-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Are high attributes more fun then low attributes?
- Thread starter Crothian
- Start date
JRRNeiklot
First Post
I like to have moderately high stats. A 16, a 17, maybe a 14 in there somewhere; however, I NEVER want to see a stat above 20, EVER.
Masquerade
First Post
I agree with JRRNeiklot. I wouldn't say that I prefer low stats, but I tend to have much less fun with especially high ones.
Dog Moon
Adventurer
I like higher stats, but then again I tend to like high Int and Cha no matter what I'm playing [I love skills, esp. social ones], so that means I want more stats that are high to be able to play my character idea and still have numerous skills.
However, I do like one low stat to make my character a little more interesting, to give him a weakness I can play off of.
However, I do like one low stat to make my character a little more interesting, to give him a weakness I can play off of.
I voted low stats, but that's not really true. I've played plenty of characters with 3d6 in order and had fun with them and I've played characters with no score below a 14 and had just as much fun. What I like best is to either have one of two setups:
1) Solid, middle-of-the-road hero stats across the board (modified scores of 11-17) so that I can make whatever kind of character I want and play them however I want without concerning myself with scores except when something gets rolled.
2) One or two high (17-20) stats and one or two low (5-7) stats with the rest average. Then I can drop the character into a niche: the dumb bruiser, the spindly wizard, the devout (but not too bright) cleric, the bulging-thews barbarian who trips over his own feet. They're cliche but still fun to play once in a while.
I don't really like to have god-made-flesh, no stat below 16, 25+ high stat characters. It's nice being powerful, but unless the whole party has the same kind of scores and the DM runs correspondingly powerful enemies it gets boring. It's also too easy to take away from the other players' fun if you're the best at everything the party wants to do.
Note that all this only applies when creating characters. If I'm 15th level then, unless we're playing a low-power game, I fully expect to have a couple of exceptional scores.
1) Solid, middle-of-the-road hero stats across the board (modified scores of 11-17) so that I can make whatever kind of character I want and play them however I want without concerning myself with scores except when something gets rolled.
2) One or two high (17-20) stats and one or two low (5-7) stats with the rest average. Then I can drop the character into a niche: the dumb bruiser, the spindly wizard, the devout (but not too bright) cleric, the bulging-thews barbarian who trips over his own feet. They're cliche but still fun to play once in a while.
I don't really like to have god-made-flesh, no stat below 16, 25+ high stat characters. It's nice being powerful, but unless the whole party has the same kind of scores and the DM runs correspondingly powerful enemies it gets boring. It's also too easy to take away from the other players' fun if you're the best at everything the party wants to do.
Note that all this only applies when creating characters. If I'm 15th level then, unless we're playing a low-power game, I fully expect to have a couple of exceptional scores.
In my games, all characters get one automatic 18, the rest we roll dice and let them fall where they may.
This works for my group because none of us want to play Joe Bloggs who'd be better off as a commoner reaping hay. We want to play HEROES, like Sherlock Homes (18+ Int), Conan (18+ Str), Robin Hood (18+ Dex), James Bond (18+ Cha), etc. When we reach the lofty heights of Epic level, we want our characters' exploits retold in taverns across the land, our characters just as famous as luminaries such as Mordenkainen or Elminster.
From a metagaming perspective, I also find it enriches the game. The Rogue is alot more confident when attempting to disable traps, so he's more likely to step up to the plate. The Fighters tend to be more confident in fights, particularly against hordes of smaller enemies, but it doesn't give them so great an advantage that they're not wary of larger monsters. Spellcasters get more spells per day, not to mention access to higher level spells (or does everyone conveniently forget that you need an ability score of 10+level of spell to cast? Why level up as a spellcaster at all if you don't have at least a 19 by the time it becomes important?) increasing their usefulness to the party overall. All in all, everyone feels more satisfied with a day's work, and rightly so, you tend to get more done in a day than a baseline party can and the characters can afford to rest less (I personally have problems with parties who sleep twice in a day... I can't sleep 8 hours twice in a day, and I doubt I could sleep inside the Temple of Elemental Evil at all...).
Finally, the players are more likely to take risks if they actually have a decent chance of pulling it off. I've seen too many players have their spirits of adventure squashed because they tried to swing on a chandelier and failed their Dex roll... if they want to do that stuff, they should have a decent chance of doing it! They're supposed to be the heroes after all!
This works for my group because none of us want to play Joe Bloggs who'd be better off as a commoner reaping hay. We want to play HEROES, like Sherlock Homes (18+ Int), Conan (18+ Str), Robin Hood (18+ Dex), James Bond (18+ Cha), etc. When we reach the lofty heights of Epic level, we want our characters' exploits retold in taverns across the land, our characters just as famous as luminaries such as Mordenkainen or Elminster.
From a metagaming perspective, I also find it enriches the game. The Rogue is alot more confident when attempting to disable traps, so he's more likely to step up to the plate. The Fighters tend to be more confident in fights, particularly against hordes of smaller enemies, but it doesn't give them so great an advantage that they're not wary of larger monsters. Spellcasters get more spells per day, not to mention access to higher level spells (or does everyone conveniently forget that you need an ability score of 10+level of spell to cast? Why level up as a spellcaster at all if you don't have at least a 19 by the time it becomes important?) increasing their usefulness to the party overall. All in all, everyone feels more satisfied with a day's work, and rightly so, you tend to get more done in a day than a baseline party can and the characters can afford to rest less (I personally have problems with parties who sleep twice in a day... I can't sleep 8 hours twice in a day, and I doubt I could sleep inside the Temple of Elemental Evil at all...).
Finally, the players are more likely to take risks if they actually have a decent chance of pulling it off. I've seen too many players have their spirits of adventure squashed because they tried to swing on a chandelier and failed their Dex roll... if they want to do that stuff, they should have a decent chance of doing it! They're supposed to be the heroes after all!
Michael Morris
First Post
As I DM I prefer high stats. Makes the characters more resilient and more likely to survive in case I slip up and send something a CR or two too high.
ThirdWizard
First Post
High stats.
I don't particularly enjoy playing characters who start off actually worse than me in every way.
Hmmm... I would consider a wizard with a 20 Int at level 10 to have an average Intelligence, not high. At level 15, a wizard with a 20 has a low Intelligence. It's all relative, what is high and low changes as you advance.
I don't particularly enjoy playing characters who start off actually worse than me in every way.
JRRNeiklot said:
Hmmm... I would consider a wizard with a 20 Int at level 10 to have an average Intelligence, not high. At level 15, a wizard with a 20 has a low Intelligence. It's all relative, what is high and low changes as you advance.
Last edited:
