If everyone rolled stats he likely has the best or near the best out of the group he averaged 11+ per stat versus the normal 9.5. I also now want to play a rolled stat game.
I play a rolled stat game, but it was WAY higher than this (my character probably came out to 30+ pt buy in 3.5). Plus the stats went wherever you wanted them, not the absurd "HAND OF THE GODS" 3d6 straight down the line.
OK, I have to try it...
.
S
D
C
I
W
Ch
EDIT: Hand of the GODS indeed! I will slay you all!
EDIT2: This just makes me more inclined toward point buy. Having the OP's character and this one in the same party is a headache for the GM.
gotta try...
S
D
C
I
W
Ch
LOL. I'll be Fergie's butler.
"I might be sickly, clumsy, and stupid, but at least I'm slightly better than average looking!"
For 3d6 straight up his rolls work out above average. He might be the best PC in the party. Reroll is likely to result in worse stats. Anyone who can't deal with these stats is a babied creampuff. With powdered sugar.
I applaud the DM for trying this, assuming of course he's careful about balancing encounters.
My choices in order of preference: (I don't have the APG so can't recommend from that source)
1. Go halforc fighter (+2 Str) and relish the challenge of keeping this guy alive.
2. Switch Int and Wis and go cleric. You can buy armour to cover the dex.
3. Elven wizard.
It's not all that absurd. The game wasn't always point buy, and I have had lots of fun playing both styles. With the optimizing generation,I'm sure there are still a million different ways this character will get up near doing 900 damage a round like so many folks love nowadays.If everyone rolled stats he likely has the best or near the best out of the group he averaged 11+ per stat versus the normal 9.5. I also now want to play a rolled stat game.I play a rolled stat game, but it was WAY higher than this (my character probably came out to 30+ pt buy in 3.5). Plus the stats went wherever you wanted them, not the absurd "HAND OF THE GODS" 3d6 straight down the line.
It's completely absurd. Legacy != good simply by the fact it is legacy. Plus, the game was not the same thing. 3d6 straight down the line may have worked back in the bad old days of "death as a regular occurrence" and "we don't have rules, let's bs everything" but everything today is balanced a certain way and everything is a numbers game.
No more than an optimized PC and a bunch of non optimized guys.OK, I have to try it...
** spoiler omitted **EDIT: Hand of the GODS indeed! I will slay you all!
EDIT2: This just makes me more inclined toward point buy. Having the OP's character and this one in the same party is a headache for the GM.
BS. Super optimization does not make up for really bad stats nor do you need optimization to be a god king when you start out like he did to be better than every other character.
It's completely absurd. Legacy != good simply by the fact it is legacy. Plus, the game was not the same thing. 3d6 straight down the line may have worked back in the bad old days of "death as a regular occurrence" and "we don't have rules, let's bs everything" but everything today is balanced a certain way and everything is a numbers game.
Nah. I think the game works better with lower stats. I don't like huge power differences between PCs, or forced rolls, but you could play a great campaign with a 5 point buy.
Nah. I think the game works better with lower stats. I don't like huge power differences between PCs, or forced rolls, but you could play a great campaign with a 5 point buy.
It's completely absurd. Legacy != good simply by the fact it is legacy. Plus, the game was not the same thing. 3d6 straight down the line may have worked back in the bad old days of "death as a regular occurrence" and "we don't have rules, let's bs everything" but everything today is balanced a certain way and everything is a numbers game.
"Great" is most certainly a subjective assessment, but I will give you you could play a fairer game where everyone played with the same point buy. Of course that applies to all levels of point buy.
First, we are going to have to respectfully agree to disagree. I respect your perspective, I have 2 players in my group that would agree with you completely. However, I have never subscribed to the ideology that average/mediocre or poor stats are incapble of being useful outside of role-playing situations. There is ALWAYS a way, but that's me.
You were the one who put forward role-playing heavily in your reply to being able to make a good character out of those stats in those locations.
Second, great armor is not strictly in the realm of Heavy Armor only - Plate Mail and such. It also in in the right blend of protection and weight, as medium armors are not too shabby.
Yes, if you have too much Dex for Heavy Armors and not enough for Light armors. Which he doesn't.
Throw in the clerics ability to buff in a variety of ways and it equalizes. Also, lets not forget the spells Entropic Shield, Protection from Good/Evil/Chaos/Law, and Shield of Faith.
That's what, a notable number of spells to try and mimic a front-line fighter in one combat?
And what ways can a Cleric buff outside spells?PS. Shield of Faith, despite the name, is a Deflection bonus. It overrides Protection from X. Unless you are just trying to prevent mind control.
As for Charisma taking away or having a Class ability that is not as effective - such as, Channel Energy, the only thing affected is the save. This can be countered by the Feat - Improved Channel. Also, the channel energy ability is not hampered for healing purposes with the low charisma.
So at what point shall you take Improved Channel? Level 3 I guess, assuming you live that long since you are already dumping feats in Heavy Armor (since he has no Dex) and shield improvements.
This is pretty close to a low fantasy point buy. He has a couple of good stats, and some crappy ones. To say that PC's can't function without 18's or 20's in their prime stats is absurd. The game also is not just a numbers game tactics are useful as well. In combat, "luck of the die" in many cases is way more important than stats.
It's a 9 point buy. 10 point buy is low fantasy. But what if another player has the equivalent, like Fergie, of better than High Fantasy? And that was assuming the DM was understanding that he needed to run a low fantasy game in the first place.
"Bad old days", "Death as a regular occurence", "we don't have rules so lets bs everything". Being a wee bit dramatic here?
I thought that was self-evidence.
Except possibly the "bad old days."Gaming had rules, however, they were not as codified as they are today.
Being my point. The system while similar was still different and perhaps "wow my stats are terrible" worked better than than now.
|
A lot of you guys have a terrible attitude. Just because his stats are slightly below average doesn't mean his character is useless or hopeless. His DM had his players use this stat generation method for a reason. Stop suggesting he find reasons to game the system.
Yes, point buy is superior, but you guys wouldn't be suggesting he kill himself or some other rubbish if he had the 'silly 16+ in each stat' character.
I second the dwarf druid option. Kingmaker seems to favor druids a lot (at least early on).
A lot of you guys have a terrible attitude. Just because his stats are slightly below average doesn't mean his character is useless or hopeless.
No, it means it is severely limited in both its survivability and ability to contribute to the party. Never mind choice on the part of the player if he even wants to approach either of those things.
His DM had his players use this stat generation method for a reason.
Yes, I've seen lots of bad decisions for good reasons. Like "This is the way I've always done it!" or "This is the way we do it in my other game!"
You know, intelligent, well-reasoned stuff.Yes, point buy is superior, but you guys wouldn't be suggesting he kill himself or some other rubbish if he had the 'silly 16+ in each stat' character.
No, because that would be good. (Your attempt at logical fallacy is laughable.)
I wouldn't even be making the suggestion if he ended up with the mediocrity I rolled. His stats as rolled and as partitioned are awful. Especially if some one rolled really well.In opposition to what the old-timer, ken, wrote, I say you can't have a peasant and Hercules in the same party and have fair and balanced combat. You can't even have "a really average character" and Hercules in the same group and have fair and balanced combat. You either challenge one and not the other. Or you challenge one and kill everyone else
All things considered, its not bad for stats. There are plenty of concepts that would work just fine with it. I would say the best bet is a dwarven wisdom based class and switching the int and wis; the stat array with that simple switch works well in emphasizing dwarves strengths and weaknesses (which can be just as fun to play as the strengths). Cleric or druid would both work well, though in either case, I would avoid a build that involves being up front or relies on spells that allow saving throws. Barbarian could also work, and wizard with the right race would be interesting.
No configuration will make the character good at directly attacking the enemy, but as a second line fighter type or a support caster that focuses on either buffs or environmental effects, it could still be a useful, perhaps even nasty, character in combat if played right.
Personally, I don't mind point buy, but I still prefer rolling, as its more likely to create the type of character that will be remembered for a long time. With point buy, it is too easy for people to just create cookie cutter characters; at least with rolling, there is usually going to be some customization required.
|
What character could be created from these stats?
Level 1
Kingmaker Campaign
Race:
Class:STR 12
DEX 8
CON 15
INT 13
WIS 10
CHA 9The only two stats I'm allowed to swap around are INT & WIS.
Play around with Age effects and modifiers. Check out the table for aging effects in the Core Rulebook. Play an old crabby dwarf, an absentminded human, or perhaps a scholarly elf
Example: Middle Aged Elven Wizard
Str: 11 (Rolled 12, -1 middle age)
Dex: 9 (Rolled 8, +2 Elf, -1 middle age)
Con: 12 (Rolled 15 -2 Elf, -1 middle age)
Int 16 (Rolled 13 +2 Elf, +1 middle age)
Wis 11 (Rolled 10, +1 middle age)
Cha 11 (Rolled 10, +1 middle age)
Not too shabby actually, you could even go older (remember the aging effects are cumulative), though venerable age would leave you quite frail. I've had lots of fun in the past playing old characters, whether the sage-like wizard, the old battle hardened soldier, or the thief that's seen it all and lived to tell the tale.
Old Age: -2 Str, Dex, Con and +1 Int, Wis, and Cha
Venerable age:-3 Str, Dex, Con and +1 Int, Wis, and Cha
I have to again disagree on the Hercules comment. With that logic it is pointless to ever play anything but a caster. At high levels in the majority of play (with players talents being equal)they will just hands down beat a non caster.
Which is why most people around here rarely get to higher level games. How many APs are written targeted at levels 15-20?
The OP obviously will have only a select few options that he can pull of playing well obviously. Where as Fergie's character can pretty much pick and choose through most classes.
That being said, when it comes down to combat with equal gear they aren't so far apart when they play a role best suited to them.
...what? Fergie plays a halfling fighter. He still has a better to-hit and damage than the OP if the OP plays a Half-Orc Fighter. Not to mention AC and HP.
but being a summoner, or druid, or some other spellcasting class not directly worried about throwing out high DC save spells it can surely function.
Yes, they will all be equals when playing a class based around having a secondary character and improving its combat abilities. Or just staying in the back and not trying to add to combat directly. That's hardly a point at all because SOME ONE does have to be in front. Not everyone can just stand in the back and do nothing.
In opposition to what the old-timer, ken, wrote, I say you can't have a peasant and Hercules in the same party and have fair and balanced combat. You can't even have "a really average character" and Hercules in the same group and have fair and balanced combat. You either challenge one and not the other. Or you challenge one and kill everyone else
I have to disagree with you on this; while throwing single monsters at the party is unlikely to produce satisfactory results, most of the time single monsters don't produce satisfactory results even with the ideal party balance. Most fights, especially boss fights, are going to involve a lot of cannon fodder. A character with the OP stats could be setup easily enough to do crowd control, especially as a druid with all their spells that shape the battlefield, and handle mooks, allowing the guy who rolled well to deal with the big boss behind them. The guy handling the mooks may not have the most glamorous job in the world, but could end up being the bigger headache for the DM in the long run if played right.
And what about the far more powerful character wiping up mooks like spilled drinks as opposed to the OP who could maybe slow them down and worry them a bit and then possibly beat them through attrition?
Why would someone with the stats of Hercules worry about mooks when others could deal with them? If the player behind the character really wanted to be a glory hog, sure they could probably deal with them in half the time, but many in that position would rather deal with equally capable foes. Knights in the middle ages could easily mop up the peasant infantry on the field, but usually when they had a choice, they squared off with other knights, letting their own support troops deal with the support troop of the knight they were facing. Not everything in this game has to be about combat efficiency; the concepts of social status and honor are important as well, even on the battlefield.
A lot of you guys have a terrible attitude. Just because his stats are slightly below average doesn't mean his character is useless or hopeless.No, it means it is severely limited in both its survivability and ability to contribute to the party. Never mind choice on the part of the player if he even wants to approach either of those things.
So because his character is "severely limited in both its survivability and ability to contribute to the party" , he should just quit?
I say step up to the table. Play them as rolled and be a sport. Don't whine about "limitations." Seize the challenge.
I kinda want to try the grid method in my next campaign.
TOZ, I like that. You want to run it as a PbP?
...and some people care more about "role" playing vs. "roll" playing, meaning, look at the stats as a "role" to play and have fun with it.
Worry less about missing out on one + and worry more about making an interesting PC with fun traits and silly disadvantages that make for an entertaining story. If your definition of "fun" and "entertaining" can only be met by getting that one or two more points of damage in then we play different games and you should ignore this old timers random blatherings.
|
I kinda want to try the grid method in my next campaign.TOZ, I like that. You want to run it as a PbP?
I wish I had the time! XD
I said a role best suited to them which for the OP obviously isn't a fighter. You originally said they have no place in the same party. With this last post you said they could be in the same party. Thanks for agreeing to my point.
No, I said if they both did nothing in a party, then they would be equal. When comparing 1 to 1, I get 1.
Why would someone with the stats of Hercules worry about mooks when others could deal with them? If the player behind the character really wanted to be a glory hog, sure they could probably deal with them in half the time, but many in that position would rather deal with equally capable foes. Knights in the middle ages could easily mop up the peasant infantry on the field, but usually when they had a choice, they squared off with other knights, letting their own support troops deal with the support troop of the knight they were facing. Not everything in this game has to be about combat efficiency; the concepts of social status and honor are important as well, even on the battlefield.
So your argument is that the awesome stat'd player wouldn't be in the same battles terribly stat'd player (which would necessitate them not being in the same adventuring party)? Isn't that my argument?
...and some people care more about "role" playing vs. "roll" playing, meaning, look at the stats as a "role" to play and have fun with it.
Worry less about missing out on one + and worry more about making an interesting PC with fun traits and silly disadvantages that make for an entertaining story. If your definition of "fun" and "entertaining" can only be met by getting that one or two more points of damage in then we play different games and you should ignore this old timers random blatherings.
That goes back to one of my arguments against "true" "role-players" - why would Dumbo, the incompetent Barbarian who can't lift his axe, be in an adventuring party to begin with? Whose going to let him go explore the Tomb of Gol-gorath with them? Maybe a band of misfits that aren't highly likely to come back.
|
|
That goes back to one of my arguments against "true" "role-players" - why would Dumbo, the incompetent Barbarian who can't lift his axe, be in an adventuring party to begin with? Whose going to let him go explore the Tomb of Gol-gorath with them? Maybe a band of misfits that aren't highly likely to come back.
Or people who need trapspringers.
...why would Dumbo, the incompetent Barbarian who can't lift his axe, be in an adventuring party to begin with? Whose going to let him go explore the Tomb of Gol-gorath with them? Maybe a band of misfits that aren't highly likely to come back.
Because some adventuring parties happen accidentally, they form out of the dregs of a town who band together to foist off the shackles of mediocrity and become heroes. Their numbers say "loser" but their actions scream "hero" because they work against their limitations to overcome the greatest dangers.. or, the "dumbo" is the father of one of the pcs and wants to go on "one last quest" but his age and physical condition describe him as a commoner who can barely lift an axe. However, the story seems fun, and I'd play it in a heart beat. I don't give a crap if I don't have a plus to attack rolls as a fighter, I'm playing what I want, and I play with a GM that adjusts challenges based on the capabilities of the PC's. I also play with other players who care more about how interesting the pc's backstory is than what his lifting capacity is.
I wish I had the time! XDI kinda want to try the grid method in my next campaign.TOZ, I like that. You want to run it as a PbP?
Aww, Come on. It will keep you out of threads like this one.
...why would Dumbo, the incompetent Barbarian who can't lift his axe, be in an adventuring party to begin with? Whose going to let him go explore the Tomb of Gol-gorath with them? Maybe a band of misfits that aren't highly likely to come back.Because some adventuring parties happen accidentally, they form out of the dregs of a town who band together to foist off the shackles of mediocrity and become heroes. Their numbers say "loser" but their actions scream "hero" because they work against their limitations to overcome the greatest dangers.. or, the "dumbo" is the father of one of the pcs and wants to go on "one last quest" but his age and physical condition describe him as a commoner who can barely lift an axe. However, the story seems fun, and I'd play it in a heart beat. I don't give a crap if I don't have a plus to attack rolls as a fighter, I'm playing what I want, and I play with a GM that adjusts challenges based on the capabilities of the PC's. I also play with other players who care more about how interesting the pc's backstory is than what his lifting capacity is.
Sounds like trapspringers to me.
That goes back to one of my arguments against "true" "role-players" - why would Dumbo, the incompetent Barbarian who can't lift his axe, be in an adventuring party to begin with? Whose going to let him go explore the Tomb of Gol-gorath with them? Maybe a band of misfits that aren't highly likely to come back.
I agree with you on this to a point. Characters like Raistlin, along with several others in that party, or your barbarian can be successful, but they do take a lot of work, and most parties will not put up with it. The stats that the OP posted do not fall in this category, however. While they would not create a starring hero, they do allow for a competent support character that can be a royal pain in the butt for a DM to deal with. It may take a few levels to really develop, but even the first few levels can be effective with the aid another option.
Can you have 5 pt buy and 35 pt buy in the same party, and everyone has fun?
Yes.
Can you have 5 pt buy and 35 pt buy in the same party, and everyone is capable of making meaningful contributions in most encounters?
Not so much.
You end up with a superhero and sidekick situation, which can be fun, but wears thin after a while for most players.
With optimization, some of the difference can be evened out, but only to degrees. If the optimization is done for the powerful point buy, game over man, game over...
Note: There may be some builds - summoner, beastmaster type stuff that lets you use other creatures in place of your character, but even those will be far less capable then the same build with great stats.
Sounds like trapspringers to me.
So then it's clear:
If your satisfaction is determined by maximizing the amount of <some mechanical aspect of play> then low stats are not as enjoyable as high stats for you.
If your satisfaction is more based on the potential to roleplay, then low stats can be just as enjoyable as high stats for you.
So, it comes down to personal preference. One not being better than the other, simply different tastes.
To the OP I suggest you decide for yourself which "camp" you are more in line with and then proceed from there.
Personally, I'd considering leaving the Intelligence and Wisdom as they are and play a human, half-elven, or half-orc fighter and put the +2 in strength. I'd plan on getting combat expertise-based feats. As a background, off the cuff, I'd think of the PC as a trained soldier from an otherwise ordinary background, not necessarily destined for anything great (as evidenced by not having huge stats) but determined to do his best at whatever he chooses to do. He might even have a chip on his shoulder about being so ordinary (relatively speaking) compared to other PC "golden boys" with higher stats.
I think I'd have fun with that.
I'm laughing at all the trolls here crying that this character is BELOW AVERAGE. Come on people, take some math! The OP rolled 3d6 6 times. As any school child knows, the most common result for 2d6 (remember Monopoly?) is 7, which tells you that 3d6 should average about 10.5. Actual knowledge of statistics confirms that the average is precisely 10.5. ;)
While the OP's character may have stats vastly below the characters most of you play in your own games, his rolls are actually ABOVE AVERAGE for the character generation method his group is using.
So rather than piss and moan about how his stats suck and how the 3d6 in order system blows, why not contribute something helpful as was requested?
Personally, I'd go Dwarf Druid. Should be great for the wilderness-based Kingmaker campaign.
S: 12
D: 8
C: 17
I: 10 (swapped Int and Wis)
W: 15
Ch: 7
Get a bada$$ tiger or bear, maybe take Toughness so you live longer, then focus on healing and buffing with an occasional Entangle thrown in. Or take the Boon Companion feat to increase your effective Druid level for purposes of adding bonuses to your animal companion.
Good luck with your game! As long as you don't have some uber characters in your party or some uber suck characters in your party, it should be a lot of fun.