Stats 3d6 take em straight


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Just started a new campaign with my core group of friends and decided to mix it up for once. We put the power gaming aside and decided as players to take our stats 3d6 straight down, no rerolls but min stat of 6. No fudging, no rerolls, no feeling bad for any player who happened to get pooped on during the dice rolls.

Gotta say it's been fun this far for both the players and DM. For once it adds a real sense of danger that your character sometimes misses in the world of power gaming. Also gives our DM a ton of flexibility with drops and character wealth due to weaknesses. Especially since out of 6 players we had only 1 person roll a 10 con. Most of the party was con 6-8.

It really seemed to get everyone really geared up to play each week and I'd definitely recommend giving it a shot sometime.

Or maybe I'm only saying that cause I go lucky.

15
15
7
9
13
15

Wanted to play a paladin going in and can't believe the dice rolled so well in favor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The one time my group tried this I ended up rolling two 18's and nothing under a 14. So. YMMV on how much danger this rule adds.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

With 3d6 straight you can also roll 7, 10, 6, 12, 8, 10. Openly stating my plan to fight suicidally did get a reroll.

It's not just danger that you get, it's also potentially a feeling that you can't do a damn thing.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That party is gonna die young with everyone having such low con scores. I personally hate dice rolling stats...you inevitably end up with unbalanced parties where 1 person rolls amazing, and someone else rolls like garbage. Point buy was IMHO one of the best quality of like improvements ever added to the game.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
joefro wrote:
We put the power gaming aside and decided as players to take our stats 3d6 straight down

This doesn't prevent powergaming, quite the opposite - it practically enforces powergaming. Because there's a good chance that you need to powergame like there's no tomorrow to make a functionable character out '3d6 in order' rolls.

Powergaming means getting the maximum out of a situation. In other words, it is always relative to the foundation*, so changing the foundation cannot change whether you can powergame or not. What changes is the incentive, which clearly gets increased when you hamper the character creation.

*) In this case, Summoner would very likely create a martial entity way stronger than any PC, and it's also one of the best classes to compensate for 7 Con.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Was gonna say the same as Derk

I don’t understand the logic in of bad stats = don’t have to power game

It’s the opposite, it encourages you to work harder.


If I knew how to do the dice roll commands here on the board I'd give it a shot right now just to see what happens.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
If I knew how to do the dice roll commands here on the board I'd give it a shot right now just to see what happens.

[ dice ] 3d6 [ / dice] & remove the spaces. Here's five sets to see what a group might look like.

3d6 ⇒ (3, 2, 6) = 113d6 ⇒ (5, 6, 5) = 163d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 6) = 153d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 2) = 113d6 ⇒ (4, 1, 4) = 93d6 ⇒ (2, 1, 5) = 8

3d6 ⇒ (4, 6, 2) = 123d6 ⇒ (1, 2, 3) = 63d6 ⇒ (3, 6, 6) = 153d6 ⇒ (5, 1, 2) = 83d6 ⇒ (4, 2, 6) = 123d6 ⇒ (2, 1, 1) = 4

3d6 ⇒ (1, 6, 6) = 133d6 ⇒ (5, 2, 4) = 113d6 ⇒ (6, 1, 6) = 133d6 ⇒ (3, 6, 4) = 133d6 ⇒ (6, 1, 4) = 113d6 ⇒ (6, 5, 1) = 12

3d6 ⇒ (6, 6, 6) = 183d6 ⇒ (1, 1, 3) = 53d6 ⇒ (4, 6, 3) = 133d6 ⇒ (1, 5, 6) = 123d6 ⇒ (6, 6, 3) = 153d6 ⇒ (5, 6, 6) = 17

3d6 ⇒ (6, 6, 2) = 143d6 ⇒ (2, 2, 6) = 103d6 ⇒ (2, 3, 2) = 73d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 1) = 103d6 ⇒ (4, 2, 3) = 93d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 2) = 11

If the people who rolled sets 2 & 5 played like they didn't care what happened to their characters & 4 made a deliberately non-optimal character to try to avoid overshadowing others this could head to an early TPK. These reactions could easily happen with the people I know.

Interestingly not one of those statlines is as bad as the character I rolled 3 weeks ago and mentioned above.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
joefro wrote:


Wanted to play a paladin going in and can't believe the dice rolled so well in favor.

If I'm rolling dice for stats, let alone having to keep the order, I NEVER have ANY clue what I want to play until I see the stats. Way too much chance the dice will dictate otherwise.

Obviously, if this works for your group great. But I'm in the group that would loathe this with a fiery passion. I really don't necessarily want to play a summoner and/or druid every game :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
joefro wrote:


Wanted to play a paladin going in and can't believe the dice rolled so well in favor.

If I'm rolling dice for stats, let alone having to keep the order, I NEVER have ANY clue what I want to play until I see the stats. Way too much chance the dice will dictate otherwise.

Obviously, if this works for your group great. But I'm in the group that would loathe this with a fiery passion. I really don't necessarily want to play a summoner and/or druid every game :-)

Then play a hunter. :P


3d6 ⇒ (5, 6, 6) = 17 Str
3d6 ⇒ (2, 2, 3) = 7 Dex
3d6 ⇒ (5, 1, 3) = 9 Con
3d6 ⇒ (5, 3, 3) = 11 Int
3d6 ⇒ (2, 3, 3) = 8 Wis
3d6 ⇒ (3, 4, 4) = 11 Cha

Guess I could play a dwarf fighter, maybe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When it's my turn to Dm (after the current campeign is over) I will roll the stats for each player, and then they can choose the stats ;)

In other words, I roll 4d6-lowestd6 for times to get one set of 4 numbers. I'll do this 3 times, so I get 3 sets of 4 numbers. Then each player can choose 1 set to pick the highest scores, then one set and pick the middle two and one set to pick the lowest. Once one set has been chosen, it can't be rechosen.

For example:
4d6 ⇒ (5, 3, 6, 6) = 204d6 ⇒ (4, 3, 1, 4) = 124d6 ⇒ (5, 4, 4, 3) = 164d6 ⇒ (3, 1, 4, 3) = 11 would become: 17, 11, 13, 10

4d6 ⇒ (6, 6, 2, 1) = 154d6 ⇒ (6, 2, 2, 6) = 164d6 ⇒ (1, 4, 6, 5) = 164d6 ⇒ (6, 1, 6, 2) = 15 would become: 14, 14, 15, 14

4d6 ⇒ (2, 5, 6, 4) = 174d6 ⇒ (2, 6, 5, 5) = 184d6 ⇒ (1, 2, 2, 6) = 114d6 ⇒ (4, 1, 4, 6) = 15 would become: 15, 16, 10, 14

So one can choose: 15 and 16 bottom pool als highest scores from that pool, 13 and 11 from the top pool als middle scores, and 14 and 14 from the middle pool als lowest scores (16,15,14,14,13,11). But you can also go for 17 and 13 from the top pool as highest, 15 and 14 from the bottom pool als middles, and 14 and 14 from the middle pool as lowest (17,15,14,14,14,13).
Each player may find different combinations, but they all have the "same starting stats".

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

3d6 ⇒ (2, 1, 6) = 9
3d6 ⇒ (6, 1, 4) = 11
3d6 ⇒ (5, 4, 2) = 11
3d6 ⇒ (4, 3, 1) = 8
3d6 ⇒ (1, 2, 6) = 9
3d6 ⇒ (1, 4, 2) = 7

Was curious. And that is why I hate this idea with a fiery passion.

A -6 pt build isn't exactly what I'd call fun to play.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Pretty much the only good purpose for rolling stats as 3d6 in order is to create a random newborn in a family with unexceptional parents. PCs and most NPCs, however, have survived childhood and are qualified to do certain jobs, which should bias their stats upward.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

3d6 take them as they roll is a more true to real life than point buy or similar methods.

You probably won't be extraordinary. You might well not be capable of what you really wish you could be. You won't necessary be equal to others. It isn't fair.

Whether that is fun or not depends on the person. I think it can be an interesting challenge to take what you get, do your best and see what you can make of it. In my experience, the very pain built into a lot of these characters makes them more memorable, more 'real' if you will.

If it won't be fun for you, I certainly would say don't play that sort of game though.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dave Justus wrote:
I think it can be an interesting challenge to take what you get, do your best and see what you can make of it.

Within reason, maybe. It can be fun to overcome challenges.

But with the character I rolled above, I'd be seeing how much fun it is to be the comically incompetent character who can't do anything.

Even if choose to go old school I think you need to set SOME limits. An adventurer should have a reasonable chance against a kobold :-)

Silver Crusade

I'm with the other people who point out that 3d6 attribute rolls INCREASE the tendency to Power Game in Pathfinder. For example, here's a totally kick ass PC with AWFUL stats. Any party, especially one with poor stats, would LOVE to have this 1-point Evangelist Cleric who summons. This PC is even a melee powerhouse, despite having awful stats. Stats simply don't matter for this build, making it optimal for a PC with lousy attributes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

When I played White Box D&D (0 Ed, for you Johnny-come-latelys) back in the late '70s, we used to do this. We also played under a judge with a pretty tough rep.

After about six months play was modified to allow you to move the stats around & re-roll anything under a seven.

Then it went to 'roll four characters and take the best one'.

In short, this was too 'Old School' for a decidedly lethal judge back when 'Old School' was 'that new derivative of Chainmail'.

If you guys want to try it as a hard-mode lark, knock yourselves out. I can't recommend it long term.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

3d6 straight is typically going to give you the stat most people have in real life.

Nice if you are rolling an office worker, but not that nice when you are trying to escape from your actual real life position as an office worker.

I'd only roll this for one off adventures where class and stats don't matter, and you are mostly just doing things like spamming a deck of many things and other 'whacky' magical devices as your primary means of combat and problem solving.


Sir Belmont the Valiant wrote:

In short, this was too 'Old School' for a decidedly lethal judge back when 'Old School' was 'that new derivative of Chainmail'.

If you guys want to try it as a hard-mode lark, knock yourselves out. I can't recommend it long term.

Using 3d6 in order makes a lot of sense for how the Lake Geneva campaigns were played¹. When you go in assuming a high character death rate at low levels, character retirement being common² and everyone having multiple characters on the go. You got decent and relatively balanced stats because the characters that last are generally the better ones.

Once you switch to an assumption that people aren't going to be going through dozens of characters you need to do something to boost the stats rolled and even out the spread between players.

Even for a bit of a silly "Lake Geneva" inspired idea I've toyed around with, I wouldn't use 3d6 in order for PC stats. Perhaps 4d6 drop lowest, in order or even 23-25-27 arranged randomly before the +2.

1: To be honest, quite a bit of the "why would they do this?" from OD&D/1ed makes much more sense in that context.

2: Those classic modules? If you met someone in town with class levels it was probably somebody's retired character from those games.


1+1+3= 5 STR
3+6+3= 12 DEX
2+1+2= 5 CON
5+6+3= 14 INT
2+2+2= 6 WIS
4+3+3= 10 CHA

Looks like an Elf Wizard to me (the CON's already bad enough that the penalty won't matter).

I think this kind of thing can be fun, but you need to know going in, and everyone (EVERYONE) has to be at peace with the idea of playing a side-kick.

The last time I played a 4d6-drop-the-lowest game I ended up with 16 16 15 14 14 12, while a friend ended up with 12 11 11 10 10 8 (we offered him a re-roll, but he wanted to try it). We all had fun, but I think that's mostly because he was ok playing the weak character. If he hadn't been ok with it we couldn't really have continued the game.

TLDR: It's fine if everyone at the table is comfortable with a power-disparity.


MrCharisma wrote:

1+1+3= 5 STR

3+6+3= 12 DEX
2+1+2= 5 CON
5+6+3= 14 INT
2+2+2= 6 WIS
4+3+3= 10 CHA

Looks like an Elf Wizard to me (the CON's already bad enough that the penalty won't matter).

That wouldn't have occurred to me, but you're probably right.

Can a CON 3 wizard still gain 3HP per level with Toughness and Favored Class Bonus?


Matthew Downie wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:

1+1+3= 5 STR

3+6+3= 12 DEX
2+1+2= 5 CON
5+6+3= 14 INT
2+2+2= 6 WIS
4+3+3= 10 CHA

Looks like an Elf Wizard to me (the CON's already bad enough that the penalty won't matter).

That wouldn't have occurred to me, but you're probably right.

Can a CON 3 wizard still gain 3HP per level with Toughness and Favored Class Bonus?

Yeah. Human/Half-Elf/Half-Orc would probably be fine as well, but that +1 AC might actually save you some time, whereas the possible +1HP per level probably won't =P

Also Wizards in PF get 1d6hp, and a 3 CON is only a -4, so you have a chance of getting 2hp some levels! (plus FCB and Toughness = 4hp)

EDIT: Wizard with 5 CON ~= 9/6 HP/lvl
Wizard with 3 CON ~= 7/6 HP/lvl
Assuming Max. HP at level 1, then roll for HP after that: This means at level 7 the 5 CON Wizard should have ~2 more HP than the 3 CON Wizard.


A figment familiar for that wizard would be fun. What's 25% of 2 HP? Zero in PF you say? Well, maybe an enemy will accidentally trip over the imaginary deceased turtle you cast vanish on.

(Tripping over imaginary unseen deceased turtles is a result from a Rolemaster fumble table.)


Quote:
TLDR: It's fine if everyone at the table is comfortable with a power-disparity.

And that's why at least as a player I would vote a strong NO for any campaign (one shots maybe)using such a method ... waste of my gaming time, player side that is. I don't believe it increases player choice or decreases power gaming tendencies and you'd have a very hard time convincing me otherwise. Like Derk said moving the foundation up or down doesn't change the tendency for "Player A" to power game, just makes them more likely to stand out and dominate mechanically from those who don't. I don't want to be in a party that will force me to fiercely game the system to have a character who could have the same impact as the guy who rolled like the OP's (or even "better"). Part of this may stem from the fact I was/is the DM 99% of the time so I want to be able to play who I want (and envision) not who I roll when I get on the other side of the screen. And again this is just if it is for a campaign, give me goofy and possible randomly disabled characters (or similar off the norm party set ups) for the one shot or something expected to end in a few shorter sessions and I would be far more willing. Otherwise like Sir Belmont I've been there and have no real desire to return to such gaming.

Maybe try having each player roll a 3d6 to create a pool of results and then allow each player to select from those results. That would at least put everyone on the same foundation or as off it as desired.


Kayerloth wrote:
I don't believe it increases player choice

Of course not. It's supposed to create a situation where instead of being able to create whatever you want, you have to improvise within a set of very limited options.

Kayerloth wrote:
or decreases power gaming tendencies and you'd have a very hard time convincing me otherwise.

It probably drives out power gamers in advance. What self-respecting munchkin is going to want to play a PC with no stat above a 12?

Anyway, what's wrong with optimizing PCs? The only problems with it are (a) disparity within the group and (b) it throws off the CR system and the difficulty of published adventures. And in an all-3d6 campaign, both those problems are going to happen anyway!

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:


Kayerloth wrote:
or decreases power gaming tendencies and you'd have a very hard time convincing me otherwise.
It probably drives out power gamers in advance. What self-respecting munchkin is going to want to play a PC with no stat above a 12?

*points upthread*


Matthew Downie wrote:
What self-respecting munchkin is going to want to play a PC with no stat above a 12?

This is exactly something a munchkin player would do.

"My character is fine! Look, none of my stats are even above 12"


Here we go, courtesy of random.org:

Str 6
Dex 8
Con 15
Int 15
Wis 9
Cha 11

Well, that was boring. Guess I'll be a wizard.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am pro-fun. If rolling 3d6 in order is fun for your party, more power to you. If building a 30 point buy character with extra feats is fun, more power to you. If whatever you do is going to cause hurt feelings or make people ingame-suicidal so they can reroll, that doesn't sound fun.

If the goal is to get people to stop power gaming, then why not agree to stop power gaming? Use a 20 point buy but skew the points above 14 (e.g. 14 = 5, 15 = 8, 16 = 15) and below 10 (e.g. 9 = 0, 8 = -1, 7 = -2) to discourage cheese. Or write backstories for each others' characters without knowing their class (e.g. you write a backstory about a shepherd fighting off a giant with a sling, your friend picks sorcerer and has to build a sling-wielding sorcerer). Or just simply agree to play differently.


TOZ wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:


Kayerloth wrote:
or decreases power gaming tendencies and you'd have a very hard time convincing me otherwise.
It probably drives out power gamers in advance. What self-respecting munchkin is going to want to play a PC with no stat above a 12?
*points upthread*

My point is Power Gamers will power game. Doesn't matter where the ground floor of the capability is within the campaign, if they are involved they will be power gaming.

And Watery Soup hits it on the head. If it's fun for the group and individuals then go for it. It's a game.


Last time we played a game where we rolled for all our stats, I ended up rolling between 14 and 18 on every stat. After racial adjustments (for a minotaur-like race), I had a 20 strength, 16 dex, 19 con, 14 int, 14 wis, and 12 cha. I made a Fighter. The other Fighter in our group rolled nothing higher than a 14.

We had fun in the campaign (it went a few years), but I often felt bad that I was constantly outshining the other Fighter because our stats were so absurdly out of whack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You haven't truly lived until you've rolled for stats using 2d6+1.

Str: 2d6 + 1 ⇒ (3, 6) + 1 = 10
Dex: 2d6 + 1 ⇒ (5, 4) + 1 = 10
Con: 2d6 + 1 ⇒ (2, 4) + 1 = 7
Int: 2d6 + 1 ⇒ (1, 2) + 1 = 4
Wis: 2d6 + 1 ⇒ (2, 2) + 1 = 5
Cha: 2d6 + 1 ⇒ (3, 2) + 1 = 6

In tonight's game, I'll be playing an awakened porcupine.


First, on-topic - just don't think I'm brave enough to go with straight 3d6. Good on you for being game and running with it.

Slightly on-topic, in terms of limited stats, for our new campaign (Ruins of Azlant), we went with 15 point-buy. Not quite as scary as 3d6, but the DM requested everyone strongly consider one negative mod stat. Far as I know, everyone agreed and is complying with the request.

Gotta say it really does help out on the character development department.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Once saw a guy roll 5 18s and 1 17 using 3d6.

Liberty's Edge

I would never choose to run a game with this generation nor vote for that generation.

I played with this and similar generation methods for a long time in my younger years and it was just not satisfying, fun, or interesting at all. More than once I sat next to players who acted suicidal in order to get a reroll because they ended up with garbage stats and it was extremely disruptive and bad for the game.

Point buy or array is my preferred method now.


DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Once saw a guy roll 5 18s and 1 17 using 3d6.

"Bah. Can I have a reroll?"


He "jokingly" asked for one. The DM (this was in 1e D&D days) said he had to keep whatever came up. Period. He didn't reroll.

Silver Crusade

DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Once saw a guy roll 5 18s and 1 17 using 3d6.

Not with fair dice correctly rolled you didn't. Not unless the guy had telekinesis or something.

The odds of that are .000000000000042536449814609572


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Obligatory:

"So you're saying there's a chance..."


Odds or not, it happened.


I can deal with rolling stats as I got over a dozen characters I can use. Though if I'm creating a character for the first time, I prefer point buy as I won't have to prove rolls later.


I've seen d6s which were decidedly not fair. The guy running our last Shadowrun campaign had a battered pair he used when he wanted the enemies to succeed - they'd roll a 5 or 6 most of the time.


Heather 540 wrote:
I prefer point buy as I won't have to prove rolls later.

Perhaps tangential to the thread, but is it common to have to "prove rolls"?

That seems ... adversarial.


Watery Soup wrote:
Heather 540 wrote:
I prefer point buy as I won't have to prove rolls later.

Perhaps tangential to the thread, but is it common to have to "prove rolls"?

That seems ... adversarial.

It depends on the circumstances. If you're running/playing a game at a convention where the DM and players don't know each other this is perfectly reasonable. Often the DM will either give a pointbuy amount or indicate that you'll need to roll your stats in front of them once you arrive.

If you're playing a home game and one of the players is suspected of "fudging" rolls on occasion, its just keeping that player honest and again shouldn't be an issue. It also means that if you happen to roll hot for your character no one will suspect you of cheating since they saw you roll it.

If you completely trust everyone because you've been playing for years it's probably not necessary.


Do you get to pick which roll goes to which stat?


Yqatuba wrote:
Do you get to pick which roll goes to which stat?

I'm not sure who you're asking. It's been my experience that if not specified otherwise typically you roll for stats by rolling 4d6, drop the lowest. You do this 6 times to create a stat array, which you can then assign however you like.

The method the Original Poster is talking about comes from 1st edition D&D. You rolled 3d6, wrote that down for strength. You rolled another 3d6 wrote that number down for dexterity. You continued until you had all 6 stats.

At this point you then tried to figure out what sort of class made the most sense for what you rolled. Whether it be fighter, wizard or elf.

The second edition players handbook had a section that I still find hilarious where it talks about what your stats mean and what type of character you should make

Spoiler:
What the Numbers Mean wrote:

Now that you have finished creating the ability scores for your character, stop and take a look at them. What does all this mean?

Suppose you decide to name your character "Rath" and you rolled the following ability scores for him:
Strength 8
Dexterity 14
Constitution 13
Intelligence 13
Wisdom 7
Charisma 6

Rath has strengths and weaknesses, but it is up to you to interpret what the numbers mean. Here are just two different ways these numbers could be interpreted.

1) Although Rath is in good health (Con 13), he's not very strong (Str 8) because he's just plain lazy--he never wanted to exercise as a youth and now it's too late. His low Wisdom and Charisma scores (7, 6) show that he lacks the common sense to apply himself properly and projects a slothful, "I'm not going to bother" attitude (which tends to irritate others). Fortunately, Rath's natural wit (Int 13) and Dexterity (14) keep him from being a total loss.Thus, you might play Rath as an irritating, smart-alecky twerp forever ducking just out of range of those who want to squash him.

2) Rath has several good points--he has studied hard (Int 13) and practiced his manual skills (Dex 14). Unfortunately, his Strength is low (8) from a lack of exercise (all those hours spent reading books). Despite that, Rath's health is still good (Con 13). His low Wisdom and Charisma (7, 6) are a result of his lack of contact and involvement with people outside the realm of academics. Looking at the scores this way, you could play Rath as a kindly, naive, and shy professorial type who's a good tinkerer, always fiddling with new ideas and inventions.

Obviously, Rath's ability scores (often called "stats") are not the greatest in the world. Yet it is possible to turn these disappointing" stats into a character who is both interesting and fun to play. Too often players become obsessed with "good" stats. These players immediately give up on a character if he doesn't have a majority of above-average scores. There are even those who feel a character is hopeless if he does not have at least one ability of 17 or higher! Needless to say, these players would never consider playing a character with an ability score of 6 or 7.

In truth, Rath's survivability has a lot less to do with his ability scores than with your desire to role-play him. If you give up on him, of course he won't survive! But if you take an interest in the character and role-play him well, then even a character with the lowest possible scores can present a fun, challenging, and all-around exciting time. Does he have a Charisma of 5? Why? Maybe he's got an ugly scar. His table manners could be atrocious. He might mean well but always manage to say the wrong thing at the wrong time. He could be bluntly honest to the point of rudeness, something not likely to endear him to most people. His Dexterity is a 3? Why? Is he naturally clumsy or blind as a bat? Don't give up on a character just because he has a low score. Instead, view it as an opportunity to role-play, to create a unique and entertaining personality in the game. Not only will you have fun creating that personality, but other players and the DM will have fun reacting to him.

I'd like to point out that this "fun character", that's "not at all hopeless" has an effective point buy of 1. Assuming that having a six is -4 same as having a 7.


14/11/9/10/11/6

So I can't make an int or cha caster, because stats are too low. Melee is a bad idea because con 9. And Dex is too low for ranged. So... either put the stat boost in con and be a mediocre melee person, or put the stat boost in Wis and do the Evangelist Cleric thing?
I suppose it could be a Hunter? Maybe go Dwarf for con/wis, one level of Barbarian to speed back up, then Hunter.

*waves dismissively at the statline* Bored now.


Yqatuba wrote:
Do you get to pick which roll goes to which stat?

"Take 'em straight" is usually taken to mean that they apply in order.


3d6 take em straight is a relic of a game system where attributes had less influence on your character than modern game systems. Back when it was the way you did things, they didn't (really) add to saving throws, they didn't affect your combat hit and damage much, in fact until you got EXCEEDINGLY high stats they didn't really do much for you other than provide minimums for spell levels when you were a wizard or cleric.

I've never understood the fascination with that method for a game system thats as wildly different as 3.0/3.5/pathfinder.

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Stats 3d6 take em straight All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.