PDA

View Full Version : The worst stats you've ever kept.



FMArthur
2008-05-07, 08:59 PM
I'm curious to know what you guys all consider acceptable rolled stats, what was the worst-statted character you've ever played (not rerolled), and how that worked out. Was the difference easily noticed, or not?

Pironious
2008-05-07, 09:14 PM
15, 14, 13, 12, 12, 10.

And no, the difference wasn't noticed because I was a broken VoP Monk.

The_Blue_Sorceress
2008-05-07, 09:26 PM
I'm curious to know what you guys all consider acceptable rolled stats, what was the worst-statted character you've ever played (not rerolled), and how that worked out. Was the difference easily noticed, or not?


14 12 12 11 9 12

female human fighter 7 berserker 1 (Dieties and Demigods berserker, not the frenzied kind)

She survived for eight levels before she met an untimely death. I made up for low stats by rolling high for everything else.

Next lowest was 14 16 11 12 15 10. half-elf female archery specialized ranger 6/ cleric 4. The game collapsed before she died.


Contrast to the last the last character I played

18 16 14 17 16 14 male human fighter 8

and my current character

14 18 12 18 15 16 (yes two natural 18s) female human rogue 5 and counting.

Usually when I roll low for stats (and I haven't in some time now) I make up for it by trying to play smart. If nothing else low stats mean you have to make the most out of your feats and skills and advance wisely as far as multicalssing and prestige classing go.

-Blue

Eldariel
2008-05-07, 09:33 PM
Humm, I recall it was 15/12/12/11/8/6. I like low stats. He was a Ranger though, which caused some MAD issues. In the end he ended up dumb as a boot and even uglier than that.

Deepblue706
2008-05-07, 09:34 PM
Back in ye old days of 3.0, I had this character:

Elf Fighter (after adjustment, level 1)

STR 15
DEX 15
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 11
CHA 8

Prior to applying the elf bonuses/penalties, it was less than 25pt buy (and everyone else had total values of 28+) - I kept it because our group was strict about no rerolls. I actually didn't mind that much, because I was still the best PC of the group. The other members included 3 rogues, and eventually we added a Wizard. The Wizard may have been powerful had we not unanimously agreed that new characters must start at level 1, despite where the rest of the group is. So he kinda lagged for a bit.

One rogue died, and he rerolled as a Half-Elf Monk. Another died, and he played a Kobold Barbarian. They all caught up, but my character managed to stay very useful.

My character got to level 6 as a Fighter, and I then decided "SOMEBODY in this group needs to be able to heal, since I get hurt a lot". So, I multiclassed to Cleric. I had already put my level 4 point in WIS (I had considered grabbing WIS-based spellcasting) anyway. Of course, while my spells were limited, I soon learned to make the best of my buffs.

This group played in the same homebrew world for as long as it remained together. My character was the only one to survive from the beginning of the campaign all the way to the end of the group's sessions (He got to Fighter6/Cleric6). The rest were killed by either the BBEG, his minions, or PCs who turned-coat to join his cause (I should note we were all pretty much the same level, too). Well, actually, the kobold's death wasn't absolutely certain - just alluded to (that player arranged something because he wanted to "go out" in a cool way, and the campaign was over by then anyway).

In the end, my character was described to have left the final scene alone, walking towards a setting sun (yes, the BBEG was defeated, if barely).

So, yeah, I guess that turned out pretty well. But I suppose, things would have been different if I wasn't the only semi-competent player.

Tengu
2008-05-07, 09:38 PM
In a one-shot game of Dragonfist (AD&D-based game that is supposed to reflect Wuxia movies. I do not recommend it, not very good) I had a mage with 9 strength, 14 intelligence and 10-11 in all other stats. He didn't die.

Jayabalard
2008-05-07, 09:38 PM
6/15/10/9/7/12 as I recall.

Griffin131
2008-05-07, 09:39 PM
Back in 2e, I played a figher with 18/00 14 3 10 9 10. Thad fell on his face... a lot. But whatever he hit, died.

Ponce
2008-05-07, 09:49 PM
The elite array.

The DM let me used the elite array after I rolled 15,10,10,10,10,8. Didn't want to keep that.

RTGoodman
2008-05-07, 10:16 PM
After my Half-Orc Monk with decent stats died, my DM made me roll all my stats, in order, before picking my new class. I ended up with 11, 13, 12, 10, 17, 11, or something like that. So , with my only decent score in Wisdom, I (of course) played a Druid (and was a Dwarf so I could at least get some HP).

EDIT: Though, I don't know if that one really counts - that group only ever played for like a session and a half after that.

vrellum
2008-05-07, 10:17 PM
My current character is a human wizard 4 with

Str 7
Dex 8
Con 11
Wis 8
Int 14 (+1 at 4th level)
Chr 11

HP 11

Definately the worst character that I've kept.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-07, 11:18 PM
One of my filthy useless groups thinks that D&D is all about rolling stats, and doing what you can. So everyone is forced to keep their 4d6 drop lowest, which since one guy rolls straight 14s and up every time, and everyone else gets 2-3 16s, isn't a problem. But I go through characters faster because I can't stand playing the same character after they die. I also die quite a bit because the DM has monsters/NPCs target the most powerful characters all the time.

SO bottom line this all leads up to:

7/8/9/10/12/14

Which is fine because I just played an anthropomorphic Bat Druid that was way more powerful then anyone else.

Who of course died 4 sessions later tanking the seven Mindflayers. Because he rolled a 1. But my companion finished tanking the rest of the encounter and then I got to roll up a Malconvoker Wizard.

TheCountAlucard
2008-05-07, 11:59 PM
I admit, I'm a DM, not a player, so I'm actually posting the worst stats one of my players has ever kept.

14/14/12/10/11/10

Not great stats, since he was wanting a Barbarian, but he stuck with his scores and seems okay...

TheOOB
2008-05-08, 12:15 AM
Hmm,
8 Str, 11 Dex, 9 Con, 16 Int, 6 Wis, 12 Cha

Using organic rolling, was a smart hero in d20 modern.

Yeah...that character sucked.

SoD
2008-05-08, 12:26 AM
Hmm, let me think...I don't think I've really had an awful character so far, my stat rolls, although not always brilliant, have always been at least average. The most difficult one to get to survive: a chitine paladin of freedom (and we'd cut out the racial HD). A first level character in a third level party...I took a hit...from a commoner, and was dropped to half hit points. I responded by cracking my four whip daggers at him, one with a smite evil attached. First three missed, awfully (two natural one's, I dropped one of them!), the last one critted. And then the watch turned up, with me and my allies surrounded by a bunch of dead/unconcious commoners.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-08, 12:28 AM
broken VoP Monk.

You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.

Edit: Elite array, for me.

Swordguy
2008-05-08, 12:29 AM
Str 9
Dex 6
Con 5
Int 6
Wis 7
Cha 7

2nd edition human Fighter, 3d6 in that order. This was my reroll from the previous result (Mulligan rule) which, due to a high score of a 6, qualified for no classes in the game.

Have I mentioned that my average d6 roll (5000 rolls against a backing, 10 sets of 500 with each set using different dice) is a 1.84? :smallfurious:

Ellisthion
2008-05-08, 12:33 AM
It wasn't me, but I was running the game:

1st Edition. Temple of Elemental Evil.

Rolls: 3/3/3/5/4/18

Technically, that doesn't qualify for ANY class in 1st Edition: the character can't even exist, since there weren't NPC rules. Nevertheless, the player attempted to go at it, as a Fighter. Got lucky a few times, hid behind the fighters, and managed to kill a few zombies. Heh. Fortunately for him, we didn't go through the whole thing, only the moat house, but he survived through it.

Drammel
2008-05-08, 12:48 AM
Str 12
Dex 17
Con 9
Int 6
Wis 12
Cha 12

This after Halfling Racial adjustments. My DM let me reroll four sets of 4d6, drop the lowest, before we decided this was as good as it gets. I've been on point buy ever since. Frankly, I opted for the subpar Con in the hopes that the character would die and I could reroll something new on a better day. Hence the wacky stat and class choices.

However, this Gestault Monk//Druid grew on me because of the backstory. He was nursed by wolves and then raised by Orcs. Mind you, not as another Orc, but as a pet. The pet of our party Cleric//Rogue (who incedentally rolled three 18's), whom like all good Clerics of Grummish, consider all other races inferior. Thus my poor young halfling got kicked around a lot by the Orcs. Being kicked in the head as a young child tends to lower one's Int score, justifying the 6. One learns to survie one's environment (Wis 12) and dodge feet as well (Dex 17). He is also convinced beyond a shadow of a reason that he's an Orc.

Despite hoping he would die the first few sessions, he kept surviving by fluke and by roleplaying the unexpected and comedic. I roleplayed a mesh of a cute puppy // Gir from Invader Zim. There is nothing like fetching a wand of wonders because you think its a stick, accidentally triggering it, resulting in a moose springing forth, ramming a buring hedge, slaming into the wounded black dragon that was chasing us, trapping it in a blaze of foliage and slaying the beast. After several encounters like this, and our party members taking a few deaths, we realized my monk was the only one that kept firmly in the land of the living. He had turned into the underhalfling that the entire party was rooting for. I suspect that our DM secretly committed the greatest sin of DMery and fell in love with him too.

So let that be a lesson, you can optimize all you want and the DM can conjure up something twice as potent. However, all it takes is a retarded halfling with a penchant for licking cursed runes to slay a DM's heart. Thus he became him immortal.

Sir Enigma
2008-05-08, 06:33 AM
Something like:

STR 6
DEX 8
CON 10
INT 5
WIS 6
CHA 11

This was a 2nd edition, 3d6-in-order character, and the ONLY way I was able to play it was to make it an elf or halfling rogue. I also rolled 1 HP (we weren't using max at 1st level or the -10 HP death threshold), so he died in the first encounter.

SMEE
2008-05-08, 06:41 AM
At ADnD 2nd Edition:

Elf, venerable age:

Str 6, Dex 8, Con 4, Int 21, Wis 19, Cha 16

It wasn't too bad, and I had lots of fun playing it.
Right now I'm playing a cloistered cleric at 3.5 with the following stats:

Str 14, Dex 6, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 16, Cha 14

32 point buy with the pathetic flaw to drop dex to 6.

Saph
2008-05-08, 07:06 AM
7, 10, 10, 12, 13, 15. So, about point buy 20.

The character proceeded to outlive everyone in her party and everyone in her next party. I kept playing her from game to game, having to rebuild her twice to meet new campaign requirements, until it became a running joke that the rest of the group could be hit with a nuclear weapon and she'd still survive somehow. I finally retired her at level 12, by which point she'd survived around 25 deaths of other PCs, including three TPKs of everyone except her.

The lesson I learned: stronger is not always better. An apparently weak character can survive longer and be a lot more fun than a powerhouse - if you play smart.

- Saph

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-08, 07:08 AM
Once, I got three's on everything...

And one 18. I had never played a wizard so squishy before. The sad thing? He still dominated the rest of the group in power.

Triaxx
2008-05-08, 07:20 AM
Let's see worst stat's I've kept. Just after we changed to 3.5, normal 4d6, in order, but with an option to switch any two.

10, 6, 4, 9, 18, 7

the plan had been to play a sorceror. Instead I just swapped the eighteen for the 4, and played a rogue. I spent all my time sneaking within 30' and then running for the protection of the front line. Took my second level in Barbarian for some HP and move speed.

Incredibly fun, right up until that last fort save.

Xefas
2008-05-08, 07:23 AM
This was a 2nd edition, 3d6-in-order character, and the ONLY way I was able to play it was to make it an elf or halfling rogue. I also rolled 1 HP (we weren't using max at 1st level or the -10 HP death threshold), so he died in the first encounter.

I've never been a player in a game that wasn't Point Buy, but back when I DMed 2nd edition, it was all the "3d6 in order, deal with it" generation method.

I had a player who was absolutely abysmal at rolling hit points. He had a level 6 Cleric at one time that had 12 hit points, or a level 3 Ranger with 5 hit points. It was terrible.

In fact, I think it was his constant dieing at the drop of a hat that prompted my group to embrace point buy and fixed hit points in 3rd edition so vehemently.

I still can't fully understand why people think that all the randomness is more fun compared to playing the character you want to play. Not because I can't wrap my head around the concept- I get that much, but I've never had a good experience with it, so I can't help but get the impression they're all lying to me for some nefarious reason.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-08, 07:56 AM
Not D&D, but 3d6 in order gave me something like:
8, 7, 9, 10, 5, 8, 6, 9, 15

The 5 was Int, the 15 was Will. We ruled he was too stupid to realize when others were trying to control him.

Oh, and he technically wasn't fluent in any language. :smallfurious: I kept him alive for 5 months, then retired him. 2 weeks later, I couldn't find my character sheet for his replacement, so I pulled him out for the session. He got critted and died. I was a bit annoyed.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-08, 10:03 AM
I still can't fully understand why people think that all the randomness is more fun compared to playing the character you want to play. Not because I can't wrap my head around the concept- I get that much, but I've never had a good experience with it, so I can't help but get the impression they're all lying to me for some nefarious reason.

I agree, I have over 100 characters that I want to play in a list, and between them I could play almost any rolled stats (Wildshape Ranger/Master of Many Forms can really be nearly anything) but I still don't understand how deliberately forcing party imbalance and preventing people from playing the characters they want is a good thing.

kc0bbq
2008-05-08, 11:41 AM
It wasn't me, but I was running the game:

1st Edition. Temple of Elemental Evil.

Rolls: 3/3/3/5/4/18

Technically, that doesn't qualify for ANY class in 1st Edition: the character can't even exist, since there weren't NPC rules. 1st ed you qualify for thief. Thief was the only class that did not require a 9 minimum in their prime requisite at the very least, IIRC.

Would have been the worst thief in existance, but charming and well liked, in that village idiot sort of way. He'd have made a good beggar.

Mr. Friendly
2008-05-08, 11:50 AM
18(22)/12(10)/16(18)/3(1)/6(4)/5(1)

Homebrewed "neanderthal" type race of mutants.

Tengu
2008-05-08, 11:51 AM
I still can't fully understand why people think that all the randomness is more fun compared to playing the character you want to play. Not because I can't wrap my head around the concept- I get that much, but I've never had a good experience with it, so I can't help but get the impression they're all lying to me for some nefarious reason.

I can only assume nostalgia - it's a very strong force in almost every human, and doubly so in DND fans. Which is the reason why are there still so many relics of the past in this game that other systems got rid of ages ago, and why everyone whines about 4e which finally gets rid of most of these relics.

*runs away hur-hurring*

Swordguy
2008-05-08, 12:04 PM
I agree, I have over 100 characters that I want to play in a list, and between them I could play almost any rolled stats (Wildshape Ranger/Master of Many Forms can really be nearly anything) but I still don't understand how deliberately forcing party imbalance and preventing people from playing the characters they want is a good thing.

Similarly, I can't help but notice that a lot of these "lowest" stats people've kept are in actually pretty darn good statlines.

14 16 11 12 15 10 - This is not a bad set of rolls.
14 12 12 11 9 12 - neither is this, though it's a little boring - it's not bad
15 15 12 10 11 8 - for a first level fighter? Again, this is not a bad roll.
14 14 12 10 11 10 - 1st level barbarian here. Not bad, good room to grow upwards.

Seriously, what is with the expectation that people have large bonuses in every category now? Whoops! It doesn't average a 14! It's a bad statline - reroll! What I'm getting from this thread is that people aren't generally having fun with even average rolls - forget actively bad ones. Why do you HAVE to have an 18 in your primary stat to make it a "good" roll? When did "fun" become synonymus with "big bonuses"? Did I miss a memo?

I mean, if you just want the biggest bonus in every category, why not act like you're playing SSI games and give yourself 18s in every stat? That way you don't have any weaknesses and you'll evidently have more "fun". (Yes, this is a hyperbolic argument. Get over it.)

Zweanslord
2008-05-08, 12:10 PM
4d6, drop lowest.
I got: 4, 8, 8, 8, 14, 15.

I chose to keep it, since I found it a nice challenge. We started at level 5 and I opted to become an undead necropolitan (so one level lower) and then level 3 wizard/level 1 cleric, heading towards true necromancer.

Stats became: 8 str, 8 dex, 4 con (but became - due to undead necropolitan), 16 int (15+1lvl), 14 wis, 8 cha.

Then used a +2 wis item to up wis to 16. That was a nice background to describe. With an original 4 con and weak other stats, the guy was quite flawed, heh. While the game did not last long enough to get more than 1 level, I had great fun with the character, despite being obviously weaker.

Swordguy
2008-05-08, 12:17 PM
4d6, drop lowest.
I chose to keep it, since I found it a nice challenge. We started at level 5 and I opted to become an undead necropolitan

What is that? The ice cream of the undead?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-08, 12:28 PM
One of the most badass races out there. Undead, and not necessarily evil, to boot.

Xefas
2008-05-08, 12:30 PM
What is that? The ice cream of the undead?

It's Skeleton, Zombie, and Ghost together.

Everyone just eats the Ghost and sticks the rest back in the freezer, though.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-08, 12:33 PM
Similarly, I can't help but notice that a lot of these "lowest" stats people've kept are in actually pretty darn good statlines.

Depends on what game you are playing. I know that most of those statlines would be very dead characters in my games.

In 3.5, Casters are king, and to get good spells per day and saving throws that mean anything, you need high stats. Non-casters on the other hand, need lots of better stats to even compare to an 18/10/10/10/10/10 caster.

Yeah if you want to play a low power game where the DM pulls punches or throws a bunch of humanoids with bad stats at you that's one thing. But if you want to actually be able to compete with Dragons and Outsiders after level 10, well you need something worth writing home about. If you start with a 14 Str 12 Con Fighter, you can expect to die the first time a Dragon decides to sit on you.

The_Blue_Sorceress
2008-05-08, 12:50 PM
Similarly, I can't help but notice that a lot of these "lowest" stats people've kept are in actually pretty darn good statlines.

14 16 11 12 15 10 - This is not a bad set of rolls.
14 12 12 11 9 12 - neither is this, though it's a little boring - it's not bad.


These are the lowest stats I've rolled, and you're right, they're not bad. So I kept them.

I think that first set was modified by an increse in dex and wis though... so it was probably 14 15 11 12 14 10 before I got stat bumps at level 4 and level 8. Still, not bad.

Toying around, I've rolled lower (sometimes, for fun, I just roll sets of stats to see what I come up with) but that's literally the worst I've done.

valadil
2008-05-08, 12:51 PM
This was a while ago (2nd ed) so I can't remember the middle stats. In order I had 4 ? ? ? 11 15. Pootastic.

Deepblue706
2008-05-08, 12:55 PM
Similarly, I can't help but notice that a lot of these "lowest" stats people've kept are in actually pretty darn good statlines.

14 16 11 12 15 10 - This is not a bad set of rolls.
14 12 12 11 9 12 - neither is this, though it's a little boring - it's not bad
15 15 12 10 11 8 - for a first level fighter? Again, this is not a bad roll.
14 14 12 10 11 10 - 1st level barbarian here. Not bad, good room to grow upwards.

Seriously, what is with the expectation that people have large bonuses in every category now? Whoops! It doesn't average a 14! It's a bad statline - reroll! What I'm getting from this thread is that people aren't generally having fun with even average rolls - forget actively bad ones. Why do you HAVE to have an 18 in your primary stat to make it a "good" roll? When did "fun" become synonymus with "big bonuses"? Did I miss a memo?

I mean, if you just want the biggest bonus in every category, why not act like you're playing SSI games and give yourself 18s in every stat? That way you don't have any weaknesses and you'll evidently have more "fun". (Yes, this is a hyperbolic argument. Get over it.)

I bolded the entry about my character.

That was after adjustments, so originally 15 13 14 11 10 8. Pretty much the elite array. I never said "OMG THAT WAS SUCH A TERRIBLE SET!" It just happened to be the lowest set I've played. This IS a thread about your lowest set, and how it worked out for you, right? If you read my post, I said it actually worked out fine - although everyone else was at least at a value of 28.

Just because it happens to be the lowest set I accepted wasn't that bad doesn't mean that my lower rolls were also acceptable. Unless, you think 12 11 8 9 4 3 makes for a fun time when everyone else has point buy values of over 30. I really don't make that many characters - I don't see why you had to jump to conclusions about my attitude (and everyone else's) and deny the possibility of simply not getting that many moderate sets.

I'd also like to point out that I reroll when I get values that I deem too high, as well.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-05-08, 01:30 PM
Probably something like 16 13 12 10 9 8, back in oD&D. The 16 was the only one that gave any kind of bonus (+2 to hit and damage, I think?). A Lawful Fighter. My first and probably longest-played character. I lost the charsheet like eight times and had to recreate the character each time.

In D&D 3E, I had a paladin with 11, 11, 11, 11, 16, and 16 in stats. (Works out to 32 points, but is still amazingly bad, especially for a four or five-stat MAD class like paladin.) I wanted to play a paladin, and I damn well did. By level 9, I was able to get Power Attack! Happy day!

Swooper
2008-05-08, 02:06 PM
str 5
dex 14
con 9
int 18
wis 11
cha 9

Human generalist wizard back in 3.0, named Garfield. This is at level 9, so presumably I've put two advances into int, meaning I rolled a 16 there. I think I may have rolled higher but lowered it voluntarily, actually... Anyway, this character was based loosely on Terry Pratchett's Rincewind. Suffice to say, his favourite spell was Expeditious Retreat... He was fun to play, though. And lived, too, but that's not unusual in my group - we're usually unwilling to kill PCs. Or, the main DM is anyway.

Zweanslord
2008-05-08, 02:35 PM
Necropolitan is a template for humanoids/monstrous humanoids in Libris Mortis. Basically it turns the person undead, allows for natural healing (by resting), gives a bit of turn resistance and a small bonus to resist control undead spells. This costs a level +1k xp and after that you must still have at least 1xp after that or be killed. It fits the concept for necromancer well and at least got rid of the 4 in the con stat for the character.

Kizara
2008-05-08, 05:06 PM
My first long-running character, Lord Rilliard Brentwood, had 12, 14, 16, 16, 8, 18 and was a ftr 2/sorc 10. He nonetheless was pretty powerful, due to some bad DM decisions and us not knowing how casting worked (Cha mod to spells known and directly to per day, double damage from fire spells, rod that let you mass store fire spells and then nuke someone with all of them). Was a good character though and had alot of fun with it.

My next big character was Kizara. A vampiric cleric of Vecna, that had 18, 18, -, 18, 18, 18 due to me tanking my 'Con' to like 3 and generally rolling well. Due to extremely monty-haulness of campaign and a bunch of DM-fiat abilities (character had something like 12 million wealth, 6 artifacts and an ECL 15 template that was costed at ECL 5) character was stupidly powerful. Still, my most memorable and fun campaign ever, even if it was literally a joke by the end of it. Now in our group "Kizara" is synonymous with being overpowered and/or monty-haul.

My current character is Clarissa Heartsbane, a LE gestalt (bunch of crazy melee multiclassing)//cleric 10/contemplative 2 with 18, 10, 18, 15, 18, 18 originally. Furthermore, due to my now much greater skill with optimization, she is obscenely powerful with her IotSV cohort.


Also, I second the people that say "just play the character you want to play". Rolling stats can be fun, but honestly I don't want a randomly generated character, I want the character that I want to play.

Enlong
2008-05-08, 05:17 PM
I don't exactly have a worst stats, but I do have a strangest stats, ones that I honestly rolled just now with a single D6.

1,6,3,6 15
1,6,3,6 15
1,6,4,5 15
1,6,4,5 15
1,6,3,3 12
1,6,2,4 12

That's right. Four 15s, two 12s, and all six rolls had a 6 and a 1. How freaky is that? (and like, one of the only rolls for which I have no character to apply them to.)

Deepblue706
2008-05-08, 07:21 PM
That's right. Four 15s, two 12s, and all six rolls had a 6 and a 1. How freaky is that? (and like, one of the only rolls for which I have no character to apply them to.)

I once got all 15's. I made him a Wizard. It was fun to break stereotypes, and run around hitting things and grappling. The campaign didn't last very long, but I was well noted among the players for playing as gutsy as the Barbarian of the group. Yes, I got wounded a lot, but I managed to pull through to the end. Well, with the help of Pete, my toad familiar, of course.

Koji
2008-05-08, 08:07 PM
Any time I've ever played in a roll game, I got kind of mediocre stats, someone got really crappy stats, and one guy was superman. It was annoying.

Abjurer
2008-05-08, 08:22 PM
A very fun character I played once was a venerable dwarvish druid with a DEX score of 1. Yeah, 1. I rolled, like, five, and then he takes massive penalties for being ancient, but it can't drop below 1. So his armor class was 5. It doubled when he was flatfooted.

Of course, then he shapeshifted into the form of a polar bear, and kept all his ludicrously high mental stats and picked up the physical stats of, well... a polar bear. = D

Druids are funny.

FMArthur
2008-05-08, 09:09 PM
Wow, some of those a pretty bad. Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of having a group that sees me as a sane person after I suggest point buy or a fixed array (thought I still do from time to time, to no avail), so I'm going to actually play this 8/13/11/10/9/8 abomination whether I want to or not. In any case, I don't think it'll work out too badly, despite having stats averaging lower than a peasant. I'm being stuck with them because of how well my Swordsage performed last game, because maybe I'm good enough at finding useful stuff to cope with the handicap. Maybe it's even true.

You know what? I think I'll be a Commoner 12 out of spite.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-08, 09:21 PM
A very fun character I played once was a venerable dwarvish druid with a DEX score of 1. Yeah, 1. I rolled, like, five, and then he takes massive penalties for being ancient, but it can't drop below 1. So his armor class was 5. It doubled when he was flatfooted.

Of course, then he shapeshifted into the form of a polar bear, and kept all his ludicrously high mental stats and picked up the physical stats of, well... a polar bear. = D

Druids are funny.

Dex Penalties to AC apply even when flatfooted.

TheThan
2008-05-08, 09:25 PM
I once Dmed a character with 3 int and 6 wisdom. (think that’s about it). He was a half orc named Gorshak the Grim.
During the rather short lived adventure he discovered he liked beer.

Danzaver
2008-05-08, 09:34 PM
Once, for a joke game I made a kobold who thought he was a paladin. his stats were mostly around 8 to 10 - the highest was 12 and the lowest was 6.

I ended up really enjoying playing him. His low stats didn't really come into it, because whenever there was something difficult or dangerous to do, he would find some "greater evil" to battle somewhere away from all the hard work (the evil involved was usually hunger or wanting to sleep).

I enjoyed him so much that when 3e came out and enyone could be a paladin, I actually remade him with fairly good stats as a real paladin, and he was one of my favourite characters of all time.

Sir Ooglin Ratlicker, Hero of Kobolkin (picture Sir Diddimus from The Labyrinth).

Saph
2008-05-09, 07:54 AM
Depends on what game you are playing. I know that most of those statlines would be very dead characters in my games.

In 3.5, Casters are king, and to get good spells per day and saving throws that mean anything, you need high stats. Non-casters on the other hand, need lots of better stats to even compare to an 18/10/10/10/10/10 caster.

Yeah if you want to play a low power game where the DM pulls punches or throws a bunch of humanoids with bad stats at you that's one thing. But if you want to actually be able to compete with Dragons and Outsiders after level 10, well you need something worth writing home about.

No, you don't. In its original tests, D&D 3rd ed. was balanced for Elite Array. All the playtesters were using that 'low-power' stat set - and winning with it.

Using a 40 point buy (or whatever) and then playing against standard MM enemies is kind of like playing D&D on the 'Easy' setting. It's fine for new players, but honestly, once you've been round the block a few times you should be able to make a competent character without an 18 in your primary stat.

- Saph

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-09, 08:28 AM
No, you don't. In its original tests, D&D 3rd ed. was balanced for Elite Array. All the playtesters were using that 'low-power' stat set - and winning with it.

Using a 40 point buy (or whatever) and then playing against standard MM enemies is kind of like playing D&D on the 'Easy' setting. It's fine for new players, but honestly, once you've been round the block a few times you should be able to make a competent character without an 18 in your primary stat.

And it was also playtested with all real enemies being played with kid gloves. I'd love to see you survive 3 encounters with a character using the elite array.

Fixer
2008-05-09, 08:47 AM
My scores were straight 10s. At every 4th level he put his bonus attribute into a different score so that, by level 12, he had three 10s and three 11s. He was a fighter/rogue/barbarian I named Joe Dawn. In his party, he was the only character who never died and had to be ressurrected (he wouldn't have anyway, he was near-suicidal and focused on vengeance against the dragon who killed his family).

The lesson I learned: stronger is not always better. An apparently weak character can survive longer and be a lot more fun than a powerhouse - if you play smart.Or, if you are really really lucky.

Saph
2008-05-09, 08:50 AM
And it was also playtested with all real enemies being played with kid gloves. I'd love to see you survive 3 encounters with a character using the elite array.

*laughs* Read my post on page 1. :P

Lots of people think they 'need' high stats to play a character, when the truth is they've just never made an effort to come up with alternatives. It's much more fun to win a battle with limited resources than to sledgehammer it, and it teaches you more as well.

- Saph

Binky
2008-05-09, 09:10 AM
Probably my ol' Chaotic Evil Alienist.
Str: 6(ish)
Dex: About the same.
Con: About the twelve area methinks.
Int: 14
Wis: 4
Cha: (After a lot of effort) 24ish.

He spent the vast majority of his time talking to his familiar or himself.
The rest of the party didn't like him and only really kept him along because periodically he'd go crazy and summon a Psuedonatural Rhino and start carpet bombing the area with spells.

Unfortuanately, one of the characters got replaced by a paladin who smote him into the ground so quick it hurt...

Ralfarius
2008-05-09, 09:18 AM
I recall, one time, rolling up a mighty:

10, 11, 11, 9, 10, 8

I thought it was so hilarious that I insisted upon using these stats to make a human commoner. Level 4, somehow. He had proficiency in craft: basket weaving for some extra money on the side. He was also the unfortunate individual the local magistrate always picked to deal with trouble when adventurers weren't about. Having been lucky enough to survive, he actually advanced those levels and picked up a set of glamered leather armor and a sweet short spear.

One of the other players put together a half-ogre whom befriended said farmer, and they had several amusing adventures together.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-05-09, 10:51 AM
And it was also playtested with all real enemies being played with kid gloves. I'd love to see you survive 3 encounters with a character using the elite array.

Er, sure. Come watch my group play? I don't pull punches, and they all have the elite array, mostly. (Unless we're playing like Dark Sun, where they don't get any magic items, so they need high stats to compensate.)

It works out perfectly fine, unless you want to play a paladin.

The_Blue_Sorceress
2008-05-09, 11:19 AM
And it was also playtested with all real enemies being played with kid gloves. I'd love to see you survive 3 encounters with a character using the elite array.

Been there done that, did it for 8 levels with a DM that took distinct pleasure in killing off characters in moments of player stupidity. Maybe your DM is just mean.

-Blue

wodan46
2008-05-09, 12:49 PM
I don't think its possible to have less than 18 HP at 1st level in Core 4th edition. Can have up to 35 HP, if you get 20 Con and are a Fighter. I guess this era of bad stats will be over then.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-09, 02:18 PM
*laughs* Read my post on page 1. :P

Lots of people think they 'need' high stats to play a character, when the truth is they've just never made an effort to come up with alternatives. It's much more fun to win a battle with limited resources than to sledgehammer it, and it teaches you more as well.

I already read your post, I don't care how much your DM "rewards creativity" by letting you walk all over enemies, or escape from the enemies that could easily have killed you. I'm talking about in a real game, where the DM doesn't pull punches.

I invite all of you who disagree to make characters using the elite array that I will kill using basic monsters from the Monster Manual of the appropriate CR, played as they should be instead of as walking targets.


Er, sure. Come watch my group play? I don't pull punches, and they all have the elite array, mostly.

Playing the monsters stupidly for any reason negates the argument. I don't care why you do it, but you do.


Been there done that, did it for 8 levels with a DM that took distinct pleasure in killing off characters in moments of player stupidity. Maybe your DM is just mean.

My DMs are walking carpets, I tone it down and could still solo most of their encounters with straight 3s and a single 10 for Con. But when I DM I don't treat monsters with Int scores higher then the PCs as idiots who let themselves get malled without using half their resources.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-05-09, 06:29 PM
Playing the monsters stupidly for any reason negates the argument. I don't care why you do it, but you do.

Your logic is brilliant.

"You can't succeed with the elite array, unless monsters are played stupidly. This is proven by ... nothing, and if you say your players do fine with the elite array, you must be playing the monster stupidly."

Thanks for trolling.

Pironious
2008-05-09, 07:05 PM
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.

Well he certainly didn't break his vow.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-09, 07:39 PM
Your logic is brilliant.

"You can't succeed with the elite array, unless monsters are played stupidly. This is proven by ... nothing, and if you say your players do fine with the elite array, you must be playing the monster stupidly."

Thanks for trolling.

Or you could take me up on my offer to play in a campaign with intelligently played monsters that kill your character that uses the elite array.

My argument is backed up by looking at various numbers in the game, every experience I've ever had, and playtest reports that prove the game is balance when Monsters are played like idiots and PCs have the elite array (which supports my theory that intelligently played monsters are going to kill PCs with the elite array).

Your opinion is based on the fact that in games you've played the elite array is fine, and that in playtest reports stupid monsters where balanced when compared to PCs using the elite array. Both of which are missing a crucial part of my argument: Intelligently played monsters.

Swordguy
2008-05-09, 07:56 PM
I already read your post, I don't care how much your DM "rewards creativity" by letting you walk all over enemies, or escape from the enemies that could easily have killed you. I'm talking about in a real game, where the DM doesn't pull punches.


Wow. Judgmental much?

CLEARLY someone should have had you help design the game, since, after all, your method of play is the only possible, legitimate game style to ever see the light of day. We millions of other players are clearly ALL WRONG, and you are right. You are the one true light in a vast sea of darkness and poorly-hygenic misery. I see it now. Thank you for opening my eyes to the enlightenment that you embody.

UserClone
2008-05-09, 08:16 PM
Ok, CoV. Find me three teammates and I am in. Give me a starting level. And we'll do it right here on GiTP. PM me when you start the IC/OoC threads.

Kizara
2008-05-09, 08:33 PM
Ok, CoV. Find me three teammates and I am in. Give me a starting level. And we'll do it right here on GiTP. PM me when you start the IC/OoC threads.

Could I be notified as well? I don't want to play a gimped character, but I'd like to watch him try.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-09, 08:46 PM
Link the threads here, I'd like to watch.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-09, 08:46 PM
Ok, CoV. Find me three teammates and I am in. Give me a starting level. And we'll do it right here on GiTP. PM me when you start the IC/OoC threads.

Well that may be very difficult or very easy depending on whether Swordguy/Saph/Tsotha-lanti/and The_Blue_Sorceress are willing to join you.

Ideally I'd play this at a few levels 5/10/15, or something similar.


Wow. Judgmental much?

Yes, very.


CLEARLY someone should have had you help design the game, since, after all, your method of play is the only possible, legitimate game style to ever see the light of day. We millions of other players are clearly ALL WRONG, and you are right. You are the one true light in a vast sea of darkness and poorly-hygenic misery. I see it now. Thank you for opening my eyes to the enlightenment that you embody.

Or you could stop throwing up elaborate and insulting Strawman arguments and just accept the fact that I find the many games that are played with smarter more dangerous enemies to be better then the many games in which enemies are just speed bumps that get in the way of the all important plot, and are therefore played with all the strategy and tactics of the average speed bump. Obviously there is a range between the extremes, and just as obviously I prefer things much closer to one side then the other.

The_Blue_Sorceress
2008-05-09, 08:59 PM
My DMs are walking carpets, I tone it down and could still solo most of their encounters with straight 3s and a single 10 for Con. But when I DM I don't treat monsters with Int scores higher then the PCs as idiots who let themselves get malled without using half their resources.

We earned every victory. My DM sure didn't pull punches, and he played his monsters smart. We were always up against above party-level encounters and we lost a lot of characters. Mine just happened to be lucky.

Blue

Angel in Black
2008-05-09, 09:31 PM
14
10
10
13
8
6

Equivalent: 15 point buy. Yeah, it sucked, but it was an interesting game. Human fighter, btw. It was a first level and no-one made a front liner.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-09, 10:08 PM
We earned every victory. My DM sure didn't pull punches, and he played his monsters smart. We were always up against above party-level encounters and we lost a lot of characters. Mine just happened to be lucky.

And I'm of course going to believe that your DM played the monsters up to the standards I expect because...Oh right, I won't.

Feel free to join in the game and prove it against monsters that I can be 100% sure are playing to my standards.

Pie Guy
2008-05-09, 10:13 PM
I was a monk. I was also a noob, and, having already used d20s to roll out my stats, my group let me keep them. I had 2 twenties, a 16, a 17, a 4, and an 8.

Of course, I put the 4 in cha and the 8 in int. I had almost no skillpoints and all the monsters attacked me, my dm claiming "I was so ugly" because of my low cha.
...And I was doing about 15 damage a round.

But I've only had three characters so far, so no very low stats yet.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-09, 10:16 PM
Feel free to join in the game and prove it against monsters that I can be 100% sure are playing to my standards.

Anyone ever remember when the goal of the game was to have fun, not to "win"?

CoV reminds me of the kids in MMOs that have to get the best Phat Lewt and then use it on the low level casual players in PvP just to prove that they are "better"... instead of just playing the game.

UserClone
2008-05-09, 10:17 PM
TBS, are you willing to join me? Kizara, the whole point is that Elite Array characters aren't gimped, you are merely playing D&D on easy mode.:smalltongue:
Also, CoV: Why not start a recruiting thread in PbP, give a quick overview of what the "game" is about, and link this thread. Then link that thread on this one. This could be a lot of fun.:smallsmile:

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-09, 10:25 PM
Anyone ever remember when the goal of the game was to have fun, not to "win"?

CoV reminds me of the kids in MMOs that have to get the best Phat Lewt and then use it on the low level casual players in PvP just to prove that they are "better"... instead of just playing the game.

I never claimed one can't "have fun" with the elite array, so I have no reason to defend such an assertion.

I did state that one can't compete with well played monsters of the appropriate CR with the elite array, and therefore that is all I am addressing.

I have no need to prove I am "better" then everyone else, only to demonstrate that the elite array requires DMs to play monsters as doormats to keep their players alive.

I personally don't have fun knowing that the monsters are being played as doormats, or playing them as such, so I prefer a game with intelligent monsters/NPCs, and higher stats.

However, because I was accused of having no basis for my statements, (and lacking the ability to mentally transmit my experience into others) I am willing to DM a game for a party using the elite array, who will then, if I am correct (which of course I believe I am), have the same experience that I have.

UserClone
2008-05-09, 10:40 PM
CoV: Without any agenda other than pure curiousity, I would like to ask you a question: How old are you?
(Also, please have this game; I'm genuinely pretty excited about it, mostly because I enjoy arguments and I'm curious how this would turn out. Strangely, I am looking at a Wildshape, Speak With Animals, Pounce(if you'll allow it), Distracting Attack, Swift Hunter Ranger5/Warshaper4/Scout4/Ranger2, and NOT a spellcaster. So sue me.)

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-09, 11:31 PM
Game is here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80180), if any of you would like to show me how wrong I am.




CoV: Without any agenda other than pure curiousity, I would like to ask you a question: How old are you?
(Also, please have this game; I'm genuinely pretty excited about it, mostly because I enjoy arguments and I'm curious how this would turn out. Strangely, I am looking at a Wildshape, Speak With Animals, Pounce(if you'll allow it), Distracting Attack, Swift Hunter Ranger5/Warshaper4/Scout4/Ranger2, and NOT a spellcaster. So sue me.)

Will definitely have the game if I can get it going, however no can do on that character, because the whole point is to show that the stats don't work, anything that allows you to replace your stats with something else would defeat the purpose.

I do not like to give my age out, because I find that a disturbing number of people believe that only those over a certain age have anything of value to listen to. Which is of course a complaint that only young people ever have, but I hope I remember it later.

I am 20, though that is not a very good reflection of my D&D experience since I was raised entirely on 2nd until some time a couple years ago when I switched to 3.5.

UserClone
2008-05-10, 12:18 AM
Actually I am only 24, so don't sweat it. I also am honest; curousity was really my only agenda. And what do you mean by "replace the stats?" ACFs only replace class features with other class features; they are not a function of stats.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-10, 12:25 AM
So, now that there is a game thread, can we go back to complaining about the evils of dice?:smallamused:

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-10, 12:32 AM
Actually I am only 24, so don't sweat it. I also am honest; curousity was really my only agenda. And what do you mean by "replace the stats?" ACFs only replace class features with other class features; they are not a function of stats.

Not saying you in particular, just that Swordguy for example, often sounds like a 2e grognard, a group that has a high correlation with people who don't respect the opinions of "those darned kids" in my experience. And while he might not be biased by the information, someone might be, and it doesn't really contribute to the discussion.

I'm fine with ACFs, I'm not fine with Wildshape. Because it replaces stats. That's my point. It doesn't matter if you have nothing but 3s and a 15 in Con, you Wildshape and now you have the stats of a real creature (those things that I am complaining are better then the elite array). So Wildshape/Polymorph/ect would give you a Str of 36 when the best most fighters of that level using the Elite Array could manage is 26.

Swordguy
2008-05-10, 03:51 AM
Not saying you in particular, just that Swordguy for example, often sounds like a 2e grognard, a group that has a high correlation with people who don't respect the opinions of "those darned kids" in my experience. And while he might not be biased by the information, someone might be, and it doesn't really contribute to the discussion.


Thank you*. :smallbiggrin:

For the record, I don't care how old you are. (For reference, I'm 28.) I disagree with your opinions, which have nothing to do with your age. If I may quote my drill sergeant...

"The ability to be wrong knows no age limit."

In a game like you describe (and which I tend to run), that where...


... games that are played with smarter more dangerous enemies to be better then the many games in which enemies are just speed bumps that get in the way of the all important plot...

...tend to require better tactics on the player's behalf out-of-game than they require good stats in-game. Or to look at in the reverse view, when playing a game like that, good stats are often used as a crutch to make up for a lack of tactical sense by the players. If a game requires both to survive in every encounter (which you strongly imply is how your games go), the game is probably being run at too difficult a level. The occasional chance to cut loose against mooks makes players feel like heroes - which is for many one of the main reasons for playing.

And grognard or not, flat-out saying that your way is the only "real" way to play is an incredibly perjorative comment, a half-step down from outright trolling. I can barely even conceive of the ego involved in that statement...and I know people who ran around in combat zones with no IBA because "they were too important to die". The only common rule about every RPG is that there is no single "right" way to play. Unless, I suppose, you're talking about an RPG-7 and "your way of playing" is pointing the bulbous end at your face. That's "wrong".


*On being a 2e "grognard"...I feel that the general "feel" of the game in 2e was far friendlier and less concerned with mechanical optimization than 3.x. While mechanical optimization was certainly possible, and certainly existed at a local level, I feel that the willingness of 3.x designers (remember: I'm related to a member of the 3.0 design team) to emphasize the fact that mechanical optimization was "the point" of D&D caters to the wrong sort of mindset. In short, I don't miss the complex 2e rules (though they were, I think, more DM-friendly in that the DM had a lot more latitude to show discretion), I miss the mindset of people just "rolling with it" and having mechanics come in as a secondary concern. That mindset, at least in my area, essentially vanished with the coming of 3e, and I feel the game has lost something important due to that. I don't think it's an accident that that paradigm shift occurred with the advent of 3e.

Talic
2008-05-10, 04:23 AM
For the record:

Intelligently played monsters do not equal lethally played monsters.

Expect goblins to lay traps, use hit and run, ambush, and fallback tactics.

Orcs may use ambush, but will likely use less in the way of traps, and will use heavier tactics.

Wolves will bait and lure, try to single enemies out, and then mass attack single foes, generally. Also, they'll generally stay out of firelight at night, and will often precede any attacks on humans with attacks on pack animals (horses, pack dogs, etc). Like most wild animals, they won't have fearless morale, and will likely scatter if several are dropped quickly, or they encounter somethng new. Some or all of the "usually won't" actions can be ignored based on the amount of time they've been harassing a group, and the level of starvation in the wolves.

Humanoids vary wildly, from simple naive warriors, who charge in, to masterminds that you oppose a dozen times before you even know you've been thwarting him.

Magical beasts? Keep the theme of the beast, and update it to reflect new abilities. If the critter doesn't know the party, don't assume it knows the party. If it's smart, assume it adapts to abilities used against it with frightening speed, even guessing future abilities based on ones it's seen.

Swordguy
2008-05-10, 05:03 AM
For the record:

Intelligently played monsters do not equal lethally played monsters.

Expect goblins to lay traps, use hit and run, ambush, and fallback tactics.

Orcs may use ambush, but will likely use less in the way of traps, and will use heavier tactics.
<snip>


Exactly. The best counter to all these are intelligent tactics that rely partially on a knowledge of out-of-game tactics. High ability scores aren't necessary, and can in fact be a crutch due to the fact that they allow you to blow through things more easily by relying on dice rolls and probability rather than soundly-thought-out and intelligent choices. The two aren't mutually exclusive, mind you.

If you're smart, you can take on Tucker's Kobolds with characters with their prime attribute at 14, secondary attribute at 12, and everything else at 10 because you've thought the battle through and come up with sound counters to what they can throw at you. you can also walk through them with massive ability scores (via never taking damage or simply soaking it all or having enough bonus spells that you won't run out). Both ways get you through...but high ability scores aren't necessary to the process.

Talic
2008-05-10, 05:19 AM
Exactly. The best counter to all these are intelligent tactics that rely partially on a knowledge of out-of-game tactics. High ability scores aren't necessary, and can in fact be a crutch due to the fact that they allow you to blow through things more easily by relying on dice rolls and probability rather than soundly-thought-out and intelligent choices. The two aren't mutually exclusive, mind you.

If you're smart, you can take on Tucker's Kobolds with characters with their prime attribute at 14, secondary attribute at 12, and everything else at 10 because you've thought the battle through and come up with sound counters to what they can throw at you. you can also walk through them with massive ability scores (via never taking damage or simply soaking it all or having enough bonus spells that you won't run out). Both ways get you through...but high ability scores aren't necessary to the process.

Depends on the traps that Tucker's kobolds use. Bear in mind, once you get to things like vampires?

A basic, run of the mill vampire, should be a thorn in the PC's side, give or take, for at least 5-7 sessions. At least. Why? Because the number 1 rule.

A monster may not know YOUR abilities, but it will know its own. Cats line up pounce, and choose smaller, more frail targets (picking the old and the young out of the herd). Bears maul with improved grab. Territorial animals will rush and intimidate creatures into leaving, switching targets to drive back intruders.

Vampires? They'll know their dominate ability, and their children of the night ability, and will make devastating use of each. They'll know what type of character will generally have a hard time resisting, and they'll know how to stay unnoticed.

So yes, sometimes an intelligently played monster IS lethally played.

But not always.

Saph
2008-05-10, 02:39 PM
I already read your post, I don't care how much your DM "rewards creativity" by letting you walk all over enemies, or escape from the enemies that could easily have killed you. I'm talking about in a real game, where the DM doesn't pull punches.

I don't know where you're getting this 'rewards creativity' stuff. You seem to be arguing with an imaginary person by now.


I invite all of you who disagree to make characters using the elite array that I will kill using basic monsters from the Monster Manual of the appropriate CR, played as they should be instead of as walking targets.

Slight problem here, CoV. A good DM needs to be a) fair and impartial, and b) committed to making sure the players have a good time. You haven't shown much evidence so far of either quality.

- Saph

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-10, 03:26 PM
I don't know where you're getting this 'rewards creativity' stuff. You seem to be arguing with an imaginary person by now.

Or perhaps I'm anticipating objections that might be made by one of the many people I am arguing.


Slight problem here, CoV. A good DM needs to be a) fair and impartial, and b) committed to making sure the players have a good time. You haven't shown much evidence so far of either quality.

I think you are letting the fact that I vehemently disagree with you cloud your judgement. There are many people who would freely admit that no matter how brash, rude, disagreeable, or wrong I might be, I am easily capable of fair. (Impartial is not actually a good measure of a DM, it's only good when it overlaps with fairness, when they conflict, better DMs choose fairness and side with the players against the monsters.)

And while committing to make sure the players have a good time is absolutely essential when DMing a game, it is merely useful when playtesting a proposition.

While I certainly hope my players have fun right up to (and maybe including) their untimely death, that is not the primary purpose of a playtest, nor should it be allowed to override the actual purpose.

If you don't want to partake in a playtest, then say so, but don't complain that I won't make it fun for you.

I wanted you and my other opposition in the playtest because I can be sure that you will play appropriately, and follow the spirit.

Instead I get a compulsive cheese factory, someone who wants to play Wildshape Ranger, and one maybe.

Saph
2008-05-10, 04:32 PM
I think you are letting the fact that I vehemently disagree with you cloud your judgement. There are many people who would freely admit that no matter how brash, rude, disagreeable, or wrong I might be, I am easily capable of fair.

And normally I wouldn't argue with you. However, in this case, you've basically told me and others, "No, you're wrong/stupid/incompetent, I won't trust anything you say unless you can prove it on my terms." But you've failed to give any reason why we should trust you - or, for that matter, care about your opinion enough to 'prove' anything to you in the first place.

It's trivial for a DM to kill players, whether by means of monsters or not - the system has hundreds of loopholes that can be exploited for that purpose or others. I'm quite sure that you, as a DM, could kill players using Elite Array stats, or point buy 32, or any other stats for that matter. I'm also quite sure that if I was DMing, I could do exactly the same thing. But I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove.

- Saph

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-10, 04:51 PM
And normally I wouldn't argue with you. However, in this case, you've basically told me and others, "No, you're wrong/stupid/incompetent, I won't trust anything you say unless you can prove it on my terms." But you've failed to give any reason why we should trust you - or, for that matter, care about your opinion enough to 'prove' anything to you in the first place.

I did not demand that you prove anything, or that you care about my opinions, I merely asserted my opinions, pointed to my back up, and then invited you to see what I mean. At no point does it matter whether I have proved my opinions worthy of you caring, since doing so on an internet message board is impossible.


It's trivial for a DM to kill players, whether by means of monsters or not - the system has hundreds of loopholes that can be exploited for that purpose or others. I'm quite sure that you, as a DM, could kill players using Elite Array stats, or point buy 32, or any other stats for that matter. I'm also quite sure that if I was DMing, I could do exactly the same thing. But I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove.

And thank you for proving that you didn't bother to read anything, or pay attention. I am well aware of many CR loopholes, and the easy with which DMs can kill players. I also presented the challenge in good faith, the fact that you are incapable of believing that I would be fair makes me very glad you have declined, since in my experience it is those who are incapable of being fair that most often believe others cannot be.

The enitre purpose behind the test would be to prove that the elite array is not capable to you and others with that position. At no point would exploiting nearly guaranteed kills be conducive to convincing others. The fact

Whatever, not worth my time.

ThomasLite
2008-05-10, 09:05 PM
I once Dmed a character with 3 int and 6 wisdom. (think that’s about it). He was a half orc named Gorshak the Grim.
During the rather short lived adventure he discovered he liked beer.

oh, I have just such a character to DM right now (add to that the fun that its my first go at DMing, after only a few sessions of RPG'ing in general, and Im DMing 9 players of which no less than 5 highly experienced - as in 6 to ten years, I believe - players of which 4 are also weekly larpers, and 4 totally new players) which is a new player, playing a half orc barbarian with int 6, cha 5. she does quite well, actually. I believe some other player got whacked by her greataxe in session one because she felt like it, and we all had a mighty laugh :)

why, however, those stats would be 'bad' is beyond me. of course you'd like something marginally higher than that, but what those stats actually do is just giving you another opportunity at great roleplay without going at the expense of effectiveness too much...

although I must say I also allowed a minotaur warlock and a venerable wizard using him as a mount (int 21, wis 21, oh yeah..., as well as a unicorn mount for a paladin and a rhino for another halforc. level 2 characters. we all have a mighty good laugh, though.

I just fail to understand how a halforc with such stats is bad. not to take out the good old roll vs. role debate again, but actually it's a great character!

though I must admit you guys all outweigh my experience by, just about, all your experience, so anyway :P

UserClone
2008-05-10, 09:25 PM
Wow. That got not fun for me pretty fast. So anyways, yeah, the stats aren't that important, as the game has multiple built-in ways of making you able to contribute to the group with crud for stats.

Inhuman Bot
2008-05-11, 04:18 PM
Warforaged knight from level 4 to the end of that campagin at level 11
Str: 16
Con:19
Dex:9
Wis: 3
Int 15
Cha 8

We were using organic, but with no switches. It worked out pretty well actually. He had the common sense of a suicidle half-brick lemming who played russian roulette with an auto pistol.

Curmudgeon
2008-05-11, 04:45 PM
AD&D 2nd edition; straight 3d6. I rolled a 12, a 3 and 3 other single digit scores -- and an 18. I decided to go for Fighter with a Half-Orc, and rolled an 83 for exceptional Strength. With the racial bonus (+2, reduced to +20 on the exceptional scale) I got the maximum of 18/00. I figured this was my only chance of ever hitting this maximum with straight 3d6 rolls, so I kept the stats and called him Gar. Even adjusting for all 6 increments above 18 in Strength (i.e., a virtual 24) I think his abilities averaged around 9.

I put the 3 into Intelligence. With a barely verbal character I constrained vocabulary (apart from names) to 50 words, which I kept on 3x5 cards. Whenever anyone spoke to Gar I pulled out the words that he recognized, and ignored the rest. These words went to the top of the stack. Any time his companions taught Gar a new word, whatever word was on the bottom of the stack was forgotten and the card was removed. Things got hairy once when they'd forced the word "don't" out of Gar's vocabulary, and paired it with "kill". :smallsigh:

Ifni
2008-05-11, 11:14 PM
The worst stats I've ever played with would probably be the elite array. Whenever I roll for stats, I tend to either roll so badly that I get to try again (no stats above 12, net modifier negative, etc), or roll extremely high. As a result, the worst stats I've ever kept in a rolling system were extremely high, equating to point-buy in the high 30s: I don't seem to be able to roll mediocre-but-acceptable stats.

Mostly I play Living Greyhawk, which is 28pt buy, except for cohorts, which are elite array (and also restricted to NPC wealth). I just picked up a cohort on one of my characters recently. His first game was a Core Special (high difficulty game) written for Average Party Level 16 (which in Living Greyhawk is always playing a bit dangerously, since the maximum allowed PC level is 15). My L13, elite-array, NPC-wealth warweaver / sublime chord cohort did just fine in a game where one day had four EL 19-20 encounters and a CR 16 trap (which we managed to trigger).


I already read your post, I don't care how much your DM "rewards creativity" by letting you walk all over enemies, or escape from the enemies that could easily have killed you. I'm talking about in a real game, where the DM doesn't pull punches.

I invite all of you who disagree to make characters using the elite array that I will kill using basic monsters from the Monster Manual of the appropriate CR, played as they should be instead of as walking targets.

I'd like to, but I don't have time for a PbP right now, unfortunately. What stat array do you consider viable, by the way? Looking at my 28pt buy Living Greyhawk characters, if I rebuilt them with elite array it would lower their effectiveness slightly, but only to about the same degree as a bad feat choice - I can't see it making the difference between viable and non-viable.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-11, 11:21 PM
I'd like to, but I don't have time for a PbP right now, unfortunately. What stat array do you consider viable, by the way? Looking at my 28pt buy Living Greyhawk characters, if I rebuilt them with elite array it would lower their effectiveness slightly, but only to about the same degree as a bad feat choice - I can't see it making the difference between viable and non-viable.

To some degree it depends on the characters. But I believe the ability to min max the appropriate stats is the only thing that keeps anyone viable below 32PB (which is why I say the Elite Array is not viable.)

28PB can be for some classes (Wizards, Certain types of Cleric, Druids are viable with 12 PB, Fighters at 28 aren't really any less viable then at higher, rogues maybe if you do it right, probably Barbarians too), though I'd say even the Elite Array is viable if you get a free extra character. (Seriously Leadership is ridic.)