Gimp Stat? How Low is Too Low?

[Hawken]

Those are good points but players have a reason to be concerned about their stats too (within reason). Only in 3e (and maybe 4e) is the game so stat-centric. Earlier editions had a place for stats but they didn't exactly influence everything you did, and most stats didn't even start doing anything until you had a 16. Back in the good ole days, a Fighter with a 10 Str was just as effective as a Fighter with a 15 Str. Wizards struggled to get Int items but that was because you needed an 18 Int to cast 9th level spells, and Con didn't start making a difference in player's lives until 15 and a 17 or higher only provided a benefit for Fighters.

Now everything is tied into the stats, all stats. So one bad ability score does have the potential to get a character killed far more than earlier editions. Gimp stats can be brought up to average quite quickly but their patch

 

[CardboardTube Knight]

Yeah, when I first tried 2e I remember thinking "My stats are terrible," but they told me it didn't matter as much in that case because the game was less stat centric, I kind of like being able to tie things to stats and most of the time people in the party are capable of handling things. For instance in my current game, we have a good mix, about a dozen characters and they travel in two groups most of the time and there's enough so that they can tackle anything, but with challenges here and there. It's more about team work.

3.5 assumes you'll be 4-6 players strong so one gimp stat on every character means less in that case.

 

[Hawken]

Gimp stats may mean less when you have a group (or large group), but that kind of forces everyone to rely on the group rather than themselves especially when your stat generation methods force everyone to have a gimp stat.

Most heroic fantasy tales do not center around a group of 4-6 characters but around one alpha (fe)male character and some others tagging along or dropping in and out to provide support. Dragonlance and some Forgotten Realms books are the exception to this, but that's because they are based around a game, not the other way around.

"Average" doesn't mean "gimp", so if your players all have at least average stats, then they should be able to face just about any challenge with a fair chance of success whether they are alone or with allies. You should be able to run a game of all fighters or all wizards or all rogues and allow them a chance to succeed. A game shouldn't be brought to a crashing halt because a group forgot or didn't want to bring a particular class or race along for the ride. Gimping a stat just to make a character "interesting" or "realistic" just doesn't make the game as fun.

 

[Celebrim]

Gimp stats may mean less when you have a group (or large group), but that kind of forces everyone to rely on the group rather than themselves

You say that as if it was a bad thing.

...especially when your stat generation methods force everyone to have a gimp stat.

Pray tell, which stat generation method is that?

Most heroic fantasy tales do not center around a group of 4-6 characters but around one alpha (fe)male character and some others tagging along or dropping in and out to provide support. Dragonlance and some Forgotten Realms books are the exception to this, but that's because they are based around a game, not the other way around.

And the lesson we should draw from this is?

"Average" doesn't mean "gimp", so if your players all have at least average stats, then they should be able to face just about any challenge with a fair chance of success whether they are alone or with allies.

Seriously? Errr... could you reread that and tell me what it means, because to be honest, I don't understand what you are trying to say and the levels on which I find that to not make sense are as multi-tiered as a Dallas interstate exchange.

You should be able to run a game of all fighters or all wizards or all rogues and allow them a chance to succeed.

Possibly. I'm not sure that that is the case, but let's for a moment concede that your statement is true even if it flies in the face of decades of RPG experience. Supposing it is to be true, whether or not a group of all fighters and or all wizards or whatever succeeds or fails, or can expect to succeed or fail most certainly won't have anything to do with their stat distribution. The success or failure of an unbalanced party won't be over whether they have high stats, but will certainly hinge on whether there is some expected class ability or function that the designers expect to be present but which is absent in the party. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand at all. For one thing, it's quite possible to imagine a party of all fighters where one is playing 'the strong fighter', another 'the agile fighter', a third 'the tough fighter', and a fourth 'the smart fighter'.

Gimping a stat just to make a character "interesting" or "realistic" just doesn't make the game as fun.

I know that any internet statement should always be appended mentally with 'in my own opinion', but sometimes even when you are mentally appending a statement with that, it's actual absence from the page is still so glaring that you feel compelled to point it out anyway.

 

[CardboardTube Knight]

I think that there is something to be said about this. A party is assumed to be four people in the DMG. So I would say that most people, even with average stats aren't going to be able to stand alone for long because of the fact that they make the monsters and CR them for diverse parties.

Furthermore the DMG says CR can go up or down based on what classes are in the party. Undead can be a pain without a cleric, for instance.

I think that D&D is parlty about teamwork and I would rather cause the players to rely on one another than have a team of 'star players'.

 

[ValhallaGH]

She wanted a one for one point buy that started from 1 and basically rendered all of her stats above 15 at level one.

When I said that she needed to have some regulation on them, she complained that anything below that was a gimp stat.

Having 14+ for all (or almost all) abilities makes the character Big Damn Hero material. The sort of character that can have their own action movie and do really well in every scene.

I generally regard 9 or less in one score as a hindrance. 7 or less in one score will (usually) actually cripple a character. Multiples of those is also very detrimental to a character.

10 to 13 in abilities is viable, and nothing to complain about, even if it isn't particularly sexy or awesome. It's good to have something a little better than that but I haven't found it required (at least, not at first level).


Good luck.

 

[CardboardTube Knight]

Jo :: (Read-Only) - Myth-Weavers

Having stats like that is pretty bad...that's a character I made for that game with the super high 5d6 rolls. But it makes it a pain for DMs because she would have stats higher than Legolas.

Truly, I think that characters with 9-11 are average really.