PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Stats - ever played a below average character?



Thurbane
2008-11-27, 09:57 PM
Just curious - almost every time I see a request for help with a build, the stats presented are quite "heroic" to say the least. I know that point-buy is supposed to put people on an even-keel, but a lot of us out there still prefer rolling. However, I rarely see rolls where there isn't at least 3 scores at 16+, and usually at least one 18 for good measure. Very rarely anything below 12.

I know a lot of *nudge nudge wink wink* "I got really lucky with my rolls!" goes on out there, but I was wondering: who out there has persisted with truly mundane rolls? In my current game, our Gray Elf Beguiler rolled his character so poorly the DM allowed a reroll - the reroll was no better. From memory, his highest roll was a 13 or 14.

Vortling
2008-11-27, 09:59 PM
My first D&D character ever was a dwarf cleric with 13s across the board except for dex which was 5. The game didn't get past level 2 so I don't know how things would have fared later on.

Stupendous_Man
2008-11-27, 09:59 PM
Just curious - almost every time I see a request for help with a build, the stats presented are quite "heroic" to say the least. I know that point-buy is supposed to put people on an even-keel, but a lot of us out there still prefer rolling. However, I rarely see rolls where there isn't at least 3 scores at 16+, and usually at least one 18 for good measure. Very rarely anything below 12.

I know a lot of *nudge nudge wink wink* "I got really lucky with my rolls!" goes on out there, but I was wondering: who out there has persisted with truly mundane rolls? In my current game, our Gray Elf Beguiler rolled his character so poorly the DM allowed a reroll - the reroll was no better. From memory, his highest roll was a 13 or 14.

According to the DMG, if the rolls are that bad, the player should keep re-rolling.

Warlock would be fine with those stats, though. As would a monk.

Matthew
2008-11-27, 10:08 PM
I generally require something akin to the "elite" array (15/14/13/12/10/8) when playing D20/3e. I don't mind a bit lower or a bit higher, but that should be reflected as the average. A couple of players have opted to play characters of a significantly lower attribute range, and the result was not satisfactory. A typical sample:



Tyridion [Elf Paladin 1] AB 4(3), AC 18, HP 12,
Abilities: Str 15, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 14,
Feats: Weapon Focus (Long Sword),
Skills: Listen 3, Spot 3, Search 2, Diplomacy 6, Heal 5,
Equipment: Scale Armour, Dagger, Heavy Shield, Long Sword, Long Bow, Long Spear,

Jeric [Human Druid 1] AB 0(0), AC 15, HP 8,
Abilities: Str 10 Dex 11, Con 10, Int 14, Wis 14, Cha 10,
Feats: Track, [-],
Skills: Listen 6, Spot 6, Handle Animal 4, Heal 6,
Knowledge (Nature) 6, Spell Craft 6, Survival 6,
Equipment: Hide Armour, Dagger, Heavy Shield, Scimitar, Sling,
Prepared Spells: 3 x Cure Minor Wounds, 2 x Cure Light Wounds

Celdon [Elf Rogue 1] AB 1(3), AC 16, HP 6,
Abilities: Str 12, Dex 16, Con 11, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 10,
Feats: Point Blank Shot,
Skills: Climb 5(4), Jump 5(4), Swim 5(3), Sneak 7(6), Hide 7(6), Listen 7, Spot 7, Search 7, Open Lock 6, Disable Device 6,
Equipment: Studded Leather Armour, Dagger, Long Sword, Long Bow,

Tethyr [Elf Wizard 1] AB 2(2), AC 12(16), HP 8,
Abilities: Str 14, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 16, Wis 12, Cha 10,
Feats: Toughness,
Skills: Sneak 2, Hide 2, Listen 2, Spot 2, Search 4, Decipher Script 7, Knowledge (Arcana) 7, Knowledge (History) 7, Knowledge (Religion) 7, Spell Craft 7,
Equipment: Dagger, Long Sword, Long Bow,
Prepared Spells: 1 x Mage Armour, 1 x Sleep,

'Whirlwind' Joe [Human Monk 1] AB 1(1), AC 12, HP 8,
Abilities: Str 13, Dex 13, Con 10, Int 12, Wis 13, Cha 12,
Feats: Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist, Improved Grapple, Dodge,
Skills: Climb 5, Jump 5, Sneak 5, Hide 5, Listen 5, Spot 5,
Equipment: Dagger, Staff

Gus Gruff Beard [Dwarf Monk 1] AB 2(2), AC 14, HP 10,
Abilities: Str 15, Dex 14, Con 15, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 07,
Feats: Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist, Improved Grapple,
Skills: Climb 6, Jump 6, Listen 6, Spot 6,
Equipment: Dagger, Hand Axe,

Crow
2008-11-27, 10:14 PM
I think you see the extremes on these boards. It's either "I rolled like crap, what can I do?", or "I rolled awesome and don't want to waste this opportunity.".

Personally, most of my rolls are pretty close to around an elite array...probably a little lower.

Eldariel
2008-11-27, 10:16 PM
I've refused to roll stats ever since playing Baldur's Gate since I know what it will do to people and how distorted idea of probabilities people really have. Therefore I've used point buy practically ever since. It's a wonderful, fair system that suits almost all character concepts and can easily be adjusted to achieve the desired power level statwise. The lowest PB I've ever played on was 22. My eventual stats reminded Elite Array, except with more 8s (I played a Barbarian that game - and no, he wasn't too bright, wise or magnetic). I only wish Druid wasn't banned... I would've gotten my 18 Wis, 14 Con, 8, 8, 8, 8 and been off just as well as your average 32pb.

elliott20
2008-11-27, 10:35 PM
I once played a character that was running around with a 13, 13, 10, 10, 11, 12. It was honestly kind of frustrating as every class out there has some kind of dependency on a high score. Spell casters? need it to cast higher level spells. bye bye spells that are 4th level or above for me. melee? more number dependent then the casters since you need those +'s to land your hits.

my only solution in the end? go mounted, and transfer my reliance on my stats to my reliance on my steed. went paladin, mounted combat, trample, spirited charge, etc.

the problem was, she was totally a one trick pony. She couldn't qualify for any other feat as a lot of the feats I wanted needed at least a 13 in a stat. (Which were tied with wis and cha on my paladin)

It was a good thing the campaign didn't have a bunch of min/maxers or else I REALLY would have been useless. But still, it was difficult to play at times.

Having said that, it was kind of fun because it really pushed me to think outside the box in terms of tactics and such. Also, it meant I had to spend more energy sculpting my character into somebody unique through good ol' fashion RPing than anything else.

After a while, the paladin sort of became the batman of the group simply because she was so reliant on magical items that she ended up having a little gadget for every occasion. (whether or not it was effective was a different story)

Curmudgeon
2008-11-27, 10:43 PM
I played a Druid starting with a 14 WIS and no other stat above 10. I did fine. Animal companions don't care about your stats, and spells only care about one of them. I was pretty cautious because of a sucky Reflex save, but it worked quite well.

Demons_eye
2008-11-27, 10:50 PM
Every time we play we use 5d6b3 so players in my group tend to roll high. First time playing tho I got like nothing above a 16.

elliott20
2008-11-27, 11:11 PM
I played a Druid starting with a 14 WIS and no other stat above 10. I did fine. Animal companions don't care about your stats, and spells only care about one of them. I was pretty cautious because of a sucky Reflex save, but it worked quite well.

and that would work if you're not carrying the game to L20.

arguskos
2008-11-27, 11:39 PM
I've played some VERY sub-par characters before, like the time I played a barbarian with a Strength of 13 and a Con of 12. Or when I played a wizard with an Int score of 15. It can be done, though, if you can take a reroll, I highly suggest you do so.

As a DM, to prevent these sorts of score sets, my group rolls 4d6b3. You roll three blocks of stats, and pick your favorite. On the off chance you get ALL ****ty blocks... well, sucks to be you. :smallwink:

Proven_Paradox
2008-11-28, 12:13 AM
I have not. If we're rolling stats, and I roll very poorly--nothing above a 13, for example--and the DM makes me keep those scores, I'll walk away.

I don't want to play a weak character. Hell, I don't even want to play an average character--I get enough average in life. If I'm playing DnD, I want to be strong!

That doesn't mean like a +10 total modifier--I'm putting a character application into a game that ended up with rather "meh" stats, but there was a fifteen and a fourteen--if I'm not a spellcaster, I can usually manage with that.

Pie Guy
2008-11-28, 12:20 AM
My friend who was teaching me dnd told me to roll a d20 for atributes. I got something like four 20s. It was insane.

Also, he lied about how magic worked. NOW I know that I can't cast level three spells as a level one sorcerer.

My second character was a monk with two twenties, two eighteens, eight int, and four cha. I kept getting attacked because I was so ugly. And I was doing more damage than the rest of the party combined. With casters focasing on damage.

Yeah, our group can't optimise.

elliott20
2008-11-28, 12:24 AM
My friend who was teaching me dnd told me to roll a d20 for atributes. I got something like four 20s. It was insane.

Also, he lied about how magic worked. NOW I know that I can't cast level three spells as a level one sorcerer.

My second character was a monk with two twenties, two eighteens, eight int, and four cha. I kept getting attacked because I was so ugly. And I was doing more damage than the rest of the party combined. With casters focasing on damage.

Yeah, our group can't optimise.

not to mention your GM can't GM.

Thurbane
2008-11-28, 12:24 AM
According to the DMG, if the rolls are that bad, the player should keep re-rolling.

Warlock would be fine with those stats, though. As would a monk.
I think with racial and level modifiers, he ended up with 16 INT and 16 DEX. Naturally, starting equipment (8th level start) included Headband and Gloves. All his others scores were 10 or 11, and an 8 for STR, from memory.

Were were using 4d6b3 with 1 floating reroll.

newbDM
2008-11-28, 12:40 AM
I had a problem with this as a DM, and it was one of the factors which led to me ending my campaign until I find a new group.

It seems people are to accustomed to getting great scores. The guy rolled twice, once crib death which I allowed him to reroll, and the second time he ended with a total of +1 with all the scores combines. He, and the group kept insisting that I allow him to reroll, which I found ridiculous. In my opinion it takes away from the realism of it all. So DMs are simply supposed to allow players to continue rerolling until they get a set that they like that is in the high range? Then why not demand that they reroll when they get all 16s/17s/18s? This is the same reason I dislike point buy. There is a point why it was meant to be random.


As for me as a player, I see it as a challenge and plenty of role-playing potential. For example, my current psion ended up with a score of 5. I decided to put it into his strength, and I based a large part of his personality around it. Since he is a recurring character of mine, I explained it that shortly after my last adventure with him he got ambushed by some demons wanting to get Thas (a legacy weapon from the adventure Expedition into the Demonweb Pits) out of his hands, and that his body was broken while maxing out his psionic potential to hold them off until his siblings (the other 99 of him) could come to help. From there I made his only two good scores Int and Cha, and made it so he is attempting to become a noble-like character with a large number of followers to do things like lifting loot, caring for the caravan (and both the giant eagle and large spider which lugs him around), and such. He even commissioned Dread Guard constructs to keep him safe in dungeons.

Heck, for my next PC I am thinking about a kobold PC with a level of commoner to get the Chicken Infested flaw, so I do not see why people get so upset from not being "Optimal".

Proven_Paradox
2008-11-28, 01:16 AM
Heck, for my next PC I am thinking about a kobold PC with a level of commoner to get the Chicken Infested flaw, so I do not see why people get so upset from not being "Optimal".Firstly, it's not about not being optimal--that's okay with me. However, there is a GIGANTIC chasm between being optimal and being weak--or even average. I think it perfectly acceptable to wish to be somewhere in there.

For example, a net +1 modifier? Unless that's due to a few high scores countered by low scores, you can't make a strong character with that. If you are going to force me to play an average character, I'm not going to like your game anyway.

We obviously have very different approaches to the game, and there's nothing wrong with that. But please acknowledge that. You (apparently, based on the content of this post) like to play quirky and mechanically weak concepts--that hardly makes other people's desires to be strong invalid, which seems to me to be what you're implying with the quoted paragraph.

monty
2008-11-28, 01:20 AM
I've wanted to play a 0 PB warlock for a while, just to see how it works out...maybe I'll suggest some sort of weird campaign idea to my DM for it.

elliott20
2008-11-28, 01:33 AM
the way I see it, forcing a player to play a character he's not happy with is just unnecessary. and so, if a player ends up with really subpar scores, I wouldn't make him keep it. It's a different story entirely if the player's got workable scores but just whines about wanting an uber character. But for the most part, most players I play with know that I'm always up for compromises and working with them so that they have a character they like.

newbDM
2008-11-28, 02:48 AM
For example, a net +1 modifier? Unless that's due to a few high scores countered by low scores, you can't make a strong character with that.

Yes, he had some high scores, which were almost perfectly balanced out by low scores.

But what I do not understand is what would be the point of rolling scores then? The point is you either end up with a very strong (stat-wise) character this time, or you end up with an average one (since you can't go into weak). If you just let them reroll until they are happy, then you should just stick to uber strong elite array/point-buy.

newbDM
2008-11-28, 02:53 AM
the way I see it, forcing a player to play a character he's not happy with is just unnecessary. and so, if a player ends up with really subpar scores, I wouldn't make him keep it. It's a different story entirely if the player's got workable scores but just whines about wanting an uber character. But for the most part, most players I play with know that I'm always up for compromises and working with them so that they have a character they like.

So again, what is the point of rolling?

In these cases, I'd say either houserule the minimum for crib death is around +10 or something (whatever you prefer), or stick to high arrays or very powerful point-buys.

However, this would mean that you need to adjust all encounter CRs, which I think defeats the purpose.

I don't want to edition bash, and I understand to each his own and such, but this is one of my disagreements with 4.0. It just seems like making things too easy. But again, to each his own.

Aquillion
2008-11-28, 03:43 AM
Honestly, I never liked the idea of rolling for stats (or, for that matter, HP gain.) Leaving such a major long-term thing up to the dice makes no sense to me. If you want a game with low-powered characters, or with unbalanced stats that give weak points, just decide that in advance and set up deterministic rules to generate stats along the lines of what you want.

The only thing that die rolls for stats adds to the game is a totally random difference in power between players. Anything else could be handled by a point-buy system with differing starting sets, or by assigning 6 preset array stats, or whatever.

And there's no reason why you'd want to randomly make one player stronger than another for the length of an extended campaign. The whole idea is bad.

newbDM
2008-11-28, 04:39 AM
And there's no reason why you'd want to randomly make one player stronger than another for the length of an extended campaign. The whole idea is bad.

I think it makes sense personally. Not all people are equal, and rolling randomly reflects that well I feel. Someone with scores 10,14,16,18,11,14 is quite different than someone with scores 8, 18, 10, 12, 16, 15, and both provide a whole different set of potential and drawbacks.

Plus, since certain classes tend to have the same scores invested in the same priorities, then every rogue will be the same regardless of who plays it, and so will every fighter, cleric. wizard, etc.

Then again, I enjoy randomness and in D&D terms chaos, so I guess I just have a different way of thinking then those with a more ordered and strict mind.


But I will say that, although I do enjoy "quirky and mechanically weak" characters, I tend to outlast the muchkins and optimizers in my groups (at least so far). And it is not just because the baddies focus first on the "bigger threats", since many of my characters tend to make it a point to get the enemies attention and annoy/PO them (often to keep them away from the caster optimizers it seems...). I remember one player in particular who had a thing for obviously broken wizards, yet in two back to back adventures (Expedition to the Demonweb Pits and Ravenloft) who kept getting Reincarnated again and again, and my "weak" and obviously underpowered (yet fun!) psion (and later a tiny-sized copper dragon) kept outlasting him and often had to drag his unconscious body away from danger, or put his body into my bag of holding. In the second one there were nothing but optimizers besides me and wizard-guy (who was also a munchkin), and all were friends of the DM who together won contests at the national tournament by WotC (don't remember the name, but they said something about the worst loser getting a trophy they melt with a torch in front of him, and getting sent instantly to the finals), yet by the time I left (I got tired of being called "weak" and being told that I should "make a stronger character") I was only one of two who had not died yet. People really underestimate the importance of intelligence and good thinking (which is why I usually put a good score in Int to justify it in-character).

elliott20
2008-11-28, 04:43 AM
So again, what is the point of rolling?

well, we still like the idea of a chance here. after all, rolling is fun. of course, I don't play D&D much now a days and most games I do play have a standard point generation system, so it's a moot point really.

The point I was trying to make though, is that forcing a player to play a character he doesn't want to play is counter-productive. sometimes this is an alignment thing, sometimes it's a power level thing. sometimes, there are ways you can work around it, sometimes not. Me? I try to work with the players on these issues, as I want the player to enjoy himself as long as it's still fun for everyone else. and if that means massaging their stats a little and give them a re-roll, fine by me. Or if they really want, I'll give them a standard point buy, and let those who want to roll just go ahead and roll.

newbDM
2008-11-28, 04:49 AM
well, we still like the idea of a chance here. after all, rolling is fun.

That is my point, there is no chance. Most DMs I have seen just let players reroll until they get a "good" set. So there is no chance, just an illusion of it.

Again, if you like all high PCs/characters good. I am just confused, since it seems an illusion/denial, and I am guessing that DMs who don't realize it end up not adjusting the necessary CRs.

newbDM
2008-11-28, 04:54 AM
The point I was trying to make though, is that forcing a player to play a character he doesn't want to play is counter-productive. sometimes this is an alignment thing, sometimes it's a power level thing. sometimes, there are ways you can work around it, sometimes not. Me? I try to work with the players on these issues, as I want the player to enjoy himself as long as it's still fun for everyone else. and if that means massaging their stats a little and give them a re-roll, fine by me. Or if they really want, I'll give them a standard point buy, and let those who want to roll just go ahead and roll.

I see. I guess it just boils down to DMing styles.

I am sort of odd, since I basically throw away rules/mechanics I dislike (I have even made a stand/display saying "Rule 0!" for the table), yet at things I feel a crucial like this I am hard on. But again, to each his own. And I wouldn't argue in another DM's game, just like I don't enjoy DMs/players telling me to "make a better character".

Proven_Paradox
2008-11-28, 04:56 AM
I hate rolling for scores. I never ask (or even allow) my players to roll for scores or HP. If a DM is telling people to roll scores, it's a point against the game. Now, if the game is otherwise appealing, I'll still play, but that part always irks me.

I think of it this way. DnD is not meant to be a life simulator, it's meant to be a game. Is it fun if you're playing... let's say Monopoly, and by random starting rolls at the beginning of the game, one player happens to start with all of the red properties owned for free while the others start as normal? Or one player gets to start with half the money of everyone else? The same logic applies to DnD.

(Note that due to the 99% random content of Monopoly, I actually dislike that game. But it's a well known game which can easily be made into an example.)

Grey Paladin
2008-11-28, 04:59 AM
The point of rolling, as with everything else in D&D*, is fun.

If your players find a certain aspect of the game unfun- why force it upon them? a game can only be successfully run when all involved match expectations and agree upon the rules- Rulebooks are just suggestions for rules the developers found fun.

*Since the time they realized 'Tournament D&D' is an oxymoron

newbDM
2008-11-28, 05:05 AM
I hate rolling for scores. I never ask (or even allow) my players to roll for scores or HP. If a DM is telling people to roll scores, it's a point against the game. Now, if the game is otherwise appealing, I'll still play, but that part always irks me.

And this is where I would not like/play in one of your games, like you wouldn't play in mine.

A DM not allowing me the option of playing a "weak"er stated character? It screams of an optimizing game for me, which I would interpret as too much hack & slash and not enough role-playing.

The next time I need to roll up a character and it get crib death, I am just going to tell the DM I am fine with said rolls. So not allowing that is the other extreme to this argument I guess.

kamikasei
2008-11-28, 05:10 AM
A DM not allowing me the option of playing a "weak"er stated character? It screams of an optimizing game for me, which I would interpret as too much hack & slash and not enough role-playing.

Point-buy or array abilities are not necessarily high, just consistent. It makes life easier for the DM if all the players have roughly the same amount of power to spread around, and can choose how to distribute it to suit their character, than if the party includes one character with a highest stat of 12 and another with three 18s.

And personally, I'm happier tweaking stats with total control until the build on the sheet (not that "distribution of abilities" is much of a "build") reflects the character in my head, than trying to fit a character to randomly generated stats. That's especially true for roleplaying purposes - I can adapt a build to a wide range of stats, but a personality and lifestyle will be heavily influenced by whether a character is more or less smart, personable, perceptive, healthy, agile, mighty etc...

newbDM
2008-11-28, 05:10 AM
The point of rolling, as with everything else in D&D*, is fun.

If your players find a certain aspect of the game unfun- why force it upon them? a game can only be successfully run when all involved match expectations and agree upon the rules- Rulebooks are just suggestions for rules the developers found fun.

*Since the time they realized 'Tournament D&D' is an oxymoron

True, but you need to think of the DM's fun as well. I dislike optimizing, so if I allow nothing but optimized all high-stats PCs in my games, I will need to get pretty good at optimizing myself, since I need to optimize every encounter and NPC I throw at them.

Just allowing one player to optimize would cause me a world of problems, since now I not only need to optimize everything, but I need to figure out how to keep everything from being one player vs. DM while the other players do nothing/get bored/get killed off by the optimized monster before PC #1 offs it on his own/etc/. And again, it is something I hate to do, so now I need to perfect it?

elliott20
2008-11-28, 05:12 AM
well, that is conversely true for me as well. if you WANT to play a character with a flaw, I'm not going to stop you either. Yeah, it's just a difference in GM style. Of course, it all depends on the players too.

my players tend to be people who don't really care much for optimizing or even being effective. (That's what happens when you play games with people who are primarily from the indie gaming crowd) So when we DID play D&D, the problem of a weak character rarely came up. the only time it did was when a character was obviously too weak to not even be playable, not just weak or flawed. and in that one case I worked with the player to figure something out. We ended up just retiring the character that time since a re-roll would have drastically changed the character enough that it is unrecognizable. but still...

SoD
2008-11-28, 05:13 AM
Well, at the one session I couldn't get to, due to being roughly on the opposite end of the globe, an NPC (an important NPC) was intruduced. He was a monk. Our DM rolled his abilities...poorly. Something like Str 9, Dex 10, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 7, Cha 9. Fun times.

newbDM
2008-11-28, 05:14 AM
Point-buy or array abilities are not necessarily high, just consistent. It makes life easier for the DM if all the players have roughly the same amount of power to spread around, and can choose how to distribute it to suit their character, than if the party includes one character with a highest stat of 12 and another with three 18s.

I see. But then again I don't actually want special consideration.

Being the "weakling" and doing my best to survive in the conditions meant for the 18s is fun for me, and I like to think I am getting quite good at it. You need to learn to survive if you are a kobolds fan!

Susil
2008-11-28, 08:14 AM
And personally, I'm happier tweaking stats with total control until the build on the sheet (not that "distribution of abilities" is much of a "build") reflects the character in my head, than trying to fit a character to randomly generated stats.

QFT.

Whilst obviously this is my personal opinion, I still see DnD as essentially a roleplay experience. I think people tend to forget that all of the numbers are just a way of representing the traits of a character. I fondly recall playing a rogue, who was strictly sub-optimal but great fun to play - basically I put all my development into stuff like sleight of hand and bluff - who's ability to weasel the party out of trouble was only exceeded by his ability to get them into it :smallamused:.

Anyway I think the point is that well written characters in fiction tend to be equally distinguished by their flaws as by their qualities, and having a flawed (machanically) character can be used to help generate a believable and entertaining story, which for me is what the game is about.

Saph
2008-11-28, 08:36 AM
Our group has used 28 point buy for a couple years now, and we find it works well. That's 16 14 14 12 10 8, or thereabouts. Now and again we play lower-powered games and use 25 point buy instead.

The lowest-powered character I ever played had stats that came to about a 20 point buy. Just like in newbDM's story, she ended up outliving everyone else and in the end became one of my favourite characters (though I had to put her stats up when I took her into the next campaign, ah well). Sometimes low ability scores are not a bad thing. :)

It's a good idea to play lower-stat characters from time to time, because it helps break you out of the "I NEED those 18s!" mentality that it's so easy to fall into. It also means the DM doesn't need to scale up the enemies so much, which can actually boost your survival chances in the long run.

- Saph

Pie Guy
2008-11-28, 08:42 AM
not to mention your GM can't GM.

Fortunatly, my friend wasn't the GM. If he was, well, I don't know what would've happened.

Deepblue706
2008-11-28, 02:43 PM
Just curious - almost every time I see a request for help with a build, the stats presented are quite "heroic" to say the least. I know that point-buy is supposed to put people on an even-keel, but a lot of us out there still prefer rolling. However, I rarely see rolls where there isn't at least 3 scores at 16+, and usually at least one 18 for good measure. Very rarely anything below 12.

I know a lot of *nudge nudge wink wink* "I got really lucky with my rolls!" goes on out there, but I was wondering: who out there has persisted with truly mundane rolls? In my current game, our Gray Elf Beguiler rolled his character so poorly the DM allowed a reroll - the reroll was no better. From memory, his highest roll was a 13 or 14.

I play with regular rolls all the time. Hell, I love games that use the old 3d6 method (I like down-the-line/in order). However, I generally stick to the default method for [3.5]: 4d6b3. I have no problem playing an elite array character - it's generally capable of handling a lot more than what people give it credit for.

I hate absurdly high-powered games. Really, having higher stats just makes it harder for a DM to balance, since I'm pretty sure CR is supposed to be vaguely based on using regular point buy values (where 22 pts is "Challenging", and 32 is "High-Powered"). I currently run a 36 point buy campaign, although I must admit I only made it so high because I thought nobody would join if it wasn't high enough.

I think the desire for numerous great stats can come about because of a variety of reasons: chief among them, I theorize, is either the desire to play a "True Hero" - which automatically makes you win at everything, forever (that requires high stats) - or simply basic powergaming issues.

It's because not many people can play a character with INT 8 and not expect to be playing a total dumbass, a WIS 8 and be completely oblivious or absent-minded, CHA 8 and be not just reserved, but hermetic and socially retarded. I believe if people could let go of the notion that you must have ability score X to be taken seriously, they'd have less problems accepting lower stats.

Crow
2008-11-28, 02:46 PM
Giving the players high stats all the time pretty much destroys your ability to have them be happy with "average" stats in the future too...

They're like a drug. The first array is free, but after that they develop a dependance...

Curmudgeon
2008-11-28, 02:47 PM
and that would work if you're not carrying the game to L20. Actually, a Druid starting at WIS 14 could work just fine if you need it to. You get an ability increment every 4 levels, and only need WIS to be (10 + highest spell level) to maintain full spellcasting progress. Boosting WIS every 4 levels keeps you able to handle your top spells through level 14. At level 15 a Tome of Understanding +1 is certainly affordable; it costs about as much as you can expect to earn just by that last single level gain, according to the standard Wealth by Level formula. At then at level 16 you get another ability increment, bringing you to WIS 19 and able to cast 9th level spells when you later have access to them. Done.

Thurbane
2008-11-29, 12:26 AM
Actually, a Druid starting at WIS 14 could work just fine if you need it to. You get an ability increment every 4 levels, and only need WIS to be (10 + highest spell level) to maintain full spellcasting progress. Boosting WIS every 4 levels keeps you able to handle your top spells through level 14. At level 15 a Tome of Understanding +1 is certainly affordable; it costs about as much as you can expect to earn just by that last single level gain, according to the standard Wealth by Level formula. At then at level 16 you get another ability increment, bringing you to WIS 19 and able to cast 9th level spells when you later have access to them. Done.
Not to mention stat boosting items...

In regards to the merits of point buy vs. rolling, it's like preferred edition debates - it's basically nothing but a matter of personal taste. :smallwink:

Lemur
2008-11-29, 12:34 AM
I've wanted to play a 0 PB warlock for a while, just to see how it works out...maybe I'll suggest some sort of weird campaign idea to my DM for it.

Hey, I'd play. Although dirgesinger/seeker of the song would be my choice, just for kicks.

Epinephrine
2008-11-29, 01:06 AM
I can't say I've ever played below average (if you think of average as 10.5 per stat, or 15 point buy). I've played a 25 point GURPS character though, which is meant to be an average person's stats.

I have always had horrid luck rolling characters, so I'm glad to use point buy/GURPS. I remember rolling a 6,6,9,6,6,6,9 in AD&D (with comeliness) on 3d6 rerolling 1s My DM took pity on me and let me take an 8 on each die and add a d8 to it, and I still had the worst stats in the group, with two 9s.

Bucky
2008-11-29, 01:20 AM
If I were to DM a game, I'd have the players use the following method (plundered from a completely homebrew system):

Roll 36d6. Count up all the 1s and add 6 to find your Str. Count up all the 2's and add 6 to find your Dex. Repeat with 3s and Con, 4s and Int, 5s and Wis, and 6s and Con. If you have any values over the max allowed (18), use 18 and reroll one d6 per point of difference.

The result? Everyone has the same average stats, but it's still random.

Lemur
2008-11-29, 01:21 AM
I can't say I've ever played below average (if you think of average as 10.5 per stat, or 15 point buy). I've played a 25 point GURPS character though, which is meant to be an average person's stats.

I have always had horrid luck rolling characters, so I'm glad to use point buy/GURPS. I remember rolling a 6,6,9,6,6,6,9 in AD&D (with comeliness) on 3d6 rerolling 1s My DM took pity on me and let me take an 8 on each die and add a d8 to it, and I still had the worst stats in the group, with two 9s.

That is getting pretty bad, especially if you consider the fact without those nines, you wouldn't even be able to take a character class.

Thurbane
2008-11-29, 01:56 AM
Anyone remember the original UA method? You got 9d6b3, 8d6b3, 7d6b3, 6d6b3, 5d6b3 and 4d6b3 in order for your stats, depending on your class. i.e. Fighter had 9d6 for STR, 8d6 for CON etc.

Captain Six
2008-11-29, 02:04 AM
One of my first GMs loved everything random. The Deck of Many Things and the Rod of Wonders found their way into every campaign. If not them than another homebrewed item of similar function. He also uses point buy, much for the same reason I do: stats are much too important, much too permanent to be left to random chance of a single string of rolls.

I'm rather spoiled when it comes to rolls myself. First I need the classes core attributes, in the case of spellcasters I need them to function period. Then I need intelligence, I don't want to roleplay stupid or limit my input based on a number on my sheet. Then I need Charisma. You can't be the buttmonkey if you're trotting around with a sixteen in your last slot. Also I tend to have characters interested in Leadership. So if I play anything that isn't a caster I need five decent stats, or at least with a positive modifier. It's a good thing I like arcanists.

If I have to roll dice though I find I like 4d4+2. It has nice consistency.

xPANCAKEx
2008-11-29, 02:18 AM
i had a pretty poor cleric running as a healbot once. His one shining stat (a 16! big whoop) was dumped in the primary, and the rest were all 13 and below

he definately was not CoDzilla, but i had fun playing him. He wasn't a hero. But he was a very good at standing in the way of things trying to reach the squishy casters

JackMage666
2008-11-29, 02:46 AM
One of the first character I ever played was a Human Rogue with 12s and 13s in literally every stat. He was fun, though, since we used roleplaying for social encounters moreso than not! He just became the face and a bit of comic relief in combat.

Doomsy
2008-11-29, 05:07 AM
I do it old school. 3d6 for each stat, see how it lands. This has resulted in things like having a character who got fifteen for the lowest stat and three eighteens and in one case, a guy who had 16 for the best - and four at ten or so. I played both and for the last one, used intel as the dump stat. He was remarkably fun for two sessions before he ended up drinking a fireball potion with the mistaken idea that all potions had to be drunk to be used.

Crow
2008-11-29, 06:14 AM
i had a pretty poor cleric running as a healbot once. His one shining stat (a 16! big whoop) was dumped in the primary, and the rest were all 13 and below

Those stats don't sound very horrible at all actually.

lesser_minion
2008-11-29, 09:52 AM
When I DM, I usually just ask to see the player's character sheet before admitting them to the game - I don't actually care how the ability scores are worked out, if the character is reasonable, they can be played. Any strong cheese and they can't.

Saying that, I am probably the worst in my group for min-maxing, so I haven't actually had to veto anything yet.

Quietus
2008-11-29, 09:57 AM
I see. But then again I don't actually want special consideration.

Being the "weakling" and doing my best to survive in the conditions meant for the 18s is fun for me, and I like to think I am getting quite good at it. You need to learn to survive if you are a kobolds fan!

The trouble here is in balance. If the DM is balancing the game for four relatively high-powered, or even four average-powered players, and you've chosen to play a character whose total modifiers are +0, and has nothing above a 13.... then essentially, the fights are going to be more difficult, because you can't contribute the way the game intends you to. You're basically telling the rest of your party "This is how I have fun, it's up to you guys to make up for it, because I don't want the DM to change anything".

As for myself, I do a lot of high-powered stuff... but that's just because that's what I, and my group, are used to. At first it was the juvenile joy of seeing large numbers on a character sheet for their own benefit - not because I wanted to play a hero, but because two 18's, a 16, and the rest 14's/15's made me feel important. Now I prefer high-powered play because all of my DMs run extremely lethal games, and if I didn't have that very high-powered character, the situation above would come up. The DM balanced the game assuming that every character could kick ass, and I'd be falling short of that.

That's also a part of the reason I use 40 point buy on Vethedar; one of said DMs co-DMs it with me. To be fair, he backs it off a little on there, so it's not AS bad... but I've got one group of PCs on there who are quite low-powered (level 1 halfling rogue, level 1 human bard, level 2 human ranger, and not a single one of them optimized)... and he sent a squad of 12 mounted people at us. Sure, each would break off when he took more than 1/2 of his HP worth of damage, and the group would break when half of them broke off, but then he took out the halfling in the first round (By accident, apparently), and my bard (whose ability in combat amounts to a poor shortbow attack, even after I buff with Inspire Courage) was in a situation where she wasn't even able to attack for the first few rounds. We all survived, thankfully, and he claims that I worry too much... that he is capable of balancing encounters properly. But for the number of attacks he was rolling, and knowing his luck with the dice, there's no way he wasn't fudging rolls to avoid murdering us.

Mecharossilla
2008-11-29, 10:43 AM
My wife is great at doing weird things with her stats. She had a human sorceress, she had a 17 charisma and a 15 intelligence, but a 5 wisdom. She was the most scatter-brained, easily distracted little mopette.

In another game, my players wanted to start a little higher in level and it suited my purposes too, so I said "You can start up to level 8"
I got a level 8 Ranger, a level 8 Warrior, a level 8 Paladin and a level 2 Cleric. My wife figured it would be interesting to be the little noob wandering around with her big brother, lol. She makes DMing.... interesting.

When I'm playing, I like a low stat or 2. Being great at everything is boring. I want to succeed dispite my lacking the skills. A -4 will save? that's awesome!:smalltongue:

As far as being below average overall, that's kinda problematic to DM's I think. Be bad at a few things, don't be bad at everything.

Me_Grog
2008-11-29, 11:39 AM
Being below average can be just as fun as being a hero! As long as you have one good stat that lets you excel as a character(primary casting stat or strength), then you are set to go!

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 11:44 AM
Excelling is not what I would call-below average. Below average overall, maybe, but when you are super-bright or super-strong, the fact that the rest of your stats are very poor doesn't stand out so much.

Imagine, say- Stephen hawking statted out- Con, Str, Dex, would be rather less than great, but Int would be through the roof. That's not what I think of as a "below average" person.

Is just for comparison purposes.

Aquillion
2008-11-29, 05:24 PM
Having a bunch of low stats and weak creatures from the DM vs. having a bunch of high stats and strong creatures are not the same thing, for several reasons.

First, the stat distribution used has implications for many classes. A wizard can do fine with one 18, one 12-14, and 8 in everything else; but they'll be significantly less powerful if they have less than a 16 for their highest stat, and severely crippled if it's, say, 12 or less.

Conversely, druids can do all right with no good stats at all (they certainly want a decent con and enough wis to use their spells, but neither are strictly necessary -- they can rely on their animal companion early on and wild shape later, and if everyone else has equally cruddy stats the druid will outshine them even more than usual.)

But skill-monkeys and fighter-types suffer a lot without good stats.

Additionally, having low stats tends to hurt people more at their 'peripheral' role rather than their core one, because most stat systems let you get one stat decent. With very high stats in every category, a wizard can still be a decent attacker at low levels; a rogue can fight, use all their skills, UMD items, whatever; and so forth. When you play with low stats people's roles are generally more pared down, even if the DM is using less overwhelming creatures to compensate.

Not that I'm saying one way or the other is necessarily good or bad. But it does have implications for the kind of game you want to play beyond just seeing lots of low numbers vs lots of high numbers.

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 05:28 PM
interestingly, if you go with source like Cityscape, a hefty proportion of the fighters and rogues in the world, will have poor stats: a "typical" 1st level city thief (rogue) will have Dex 13, and a "typical" 1st level elite guard fighter, Str 13.

monty
2008-11-29, 05:33 PM
interestingly, if you go with source like Cityscape, a hefty proportion of the fighters and rogues in the world, will have poor stats: a "typical" 1st level city thief (rogue) will have Dex 13, and a "typical" 1st level elite guard fighter, Str 13.

Aren't the PCs usually supposed to be "heroic" and therefore have much higher stats than the average NPC? It wouldn't feel the same if you're average.

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 05:36 PM
true- maybe a person with low point buy, but one, significantly better that average stat, makes an interesting contrast to better rounded players.

or you might want to play in a very gritty world- being The Scoobies not The Slayer.

Neithan
2008-11-29, 05:38 PM
Aren't the PCs usually supposed to be "heroic" and therefore have much higher stats than the average NPC? It wouldn't feel the same if you're average.
As you said: "usually".

Crow
2008-11-29, 05:44 PM
Heroic has nothing to do with your stats though. Heroic is deeds and intentions.

Thurbane
2008-11-29, 09:07 PM
Heroic has nothing to do with your stats though. Heroic is deeds and intentions.
Well said, though it does depend on the type of play style you enjoy.

As you said: "usually".
Indeed - a lot of fun in the games in my group is starting out as a bumbling n00b adventurer, and ending up a figure of legend.

To me, heroic is more to do with class levels and powers/abilities than stats. The local blacksmith might be just as strong as your level 6 barbarian, but he would be lucky to last more than 1 round against a group of angry ogres. The town scribe might be just as intelligent as your level 9 wizard, but he can't turn people into house cats.

Aquillion
2008-11-30, 01:14 AM
Heroic has nothing to do with your stats though. Heroic is deeds and intentions.That's not quite true. The word can have many meanings; what it's being used for there is the Greek demigod-sort of heroes, who are stronger, faster, tougher, and smarter than everyone around them regardless of their specialties.

The 'hero = good and pure and selfless' thing is a relatively recent development. In the ancient world, it was often more along the lines of 'hero = larger than life in all respects'.

monty
2008-11-30, 01:22 AM
That's not quite true. The word can have many meanings; what it's being used for there is the Greek demigod-sort of heroes, who are stronger, faster, tougher, and smarter than everyone around them regardless of their specialties.

The 'hero = good and pure and selfless' thing is a relatively recent development. In the ancient world, it was often more along the lines of 'hero = larger than life in all respects'.

So heroes are harder, better, faster, and stronger than everyone else (and their work is never over).

Crow
2008-11-30, 01:23 AM
That's not quite true. The word can have many meanings; what it's being used for there is the Greek demigod-sort of heroes, who are stronger, faster, tougher, and smarter than everyone around them regardless of their specialties.

The 'hero = good and pure and selfless' thing is a relatively recent development. In the ancient world, it was often more along the lines of 'hero = larger than life in all respects'.

I didn't say anything about a hero being pure and selfless. Larger than life for me reflects the deeds and intentions of the individual. Maybe he wasn't as strong as ten men, maybe he wasn't faster or tougher than any man alive, but the legends and tales of his deeds make it seem that way!

Do you think the legendary NFL teams of the early 70's and 80's could hold a candle to the good teams nowadays? No way. Is the undefeated Dolphins team better than every other team that didn't go undefeated in a season? No. But they will always be remembered as one of the greatest teams ever due to their accomplishments. So while they may not have the best "stats", they separated themselves by their "deeds".

Get where I am coming from?

monty
2008-11-30, 01:26 AM
Do you think the legendary NFL teams of the early 70's and 80's could hold a candle to the good teams nowadays? No way. Is the undefeated Dolphins team better than every other team that didn't go undefeated in a season? No. But they will always be remembered as one of the greatest teams ever due to their accomplishments. So while they may not have the best "stats", they separated themselves by their "deeds".

But they didn't have bull's strength steroids.

Aquillion
2008-11-30, 01:29 AM
I didn't say anything about a hero being pure and selfless. Larger than life for me reflects the deeds and intentions of the individual. Maybe he wasn't as strong as ten men, maybe he wasn't faster or tougher than any man alive, but the legends and tales of his deeds make it seem that way!

Do you think the legendary NFL teams of the early 70's and 80's could hold a candle to the good teams nowadays? No way. Is the undefeated Dolphins team better than every other team that didn't go undefeated in a season? No. But they will always be remembered as one of the greatest teams ever due to their accomplishments. So while they may not have the best "stats", they separated themselves by their "deeds".

Get where I am coming from?
I dunno, though. I see D&D as more exemplifying the myth of those people rather than the reality -- its a mythically-based fantasy setting, after all. The real-world people these settings are based on wouldn't really go around slaying a dragon every adventure or regularly finding huge hordes of treasure.

You're not the historical person Arthur, Merlin, Hercules, and so forth are based on, in other words (if there even is such a person); you're the ur-example of what their myths represent. That usually means larger-than-life capabilities.

Deepblue706
2008-11-30, 02:14 AM
I dunno, though. I see D&D as more exemplifying the myth of those people rather than the reality -- its a mythically-based fantasy setting, after all. The real-world people these settings are based on wouldn't really go around slaying a dragon every adventure or regularly finding huge hordes of treasure.

You're not the historical person Arthur, Merlin, Hercules, and so forth are based on, in other words (if there even is such a person); you're the ur-example of what their myths represent. That usually means larger-than-life capabilities.

Wouldn't that be a more appropriate description for Epic Levels? I mean, myths like The Illiad are kind-of considered...Epics. I don't think they chose that label for levels 21+ by chance.

UserClone
2008-11-30, 08:45 AM
I don't think it really matters whether you go with point buy or rolling - in fact, my favorite way to go as a GM is generally to offer both as an option (but once you roll, you keep 'em, unless you qualify per RAW for a reroll).

One of my favorite characters ever was rolled up using a sliding scale - one each of 4d6, 5d6, 6d6, 7d6, 8d6, and 9d6 (keeping the best three dice for each). I was playing a bard/warrior, so I put the 9 dice in CHA, 8 in STR, and 7 in CON. Got a 17 CHA, an 18 STR and a CON of...8. With a racial minus 2, that amounted to a six CON character. He survived really well, actually, and even fought in melee sometimes. He didn't die until the party Warmage (who has no idea how to use a spell) cast STINKING CLOUD on my area in an attempt to save me from the beefy warrior in my face. Yes. Stinking cloud on a 6 (7 by then) CON PC and a likely much higher CON Hobgoblin fighter. Ability scores had little to do with his survivability.


I dunno, though. I see D&D as more exemplifying the myth of those people rather than the reality -- its a mythically-based fantasy setting, after all. The real-world people these settings are based on wouldn't really go around slaying a dragon every adventure or regularly finding huge hordes of treasure.

You're not the historical person Arthur, Merlin, Hercules, and so forth are based on, in other words (if there even is such a person); you're the ur-example of what their myths represent. That usually means larger-than-life capabilities.

I feel like people who think this should be playing Dawnforge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Oymfu2v50) instead of D&D.

Aquillion
2008-11-30, 04:17 PM
Well, I know that it is (at the very least) the explicit assumption of, say, Eberron.

Thurbane
2008-11-30, 08:26 PM
Sure, but in a setting with lightning powered trains and robots warforged, you really need to be made of sterner stuff! :smallbiggrin:

newbDM
2008-11-30, 09:11 PM
I feel like people who think this should be playing Dawnforge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Oymfu2v50) instead of D&D.

Wow, thank you so much for posting that link.

I simply love the idea behind it. The whole playing in the first age, being the first heroes, the gods are not truly gods yet, etc. However, although it might completely contradict the entire point of it, I actually like it for it's potential as a very low-powered game/setting instead of a high-powered one.

It even gives me ideas for things I can do in my own homebrewed setting, such as make entire campaigns surrounding the first appearances of each of the races and such. This might even allow me to show the first moments of ancient civilizations and ones still around which I have already introduced in the setting's history.

Would it be worth getting some of those books for my purposes, or would they be completely useless for my needs?

Aquillion
2008-11-30, 11:58 PM
Sure, but in a setting with lightning powered trains and robots warforged, you really need to be made of sterner stuff! :smallbiggrin:Technically, what they do is make everyone else of more squishy stuff. But it has the same effect.

skeeter_dan
2008-12-01, 08:47 PM
One of my favorite characters was a Wizard with 4 Strength. He carried just enough stuff that he had a 20 ft move speed while leaning on a quarterstaff. When he dropped his quarterstaff, his move speed jumped to 30 ft.

The rest of his scores were pretty good, but I loved roleplaying that terrible strength.

XAnansiX
2008-12-02, 02:16 AM
Some of my favorite characters have had absolutely awful stats but then again I never cared if my character was uber etc. Being a hero isn't about being ten times stronger than your average Joe. Being a superhero is, and I don't play D&D to be superman.

Tacoma
2008-12-04, 04:35 PM
I once played a paladin with an INT so low, his horse was smarter than him. It was a paladin's warhorse, but still. Later he found a magic sword - that was smarter than him. But he had decent stats otherwise, minimum WIS for a paladin though, and the minimum 17 CHA as I recall. But for some reason he just kept surviving. Until he was crushed under a lead golem he had just killed in Myth Drannor.

Once I played a dwarf thief who had average stats, 13 CON, and 5 CHA. He was the first son of a noted brewer but he was sent away because he was so ugly, and the second son got the business. So my dwarf was forced to adventure.

Note that interesting stories and experiences come from having a character with a weakness. And I don't mean "my Dex is only 8 so I have a -1" kind of weakness. That's just below average.

3E characters seem to only have a weakness if it's their racial penalty - and then only because the player chose that race to maximize his class stats and minimize his non-useful stats. How many people play a Half-Orc Sorcerer except to make a statement about how few people play one?

I think the disadvantaged, the lowlifes, the rejects, would be the ones most likely to adventure. If you had a 20 int on a scale of 3-18, why in the world would you go out and adventure? You'd have been picked up by the Mages' Guild and taught fun stuff, and given no excuse to leave. You want to see a pegasus? Let's summon one. You want to see the Mountains of Pain? Let's seal you in a Resilient Sphere and Teleport there for a picnic.

Instead it would be society's trash, the way below average, especially those who have some deformity or disability that means they can't make their way in the safety of a city. Imagine trying to be an Artificer with a 3 Dex. You'd be constantly knocking valuable experiments over. They'd send you away on "missions" just to keep you out of the way. What if you were a Cleric with a 3 Con? They'd send you on pilgrimages to see if those hot springs could cure your perpetual pneumonia or if the oil seeping from that holy statue could do something for your boils and sores.

Point is, while you may not like it, D&D is about more than maximizing your damage output. If you want to boil down your gameplay to the decision of whether you will tank or DPS, play an MMO. D&D is about your interesting character, and your choices of infinite variety, and the results of those choices.

newbDM
2008-12-04, 04:57 PM
I once played a paladin with an INT so low, his horse was smarter than him. It was a paladin's warhorse, but still. Later he found a magic sword - that was smarter than him. But he had decent stats otherwise, minimum WIS for a paladin though, and the minimum 17 CHA as I recall. But for some reason he just kept surviving. Until he was crushed under a lead golem he had just killed in Myth Drannor.

Once I played a dwarf thief who had average stats, 13 CON, and 5 CHA. He was the first son of a noted brewer but he was sent away because he was so ugly, and the second son got the business. So my dwarf was forced to adventure.

Note that interesting stories and experiences come from having a character with a weakness. And I don't mean "my Dex is only 8 so I have a -1" kind of weakness. That's just below average.

3E characters seem to only have a weakness if it's their racial penalty - and then only because the player chose that race to maximize his class stats and minimize his non-useful stats. How many people play a Half-Orc Sorcerer except to make a statement about how few people play one?

I think the disadvantaged, the lowlifes, the rejects, would be the ones most likely to adventure. If you had a 20 int on a scale of 3-18, why in the world would you go out and adventure? You'd have been picked up by the Mages' Guild and taught fun stuff, and given no excuse to leave. You want to see a pegasus? Let's summon one. You want to see the Mountains of Pain? Let's seal you in a Resilient Sphere and Teleport there for a picnic.

Instead it would be society's trash, the way below average, especially those who have some deformity or disability that means they can't make their way in the safety of a city. Imagine trying to be an Artificer with a 3 Dex. You'd be constantly knocking valuable experiments over. They'd send you away on "missions" just to keep you out of the way. What if you were a Cleric with a 3 Con? They'd send you on pilgrimages to see if those hot springs could cure your perpetual pneumonia or if the oil seeping from that holy statue could do something for your boils and sores.

Point is, while you may not like it, D&D is about more than maximizing your damage output. If you want to boil down your gameplay to the decision of whether you will tank or DPS, play an MMO. D&D is about your interesting character, and your choices of infinite variety, and the results of those choices.

I really like your train of thought.