| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I would have objected first to the DM rolling the stats. Seems control freakish to me, and not fun. Or an overreaction to people who amazingly always roll spectacular stats, usually when noone else is watching. Better call to just insist all stat rolls are witnessed (as I do for my daughters, the little cheaters).
However, if somehow he convinced me to go with it, I'd play them. I'd probably have a bit of an attitude, though, which would cause me to create and play that character with every ounce of optimization skill and tactical skill I could bring to the table or glean from the Internet, and roleplay my butt off to make him memorable, just to show that GM that I can overcome whatever adversity he throws at me, and still contribute. Probably would end up being pretty fun.
I would have played the stats if I had rolled them, or if I had witnessed the GM roll them. And I may have played them if everyone else had identical stats. But to be given a set of numbers that are subpar to the rest of the group, that were created without being present, seems wrong.
As others have mentioned, I have played worse stats. But the issue does not seem to be the stats, so much as your GM way of handling the situation. It is supposed to be "your" character, and not the GM's, right? If so, then he should not be creating the stats without you present.
|
If the Gm picks my stats for me id require a stat of at least a 16 because if im a caster im royally screwed and i am of no use to my group if i have a low casting stat. And I also agree with the fact that it is your character not the DM's character so i hang on both of those aspects to be honest.
Also i get there is role playing, but what about combat? Low Fantasy games are very dull to me and id rather play a caster because i can do way more with them later on (if my score for that stat doesn't suck.)
I'm unsure of what's happened - were the scores rolled in front of you, or not? Regardless, I'd be very leery playing with a GM that won't let me roll my own dice.
To me the low stats are a non-issue. I currently have a character that started with an array with stat bonuses totalling +3. Put my one good stat into Cha for a caster, and at level 8 I have lost my ability to cast spells (Wheel of Time, I was gentled in combat!). As such, he is now a supremely underpowered warrior.
Probably my favourite character. Nerfed to all hell, but that's not really the point for me. Superheroes are fun, don't get me wrong, and I love building powerful PCs, but for once it's a nice change to play more of a real person.
For the record, I'm totally comfortable with a GM rolling my stats or even creating my entire character for me, as long as it is a GM I know and trust. One of my coolest characters was in a low-powered Shadowrun campaign where the GM made all the characters.
Assuming I liked the DM and the players I'd play in a game like this.
I definitely wouldn't feel bad about busting out a little cheese with a spread like that, though. A halfling summoner would be fine with those stats, an elven wizard would probably do ok as well.
I'd be a little leery of running it with a group I didn't know, though. Ultimately, though, if the DM's good I'll put up with a whole lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP:
I see you keep saying the stats are unplayable. That is simply not true. You said you can't be melee or archer. Yes you can. A +2 to hit (+3 at level 4) is not awful. Just not great. You said you can't be a caster because the save DC is too low. Yes you can. Take utility, buff, summon, and no save spells. I see people do those type of builds all the time even with high stats possible.
However, I do agree that having stats well under the rest of the team is usually not fun.
There are a few situations when low stats might be fun for some players.
1) The group was mostly the 'extreme role players' that feel they have to gimp their build in order to be true to role playing. I didn't gimp my build (because that upsets my little OCD engineering efficiency mind), but I started with lower stats and easily stayed effective with the group.
2) The group was mostly new players (or players that did not put any successful effort into planning an optimized build). I was able to plan and tweak to my hearts content without having to worry about 'stealing the spotlight' from the rest.
3) Mini-campaign or one-shot so that I won't be stuck with the PC forever. Most of our full campaigns take well over a year to finish.
4) Just to prove I can. Ages ago (2E), my cousin said you couldn't play a 'normal human' as a character. Challenge Accepted! The books had defined a norm as a 12,10,10,10,10,8 or somthing like that. So I made and played one for about as long as he kept his uber build alive. Just so I could say 'told ya.'
The OP's situation is part of the reason why I really dislike rolled stats. In any group there is almost always either 1 that has a lot higher stats than everyone else ( 1 hero and a bunch of sidekicks ) or 1 that has stats much lower than anyone else ( a bunch of heros and 1 'was along for the ride').
I know a couple of players that say they want the randomness/realness of rolled stats. But I don't believe that is true. What they want is the chance for better stats than the others. If they roll low they either whine about it forever or find some way to 'retire' the character so they can re-roll for another chance to get better stats.
Be that as it may, from the way you describe things, I think your issues are mostly with the GM control rather than the stats themselves. I would probably feel the same.
Those stats are OK if everybody is playing at that level. Not very heroic, but doable.
The main problem is that it seems the OP's stats are quite a bit lower than everyone esles, which is unfair.
I have suggested that when stats are rolled, a modest Pt buy should be available as a default.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't know what bothers me more. The OPs attitude and reaction or all the support he's getting on these boards.
He agreed to have the GM roll his stats. There is no indication the GM cheated or hid the rolls. He didn't like the results. Rolling stats is gambling. You are taking the risk of getting bad stats to gain the chance of having better stats. He took the risk and then refused to accept the consequences. There is no difference in this and in refusing to accept the consequences of a bet. He placed his bet and lost, and when he lost he quit and went home. When you roll dice, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Those are the breaks when you agree to something. The OP seems to think that you only need to accept the consequences when you like them.
If he agreed to it but wouldn't accept the results then he didn't actually "agree" to anything, did he. He only agreed if he approved of the results.
As I said, not sure if I'm more discouraged by his reaction or the support he's getting.
With those stats, racial modifers, stat boosts on schedule and a few carefully chosen stat booster items, this is a perfectly playable set of stats. This notion that such a set of stats is a "waste of a character sheet" is the problem. I've played many characters with worse stats.
Except that no matter how fair the rolling system is, if there is a huge disparity between PC, then that is unfair and unbalancing. Even tho I could play and have fun with those stats, if another PC had what amounted to a 30 pt buy, my character would be too outclassed.
And I don’t see where he had a choice of rolling vs Pt buy.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that no matter how fair the rolling system is, if there is a huge disparity between PC, then that is unfair and unbalancing. Even tho I could play and have fun with those stats, if another PC had what amounted to a 30 pt buy, my character would be too outclassed.
And I don’t see where he had a choice of rolling vs Pt buy.
Deth, that is the acknowledged and INTENDED CONSEQUENCE of ROLLING STATS instead of using a point buy.
If a player is unwilling to play in a game with characters that are not equal, then they should not agree to rolling stats.
If you AGREE TO IT, then you should live up to it.
This whole thread has nothing whatsoever to do with gaming. It has everything to do with sticking to your word and accepting consequences of your actions.
And I'm done with it.
I honestly don't know what bothers me more. The OPs attitude and reaction or all the support he's getting on these boards.
He agreed to have the GM roll his stats. There is no indication the GM cheated or hid the rolls. He didn't like the results. Rolling stats is gambling. You are taking the risk of getting bad stats to gain the chance of having better stats. He took the risk and then refused to accept the consequences. There is no difference in this and in refusing to accept the consequences of a bet. He placed his bet and lost, and when he lost he quit and went home. When you roll dice, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Those are the breaks when you agree to something. The OP seems to think that you only need to accept the consequences when you like them.
If he agreed to it but wouldn't accept the results then he didn't actually "agree" to anything, did he. He only agreed if he approved of the results.
As I said, not sure if I'm more discouraged by his reaction or the support he's getting.
With those stats, racial modifers, stat boosts on schedule and a few carefully chosen stat booster items, this is a perfectly playable set of stats. This notion that such a set of stats is a "waste of a character sheet" is the problem. I've played many characters with worse stats.
There is a huge difference between agreeing to roll stats, and showing up to the table and the dm having had rolled stats for you. At least in my reading 'the dm said he had rolled stats' says there was no prior agreement and the player didnt even get to roll them himself. That isnt gambling. Thats like walking into a casino and the dealer saying 'oh i already dealt out the cards, you lost, i'll take your money now.'
If the player rolled them, or at least was present for the roll, that would be very different. Still a bit douchey because of the big disparity between players, but not quite as bad.
My group rolled stats, i prefer point by myself, but i agreed. I ended up with a 19 pb, not as low as the one you have but the others ended up with at least a 30, most higher.
I further weakened myself by playing a dwarf wizard instead of something that would have added an int bonus. I have never felt like i couldnt stay competitive with the group in combat.
I simply chose to buff and crowd control. I have damage spells also, but most of my spell list is not exactly combat optimized. Its all in how you play the character, i've completely wrecked encounters with smart spell usage (which i felt bad about after).
It comes down to how you play, think outside the box.
Did the player have a choice? I mean if it was “roll or don’t play” then that’s not a choice. In any case, the results were unfair and unbalancing.
Nothing to do with “sticking to your word and accepting consequences of your actions”. Not his actions, anyway.
I wouldn't have just walked. I would have told the GM how I felt about having a much lower overall PB then the rest of the party. If you explained that having a character who's going to be so much weaker than the rest of the party isn't going to be fun for you. If he then tells you that the way we play politely say maybe I'm not going to be a good fit with your game. Thanks for inviting me and have a nice day and then leave.
Is this a new GM?............. If so he may not realize how unfun it is to play a character that is so much weaker than the rest. I know I've played weaker characters then this. But everyone was pretty much just as "bad". I've played a character who was much weaker then the rest of the party and it wasn't fun for me. So I get where your coming from. ( OP )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bridge is already burnt anyway, right?
If I had a player walk out on me, I think I would expect them to stay gone.
Of course, I would never roll a player's stats up for them either. That's just weird.
I do have a bunch of pre-generated characters worked up, to introduce new players to the game, but they are all point-buy. I would also certainly allow players to create their own characters after they have played awhile, and have a better idea of what they want to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect the OP would you have played with stats of 15, 15, 15, 14, 12, 12; regardless of who rolled them.
That would have granted him an additional +1 on every die roll. It's such a shame that the player's enjoyment of roleplaying is dictated by having good rolls. I wonder what would of happened had he rolled 1 a couple of times in a tense encounter or failed to perceive a trap. probably thrown a similar strop about how the encounter is unbalanced and the GM is being a killer.
Still fair play to him for walking out straight away and saving the GM the headache of having a difficult player at the table. I imagine he went home to play on a computer game instead and gave himself the infinite health cheat to make the game fairer.
I don't think your reaction was particularly mature, but if you were truly that frustrated and upset leaving was probably the best option. Years ago as a teenager I was that guy at a table with the worst scores by far (higher score 13, next highest 10, most under 10), and I didn't particularly enjoy it. Had I walked away I would have likely saved myself some frustration.
Generally speaking my first inclination is to talk it out with the GM. "Hey, I've got an issue, will you hear me out." At the same time, you are there to have fun. If you aren't having fun why are you there?
To those complaining about the OP's unhappiness with those stats - there were people at the table who literally had single scores worth more than all of his put together. That's a pretty big difference. In the old days perhaps you could make that work (I don't know), but it's fairly difficult in modern PF (especially with such a small party and at low levels) to have a nitch to fit into when you are that far behind. I'm not saying everyone at the table needs to be exactly the same, but large differences breed frustration.
My larger issue is that a single 18 (which he describes everyone has having) is worth more than his entire array - rather than that his given array is unplayable on its face.
@8 Red Wizards, looking at your last reply it seems as though the point you are failing to grasp that many people are making is that you are equating roleplaying with being able to consistently roll well.
Yes I would of played those stats. I would of played the posted stats if one of them were at least a 16 so I could be good at my class.
There were no bad stats in the ones you were given but no stellar stats either. If you had been given one bad and one great stat then you would probably have built a character that minimised the impact of the bad stat and maximised the use of the good stat. Playing a character with average stats just means not relying on the luck of the dice.
In most campaigns I've GMed, it tends to be the lower statted characters that survive best. They don't rely on luck, whereas the well statted characters often perish at the hand of a few fluke rolls.
Had you played it seems you would have had to have thought more about what your character was doing and less on the luck of the dice, ultimately it would have made you a better player as you would have developed the habit of always looking to increase the odds in your favour rather than deciding you were already good at something for your character level.
10, 13, 13, 12, 13, 10I've rolled worse in the past and still had fun playing the character.
I've rolled worse and played them and had fun. The key is I've rolled them.
I wouldn't want a GM to roll them or dictate stats have to be assigned by order, i.e. roll strength first, then dex, etc.
I wouldn't want a GM to roll them or dictate stats have to be assigned by order, i.e. roll strength first, then dex, etc.
I always get players to roll in stat order, otherwise everybody plays wizards, druids or clerics and the whole group suffers from a lack of martial characters. I also require players to roll and maintain a backup character so that if their PC dies and isn't raised then they can continue with their new character at the earliest convenient possibility.
As to the stats themselves, yes I would play them, and I've rolled worse and done fine (character in one campaign, the stats I rolled--using very generous system offered by GM which included a limited reroll set--are exactly 15 point buy AFTER racial adjusts. And I'm having fun with the character). And I would never ragequit just because I rolled poorly.
But I agree with many others on the thread that the GM rolling the stats for you seems weird and he seems like a bit of a control freak. That is more of a concern to me than the stats themselves.
I think if the GM rolled one set of stats that everyone then agreed to use (and the players would need to agree to it and be okay with it), that could be interesting. Like, if he rolled the stat array that he rolled for the OP but EVERYONE had to use that same array, just distributing as they like and adding racial adjustments. That could be an interesting challenge--but again, only cool if everyone signed up knowing that was the deal.
I would play the stats. They are actually pretty good for rolled stats. I am not one for optimization, so that may make the decision easier. I really don't care if the GM or I rolled them. I do think that walking out was not cool, especially if you agreed to let the GM role the stats. By the way, playing an elf wizard, you are looking at 15s in intelligence and dex. Why is that not playable?. By the time you have the opportunity to use 6th level spells, you could have boosted you intelegence to an 18. Plenty high.
I would be much more concerned with what kind of setting it was and what house-rules were in effect.
|
It sounds like the only reason you didn't like your stats is because you thought you would never hit anything. Did you ever think that you could be a party Buffer? Ok, I know that it has been said a thousand times already, but really, what is the problem with these stats? The book decribes a ten as being "average", since all your scores are above ten, count yourself lucky. I had a character with a 14, 12 10 8, 7, 7. I knew right away I wouldn't hit anything, so I made a Halfling Bard and went with it. The DM could see my plight, but because I built him smartly, he survived the caigmpaig up to 18th level! Of course, the "Gods" stepped in a couple of times and gave me an extra +1 stat boost. Did you even think that maybe if you had just accepted it and talked to him outside the game, that maybe he might of come up with something to help you out? Got news for you, Most GM's want thier player's to have fun! That, and there is a lot more to Pathfinder then just hitting the bad guy.
I personally would not have agreed to any rolling of ability scores, period. But that's just me, I firmly believe that some numbers in the game should not be randomized, ability scores and hit points being chief among them. I CERTAINLY wouldn't agree to rolling different score sets for different people either, because that leads to some people getting awesome ones and others getting awful ones, etc. As DM I always use either a point buy system or some kind of set array. Flavor wise, I feel that most PCs would not be "meh" characters at whatever it is they've benn training their whole lives for upto the point where they got a level in their first class. Is a level one Fighter going to have a mediocre Strength? I doubt it. He probably spent a lot of time fighting and exercising and training to become pretty strong, because strength lends itself to being a better fighter. That said, he's probably not have spent that time reading books about religion or magic. Thus whatever numbers he has in Strength ought to be better than (not equally as crappy as) his numbers in Intelligence and or Wisdom. I would expect him to have some numbers that are good, representing the things he did to train himself for his life as a fighter, and other things to be low because he neglected those things while focusing on fighting. The point buy process, to me, models or simulates that formative part of the PCs life when he had to make choices about what he wanted to do "when he grows up" etc. Ad as far as hit points go, I just give player half the number of sides on the die every level. Gives you something to rely on. No Fighter should have to suck it up and deal with getting three or four 1's in a row on consecutive level-ups due to fickle dice. The monster books NEVER give monsters random hit points, why should the PCs have to roll for it?
I'm a point-buy all the way kinda guy ... I can't imagine playing in a game where stats were rolled, much less when they're rolled by someone other than myself.
I'd play them (they're above average given my preferred stat generation system).
Having said that, if having worse stats than the other PCs is an issue for you then I think you did the right thing to leave rather than play under those rules and then complain about it later.
I dont understand why the DM would insist on rolling though. I like rolling for stats (3d6 in order, fwiw) because I enjoy the randomness, the hope and the strange characters it throws up. I dont really see getting any of that fun if someone just hands me random numbers though - I wouldnt program excel to do it for me either. There's something exciting about rattling the dice in your hand each time, imo.
|
|
I wouldn't need to see the rolls. Therre's no valid explanation I could ever come up with for rolling a player's stats for him rather than letting him roll for himself. Maybe he's superstitious and believes one person rolling balances everyone's luck? Even in that case, I'd argue that karma knows who the rolls are for and doesn't care about the hands on the dice!
If you accept rolling, you have to accept the possibility of a bad set of rolls so: Yes, I would play those stats. That aside, I would not play with this GM unless I had good knowledge ahead of time that this was his one quirk and that level of control wasn't spread throughout his whole game. I'm sure I'm not without quirks...
I'd have played them.
|
Ya I agree with adamantine Dragon to a certain extent. You seem used to a house rule where your ability score possiblity is massivly larger is the possible outcomes than this. 3 sets of stats and pick the one you like, that to me seems like you might as well use a point buy. The rolling for ability scores should be a gamble. Now I can understand wanting to roll your own stats, its fun and makes you feel like you have some form of control over how well you might do, but the fact that you NEED a 16 or a character is unplayable seems a bit farfetched. I have played charcters with junk rolls and still had tons of fun and it really made me think outside the box.
And making the character just to have it commit suicide is ridiculous. Accept fate and roll with the punches. It makes me sad when people actually consider this an option and do it.
10, 13, 13, 12, 13, 10
DM said he rolls the players stats, and I said ok "in my mind that put up a red flag." DM said you get one set and that everyone else got one set, and I said ok and he rolled the above so I got up and made it to the door before he asked where are you going and I told him I'm not playing those they are less than a 20 point buy in. I asked him if I could reroll, because I didn't want to waste a character sheet on those stats and he said no because no one else did so I left.
I would like to add the lowest stat on the other 2 player's character sheets was 12 and going up to 18.
Might. You are right however that it is important that the power level between characters remain equal, and that yours was not.
You should not have left so quickly. I would have sat down, written out the stats of the other players in a line, and then include yours. Show it to the DM, and ask what happens when a player feels slighted. The real issue here is control, and equality. Seriously look at this person, and ask if there is a personal issue between you and the DM. If not, ask why your attributes are so much lower than the other players.
It's not how potent the attributes themselves are, it's how they compare to the rest of the group that raises a red flag with me.
I think I will modify my stat rolling method because of this.
Roll 3d6, toss out the lowest. Add 6. That is your attribute. Do this 6 times, and arrange to taste. That should improve the odds somewhat of getting at least average to above average attributes, and make the players feel like they have some insurance.
10, 13, 13, 12, 13, 10
DM said he rolls the players stats, and I said ok "in my mind that put up a red flag." DM said you get one set and that everyone else got one set, and I said ok and he rolled the above so I got up and made it to the door before he asked where are you going and I told him I'm not playing those they are less than a 20 point buy in. I asked him if I could reroll, because I didn't want to waste a character sheet on those stats and he said no because no one else did so I left.
I would like to add the lowest stat on the other 2 player's character sheets was 12 and going up to 18.
You are right however that it is important that the power level between characters remain equal, and that yours was not.
I think if this is important to a group then they shouldn't roll for stats (at least not in the "take what you're given" way that this group does).
Given their chosen method, I would actually suggest that equal power level between PCs is not important to this group. (And that this incongruity is a good reason for the OP to not play, since it is important to them).
Naw Steve, the law of averages tends to ensure that the dice come out about the same level for all characters. There's enough variance that players can hang personality quirks on the extreme results, positive and negative, but the whole thing averages out well.
The issue here may be that the DM has noted cheating on attribute rolls in the past, and now took that over to ensure equality. However, this shafts over the new guy, as we have seen. But we don't know, because the new guy left before he gathered enough information to figure out if this was personal or if it was something else.
Naw Steve, the law of averages tends to ensure that the dice come out about the same level for all characters. There's enough variance that players can hang personality quirks on the extreme results, positive and negative, but the whole thing averages out well.
If you randomly roll a half dozen characters it is almost a certainty that one of them will be of lower power than the others.
I'm with the people that say it's playable stats. With those I'd probably go summoner of some kind, likely Synth or Master summoner. Eidolon doesn't care what stats you have, nor do summoned creatures and buff spells.
To that end, bard would have been workable as well. You get plenty of skill choice and you get to make the other characters look good.
If you still feel that a workable character isn't up to your personal standards for play, even given all the options presented by people in the thread, well then I suppose you made a good choice in walking away.
Here's a thing, sure, he could play a buffer type character and do alright with the scores. Or a summoner. Or a synthesist. Ever think that maybe he doesn't enjoy playing those types of characters?
This is a game. I play this game to have fun. And personally, if I'm not having fun playing the game, I'll leave. I've done it before. And honestly that's for the best for all concerned.
But he didn't say "he doesn't enjoy playing those types of characters." He keeps saying they are unplayable. They are not unplayable. That is not a valid reason for the rage quit.
Potentially valid reasons are the 'control freak' attitude or the relative power level between PC's. But the stats themselves are not unplayable.I still think a rage quit without discussion is kind of a douche-bag thing to do. But his description is kinda sketchy. I am not sure if there was a discussion or not. In one place he kinda hints that there was in another it sounds more like he instantly walked out.
Personally, I refuse to accept any argument for rolling stats (and/or hit points) which appeals to the law of averages. The law of averages doesn't mean jack squat when you only care about ONE character's stats (your own). If you want to use the law of averages, just give everyone an 11 in every stat. You've done them a FAVOR, right? On average, half their stats would be 10 or less, so what do they have to complain about? Hogwash. To be invested in a PC, the player has to have a hand it that PC's creation, in my opinion. There's nothing worse than being dealt a lousy poker hand and being told you MUST play those cards. You look at your cards and say "Well, if I gotta win, I gotta bluff". Only in Pathfinder, you can't bluff the dragon into taking damage from your sword. You just miss. (or you roll bluff and fail because you have a +0 Cha mod).
The difference between a 15 post racial and an 18 post racial is 2. Being 2 results lower to hit is not a big deal at low level, and from 4-7 the difference is only 1 (odd numbers and stat bonus) With that stat array a fighter with shield and longsword would be quite playable. Low dex doesn't matter since you can full plate later (when you need to). A lowish con can be mitigated by putting favored class bonus there.
Human Fighter
15(post racial)
12
13
13
10
10
3 feats can go a long way towards a build right out the gate. 1d8+2 damage is fine for level 1's. Weapon focus can mitigate some of the issues with hitting (by level 4 you are +1str bonus and w/focus are equal to a normal full BAB). Starting armor is 4 mirror (super cheap) and a heavy shield. Should be 19 AC which is on the high end for most PCs, and you can take some other feats for even more AC.
+4 to hit for moderate damage with a solid AC is not a bad character, and is like 10 percent less effective than one with a 16 rolled somewhere, but that 16 rolled character would probably just roll with the typical 2 handed fighter and focus on just doing damage. This build lets the fighter take the expertise based feats and comes up with some better survivability.
Alternatively you could go with the alt human trait that lets you take +2 to two different stats instead of the racial free feat and skill points. Put that in STR and Wisdom and you have the start of a decent battle cleric. Put the 10 in Int and Dex Obviously. Giving up the feat at first level kind of hurts, but clerics with their 3/4 BAB don't really qualify for much in terms of battle feats.
I personally would not have agreed to any rolling of ability scores, period. But that's just me, I firmly believe that some numbers in the game should not be randomized, ability scores and hit points being chief among them. I CERTAINLY wouldn't agree to rolling different score sets for different people either, because that leads to some people getting awesome ones and others getting awful ones, etc.
This.
