Stats Below 8

[Insight]

I would either allow two 8s or one below 8 (6 minimum), BUT the second 8 or the stat below 8 would have to be in an ability score that would cause the character some measurable difficulty (it would have to be in an ability score critical to the class, for example).

I would allow anyone to have this in Con (yikes).
I would allow a Fighter to have this in Dex or Wis.
I would allow a Rogue to have this in Str or Cha.
I would allow a Cleric to have this in Str (melee cleric) or Cha (ranged cleric).
I would allow a Wizard to have this in a secondary ability score based on his specialty.

But like others, I would still want to have some sort of character-based / story-based justification for the slight bend of the rules on my part.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

As I see it, ability scores are a statistical concept that can be modified for the sake of roleplaying, DM cooperation provided.

For example, I have a Wizard PC who is very very smart (starting 18 Int) but only knows one language. It's part of her background, and I use it in roleplaying, though no other PC or player has yet learned the reason for it.

Conversely, I had a Rogue PC whom I defined as a great natural story teller, and I got the DM to agree with me that every story she told was awesome, regardless of ability scores or bonuses. (To keep the rolls relevant and stick within the 4e rules, the story might be poorly received for any number of reasons, but NEVER because it was just plain badly told.)

So if you want to play a fighter who is just plain dumber than a gnat, you can do a couple of different things. You can self-declare a situational penalty (e.g. -4 on all Arcana checks because magic makes his brain hurt) or simply refuse to make a check at all.

If you want a sub-8 score in order to pump up another stat... Well, negotiate it with your DM.

Re: banning point buy -- do as you wish, but it screws up the balance every time one of our people rolls ability scores.

 

[fba827]

I was just reading the "Thugs & Angels" thread on the General forum, recalling some characters from my old stat-rolling days, and thinking... does anyone else feel 4E point buy should have an option to take stats below 8, and multiple stats below 10?

I recognize that this increases the abuse potential of dump stats, and I'd be fine with sharply diminishing returns--say, one-half point buy for each point you reduce your stats below the standard minimums. (So, if you take your lowest stat down to 7 and your second-lowest to 9, you get a total of one more point to play with on your remaining stats.) That would discourage casually dumping your unused stats to 3, while still providing some compensation for an extra-low stat. It would also offer a way to "stretch" your good stats just a little bit farther, if there's a feat you really want but don't quite qualify for.

What do you think?

The way I see it, once you get to negative stat modifiers, further reducing an already poor stat is not the same rate of return on consequences as the benefits you get by increasing a primary/secondary/"good" stat even further.

That is to say, once you have your "dump stat" the penalty from changing it from a -1 to -4 is not equal to the benefit you gain by taking a primary (or secondary/"good") stat and increasing it from +3 to +4 or whatever. Plain and simple because the dump stat will get used a whole heck of a lot less by virtue of it being poor for the PC. (i.e. if it's intelligence, you aren't the one in the party who is going to try all the knowledge checks so you'll never use it unless you have to without another option, or if it's Charisma, you'll never volunteer to be the "face man" for the party; conversely, if you are good at intelligence (or charisma), you'll volunteer to make knowledge or other int-related checks (or be the face man); and your attacks, damages, rider effects, defenses are going to get based on your 'good' stats resulting in exponentially more uses of your good stat modifier than the poor stat modifier)



So if someone wanted an even lower ability score, I'd let him/her (costing the same as a 8 score via point buy, regardless of how much lower the score actually was), and I would not compensate by increasing a good ability score upwards. Instead, I'd let the PC use it as a basis for roleplaying and therefore it would come out in story (which should be its own reward if the player is doing it for roleplay reasons in the first place).

Having said that, there is always room for roleplay as being worse in something than the stat would define. i.e. you could have an 8 int but still roleplay that you have a terrible memory, etc. thus, keeping your stat but working in the flavor via RP and in-game interactions.

Of course, YMMV.

 

[mattcolville]

I was just reading the "Thugs & Angels" thread on the General forum, recalling some characters from my old stat-rolling days, and thinking... does anyone else feel 4E point buy should have an option to take stats below 8, and multiple stats below 10?

I recognize that this increases the abuse potential of dump stats, and I'd be fine with sharply diminishing returns--say, one-half point buy for each point you reduce your stats below the standard minimums. (So, if you take your lowest stat down to 7 and your second-lowest to 9, you get a total of one more point to play with on your remaining stats.) That would discourage casually dumping your unused stats to 3, while still providing some compensation for an extra-low stat. It would also offer a way to "stretch" your good stats just a little bit farther, if there's a feat you really want but don't quite qualify for.

What do you think?

I don't think we need stats below 8, but I certainly believe 8 is stupid though that wasn't your point.

8-18 is a meaningless, arbitrary range decided upon for reasons abstruse to the new user. 0-10 would be better.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, if someone wants to actually be dumb as a rock and walk around with a 5 INT? OK.

It really depends on the tone of the game though. I have run some pretty silly games with some pretty silly characters and low low stats could definitely be amusing. Even in more 'serious' games back in the day they would come up now and then. Grog the 3 INT and 3 CHA half-ogre, etc. Good for an amusing foil. After all it is all entertainment.

OTOH I think a single 8 is not all that bad a way to design a character that is a dummy, etc. It makes them a bit challenged but still functional. If you really want to lower that stat a couple more points I might reward the player with some minor benefit in trade for it, but nothing too serious. Honestly if having a low stat is so much fun then it should be its own reward.

 

[mneme]

Low stats are a lot of fun, when properly roleplayed, but I agree that you shouldn't let players put points from stats below 8 (or more than one below 8 stat) into their other stats; it's just unbalancing, as with the exception of Con, you don't really take much of a game penalty for low stats.

I think it's entirely appropriate to negotiate a -roleplaying- (or other minor) bonus for a low stat, though, as long as it's an RP benefit, not a mechanical (stat) benefit. Perhaps an extra background for each stat below 8, or just negotiate. For instance, you could have a "human" character not need to breathe (but have an Int of 5). Or maybe the swordmage is a princess, and is treated as same -- but has a Strength of 6 (as she is a -child- princess, if one with powerful defensive magic). That kind of thing.

 

[Cyronax]

As I see it, ability scores are a statistical concept that can be modified for the sake of roleplaying, DM cooperation provided.

If you want a sub-8 score in order to pump up another stat... Well, negotiate it with your DM.

Re: banning point buy -- do as you wish, but it screws up the balance every time one of our people rolls ability scores.

Agree with you on both points. I used to be a big proponent of rolling for stats in previous editions, but I've noticed that the effects of such a policy is much more detrimental in 4e. 4e is sooo balanced between the PC's vs. PC's and the PC's vs. monsters/environment that its better to just do standard policy.

That said, I think a dump stat is okay if (like others have said) its not a one-for-one swap. Taking a '7' only give you a marginal point towards buying the higher scores which cost multiple points.

What about a 'dump race' in 4e?

C.I.D.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I have played in groups with others whose characters have extremely low dump stats or multiple 8s for example, and in general, I think most people only do it if they can boost a prime stat to compensate. Granted this isn't always true, but in my experience it generally is.

That said, I have a few characters with fairly low stats, but I will also admit, that while I do roleplay up the dump stats, I did it for the points that I could use to pump primaries and secondaries in most cases.

In a 2e game I played a ranger whose 9 Int got bumped to a 5 by a DM whose character generation method involved the Deck of Many Things as a background-generating device. It was fun to play, but it wasn't quite what I had in mind.

Most of my other characters have voluntary dumps, because I find that even a minor flaw brings realism to the table. My 5-foot-nothing wizard has a Str 6, because she's quite literally a 97-pound weakling. Several of my characters use Wis as a dump because I enjoy playing naive, foolhardy, or impulsive characters sometimes. I think the only stat I've never dumped on any character I've played was Con, but even then, I had one drawn up, I just never got to use it.

So yeah, it can be fun, but I think there is too much potential for abuse in the typical group. Super low dump stats are a problem if even 1 player out of the whole group abuses it. Though like others have suggested, if the player gets no other benefit out of it, it's less problematic.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My Ideal "Average Heroic Scores" Spread:

5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16

I like the idea that heroes are pretty "swingy," though.

 

[BobTheNob]

This is against core rules and I would therefore class the ability to go below 8 as a house rule.

Therefore, when deciding on something like this, I apply the same criteria I would to any house rule which contradicts existing core rules : Is it needed? There has to be a requirement for change in the first place.

The only time I put in a house rule that trumps core rules is when there is a need. Is something too powerful? Is something not powerful enough? Does something simply not work?

If I cant qualify the problem, I dont even bother thinking about the change.

So applied to your situation. Is your character somehow deficient because he cant lower non-primary stats?

Answer : No. The character might not end up as crazy(read : broken) as they may be, but no-way known anyone could tell me character stats are deficient by current methods.

So if this was my table, no way known. This is plumb power-grabbing without any real argument in its favor except "I want to" or "I could do it in 3e" or my ever favorite "awwww...go on!".