[3.5] Stats - ever played a below average character?

[Thurbane]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Proven_Paradox]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...