I recently had a character with five 12s and a 10... played a human rogue and bumped the 12 Int to a 14. I had a lot of fun. She ended up being a good skill monkey despite her fairly difficult time in combat.
That being said 3.5e had a reroll clause. Better than a 13 stat and better than +0 total mods = playable. You just barely inch under the the reroll conditions, because you have no stats over a 13. So maybe if you explain that he will give you the reroll... although I am uncertain if Pathfinder kept the reroll clause?
I would have played anyway. I have in the past. The best way to handle this is to ignore the stats and play what you want. Have fun and be ready with a back up character. If you want to hurry to the back up character put your low stat in Con and refuse to be raised from the dead. BUT don't go in with a bad attitude. Just have fun and don't worry about whether you might get killed.
PS: Did the GM explain why he wanted to roll all your stats? It seems odd.
I play this as Assimar, no negative stat.
S: 10
D: 13
C: 12
I: 10
W: 15
C: 15
I'd boost Wisdom with my stat boost. I'd probably look to acquire book to raise my Chr to 16. This would be playable character and would keep up with the rest even if they 18s. My spell selection would avoid save based spell by focusing on healing, utility and buffs. I'd avoid melee combat and use a ranged weapon.
I would have played with these stats, maybe go with Aasimar cleric, 15 wis, 15 cha, would be good enough to cast a few spells here and there, heal a bit here and there. They are not great stats by any means, but I would have tried. If you survived then sick, you beat the system. If you perished, well new stats and new opportunities await. (In the event the second stats were worse then original I would claim that considering how terrible the first were and that I still died, a better set would be preferable)
Angel- blooded rage prophet with the 15s in str and cha and side step secret. There are too many ways to make these stats playable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Angel- blooded rage prophet with the 15s in str and cha and side step secret. There are too many ways to make these stats playable.There are a million ways to make a character playable with them but if the rest of the players have a point buy of 30 to your 10 you're not going to be a star at any point in the game.
And it's far less about whether you can play the stats than whether or not you can comfortably play with the DM who seems to be singling you out for some reason.
You may not be a star all the time, but when you are it will mean more. I relish the challenges and chances to break out of my comfort zone. If I auto win at everything then I am losing interest.
Angel- blooded rage prophet with the 15s in str and cha and side step secret. There are too many ways to make these stats playable.There are a million ways to make a character playable with them but if the rest of the players have a point buy of 30 to your 10 you're not going to be a star at any point in the game.
And it's far less about whether you can play the stats than whether or not you can comfortably play with the DM who seems to be singling you out for some reason.
I have to say that I could not disagree more strongly in regards to your first point. What makes you a star is good tactics and role-playing. The number of bonuses help, but do not stop a player from finding plenty of situations in which their character can shine. Besides, the stats are good enough to shine with almost any class.
As to the second point, agreed. If you don't have a certain level of trust and respect between you and the DM, it isn't worth playing. If I were the OP, I would have worried a lot less about the stats and a lot more about whether the DM was paranoid about player cheating. The OP didn't seem to stick around long enough to find out.
I don't think I'd play there, but I don't care about the array. Insisting on rolling your abilities for you, even with you sitting right there, doesn't bode well for fun times and spontaneity.
I would definitely play with those stats. I've played with much lower (1st-31st level, 3.X), and am about to run a one-shot where the 'point-buy' should average about 3. Pathfinder, as a system, works just fine with low ability scores. For an adventure path, you'd definitely be "playing on hard mode" with under 15 point-buy, but the system works just fine.
Would I play with a GM who insisted on rolling the stats for me, in secret? Vastly depends on my trust in the GM.
I've played in a game where we did something like this. Except I got like a 40 point buy, while the rogue had 12. Not a lot of fun, really.
Low stats across the board is fine, it makes for better teamwork, I find. But huge gaps in points forces some characters to be more or less sidekicks or whats-her-face from Resident Evil 4, who you constantly have to protect, because she cannot do jack poop.
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.
1. DM is a major control freak, and that is by far the biggest problem here. Him insisting on rolling my stats and not allowing rerolls kinda gives you an idea for what sort of a DM he will be in general, and it doesn't paint a very rosy picture.
2. Not only is that below a 20 point buy, odd stats are pretty much useless compared to even. Until you gained enough levels to turn those 13's into 14's, it may as well have been 10 12 12 12 12 10 (8 point buy! Without even the freedom to choose how to distribute the points!). Horrible.
3. As you said, the other players had vastly better stats than you.
Now...you could make it playable as a summoner who treats the eidolon as his actual character, since such a person largely doesn't need stats. But I wouldn't bother, and you were right to leave.
But huge gaps in points forces some characters to be more or less sidekicks or whats-her-face from Resident Evil 4, who you constantly have to protect, because she cannot do jack poop.
I fail to see how a couple +1s difference equates to useless? In fact with three 13s this character should have few issues selecting feats. So this person ends up with a 15 primary stat... when the others may have between 16 and 18 in their primary stat. Your spells have a 1 or 2 point weaker DC or you do 1 or 2 points less damage in combat... Hardly something to cry about. Sure it makes combat marginally tougher for you, but that hardly makes you useless. Why must power gamers always have the pinnacle stat or they go home? Can't they enjoy the challenge of a lower stat?
Not that the OP is a power gamer we can't know that yet. Many would have felt put upon by that GM and his odd quirks...
Of those who have posted into this thread, there are very few that said a couple of +1's makes you useless (though there have been a few).
What has been often said is the vast difference between the players can make a player feel inferior. That has nothing to do with power gaming.
I don't mind the challenge of a lower stat. I wish my group was willing to play with 15 or 10 point buy. However, I don't like having an arbitrarily harder challenge than everyone else sitting at the table.
People who cite that a +1 is a small deal fail to understand that Pathfinder is a game where marginal improvements have a large percentage difference.
If I have +2 to hit vs. +4 to hit (not a unreasonable assumption given the stats described), and the target is 20 AC, that is doubling the chance of hitting.
In fact the difference is never as low as a 10% difference, it always has to be higher than that (granted with an odd stat number, the difference will close in some at times). But considering he talked about a 13 max stat vs. an 18 max stat, that is a +3 difference, and that is huge. That's 3 levels of full BAB.
Fighter OP hits something for 1d8 +1 (probably won't power attack, since he had to burn on focus to hit).
Fighter DM Pet hits something for 1d8 + 7 (using power attack, still hits more).
No, sorry, don't much want to be sitting at that table. While I don't have the ego that requires me to own the table I sit at (I generally don't mind being fairly passive and let others hog the limelight), I do at least wish to carry my weight.
That is a huge slant in table balance. One guy is Batman, the other isn't even Robin.
Now if everyone was set at the same mediocre set of stats, fine, then you won't likely have an issue and it comes to system mastery. Heck, even if the stats were in the same ballpark (max on the others was 15 instead of 18) fine. This wasn't that. This was the two heroes and their trusted manservant. Perhaps someone wants to play the flunky. The OP didn't.
Of those who have posted into this thread, there are very few that said a couple of +1's makes you useless (though there have been a few).
What has been often said is the vast difference between the players can make a player feel inferior. That has nothing to do with power gaming.
I don't mind the challenge of a lower stat. I wish my group was willing to play with 15 or 10 point buy. However, I don't like having an arbitrarily harder challenge than everyone else sitting at the table.
My quote was from a poster that said useless.
There is ALWAYS a difference between characters in rolled stats. Life (and how much fun you have in life) isn't about how fair the hand you were dealt was, it is about how much you can do with the hand you were dealt. Besides, this is a RPG you always have more lives after this one. So why not just have some fun with it? If you are SO convinced that you are doomed by these stats then that should make you happy then that it will be that much sooner to the next character. BUT why sit there unhappy in the mean time? Make someone awesome, someone fun to play, and worry about your uber build mega stat room sweeper character next time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the OP was unwilling to play in a game where the GM rolled his stats, he was free to say so and decline the invitation on those grounds.
To accept that the GM would roll stats and then stomp out the door when the GM rolled poorly for him is not a game issue. It's a personal responsibility and accountability issue.
I have a rule in life. I never trust anyone who cheats at golf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the OP was unwilling to play in a game where the GM rolled his stats, he was free to say so and decline the invitation on those grounds.
To accept that the GM would roll stats and then stomp out the door when the GM rolled poorly for him is not a game issue. It's a personal responsibility and accountability issue.
I have a rule in life. I never trust anyone who cheats at golf.
It's also a game, meant to be fun. Not jury duty.
If he didn't think he would enjoy it with the given conditions, he has no "responsibility" to tough it out and endure a game he isn't enjoying just because he said, "ok, roll for me, then."
I would quite happily play those stats - you can make a whole range of very playable characters with them. But then, I have been brought up on rolled characters, who develop according to what they experience - rather than having a planned build that I need to stick to.
And no one at that table would ever make me feel inferior about it either, regardless of the stats their characters had. You can only feel inferior if YOU think you are inferior. I KNOW I am as good as anyone else.
... My quote was from a poster that said useless ...
No, actually he said low stats are fine. He said a huge difference makes you feel like sidekick. Even if a sidekick is far from useless, it doesn't feel heroic to some people.
... There is ALWAYS a difference between characters in rolled stats. ...
Agreed. That is why many of us don't like them. But even allowing for differences, most GM's that I have played with would allow a reroll if one PC was exceptionally less gifted than all the others.
... Life (and how much fun you have in life) isn't about how fair the hand you were dealt was, it is about how much you can do with the hand you were dealt. ...
This is a game, not my life. I work fairly hard at getting by in my life because I don't have a better choice. Doesn't mean I want to do the same in my hobby.
... Besides, this is a RPG you always have more lives after this one. So why not just have some fun with it? If you are SO convinced that you are doomed by these stats then that should make you happy then that it will be that much sooner to the next character. ...
Or if you are fairly skilled and don't die you could be stuck with what feels like a sub-par character over the course of the campaign for the next 2 years (some of our last that long).
... BUT why sit there unhappy in the mean time? ...
He didn't. He left the game. I can't tell if he threw a fit and left in a huff without any discussion (seems kinda jerk-ish to me)or if they talked about it and couldn't reach a compromise (fairly reasonable if he wasn't going to have fun).
... Make someone awesome, someone fun to play, and worry about your uber build mega stat room sweeper character next time.
Still not the point. I almost never make uber anything builds. I am moderately decent at optimising, but I usually don't go for the limit of what I can do. But I usually don't enjoy being at a significant disadvantage from everyone else.
Imagine you go with some friends to the bar to play pool. The guy that drove says you (and only you) have to play with the dork stick. It's only about 0.6 m long, made of balsa wood, and isn't even straight. I would probably laugh and give it a try to see how good I could do tonight. But what if he says, we are going to come here and play pool for 3 hours every week for the next 18 months and you have to use the dork stick the whole time. I think I'd probably find something else to do with my Friday nights.
That's what if feels like to some people. Not everyone, but some.
|
To accept that the GM would roll stats and then stomp out the door when the GM rolled poorly for him is not a game issue. It's a personal responsibility and accountability issue.
Gaming is not a legal responsibility. It's a social one. The only effect of breaking such an agreement is the attitudes of the GM and other players. There is nothing binding about it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I was that GM, or even was another player, I'd be taking you off of every list of people to invite for any game, whatever the rolling method.
I would be wary of that style of GM, but I would at least play a little. Walking away from the table like that is just rude, and would be a huge red flag. Have some courtesy at least.
As for playing the stats, yes, yes I would, and I'd enjoy turning those stats into a feasible character for the campaign.
I have to honestly say if you agreed to let the DM roll your stats...
Are you sure the DM isn't just being a jerk and gave you low stats on purpose?
IF that is the case, he actualy rolled those numbers for you, then yes I'd play those stats, however I wouldn't have agreed to the DM rolling my stats in the first place.
As for my games, I always go with point buy, usually 25, since I like my characters to shine over the monsters. I still manage to challenge them pretty well.
I do have one player that prefers to roll his stats, but that's because he's got the craziest luck I've ever seen. I can watch him roll to be sure he's not cheating and see him roll 16, 17, 17, 18, 15, 18 and such crazy high stats. Which, is a big reason also I went to point buy... rolling is just too much of a reliance on luck for 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 agree on the hit points being mandatory rolled, although my games I give players a choice at each level they can either roll their hit points, or take the average for that level. But, if they choose to roll and roll a 1, so be it. Most of my players I find DO roll most levels overall, unless they rolled a 1 last level.
I wouldn't, those stats are so bland and boring that I wouldn't play them even if that was the set all players used.
I would totally play random stat games, even the one above (haven't even seen the stats yet).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a rule in life. I never trust anyone who cheats at golf.
And I don't trust people who play golf.
... My quote was from a poster that said useless ...No, actually he said low stats are fine. He said a huge difference makes you feel like sidekick. Even if a sidekick is far from useless, it doesn't feel heroic to some people.
Since you can't be bothered to read let me try again:
whats-her-face from Resident Evil 4, who you constantly have to protect, because she cannot do jack poop.
That IS useless.
... There is ALWAYS a difference between characters in rolled stats. ...Agreed. That is why many of us don't like them. But even allowing for differences, most GM's that I have played with would allow a reroll if one PC was exceptionally less gifted than all the others.
I would also allow a reroll here. But that isn't the point. The point is he had an opportunity to play a slightly more challenging character while having fun and impressing the others, maybe even making some new friends... or he could do something sure to get him uninvited from all future games... like walk out.
... Life (and how much fun you have in life) isn't about how fair the hand you were dealt was, it is about how much you can do with the hand you were dealt. ...This is a game, not my life. I work fairly hard at getting by in my life because I don't have a better choice. Doesn't mean I want to do the same in my hobby.
Everything in your life is your life. The game, your job, your children, how you do everything, it ALL is your life. And working hard isn't even required. All you really need is a positive attitude.
... Besides, this is a RPG you always have more lives after this one. So why not just have some fun with it? If you are SO convinced that you are doomed by these stats then that should make you happy then that it will be that much sooner to the next character. ...Or if you are fairly skilled and don't die you could be stuck with what feels like a sub-par character over the course of the campaign for the next 2 years (some of our last that long).
If the character is able to handle every challenge thrown at it then clearly it wasn't sub par now was it? This is why you should make something fun to play. I know it is HARD for power gamers to look past the numbers and see a character, but it is rewarding when you learn to do that.
... Make someone awesome, someone fun to play, and worry about your uber build mega stat room sweeper character next time.But I usually don't enjoy being at a significant disadvantage from everyone else.
Imagine you go with some friends to the bar to play pool. The guy that drove says you (and only you) have to play with the dork stick. It [snip away the absurd bit] isn't even straight. I would probably laugh and give it a try to see how good I could do tonight. But what if he says, we are going to come here and play pool for 3 hours every week for the next 18 months and you have to use the dork stick the whole time. I think I'd probably find something else to do with my Friday nights.
That's what if feels like to some people. Not everyone, but some.
A +1 to +2 difference is significant??? Wow you have some serious expectations from a friendly game. Sure having to play with a loner cue that is slightly off straight will put your game at a minor disadvantage. Unless you are a master pool player you likely won't notice the difference a slightly off straight cue makes. But with THAT attitude that you DEMAND the best pool cue in the place if you have to play more than once or you won't even play a friendly game... wow is all I have to say. Soon you will be playing pool alone.
Id Play with those stats if the dm gave you the option to roll against them if you rolled crap. Those look like an awesome magus stat block imo. But my question is could you use those rolls in any stat you wanted to put them in to best represent the character.
The OP acted childish. I wouldn't want him in my game whether I was the DM or a fellow player.
The OP acted childish. I wouldn't want him in my game whether I was the DM or a fellow player.
Him leaving is childish? How is it childish. Would you do the same thing? In all honesty I might have walked out cause everyone elses stats where way higher. And the dm didn't even mention any other bonuses to make up for the lack of stats.
If the other party memeber stats where better then these stats, which they are, you won't be able to function as well as the rest of the party. The dm should have turned those 13s into 14s and made a 10 a 12 to slightly buff him, or given the pc a stat item to get him up to the rest of the party to be on equal grounds, or a more fair array of stats.
The OP acted childish. I wouldn't want him in my game whether I was the DM or a fellow player.
It's rare to find such unintentional irony in the same post, let alone back to back sentences.
The discussion on stat generation is a side issue. Its not the primary one here.
I think the real issue is fairness. Most people don't want to play a character that is weaker than everyone else's. Especially not someone is new to that game. Some who are very familiar with the game, enjoy the challenge, but most don't.
This situation also implies that future unfairnesses would ensue. In which case, yeah, why stay?
Although, the GM may not have perceived it as unfair. And might have adjusted if given the opportunity before the OP's hand was on the doorknob. (an implied ultimatum which puts most people's hackles up, and makes them less inclined to discussion.)
So yes the GM was unfair. Whether he would have adjusted if given more of an opportunity is unknown.
... bunch of good stuff ...
Sorry, this is tougher to do from my tiny tablet.
The first part I quoted are 2 direct statements. In that he said the stats were fine it was the difference that was the problem. The part you quoted is a simile or analogy (I can never remember which is which). A comparison rather than an exact staement.
I agreeed that storming out (if that is what he did, since it was never clarified) was a jerk-ish thing to do.
I don't think an argument over the semantics of what is included in life will be productive. I can see how some people would not like to be more challenged than others at the table.
A positive attitude is good. I think I have one most of the time. I have no idea about the OP, but I'm inclined to agree he might not from the tone of some of the things he wrote. But a positive attitude doesn't change everything.
Surviving doesn't mean effective, heroic, meaningful, or fun. At least not for everyone. As the example several others have mentioned. Robin always survives, usually accomplishes something, and is often helpful. Doesn't mean everyone thinks he is as fun to play as Batman. And yes, most people would consider Robin sub-par when compared to Batman.
Everyone has a different definition of powergamer. Many do not see it as the insult you seem to percieve it. However, I fit very few definitions that I have ever heard expressed. Many players wish I was more of one. My characters always have to start with something unique. What I do or do not pick for them has to make a plausible whole that makes sense to me (even if no one else). Even once I have a build planned, it usually changes based upon what happens in the campaign.
My diviner has an aware golem cohort and is trying to raise a baby shadow dragon to not be evil. Both are hindering not helping his effectiveness. To the point where the character will probably be retired from the game because he just no longer works very well for the campaign we are in.
I am an engineer, so numbers are important to me. But they are part of the whole. Not the end in and of itself.
My impression from the OP was that it was not a single +1 or +2. It was every ability at least +1 on all the low abilities to as high as +3 at the top end. Not sure since the OP never came back with specifics.
I do not have, "...THAT attitude that you DEMAND the best pool cue in the place if you have to play more than once or you won't even play a friendly game." That is knowingly exaggerating what I said out of proportion until it sounds ridiculous.
I am no master at the game of pool. I play no more than a few times a year. Yet I can still tell a difference in my game if I use a bent, short, or light cue.
Actually if there was one significantly better cue than the rest I probably would not want to use it because it wouldn't seem fair. I certainly wouldn't want to use it all them time.
By the same token, if one were significantly worse than the rest I wouldn't want to use it all the time either. That wouldn't be fair the other direction.
If there aren't enough cues in decent shape and we take turns every so often, not a problem. That is the situation at most of the taverns where I have gone to play. Been there, done that.
I never said the abilities are not playable. I never said I would have stomped off in a huff. I also have to say the way the GM and is described would have been ringing alarm bells and made me very wary of how things were going to go. But, I probably would have given it a try. But I can see why some others might not have been willing to do so.
Wow. I don't think I've ever tried to type this much with my tablet before. It takes much longer.