and I fear he might try to get his character killed. He also twice changed his stated preference for the race he wanted to play. Should I just let him have the standard array?"

Would you be telling the DM "you know, he probably had a character in mind that he can't now make with those scores, he might even have spent some time making up a back story that now he has to scrap. I'm not telling you that you should let him have it, but you should consider the effect your choices have on others", or would you be telling him "you are dealing with an entitled powergamer, you're probably better off kicking him away right now, he will be a source of frustration to you and, as the DM, you have the right to play the game the way you want to, and it's the player's job to adjust." or maybe something more neutral, but still affirming the DM's choice like "let him try the character out, but if you feel he's deliberately running unnecessary risks to get his character killed, kick him out, even if he denies doing so"?

[patchyman]

That's fine with me. I converted to preferring Point Buy last year, but I still hate 5E's implementation of it. My current favorite method is Pathfinder, P1 for being Point Buy and intrigued by P2's way of build your stats via background. Unfortunately 5E doesn't provide guidelines for that, so it's easier to use dice rolling.

It depends what you are looking for. Ironically enough, the PF2 method doesn’t really lead to a lot of variance, since you just put an 18 in your main stat, and your worst stat is a 10 (8 if you took a race with a flaw and did not compensate for it).

After you control for boosts to your main stat (and non-boosts to your dump stat) you really only end up with 3 different arrays (post-racial).