What ever happened to ROLLING your stats and letting the dice gods decide?

[Brian Bachman]

Cold Napalm wrote:

There are two issues...if it's a homebrew campaign, then you are gimped when the majority of the gamers at the table says so.

If it's an AP, you are gimped if you can not face the challenges within.

When talking about a gimped character, I assume the second scenerio because the first is kinda moot. So, yes you can make gimped characters...that character maybe the most powerful broken character in a home brew...but if it can't reasonable survive an AP, it's gimped.

We play a mix of homebrew campaigns and published adventures/APs, depending on who's DMing and how much time they have available to write. Same group has been together with some additions and substractions for over a dozen years. Doesn't matter what we've played, survival and overall success of a character has never been determined purely, or even mostly, by their beginning stats. Much, much more important is how the character is played. In short, the unquantifiable human factor is much more important than any of the individual quantifiable variables in the mechanics. This is really a style issue, not a matter of what adventures you play.

[Brian Bachman]

Stéphane Le Roux wrote:

[

As you have seen, in the way I would rule for the dragon, the player can use intimidate or bluff (his choice), and I give up to +5 circumstance bonus; since the dragon has good stats but not overwhelming stats, the roll can be very easy: that means only that a character without Cha, without Bluff and without Intimidate would have great difficulty.

Of course, in doing that, you would be ignoring the express and explicit instructions on the dragon's motivations and reactions written into the published adventure, as my DM replied. You're welcome to do that, in your game, if it makes it more fun for you. By doing so, you are giving the stats and the dice more weight than the roleplaying and the story. Fine, but recognize that it is a deliberate choice, and one that not everyone must or even should make the same way. Since I didn't read the module, I didn't have that motivation info, but it certainly does support my contention that my character's actions were both appropriately played and appropriately DMed, given our style of play (and apparently the module author's intentions).

[master arminas]

Alright, let's see what would happen here. Let's make four characters.

Character #1: Ok, these would be a sorcerer, but it's a negative point-buy; yuck!
Strength 3d6 ⇒ (2, 4, 6) = 12
Intelligence 3d6 ⇒ (2, 2, 5) = 9
Wisdom 3d6 ⇒ (6, 1, 2) = 9
Dexterity 3d6 ⇒ (4, 5, 1) = 10
Consitutition 3d6 ⇒ (2, 2, 1) = 5
Charisma 3d6 ⇒ (3, 4, 6) = 13

Character #2: This one ain't bad. Only that 5 Str really hurts it, and it would be an ok cleric or druid.
Strength 3d6 ⇒ (2, 1, 2) = 5
Intelligence 3d6 ⇒ (5, 1, 6) = 12
Wisdom 3d6 ⇒ (5, 3, 6) = 14
Dexterity 3d6 ⇒ (5, 4, 5) = 14
Consitutition 3d6 ⇒ (3, 5, 6) = 14
Charisma 3d6 ⇒ (5, 1, 5) = 11

Character #3: And once again with a sorcerer or perhaps bard. It's a 4-point buy! Whoopie!
Strength 3d6 ⇒ (2, 3, 2) = 7
Intelligence 3d6 ⇒ (4, 4, 1) = 9
Wisdom 3d6 ⇒ (1, 4, 6) = 11
Dexterity 3d6 ⇒ (2, 3, 4) = 9
Consitutition 3d6 ⇒ (2, 6, 3) = 11
Charisma 3d6 ⇒ (5, 5, 5) = 15

Character #4: Best of the lot, equal to a 14-point buy. Old school-cleric all the way.
Strength 3d6 ⇒ (3, 3, 6) = 12
Intelligence 3d6 ⇒ (3, 2, 5) = 10
Wisdom 3d6 ⇒ (6, 5, 4) = 15
Dexterity 3d6 ⇒ (4, 2, 6) = 12
Consitutition 3d6 ⇒ (2, 5, 4) = 11
Charisma 3d6 ⇒ (4, 3, 5) = 12

Master Arminas

[TOZ]

Aha, my plan to encourage necromancy worked! :D