For the Record, stats after racial modifiers
Str Dex Con Int Wis Cha
Rogue: 12 20 12 7 5 11
Sorc: 12 11 11 10 9 18
Fighter: 19 13 16 11 8 9
Barb: 20 14 18 9 12 5
Monk: 16 14 12 9 15 7
So yea, the rog, sorc, barb were able to do the first 1/2 of everflame with only a few more pots and a bit of extra gold. Their dps + smart play got them through.
|
I was responding to the fact that you said a 17 cha sorcerer is weak, he posted the stats of the other party members but the preface that a 17 is weak is what I was going off of. A primary stat being below ten is weak, but while more challenging, it isn't a detriment to start with your primary stats at anything 14+. And a rogue doesn't need int or wisdom. high ranks can adjust to make up for a low int. And wisdom only affects a rogues will saves. I just get something in my craw when people use the term "that won't work in a published adventure." which I don't find to be true.
Regardless of whether you play a 15 point buy or a 40 point buy everyone is going to have fun and the game works. In how high/ low stats are is mostly only important relative to other PCs.
Published adventures have certain assumptions but unless you have the most generic group on the planet a GM will needs to adjust something, whether it's adjusting for party size, lack of a rogue, lack of a cleric, higher than planned stats or lower than planned stats.
|
Being suspicious of dice rolling is silly. Either someone blatantly cheats, or someone gets unusually lucky. Last character I rolled, I got 18/14/18/16/11/12. Human gets +2 to one of those. Unusual? Abosolutely. The previous character? Nothing higher than a 14, and 2 lower than 10. Unusually unlucky? You Betcha!
This is one reason why point buys are so popular. Even so, I prefer the dice rolling method. Now, some schmo comes to the table with straight 16+, I am going to be wondering. As GM, that kind of stuff is a no no,but I can find a lot of ways to nerf them in game.
Being suspicious of dice rolling is silly.
I disagree.
If you're actually rolling just 3d6 (Classic method), and only rolling 6 times (no extra rolls to pick your best 6), then there is a 1 in 36 chance of getting an 18. Not great, but surely possible.
However, in my three decades of playing D&D (etc.) I have maybe played with 100 players, give or take. Probably fewer than that, actually. And I can name at least 10 that I knew, *KNEW* were cheating on die rolls.
That puts cheating players, IME, at 1 in 10.
Seems to me that betting on 1 in 10 odds is at least as reasonable as betting on 1 in 36 odds. Statistically speaking, it's more reasonable.
More reasonable does not equal "silly".
And yes, all that said, I know people really do roll well sometimes, even without witnesses. I am not saying that it cannot or does not happen. It could be cheating, it could be luck. In my experience, the cheating looks to be the most probable.
|
|
Being suspicious of dice rolling is silly. Either someone blatantly cheats, or someone gets unusually lucky. Last character I rolled, I got 18/14/18/16/11/12. Human gets +2 to one of those. Unusual? Abosolutely. The previous character? Nothing higher than a 14, and 2 lower than 10. Unusually unlucky? You Betcha!
This is one reason why point buys are so popular. Even so, I prefer the dice rolling method. Now, some schmo comes to the table with straight 16+, I am going to be wondering. As GM, that kind of stuff is a no no,but I can find a lot of ways to nerf them in game.
Whether you are suspicious of rolling or not it seriously sucks when the guy next to you has 2 18s and your highest stat is a 15 and you have 2 sevens. Whether it's bad dice, bad luck, or flat out cheating doesn't change the fact that it's frustrating.
If I ever do rolled stats again I will have everyone roll with the set of casino dice I own. My personal feeling is that point buy or using a common set of stats is the best way to go.
Sometimes you just roll awesomely.
I had a kobold factotum who did 4d6 drop lowest. My results?
15, 16, 14, 16, 12, 15
I rolled them openly, too!
It was wonderful :D