D&D 5E Minimum ability scores for a PC

[Shiroiken]

It depends on the kind of game I'm going to run. My current campaign is an epic narrative, so I had them roll, but may default to Standard Array. In a sandbox game, I would offer standard array or roll, but once rolled, ALL characters are kept. Rolling is generally better, but you take a risk when you do.

 

[ad_hoc]

In a sandbox game, I would offer standard array or roll, but once rolled, ALL characters are kept. Rolling is generally better, but you take a risk when you do.

What happens if the character dies? Do you kick the player out of the group?

If no, then the best thing to do in your game would be to have a terrible character just die. Or not play if you roll a bad character.

It sounds like you should just have your players use point buy or standard array.

 

[Unwise]

What I have been doing recently is giving people their top 3 class stats as per points buy, then they roll the other stats randomly, keeping whatever they roll. I really like it, so far we have a really charismatic barbarian, a really bright fighter and a wild mage sorcerer with abysmal wisdom. All of the characters are more interesting for having rolled.

 

[Umbran]

Any character is playable and I can have fun playing a really bad character stat wise so there is no minimum. It is very possible that a weak character will die quickly though, the game can be like that.

Crothian may actually feel this way, but this sentiment is often said, but less often followed. It is my perception that most gamers are not happy when they have crappy stats in the middle of a party with good stats.

In all, it also depends upon the game you are playing. If, as a GM, you want to keep the challenges super-hard, you will impose a sort fo Darwinian selection against characters with bad stats. If you're going to do that, might as well just set a workable minimum, and save people time and effort, I would think.

 

[was]

We generally roll once, but have a standard array as a backup. So, if you don't like what you rolled you can opt to take the array instead.

 

[HarrisonF]

Crothian may actually feel this way, but this sentiment is often said, but less often followed. It is my perception that most gamers are not happy when they have crappy stats in the middle of a party with good stats.

In all, it also depends upon the game you are playing. If, as a GM, you want to keep the challenges super-hard, you will impose a sort fo Darwinian selection against characters with bad stats. If you're going to do that, might as well just set a workable minimum, and save people time and effort, I would think.

Building on this thought, it will depend a bit upon how large the party is and class makeup. Everyone likes their chance to shine in the game. With bounded accuracy, the bonus from skills is relatively low. If the Fighter has higher Cha than the party face has Cha + proficiency bonus, that will lead to disappointment. If you have multiple people filling the same roll, you will also want them to be roughly even. If there are two melee DPS, and the one primary attribute is +4 and the other is +1, it will end up being a bad time for the +1.

To me, what I would look for in a roll:

1. Primary stat high (14+ before racials)
2. Secondary stat in decent range (12+)
3. Overall positive modifier, so +1 or above when totaled up

For those saying a minimum of an 8, I am a bit sad. My current main campaign character has a Cha 5, and it has really lead to a lot of interesting RP and memorable situations. He has high main and secondary attributes, so he can still contribute well for his role, but is a fish out of water in any sort of social environment.

 

[Lancelot]

My default is: consistent with the campaign theme, and with the rest of the party. This usually means default-level stat buy for my group.

Occasionally, I'll run a campaign which is intentionally high-powered (usually up to +6 on the default stat buy), with the expectation that the challenge will be equally ramped up.

VERY occasionally, I'll run a random roll campaign. This might happen once every 3 years for my group, and it'll usually involve something very special. A 5e playtest, 4e Gamma World, etc. Even then, I'll fudge the dice if someone truly rolls poorly. Gamma World's approach really helped here. Guaranteed good stats for your Prime Requisites, and then true random roll for all the other stats you don't care about so much.

By far the most important thing for me is party consistency. I could see running a campaign where the average PC has 1x 14 stat, 3x 10 stat, and 2x 6 stat. Maybe they're kids, or maybe they start out diseased or malnourished or cursed. I'm fine with all that. But I'm not a big supporter of games where THIRTY SECONDS of random rolling at the start is going to impact the effectiveness of a player for the next TWO YEARS of play. A one-off game, sure. But I don't play those. I play campaigns.

 

[aramis erak]

My general rule has alway been "if the character cannot qualify for any of the classes, reroll"... but that was when playing AD&D where you had to have at least one at 9 to qualify for a class.

 

[Shiroiken]

What happens if the character dies? Do you kick the player out of the group?

If no, then the best thing to do in your game would be to have a terrible character just die. Or not play if you roll a bad character.

It sounds like you should just have your players use point buy or standard array.

If a player with "bad" ability scores deliberately tries to get killed, then yes, I would ban them from my game. They are a douche who is more interested in power gaming than role-playing. I did the same thing in AD&D with players who rolled up hundreds of characters so they could legitimately play characters with multiple 18s, and that was back with your Ability Score (except Exceptional Strength) had very little impact on your power level.

I have played the "minimum" value character in 3E, which had both a point buy option and a minimum for reroll. I outlasted several other characters and had a blast with him. He was a bard who was built to supplement the other characters; i.e. the second best at everything. By the end, everyone who died wanted to play front line fighters, so I was the party's rouge, cleric, and mage. My highest ability score (level 8) was a 14 Cha.

I have no problem with Array (I use it myself normally), but I despise Point Buy. While I used it in 3E, I quickly discovered that every point buy character is basically the same within an edition. 5E is even worse with the "super" humans who start with (3) 16s and (3) 10s.

If must say, I find it funny that many people who love rolling, always argue that their should be no penalty for poor rolls =D

 

[Umbran]

I have played the "minimum" value character in 3E, which had both a point buy option and a minimum for reroll.

So, your argument is, "I did it, so everyone else can and should be able to do the same thing, and have the same fun"?

I, personally, think it is great that folks like lots of different things. I mean, really, if we all liked the same things, there'd be a world haggis shortage. In RPGs, it means having some consideration for folks who don't play exactly like ourselves, who want and get different things out of play - not necessarily mutually incompatible things, but some leeway and flexibility.

If must say, I find it funny that many people who love rolling, always argue that their should be no penalty for poor rolls =D

Well, no. Why should a player pay a penalty for the whole campaign when they have bad dice luck at the moment of character creation? A penalty is something imposed on you for doing something wrong - like cheating. Pay a penalty for being arrogant, or dumb in play? Sure. You reap what you sow. But for sheer bad luck? Not so much.