Avoiding "dump stats"


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 371 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Part of a conversation tonight involved the concept of "dump stats". One of the GMs I was talking to said, "If any of my players takes a dump stat, I will [figuratively subject the character in question to a rather painful and humiliating personal indignity]."

Examples were offered. It seems that one of this GM's players chose to play a dwarf with a dump stat Charisma. The GM decided that even though the party had a highly social leader, the antisocial dwarf was a millstone around their necks. Prices were raised to unbelievable levels. Serious social penalties were applied. Most of the time, the powers-that-be of any town or village they went to, were willing to (grudgingly) sell the party supplies -- so long as the dwarf wasn't in sight. (They'd heard about the social abomination the party insisted on dragging around with them, and the party got shunned by association.)

Another example was Strength. The GM in question scrupulously applies Encumbrance rules. And then loves to hit characters with low Strength values with Strength-draining attacks. The wizard, who had Strength as his dump stat, got nailed by a rogue who had coated his dagger with a Strength-draining poison -- and then later, in combat, hit him with a maximized Ray of Enfeeblement, which pretty much ended the wizard's usefulness to the party, as the opposition decided to start moving away from the wizard's position, and the poor wizard could only move 5 feet a round -- and that as a full-round action.

Now, this GM does allow players to rebuild characters within 3 sessions of the character joining his game, so it's not like you're stuck if you bring in your dump-statted Alchemist. (He uses a 20 point build base, so it's not like people have to rely on dump stats for points.) And he confided that he considered a 9 (adjusted by racial modifiers) to be the baseline score. So he discourages lower scores, unless the player role-plays the dump stat well, and it's not a cliched dump stat. Playing a dumb fighter, cliched. Playing a fighter with emphysema (low Constitution), not so cliched.

My questions are these:

1) If you discourage dump stats in your game, how do you do so?

2) How does the discouragement of dump stats affect your willingness to join a campaign, and your enjoyment of the game, as a player?

You may also want to comment on the above GM. Certainly it seems to me that singling out players who use dump stats as 'targets' is rather harsh, especially when such tactics affect the group as a whole, but this is not my game.

The Exchange

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Doesn't sound like a good time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

answer 1) A dump stat will EVENTUALLY bite you, naturally in the course of a gaming career. No need for the Dm to go out of the way to "show you your weakness".

answer 2) simply roll stats my friend, then the stats are the stats.

By the ay with charisma, doesn't your party NORMALLY just send in the high charisma, high bluff types to do the buying and selling while the other characters do things like memorize spells or interrogate prisoners or count loot?

How many shopping sprees occur with the entire party there? That's kinda odd.


23 people marked this as a favorite.

1.) I don't.

2.) I probably wouldn't join it. Passive-aggressively "allowing" something and then s#$!ting all over a player (and not just the player, the rest of the group by association) because he takes that option tells me right off we're not going to get along. If you don't like something at least have the balls to ban it outright, it'll show you're at least honest and straightforward enough to deal with.

Sovereign Court

6 people marked this as a favorite.

If you don't allow dump stats, just say so. Take a marker and cross off the 7, 8 and 9 lines in your point buy table. (Yes. Mutilate your book.)

Don't "allow" it and then punish it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pendagast wrote:
answer 2) simply roll stats my friend, then the stats are the stats.

+1. I use the standard roll 4d6 and keep the best 3; arrange them in any order you want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) "Dump Stats" are an artifact of point buy stat generation systems. Unless you disallow lowering for bonus points, they'll always be a part of it. I don't use point buy, so it's never been an issue for me.

2) Point buy itself affects my willingness to join a game. Negatively. Then again, I'm always willing to run a game, and mostly prefer to DM, so it's not much of an issue.

Yes, that DM sounds rather petty. Still, at least he didn't focus on stat draining monsters to punish the character. That's the worst. "Seven strength wizard? Suddenly, Shadows, hundreds of them."


Scythia wrote:

1) "Dump Stats" are an artifact of point buy stat generation systems. Unless you disallow lowering for bonus points, they'll always be a part of it. I don't use point buy, so it's never been an issue for me.

2) Point buy itself affects my willingness to join a game. Negatively. Then again, I'm always willing to run a game, and mostly prefer to DM, so it's not much of an issue.

Yes, that DM sounds rather petty. Still, at least he didn't focus on stat draining monsters to punish the character. That's the worst. "Seven strength wizard? Suddenly, Shadows, hundreds of them."

"Another example was Strength. The GM in question scrupulously applies Encumbrance rules. And then loves to hit characters with low Strength values with Strength-draining attacks. The wizard, who had Strength as his dump stat, got nailed by a rogue who had coated his dagger with a Strength-draining poison -- and then later, in combat, hit him with a maximized Ray of Enfeeblement."


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

roll for stats if he's that against them, then it's just the rolls fault.


Rynjin wrote:
Scythia wrote:

1) "Dump Stats" are an artifact of point buy stat generation systems. Unless you disallow lowering for bonus points, they'll always be a part of it. I don't use point buy, so it's never been an issue for me.

2) Point buy itself affects my willingness to join a game. Negatively. Then again, I'm always willing to run a game, and mostly prefer to DM, so it's not much of an issue.

Yes, that DM sounds rather petty. Still, at least he didn't focus on stat draining monsters to punish the character. That's the worst. "Seven strength wizard? Suddenly, Shadows, hundreds of them."

"Another example was Strength. The GM in question scrupulously applies Encumbrance rules. And then loves to hit characters with low Strength values with Strength-draining attacks. The wizard, who had Strength as his dump stat, got nailed by a rogue who had coated his dagger with a Strength-draining poison -- and then later, in combat, hit him with a maximized Ray of Enfeeblement."

Oops, night shift skim reading failed me.

Okay, the DM is a worse jerk than I thought.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Higher point buy.

The only time I ever saw any kind of "dump stat" in higher point buy games, is when it was vital to a character concept.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, I'm sure so many of these people that hate dump stats wouldn't nearly hate them as much if all stats started at 7 and bought up from there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Albatoonoe wrote:
You know, I'm sure so many of these people that hate dump stats wouldn't nearly hate them as much if all stats started at 7 and bought up from there.

yeah because then it would be a passive decision, as it is now, it's an active decision to something a lot of people feel as gamey due to min/maxing.


Bandw2 wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
You know, I'm sure so many of these people that hate dump stats wouldn't nearly hate them as much if all stats started at 7 and bought up from there.
yeah because then it would be a passive decision, as it is now, it's an active decision to something a lot of people feel as gamey due to min/maxing.

But it still results in stats in the same places, so I find all of this silly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John-Andre wrote:


Part of a conversation tonight involved the concept of "dump stats". One of the GMs I was talking to said, "If any of my players takes a dump stat, I will [figuratively subject the character in question to a rather painful and humiliating personal indignity]."

Examples were offered. It seems that one of this GM's players chose to play a dwarf with a dump stat Charisma. The GM decided that even though the party had a highly social leader, the antisocial dwarf was a millstone around their necks. Prices were raised to unbelievable levels. Serious social penalties were applied. Most of the time, the powers-that-be of any town or village they went to, were willing to (grudgingly) sell the party supplies -- so long as the dwarf wasn't in sight. (They'd heard about the social abomination the party insisted on dragging around with them, and the party got shunned by association.)

Another example was Strength. The GM in question scrupulously applies Encumbrance rules. And then loves to hit characters with low Strength values with Strength-draining attacks. The wizard, who had Strength as his dump stat, got nailed by a rogue who had coated his dagger with a Strength-draining poison -- and then later, in combat, hit him with a maximized Ray of Enfeeblement, which pretty much ended the wizard's usefulness to the party, as the opposition decided to start moving away from the wizard's position, and the poor wizard could only move 5 feet a round -- and that as a full-round action.

Now, this GM does allow players to rebuild characters within 3 sessions of the character joining his game, so it's not like you're stuck if you bring in your dump-statted Alchemist. (He uses a 20 point build base, so it's not like people have to rely on dump stats for points.) And he confided that he considered a 9 (adjusted by racial modifiers) to be the baseline score. So he discourages lower scores, unless the player role-plays the dump stat well, and it's not a cliched dump stat. Playing a dumb fighter, cliched. Playing a fighter with emphysema (low Constitution), not so cliched.

My questions are these:

1) If you discourage dump stats in your game, how do you do so?

2) How does the discouragement of dump stats affect your willingness to join a campaign, and your enjoyment of the game, as a player?

You may also want to comment on the above GM. Certainly it seems to me that singling out players who use dump stats as 'targets' is rather harsh, especially when such tactics affect the group as a whole, but this is not my game.

1. I don't.

2. I would not play if he was a jerk about it. If a GM does not want me to do ____, then he should make it into a rule or talk to me about not using it too much.

The GM appears to be immature in my opinion.<-----me being nice about it.


This GM just sounds like a total piece of crap.


I won't use rolled attributes in my game. Simply put, I can't. Players around here simply won't join your game if you make them do that. There are plenty of other games that don't make you play what the dice give you. If there aren't, then there are other things to do on Friday or Saturday night.

Some people want to play the character that they want to play, and if they can't do that, they'll look elsewhere for a game. Or just give the game up entirely.

I realize that this sort of sentiment breeds min/maxers and dump stats. Well, what ya gonna do? This is kind of why I wanted to start some discussion on this topic.

Oh, and that DM? Is not me. He is a person that plays the same MMO as I do and is a member of an IRC channel I frequent. I like the rule he makes about encumbrance, as it discourages the arcane types from using Strength as a dump. I don't think I'd have penalized the entire group for having Ugly Dwarf as a member. However, increased prices for magic items?* Oh yes, a very good penalty.

*This would require an entirely different topic, but in my 3E and 4E D&D games, purchasing magic items is a personal endeavor, the money spent representing time and energy looking up the location and owner of that one person who has that very specific item you want (or who can make it). Obtaining contacts in certain areas can help reduce the price, too. But if you're so antisocial or unlikeable that you have no contacts and people don't like to deal with you... that price is only going to rise.

Low attributes are, indeed, only going to bite you in the ass, and a skilled GM knows how to create obstacles subtly but definitely to show players that they maybe shouldn't have given their character a low attribute, unless they're willing to roleplay that lowered attribute and accept penalties for it, so long as the penalties are explained beforehand ("Your lowered Intelligence will prevent you from using my rules on Advanced Fighting Styles. Are you sure?").

A fair GM at least gives you the ability to correct your mistake. (I get the idea that this person tends to accept characters from other games in his campaign.)

EDIT: You know, folks, I have to point out that in quite a lot of cases, players don't have a lot of choice when it comes to accepting GMs. Some places only have one person in the entire town willing to run Pathfinder -- and unless you're willing to accept his rules, or you want to go to the hassle of playing online, you don't get to play at all.

I also didn't ask for more specifics. He might have a better handle on it. Should I post the conversation so you understand how much information is passing between us? (I can't, I closed IRC for the night.)

I was pointing out a character build on another site and we were looking on it, and he said "Dump stat strength? He better not use that character in my game. I'll ---- him up the --- for taking dump stats like that." I asked for clarification, and he pointed out some of the things players have tried to get away with -- the Charisma 4 dwarf, and the Wizard with a Strength of 6 -- and how he dealt with such.

Do I know why he did this? No, I do not. Perhaps he understands his players. Or perhaps he's just really tired of seeing people bring characters into his game with dump stats. And maybe his players don't have a choice when it comes to GMs, so they take their abuse and they ask for more.

Grand Lodge

I, too, hate the DM who demands a low point buy, then picks on anyone with a score 8 or lower.


hold on about the immaturity, because the dump stat issue is a player issue, and mainly the type/style of the dervish dance type guy who min maxes the heck out of a character to get some desired one trick pony and then tout about how "superior" the build is… which then prompts other types to grind their teeth.

The thing about point buy is, an 8 str dervish magus is on purpose. But what if you rolled it?

then making the character isn't on purpose… it's genius!

When Pathfinder was still in beta, we rolled all our characters for Second Darkness.

I still remember the party because it was kinda weird.

A half orc wizard (who eventually became a eldritch knight)
A Cleric of Calistria who had proficiency in scimitar
An elf TWF rogue.
and my fighter… whose highest stat was WISDOM.
he had a 15 wisdom.
no.. he never picked up any divine caster levels.

He did focus on feats like Iron will.

He was a fun character to play, who was a sword and board fighter and used all the shield feats that were available at the time.
When the campaign ended, I recall him having AC one greater than a 3.5 MM Red dragon.

I was great fun.
And the best part was he never, ever failed a will save!

Grand Lodge

17 people marked this as a favorite.

Not every low stat is the result of some min/maxed munchkin player.

I am incredibly tired of this misconception.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, that guy sounds like an idiot.

1) I don't.

2) Why would a wizard work out and maintain a 15 strength body? He gains nothing from that, and in fact his studies suffer and he loses out on spellcasting potential unless he was lucky and born a veritable God (18's across the board). The character made a conscious decision to not work out or become an anti-social recluse because that's the way to thrive as a spellcaster.

If someone wants to play musclewizard, that's cool, but don't force people to take stats they will never use (because he only brings in situations that exploit it when people already have low stats)! That's terrible DMing. I could almost stomach it if he told people before hand, but tricking them and wasting time punishing it is low.


John-Andre wrote:

I won't use rolled attributes in my game. Simply put, I can't. Players around here simply won't join your game if you make them do that. There are plenty of other games that don't make you play what the dice give you. If there aren't, then there are other things to do on Friday or Saturday night.

Some people want to play the character that they want to play, and if they can't do that, they'll look elsewhere for a game. Or just give the game up entirely.

I realize that this sort of sentiment breeds min/maxers and dump stats. Well, what ya gonna do? This is kind of why I wanted to start some discussion on this topic.

Oh, and that DM? Is not me. He is a person that plays the same MMO as I do and is a member of an IRC channel I frequent. I like the rule he makes about encumbrance, as it discourages the arcane types from using Strength as a dump. I don't think I'd have penalized the entire group for having Ugly Dwarf as a member. However, increased prices for magic items?* Oh yes, a very good penalty.

*This would require an entirely different topic, but in my 3E and 4E D&D games, purchasing magic items is a personal endeavor, the money spent representing time and energy looking up the location and owner of that one person who has that very specific item you want (or who can make it). Obtaining contacts in certain areas can help reduce the price, too. But if you're so antisocial or unlikeable that you have no contacts and people don't like to deal with you... that price is only going to rise.

Low attributes are, indeed, only going to bite you in the ass, and a skilled GM knows how to create obstacles subtly but definitely to show players that they maybe shouldn't have given their character a low attribute, unless they're willing to roleplay that lowered attribute and accept penalties for it, so long as the penalties are explained beforehand ("Your lowered Intelligence will prevent you from using my rules on Advanced Fighting Styles. Are you sure?").

The game already has built in penalties, and not all stats are equal. That is just the way it is. I would rather use a stat array than deal with arbitrary rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't mind avoiding dump stats as a player and I enforce a "no dump stats" rule as a GM. The lower I allow is 8 after racial adjustments (15 point buy) and even this penalty has to be roleplayed in some way.
I never got as far as to do what your GM did, but only because I prefer to address issues out game rather than get into an arm race with my players in game. As a player, if I'm told to avoid dump stats I do so. The GM is the one putting in the most effort, so I either respect his wishes or I choose another game.

In your case, I understand your GM position but I think it would be better (and easier) to enforce the rules out of game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John-Andre wrote:
You know, folks, I have to point out that in quite a lot of cases, players don't have a lot of choice when it comes to accepting GMs. Some places only have one person in the entire town willing to run Pathfinder -- and unless you're willing to accept his rules, or you want to go to the hassle of playing online, you don't get to play at all.

Online play is pretty hassle free mate. Sites like Roll20 and Mythweavers make it a breeze.

I find the "But I can't find games!" argument to put up with b!&+~%*# GMs shaky at best.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, one thing I hate is that I mention these people I know, who run games that make me want to have some input on how it's done elsewhere, and the feedback I get invariably runs to "He's a bad GM".

Seems like for some of you, unless your GM allows you to get away with whatever the hell you want, "He's a bad GM". I'm talking to you, EsperMagic.

Right underneath this entry box, there's a reiteration of Wheaton's Law: "The most important rule: Don't be a jerk." That also applies to offline people as well. If the only thing you have to contribute to the conversation is "He's a bad GM", that's being a jerk.

In another thread I posted about the GM who had an entire group sit down and create an adventuring party that consisted of nothing but mundane types. I got a lot of comments of "He's a bad GM" even though he did exactly what these people said he should have done. (Yes, he did. Go back and read my posts. Don't skim this time.)

What makes for a good GM in your eyes, then? Not all of us know the game so well we can handle munchkin characters. Not all of us know the game so well we can deal with the power creep in the 3.Paizo system. And not all of us are ferking BAD GMs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
I find the "But I can't find games!" argument to put up with b@~#%#&@ GMs shaky at best.

Really? What about the "I can't find games to fit my schedule!" argument?

What about the "I don't have a computer!" argument? Lots of those people around, especially in small towns.

What about the "My internet connection is crud!" argument? Again, a lot of those in small towns too.

When your internet access is the town library, and it's only open during the times when no games in English are being played, then you're kind of pooched when it comes to finding GMs. Don't think this is common? I know twenty people in rural Nebraska that will prove you wrong.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

No. It does not make anyone a jerk if that is all they have to say. If they start to make personal insults that is being a jerk, but calling someone a bad GM is not a personal insult. I used to be a TERRIBLE GM, and that is a fact.

I think people should at least answer the questions you asked, but not doing so does not make them jerks. It just makes them bad at explaining themselves. They should say, "____ is not the right thing to do", and give an alternative solution so they can contribute to the discussion.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Not every low stat is the result of some min/maxed munchkin player.

I am incredibly tired of this misconception.

READ the entire post, not a portion of it.

The reaction of the DM is due largely to players who DO min/max and THEN gloat about the superiority of the build.

THAT's what I said.

A dwarf fighter with a 6 cha isn't a min max munchkin… Dwarves are actually known for crappy charisma.

If you're' playing with a 20 point build and the PC absolutely HAS to have his 19 INT at level 1, he's simply GOING to min max.
and this type of guy is usually the type to dance around about the superiority of the "mega wizard"

We had one in legacy of fire.

He died of exposure, he had an 8 con (something about false life making up for it or something) our wagon train got ambushed, we got split up and the result was wandering the wild for a while with no supplies or transport.

Was the DM a jerk for targeting his low CON (and Str)…after all, the AP DID put us all in a desert, it's not a far cry for something like that to happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John-Andre wrote:


Some people want to play the character that they want to play, and if they can't do that, they'll look elsewhere for a game. Or just give the game up entirely.

To me, point buy is exactly the problem that prevents players from playing the character that they want to play. Unless coupled with increased point pools, point buy is limiting what you can make right from the get-go. Want a base monk who's effective? You'll have to sacrifice skills, defense, attack, or damage (possibly more than one) with point buy. Want a smooth talking, agile rogue that is well-versed and good at listening for the watch when up to no good? Work point buy, you'll either hit like a flea, or settle for mediocrity (or end up trying to patch everything with skill points).

Point buy is fine if the character you want to play is something like brawny quiet fighter of no particular intellect, or angry obnoxious dwarf barbarian. It's great for "wizard" as well.


John-Andre wrote:
Scavion wrote:
I find the "But I can't find games!" argument to put up with b@~#%#&@ GMs shaky at best.

Really? What about the "I can't find games to fit my schedule!" argument?

What about the "I don't have a computer!" argument? Lots of those people around, especially in small towns.

What about the "My internet connection is crud!" argument? Again, a lot of those in small towns too.

When your internet access is the town library, and it's only open during the times when no games in English are being played, then you're kind of pooched when it comes to finding GMs. Don't think this is common? I know twenty people in rural Nebraska that will prove you wrong.

I do understand not having internet/computer, and having a poor connection. That is limiting.

The point of playing is to have fun so at the end of the day you have to look at the pluses and minuses and decide if it is worth it. If I am not happy I would just not play. Some people may think it is worth it.

As for scheduling if you can get online you can likely find a game. Now I understand some prefer to play only in person but that goes back to my first paragraph where you have to decide if it is worth it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

in general a GM who punishes a players actions, not a characters actions, is "bad". It's meta-gaming and generally doesn't make any situation funner.

now if a player is a problem character, you talk with them out of game, or you just ban him. it's as simple as that, out of game shiz shouldn't bleed into a game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John-Andre wrote:
Low attributes are, indeed, only going to bite you in the ass, and a skilled GM knows how to create obstacles subtly but definitely to show players that they maybe shouldn't have given their character a low attribute, unless they're willing to roleplay that lowered attribute and accept penalties for it, so long as the penalties are explained beforehand ("Your lowered Intelligence will prevent you from using my rules on Advanced Fighting Styles. Are you sure?").

How do you roleplay the Wizard with 6 or 7 strength though? You've already got encumberance penalties, which are devastatingly low at those levels, and the need to spend some of your money on alternate means of transportation. You're likely not carrying much in the way of personal armament either, as you're light load is only up to 20 pounds.

If this GM doesn't want people with dump stats, which is an ambiguous term anyway, just don't allow people to lower starting stats for more points. Or, hell, just have everyone start buying up from 9 or 10, just with fewer points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) If you discourage dump stats in your game, how do you do so?

I don't normally go out of my way to discourage putting low stats in something not too useful. I personally don't do it, since I prefer more "jack of all trades" characters that can, in a pinch, perform in most situations. My Fighters will occasionally have ranks in diplomacy even if I have a low Charisma, for example.

I feel the mechanical losses for low stats is enough. The limitations in gameplay options from those mechanical losses are enough. The fighter player with low Charisma having to play spectator during social situations is bad enough.

Note that if someone tries to roleplay stats they don't have (low charisma, no ranks in skills, etc), then as GM I will make sure to roleplay the responses to their actions more appropriate to their end result (low skill roll, etc), regardless of how much flourish they put on their roleplay.

2) How does the discouragement of dump stats affect your willingness to join a campaign, and your enjoyment of the game, as a player?

Since I personally don't tend to dump stats, I don't know if it would really affect me much. Though if it was affecting the group that badly, I'd probably stop gaming with that GM/group.

You may also want to comment on the above GM.

Besides the obnoxiously over the top reaction to what doesn't seem like that big a concern, I also feel that the way the GM was running Charisma was a bit wrong.

If Charisma is a character's ability to affect a situation socially, then it seems like he shouldn't be having that much influence. I mean, a person playing a low Charisma character as a jerk trying to enrage people, should really only be making himself a nuisance.
And honestly, if a low Charisma person wanted to act as a wallflower, then that should really go hand in hand.

It sounds like that Dwarf was getting quite a bit of recognition and fame, albeit negative, for someone who should have little social influence at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

All right, Scythia, but what if I roll the crap character? What if, after rolling my stats, the highest attribute I rolled is an 11? Meanwhile Lucky Joe got a character with three 18s, and whose lowest stat is a 14.

If I get to reroll, then what's the point of making me roll randomly? I'll just keep rerolling until my character's stats are just ad good as Lucky Joe's character. (And before you go on about how incredibly rare three 18s are, I know a man who could roll 18s all day -- and rolled ten characters in front of our gaming party. All attributes 18, percentile strength 00 for all ten characters.)

If I don't get to reroll, and I'm forced to play Mr. Average... well, if I wanted to play Hercules, why am I wasting time in your game? It's not at all fair for me to have to play the 11-Strength Non-Wonder, when everyone else gets to play heroes.

Point-buy is fair. The only other fair system is a standard array. If you're requiring me to accept mediocrity to play in your game, I'm going to tell you where to stick your game, and I'm going to find someone else to play with. Or go play an MMO.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
John-Andre wrote:


What makes for a good GM in your eyes, then? Not all of us know the game so well we can handle munchkin characters. Not all of us know the game so well we can deal with the power creep in the 3.Paizo system.

What is particularity "munchkin" about dropping stats? Dropping the word seems like you're trying to force the point. I try to make a barbarian character - I drop my Charisma down to 8, and invest it elsewhere (I'll rp him/her as sullen or whatnot), I made a "dump stat"

- not as extreme as having Int 6 and Charisma 6, but it's the same idea.

It's quite possible to achieve being a munchkin via game mastery and other things. You can't drop a label on someone's playstyle if it's slightly different from what you expect.

Honestly, if you don't know, maybe you should allow 'Core Only' rule, until you feel more comfortable.


DeciusNero wrote:

It's quite possible to achieve being a munchkin via game mastery and other things. You can't drop a label on someone's playstyle if it's slightly different from what you expect.

Honestly, if you don't know, maybe you should allow 'Core Only' rule, until you feel more comfortable.

I did exactly this, and my players rebelled and formed their own game and excluded me from it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
John-Andre wrote:

All right, Scythia, but what if I roll the crap character? What if, after rolling my stats, the highest attribute I rolled is an 11? Meanwhile Lucky Joe got a character with three 18s, and whose lowest stat is a 14.

If I get to reroll, then what's the point of making me roll randomly? I'll just keep rerolling until my character's stats are just ad good as Lucky Joe's character. (And before you go on about how incredibly rare three 18s are, I know a man who could roll 18s all day -- and rolled ten characters in front of our gaming party. All attributes 18, percentile strength 00 for all ten characters.)

If I don't get to reroll, and I'm forced to play Mr. Average... well, if I wanted to play Hercules, why am I wasting time in your game? It's not at all fair for me to have to play the 11-Strength Non-Wonder, when everyone else gets to play heroes.

Point-buy is fair. The only other fair system is a standard array. If you're requiring me to accept mediocrity to play in your game, I'm going to tell you where to stick your game, and I'm going to find someone else to play with. Or go play an MMO.

if you don't want to play a character no one is forcing you(you can literally just say he never decided to become an adventurer and roll a new character like normal), and you can wait til you roll 6 18s but trust me, that took me several hours with my computer rolling for me, I made a program to see how long it would take.

just trying to get 2 18s will take a while, most peopel jsut get a generally favorable roll, or orlls that can match their character idea, and then they use it.

while point buy is fair, it means you never have a chance at scores lower than 7 and what ever you use will just be average, not only that but it pressures people to use SAD classes as limited resources makes people want to make sure as much as possible relies on this one resource.

NEED good stats in at least 3 attributes? okay you get slightly above average and have to dump something that you generally didn't want to.


John-Andre wrote:

All right, Scythia, but what if I roll the crap character? What if, after rolling my stats, the highest attribute I rolled is an 11? Meanwhile Lucky Joe got a character with three 18s, and whose lowest stat is a 14.

If I get to reroll, then what's the point of making me roll randomly? I'll just keep rerolling until my character's stats are just ad good as Lucky Joe's character. (And before you go on about how incredibly rare three 18s are, I know a man who could roll 18s all day -- and rolled ten characters in front of our gaming party. All attributes 18, percentile strength 00 for all ten characters.)

If I don't get to reroll, and I'm forced to play Mr. Average... well, if I wanted to play Hercules, why am I wasting time in your game? It's not at all fair for me to have to play the 11-Strength Non-Wonder, when everyone else gets to play heroes.

Point-buy is fair. The only other fair system is a standard array. If you're requiring me to accept mediocrity to play in your game, I'm going to tell you where to stick your game, and I'm going to find someone else to play with. Or go play an MMO.

That bolded sentence is something I will never understand. Rather than having me waste my time rolling, not that I roll poorly I would rather just get a stat array.

In the next game I run I will be using rolling, but everyone will get to use the rolls of whoever rolled the best. That way it will be fair.

PS: To those of you who know me for not liking rolls, I am just doing it because the campaign called for it so I figured I would do it. Then I am going back to point buy.


John-Andre wrote:

All right, Scythia, but what if I roll the crap character? What if, after rolling my stats, the highest attribute I rolled is an 11? Meanwhile Lucky Joe got a character with three 18s, and whose lowest stat is a 14.

If I get to reroll, then what's the point of making me roll randomly? I'll just keep rerolling until my character's stats are just ad good as Lucky Joe's character. (And before you go on about how incredibly rare three 18s are, I know a man who could roll 18s all day -- and rolled ten characters in front of our gaming party. All attributes 18, percentile strength 00 for all ten characters.)

If I don't get to reroll, and I'm forced to play Mr. Average... well, if I wanted to play Hercules, why am I wasting time in your game? It's not at all fair for me to have to play the 11-Strength Non-Wonder, when everyone else gets to play heroes.

Point-buy is fair. The only other fair system is a standard array. If you're requiring me to accept mediocrity to play in your game, I'm going to tell you where to stick your game, and I'm going to find someone else to play with. Or go play an MMO.

I've thought about this, myself, despite having never DM'd. My solution is to have everyone roll the preferred rolling method, my group's tends to be 4d6 drop the lowest, and add everything together. Use the total of the person with the highest score and buy stats on a 1:1 basis maximum of 18 in a stat.

As for rolling crappy stats, 3.5 had a small guideline to follow about that. If your stats weren't above a certain total modifier, I forget what it is, you get to reroll your stats.

As for the bolded, I would check that man's dice...


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
John-Andre wrote:
DeciusNero wrote:

It's quite possible to achieve being a munchkin via game mastery and other things. You can't drop a label on someone's playstyle if it's slightly different from what you expect.

Honestly, if you don't know, maybe you should allow 'Core Only' rule, until you feel more comfortable.

I did exactly this, and my players rebelled and formed their own game and excluded me from it.

K, you should literally start playing at your library with random internet people, if the real world people are going to hold you GMing choices against you.


Suichimo wrote:


As for the bolded, I would check that man's dice...

I tend to roll well for stats also, and I had a player who often rolled 20's during game play using anyone's dice.


wraithstrike wrote:
Suichimo wrote:


As for the bolded, I would check that man's dice...

I tend to roll well for stats also, and I had a played who often rolled 20's during game play using anyone's dice.

I'd still check the dice.

I've got a friend that can do similarly, though. Except it is on the opposite end of the scale. You can always trust him to roll terribly, very nice for us when he is the DM but bad when he is on our side.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Suichimo wrote:
John-Andre wrote:
(And before you go on about how incredibly rare three 18s are, I know a man who could roll 18s all day -- and rolled ten characters in front of our gaming party. All attributes 18, percentile strength 00 for all ten characters.)
As for the bolded, I would check that man's dice...

you should see if he's into baking (dice).


John-Andre wrote:


In another thread I posted about the GM who had an entire group sit down and create an adventuring party that consisted of nothing but mundane types. I got a lot of comments of "He's a bad GM" even though he did exactly what these people said he should have done. (Yes, he did. Go back and read my posts. Don't skim this time.)

What makes for a good GM in your eyes, then? Not all of us know the game so well we can handle munchkin characters. Not all of us know the game so well we can deal with the power creep in the 3.Paizo system. And not all of us are ferking BAD GMs.

People here dont always agree. Some wanted the GM to cater 100% to the party. I think he tried to bend some, but the party would not bend at all, so either way someone was going to disagree.


John-Andre wrote:
DeciusNero wrote:

It's quite possible to achieve being a munchkin via game mastery and other things. You can't drop a label on someone's playstyle if it's slightly different from what you expect.

Honestly, if you don't know, maybe you should allow 'Core Only' rule, until you feel more comfortable.

I did exactly this, and my players rebelled and formed their own game and excluded me from it.

I remember that topic. I think there were large communication issues, and there were possible alternatives that never got mentioned. It was not as simple as it is presented here.


Suichimo wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Suichimo wrote:


As for the bolded, I would check that man's dice...

I tend to roll well for stats also, and I had a played who often rolled 20's during game play using anyone's dice.

I'd still check the dice.

I've got a friend that can do similarly, though. Except it is on the opposite end of the scale. You can always trust him to roll terribly, very nice for us when he is the DM but bad when he is on our side.

I had one of those players also. I rolled his stats for him once. I knew it would not end well, and he also tends to roll poorly in the game.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
John-Andre wrote:
DeciusNero wrote:

It's quite possible to achieve being a munchkin via game mastery and other things. You can't drop a label on someone's playstyle if it's slightly different from what you expect.

Honestly, if you don't know, maybe you should allow 'Core Only' rule, until you feel more comfortable.

I did exactly this, and my players rebelled and formed their own game and excluded me from it.

Sorry to hear. Hopefully you can get a local group together that can fit your playstyle.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand everyones problem with "dump" stats.

Why do all characters have to be good at everything? Isn't it natural that strength and weaknesses alter from person to person what ever that persons goal is?

A warrior who focuses on fighting has not much use for charisma, he isn't trying to charm anyone. Same with a Wizard who doesn't care that he's physically weak, because he is strong in his mind.

Rolling stats can lead to some people having crazy high luck, or really bad rolls. Point buy ensures that everyone has a equal stat array, people can build what ever they want in a way that makes it effective.

I also don't understand the dislike for min/maxing. having characters that are good at what ever they want to be good at just ensures less PK and more fun all around.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Mavael wrote:

I don't understand everyones problem with "dump" stats.

Why do all characters have to be good at everything? Isn't it natural that strength and weaknesses alter from person to person what ever that persons goal is?

A warrior who focuses on fighting has not much use for charisma, he isn't trying to charm anyone. Same with a Wizard who doesn't care that he's physically weak, because he is strong in his mind.

Rolling stats can lead to some people having crazy high luck, or really bad rolls. Point buy ensures that everyone has a equal stat array, people can build what ever they want in a way that makes it effective.

I also don't understand the dislike for min/maxing. having characters that are good at what ever they want to be good at just ensures less PK and more fun all around.

because people take it as an active decision to game the system even though it's offered as a fair choice.

Grand Lodge

Mavael wrote:

I don't understand everyones problem with "dump" stats.

Why do all characters have to be good at everything? Isn't it natural that strength and weaknesses alter from person to person what ever that persons goal is?

A warrior who focuses on fighting has not much use for charisma, he isn't trying to charm anyone. Same with a Wizard who doesn't care that he's physically weak, because he is strong in his mind.

Rolling stats can lead to some people having crazy high luck, or really bad rolls. Point buy ensures that everyone has a equal stat array, people can build what ever they want in a way that makes it effective.

I also don't understand the dislike for min/maxing. having characters that are good at what ever they want to be good at just ensures less PK and more fun all around.

I could not agree more.

1 to 50 of 371 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Avoiding "dump stats" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.