Dumb Luck: Reclaiming the Lower Half of the Stat-Spectrum

Okay, so it's my opinion that rolling 3d6 for stats is the way to go. Why? Because I like what the element of chance does for character creation, and I like the idea of flawed heroes - they're just more interesting. And why have a stat range of 3-18 if you're only going to use the top half?

The only problem with this approach - and it is a big problem - is that getting a 7 or a 4 for a stat doesn't create a hero that's flawed in any kind of interesting manner. It just creates a character who is slightly (or a lot) worse at hitting the target numbers for their rolls. Now I grant you that this can SOMETIMES be dramatic, when it happens at just the right moment, but mostly it's just kind of annoying:

"Oh, if I would have hit if I'd had a slightly higher Strength". See? BORING.

So I got to thinking about what could be done to make low stats more interesting and maybe even appealing, and yes, we could tie them into some kind of epic system of custom flaws, but that's way more work than I want to do, and it's not very D&D.

So instead I thought "what about a consolation prize?" And here's what I came up with: Dumb Luck.


The fact is that lots of fantasy fiction stars heroes who are just as often lucky as they are skilled or strong or smart. The stars align, and they get away with stuff that everyday folk. I think Terry Pratchett's Guards! Guards! says it best (I forget which character actually utters the words):

"Million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten." That's how a lot of fiction WORKS. So why not let us have lucky heroes, as well as powerful ones? (Yes, I'm aware that Halflings already have something like this, but let's leave that aside for a moment).

So here's the rule:

For each point of NEGATIVE MODIFIER a character has against a given Attribute, that character receives one Dumb Luck re-roll PER LEVEL for a check, attack or saving throw made using that Attribute.

If their re-roll is successful, that success should always be described as a pure lucky break. This roll only allows the re-roll of a single die - if two dice were rolled for Advantage or Disadvantage, the second die result stands (so a double failure on a Disadvantaged roll won't be helped by the re-roll, for example).

That's it. The "per level" thing is a little quirky, but "per day" seems too much, and "per session" is not a very D&D kind of measurement. Per level keeps it all on a, er... level playing field. Shouldn't be too hard to keep track of.

So there you have it. The intent of the rule is to give characters with a low stat or three an extra little quirk without unbalancing the game in any dramatic way.

Please share your thoughts, or any ALTERNATE IDEAS you have that might make playing low-stat characters a bit more interesting.

Mod Note: I have removed formatting information that forced this to appear as black text, which made it illegible on the black forum skin. Hope nobody minds. ~Umbran

X times per level is not enough. D20 Modern tried something like that with action points. People just horded them. A bad score can cause you to fail several times per session, especially if it's affecting a stat you use a lot.

Why not? It doesn't really balance a low stat player with a high stat one, but it does give them more than they would have had. I don't think anyone will be clambering for low stats to get the Dumb Luck rerolls so I don't see that it messes up the balance.

The only real issue that I might see is that I have noted that players who tend to like 3d6 rolls in character creation don't tend to take well to meta-mechanics, action points and rerolls and the like, but with the right group, it might work. Give it a go if the players are willing and see how it goes.

Fair. This did occur to me, but it needs to not overshadow people with actual high stats.

(Psi)SeveredHead said:

X times per level is not enough. D20 Modern tried something like that with action points. People just horded them. A bad score can cause you to fail several times per session, especially if it's affecting a stat you use a lot.

Click to expand...

I've seen this in action myself with metacurrency: hoarding can definitely be an issue with some players even if they lose them on level-up. Maybe making them autosuccess/autocrits (as if a 20 was rolled) it might make some hoarders a bit more amenable to spending them. Although, I would probably give the reroll idea a try first and revert to this if hoarding is an issue.

Most RPGs that have a merit/flaws system allow players to choose a certain number of flaws and thus gain a bunch of extra build points that they can spend on moar powerz. This generally encourages players to choose a whole bunch of weak and/or obscure flaws to pay for 'good stuff'. Then, in play, they generally quietly forget their flaws.

By contrast, the best way I've seen to implement such things instead allows the player to choose a certain number of flaws but doesn't give them anything immediately in exchange. Instead, when the flaw comes up in play the player receives a Plot Point or other token that can then be used for benefit later.

This has the dual advantage of eliminating power-gaming (since there's no point - you only get the benefit if you also get the hindrance), and also allows for the choice of more interesting flaws.

I'm not sure how something similar could be implemented in D&D, but my gut feeling is that something like that is probably the way to go.

I don't really see why anyone would horde them. Their loss if they do, when they all vanish on level-up.

In any case, I don't think that most peeps who would be keen to play in a low-stat game would be hoarding types.

@deliricho Yeah, I'm aware of systems that do both those things. They don't really seem to fit with the D&D vibe, though.

The Hitcher said:

I don't really see why anyone would horde them. Their loss if they do, when they all vanish on level-up.

Click to expand...

People aren't always rational. I think you could hoard action points in d20 Modern, but I told my group they could not (making them reset per level). It made no difference. AP were considered "too good to use" and so never used.

By contrast, fate points were rarely hoarded, and we would often finish sessions without them, especially in fate point-deprived Dresden.

The Hitcher said:

I don't really see why anyone would horde them. Their loss if they do, when they all vanish on level-up.

In any case, I don't think that most peeps who would be keen to play in a low-stat game would be hoarding types.

Click to expand...

The rationale goes like this:

"Is this situation the worst I can foresee happening to the character? If it isn't then do I want to be in a position where something worse happens and I no longer have mitigation? If not, is the probability of success and the result of my success sufficient to tempt me to use a token? If not, I'll live with the developing situation."