So, lately there's been a ton of advice requested on the forums for basic character concepts, with this title of this thread thrown in. What this generally entails is stats like: 18 18 16 16 15 14.
I'm going to attempt to give two answers to this question, in hopes of covering several threads worth of concerns.
First answer: Something with MAD. On the offchance that you actually managed to roll amazing scores (with almost totally even numbers, to be even more unlikely) by yourself and your GM buys it, play something with MAD. Try a monk, or a paladin, or something that if you rolled honestly would actually be difficult to adjudicate stats for.
Second answer: Whatever the heck you want. With stats like that, you could pick up a dagger one size category too small for you, take the -2, take the lower damage, and beat people to death with it. The game is no longer a challenge with those stats, so gimp yourself somehow to make it fun again.
Hope that helps!
I agree that, were I to roll attributes like that, I would choose a class that suffers being Multiple Attribute Dependent. I would probably choose one that is considered to be on the weaker end of the scale, like Monk, Rogue, or Bard.
I'd multiclass and take a PrC, probably an arcane trickster. With those stats, he wouldn't suck at all.
|
Last time I rolled stats like that (with the DM watching) I played a venerable elf and made a healer. Ended up with stats like 10,12,8,20,21,20. Since they only had healing and utility spells they didn't outshine the other players and the group had fun with it.
But yeah, if you roll stats like that just do whatever the heck you want. You'll be fine. If the other players DON'T have stats like that, then please do something that is normally a very difficult concept so that you can even out with the party a bit (and also get the opportunity to do something off the wall).
Maybe make a cleric that uses guns. Or an unarmed and unarmored (or lightly armored) paladin. Or a rogue. For extra credit, make a primary caster class and put your LOWEST stat into their casting stat (like using the OP's roll set and put a 14 into Cha for sorcerer).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will say when people say they rolled their stats; I almost never see the "I rolled awful" lists, and they almost all claim to roll 4d6 and defy mathematical odds.
Math does say we have a lot of cheaters out there. I think most advice threads should stick with point buy. It does encourage min-Max / stat dump, but beats the "role-players" wanting major bonuses in all stats.
I will say when people say they rolled their stats; I almost never see the "I rolled awful" lists, and they almost all claim to roll 4d6 and defy mathematical odds.
Math does say we have a lot of cheaters out there. I think most advice threads should stick with point buy. It does encourage min-Max / stat dump, but beats the "role-players" wanting major bonuses in all stats.
I think I rolled the inverse of that list (or close to it) not so very long ago. High score of 8. Yeah, even the GM looked at it and was...wtf?
Yes, there was even a 3.
On 4d6. /facepalm
I will say when people say they rolled their stats; I almost never see the "I rolled awful" lists, and they almost all claim to roll 4d6 and defy mathematical odds.
Math does say we have a lot of cheaters out there. I think most advice threads should stick with point buy. It does encourage min-Max / stat dump, but beats the "role-players" wanting major bonuses in all stats.
Well I think the discrepancy comes from the fact that people who role normalish stats go about their normal lives, and people who rolled terrible stats spend their week trying to get their dm to re-roll their stats rather then asking for advice on what to pick.
I think you are too quick to assume the worst.
I think I rolled the inverse of that list (or close to it) not so very long ago. High score of 8. Yeah, even the GM looked at it and was...wtf?Yes, there was even a 3.
On 4d6. /facepalm
One of my players years ago said that's what would happen to him if he rolled. He said he always got pretty low rolls on the dice. So we decided to have him take the rolls and subtract them from 21 to generate the same potential distribution. Wouldn't you know it... he ended up with pretty good stats. I guess he was right about his dice.
|
|
One of my players years ago said that's what would happen to him if he rolled. He said he always got pretty low rolls on the dice. So we decided to have him take the rolls and subtract them from 21 to generate the same potential distribution. Wouldn't you know it... he ended up with pretty good stats. I guess he was right about his dice.
I think I rolled the inverse of that list (or close to it) not so very long ago. High score of 8. Yeah, even the GM looked at it and was...wtf?Yes, there was even a 3.
On 4d6. /facepalm
Some people just have odd luck... My stat rolls are all over the place, but I've seen people who always rolled high and others who always roll low. And sometimes the odds really get defied; I rolled roughly a +12 total modifier character using flat 3d6 the first time I ever rolled stats. Even stranger, I once saw someone (using 4d6) roll 3,18,3,18,18,3.
Because of this, I always make people roll in front of me, and always with a specific total modifier range (usually 3-7 or 4-8). If you're outside of that, re-roll. Though next time I DM I may give the option of playing a terrible build for those who roll really high.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've decided the way we're going to go is to have everyone in the party to roll 4d6, drop the lowest 7 times, and drop the lowest total of those 7.
After everyone is finished rolling, they pick the best set, and ALL members of the party use them to create their characters.
Of course, we like above average stats, so that's a plus. More importantly, it means everyone is there to see the rolls and everyone starts off on a level playing field.
With stats like that, you could pick up a dagger one size category too small for you, take the -2, take the lower damage, and beat people to death with it. The game is no longer a challenge with those stats, so gimp yourself somehow to make it fun again.
I've never, ever understood this complaint. How is that statement true? How does having high stats make the game "no longer a challenge"? I suppose it's a big(ger) deal at low levels, but how is it an issue after that? Especially considering players will typically already have a high stat in whatever their character is supposed to be good at, so having an 18 in something that your class doesn't use isn't going to upset any game balance.
Think of it this way. If a fighter had average stats and, at some point, finds a magic item that gives them a +2 to AC, will & ref saves, knowledge checks, perception checks, bluff & intimidate checks, acrobatics checks, and maybe +1 to hit points per level, would anyone say, "Well, the game's no challenge for you anymore, so start gimping yourself"? What about if a wizard had average stats and found a similar item that gives +2 to attack & damage with melee attacks, +2 hit points per level, and +2 to fort saves? I mean, yeah, it'd be a powerful item, but considering D&D is a game where the challenges typically change as the players do, I hardly see how having high stats affects how "difficult" the game is. If this were a computer game, yes, I can understand that, but it's not.
Roll those stats and play a Drow Nobel, then roll a Mounted Fury/Beast Totem Barbarian with a lance and poop all over your DM's encounters.
I've never, ever understood this complaint.
When one player rolls a character that would point out at 60+ and the rest of the party runs in the 20s, there becomes a serious warping of the party dynamic. The first Conan was a fun movie, but when you're the one playing the comic relief, it's not so much fun. Want to 'understand'? Make your next character with 20 points LESS than everyone else.
Quick question. What is MAD?
Multiple ability dependent. Some classes, like the wizard and sorcerer, have one stat they really depend on (Single ability, or SAD). Others, like the monk, paladin, and rogue, need all the good stats they can get to be strong characters.
Quick question. What is MAD?
I believe it stands for "Multiple Attribute Dependency", like how a monk needs a high Strength, Wisdom, Con and Dexterity.
Neglect Strength and you do no damage.
Neglect Wisdom and you have a lower AC/ less monk abilities.
Neglect Con and you're squishy.
Neglect Dexterity and you have lower AC and will have trouble with mobility (Acrobatics, Reflex Save) and less access to feats (Dodge, Mobility, Combat Reflexes etc.)
Since someone brought metrics into the conversation, allow me a moment to introduce mine. It's (loosely) based off the old BECMI method, with the 4d6 benefit.
Step 1: 4d6 6 times
Step 2: Assign to taste
Step 3: Modifications. You may subtract 2 from any score (or 1 from 2 scores) to raise another by 1, but you cannot lower a score below 9 or above 18 (before racial modifications). You can do this as many times as you'd like, but each score can only be raised or lowered once.
Our group has basically adopted point buy. I still like rolling sometimes, too, but it has really screwed me in the past, but the worst set of stats a DM has every ALLOWED me to play with was 11, 13, 13, 11, 16, 11. A dwarf druid. And I rolled three sets to get that one.
When I DO manage to roll high stats, I try not to break the game with them, but I do want to optimize the things I want to specialize in (and I love when DMs make heavy use of various skill checks, even when I play non-skilled classes).
But I think this is all being looked at wrong. If you got lucky and had a beast-mode set of attribute scores, wouldn't you want to make the most of it, as a player? You might be inclined to seek advice on what to do with them. So it could just be that people only care to post when they get good stats. People could be taking their "crappy" stats and letting that character die so they have another chance at better ones (this sounds dumb, but I have heard much stranger things on this forum).
I think it safe to assume that the majority of forum-regulars have DM'ed or are interested in DM'ing, and thus are not quite as inclined to fudging stats as the general player base. Keep in mind as well that the DM (in theory) has told his/her players what methods are to be used to generate those stats, SHOULD have seen them rolled or tallied them up against their point-buy scale, and MAY have set a minimum modifier 'index' (I think +6 total modifier points is the high end of average). One DM I had set the minimum at 10 for a certain campaign.
I just think we should be less... judgmental. Give folks the benefit of the doubt and be helpful, regardless.
|
|
I think people nailed it; back when we rolled awful characters would generally "die at birth". Rarely would a character that was leas than today's 20-25 point builds see play, and often they would end up near the 35-40 mark. People who role want all of the chances of the god character without the odds of being made a gimp. And they call themselves the non min-maxers.
Same with giving a 1st level fighter a +5 fiery burst weapon and +3 full plate: sure s/he can still be killed, but chances are s/he's just going to murder everything instead.
See, that's the thing. It's NOT the same. Giving a 1st-level fighter a +5 Fiery Burst Weapon gives him a +5 to attack/damage (plus situational fire damage) and +3 AC over what he'd normally have- and those are all on things he'd normally already have his highest stats in. A fighter who rolls all 18's, however, is going to have no increase to his attack/damage over a fighter who only rolled one 18. He'll have more hit points, probably (but for a fighter, we're talking a matter of 45 hit points at level 5 instead of 40), but his AC isn't going to be much higher because though he may put a high score in Dex, Full Plate (as in your example above) only allows him a +1 from dex, so anything above that is wasted. Any other high stats he has (Int, Wis, Cha) may give him more skill points and/or bonuses to skills and will save, but nothing that will heavily impact his survivability or battle potential, because, like I said, anything he's supposed to be good at will already be as high as it can be at that level (or darn close).
You see what I'm saying? Giving someone all 18's will NOT make them better at what their class is meant to do. It'll make them average at stuff they're not meant to do. No fighter was ever unkillable because he had an extra rank per level in a cross-class skill or because he had one extra hit point/AC per level.
And, just to re-iterate something from my previous post, any issues ONLY EXIST AT LOW LEVELS. By the time you get to mid- to high-level adventures, it's not going to matter whether you have a +12 or +14 to your roll- well, it'll matter, but much, much less than it used to. It may look good on paper, but it hardly makes or breaks a character in practice.
Playing D&D was made to play the hero. What hero go around with a bounch of 7? Of course everyone, also the roleplayer, wants good stat. If i wanna roleplay a Conan i need my good STR and CON. Otherwise, the first goblin will drop me to negatives, and i wanna really look at this supposed barbarian going around in the shame of being outlasted by a goblin.
Anyway, i am always against rolling stat becous i don't want player have starting imbalances. I find extremely unfun being stuck with a below average char just becous of the unluck of the draw. Only times i used, we followed the same proces described by Noah. Same stat for everyone.
|
I once had a ranger with all 18s. He went down a little harder than the fighter and was a bit harder to hit, and had a lot of skills and was good at them. Still, nobody complained...because tabletop RPGs are GASP joint ventures. If my character helps other characters stay alive, what is the problem? And i never ever tried to find traps untill the rogue failed and tried not to do anything that other players wanted to do first. I was the backup.
|
|
We usually do point buy, but recently I joined a club that do rolling for stats (and is also 3.5).
The rules were simple and very generous:
4d6 6 times
4d6 6 times
4d6 6 times
Then you picked which of the three sets you rolled (you could not mix and match the sets)
I ended up with stats of 17, 16, 16, 16, 11, 12. Which is particularly unusal for me. We started at lvl 5 so my 17 was made an 18.
With such great stats I went with a crappy class that would never be played otherwise (in this case the Paladin which we all know sucked in 3.5).
Stat wise I was far more powerful than the others because they did not roll as well, but I did not massively outshine them because I was worse class than the rest.
More importantly, we have had 1 party death. Was it the sucky chars? No it was me, because I am in the front trying to protect everyone.
So I made a new char but got to keep the same stats. So I went with Monk because again, with these stats it was the rare opportunity to make one half decent.
The reality is, good rolls are possible, don't assume people mmust be cheating, especially when you don't know how the rolls were done - 3 lots of rolls was generous, but I have also seen 3 lots of 4d6 rolled 7 times so that one whole roll can be ignored.
Ultimately though, high stats do not ruin the game even if you do use a powerful class: In point buy, when was the last time your Fighter did not have 16 or 18 Str and high Con? Sure with a lot of good rolls he getsmore skill points and a slightly better Will save, but it is hardly game breaking. All high rolls do is make it more fun to play a MAD class by making them more ableto compete with the 'only 2 stats required' bunch
|
|
In dice rolling you are MORE likely for said fighter to have the 16/18/20 Str AND higher con; your 46 point character would have made a no-weakness machine, even out of a monk. The all 18 party would need CRs 3-5 above their level to even have a chance. It's not that everyone is skilled and sneaking like monkeys, it's that all their saves and HP are through the roof. The wizard loses his standard weakness to combat maneuvers, and can jump, swim, climb, and do whatever else. The ranger can do everything.
Stats make a difference. Moreso the first 10 levels than the last, but in the last 10 those saving throw buffs make a huge edge. And most gameplay occurs in the first 10.
If people were to throw dice (even 4d6 3 sets) and were forced to play their stats no matter what (IE: death and you come back with same stats), you could make some argument that dice rolling doesn't encourage major Timmy power gaming. But at least in my experience (and looking at all of these insane blocks, probably everyone's), players don't accept the potential downside.
If I'm rolling, I won't play a character that has more than one 18 score. I also won't play one that doesn't have at least a 17 or 18 in one score. I won't play one that doesn't have a score under 13, either. I feel like a couple of good scores and a couple of lousy ones really helps me focus what the character should be.
In my current campaign, we opted for random race and random ability scores.
3d6 in a row. If the total mods weren't in the +1 to +10 range, we had to randomly raise/lower an ability score and check to see if we were in the range. Extra caveat: We had to have at least one 14+ score.
My initial roll: Str 9, Dex 7, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 10 (Total mod of -1).
I rolled to determine an ability score to raise, plus a 1d6 for that ability. I got a +5 to my Dex (Dex 12) (New Total mod of +2).
My race ended up as Tengu (the GM's list included a few from the Bestiary).
Resulting scores: Str 9, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 10 (Total mod of +3 after race)>
My Inquisitor is now 4th level and still going...
:P
My husband refuses to roll his stats any more because he once was in a campaign, years ago, where his highest stat was 11 and the GM refused to allow him to reroll or otherwise modify the stat block. I think the key when rolling stats is to ask "is this so bad that it's going to inhibit the player's ability to have fun with the character?" or "is this so good relative to the table that it will interfere with the other players having fun?"
Answers to those questions will vary from group to group and player to player. Some players honestly do get a kick out of playing a major underdog or liability. Some tables can handle one PC outshining the rest in terms of capabilities. Others don't or can't, and the breaking points will vary as well. There's really no way to set a hard and fast rule.
I once had this game ran by a friend that was dice starved between the 5 of us we had only 4d6, so we all used the same dice to roll our stats i went 1st and got like mostly 10s and 14s. My coz went next used the same dice and got 6 18s IN A ROW! Never seen anything like it sence...