Wow, do I hate rolling for stats!

[Umbran]

(I recognize the one good argument in favor of random rolls, which you describe, but it's just not worth the ridiculous gap in effectiveness that usually results when a group rolls. Speaking for myself, I actually don't need random help to create and play fun concepts.)

"Need" is such a strong word. I dislike it intensely in this context, as the implication is kind of insulting.

Would my player have been able to come up with an interesting concept using point-buy? Sure. The guy doesn't "need" the dice to create a cool concept - he's not creativity-challenged, or something. However, taking inspiration from something outside yourself can lead to avenues (and occasionally heights) you'd not go to on your own.

I mean, otherwise, the haiku and sonnet wouldn't be nearly so cool as they are - structure or restrictions can aid creativity, rather than hinder it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Actually, making your PC older works great for spellcasters...

 

[Jeff Wilder]

13s are often handy for feat prereqs, if nothing else.

Not for a feat-starved tiefling sorcerer. All the 13s and 9s are good for is absorbing an extra point of ability damage.

Honestly, that bunch of stats doesn't look too bad. To me, anyway.

If they were literally one point worse, under 3.5 they'd be an automatic reroll.

So... what *is* the concept that demanded you do that?

Tiefling sorcerer, Chelish ex-pat, LG charmer. My mistake was in setting my heart on a concept. (I was sorta surprised that we'd be rolling stats.) I can scrap the concept, of course, and build something less interesting to me (but slightly stronger), but that also dampens my enthusiasm.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I mean, otherwise, the haiku and sonnet wouldn't be nearly so cool as they are - structure or restrictions can aid creativity, rather than hinder it.

Yup- there was a whole school of artists who got their start using only what they salvaged from the trash bins of established artists' studios.

And Gordon Ramsey has stunningly delicious recipes for Ox-tail as well as prime cuts of beef.

 

[Piratecat]

Have you tried just talking to the DM?

 

[kitsune9]

I'm with the posters here who are not fans of rolling for stats. I prefer for my players to pretty much to be able to buy their stats with point-buys in terms of being fair. The other reason is that I don't have to spend a session on rolling up characters. The players can just do it off-game and be ready to start on the first session.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Tiefling sorcerer, Chelish ex-pat, LG charmer. My mistake was in setting my heart on a concept. (I was sorta surprised that we'd be rolling stats.)

Ah, I see. So, you basically needed (or "needed"?) at least one 16, to pull it off?

Tricky, if you're going for a suboptimal combo in the first place. I mean, don't get me wrong: I see nothing wrong with so choosing. But yeah, it was never going to be "ideal".

Even so, I get it now. Are you sticking with it anyway?

 

[billd91]

Tiefling sorcerer, Chelish ex-pat, LG charmer. My mistake was in setting my heart on a concept. (I was sorta surprised that we'd be rolling stats.) I can scrap the concept, of course, and build something less interesting to me (but slightly stronger), but that also dampens my enthusiasm.

Or talk to your DM about using the Variant Tiefling Heritages info from the first installment of Council of Thieves if either of you have it. There are specific heritages ranging from asuras, daemons, demodands, devils, kytons, to rakshasas and more. Each with different stat adjustments and personality tendencies.

Or play a human descendant of a tiefling who has some morphological tieflingish traits but qualifies as human in abilities.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Tricky, if you're going for a suboptimal combo in the first place. I mean, don't get me wrong: I see nothing wrong with so choosing. But yeah, it was never going to be "ideal".

No, but with even 15-point-buy it was doable.

Are you sticking with it anyway?

Yeah, I am.

Have you tried just talking to the DM?

No, and I likely won't, for several reasons. (1) It's an online game, with folks I don't know at all, much less well. (2) If I were going to object to random-roll, the time to do that was before I rolled, not after. (3) IME, GMs who are still using random-roll very often take it negatively when objections are made to it. (Especially, understandably, after the fact.) (4) One of my big beefs with random-roll is that nobody complains when they roll high, only when they roll low. And that's what it'll look like. (C.f., Umbran's first reply in this thread.)

I suspect this DM will have a lot going for him, choosing random-roll aside, so I'd rather play and see how things come out, rather than rocking the boat.

My OP was a "whiney observation" post, not a "I want another roll!" post.

 

[Treebore]

This is so wrong I'm not even sure what could possibly be said to illustrate its wrongness to someone who believes it.

The average d20 roll is 10.5. The idea that there is no "mathematically significant" difference between 5.5 and 10.5, or 10.5 and 15.5, or 19.5 and 24.5 is ... very, very, very incorrect.

Jeff, when you learn to determine what is of mathematical significance you can tell me I am wrong. I'll give you a clue, you don't start with the average.

Let's hold this conversation without sounding rude and condescending, please - on BOTH sides. ~ PCat