D&D 5E Minimum ability scores for a PC

[fuindordm]

It's hard to quantify, but I know it when I see it.

If I were asking people to roll, then I would let them reroll if the sum of modifiers is not positive. But my floor is really higher than that.

I think a viable character should have as many exceptional scores as weak scores, and that the bonus of the highest score should outweigh the penalty of the weakest. For example, 15 12 12 10 10 8 is fine. 17 15 12 10 6 6 is fine. 13 12 12 10 8 6 is not fine even though it's a net positive.
13 13 13 13 10 6 is probably OK but I wouldn't force anyone to play it.

 

[Shiroiken]

It's powergaming to not have fun with a character who has no stat above a 10?

Really?

Ability scores in 5e are very important. They have a much bigger influence than the bonus from character level, which for a large chunk of the game is +2 to +3.

Ability scores in contrast will be -3 to +5. That is huge.

The idea should be for everyone to have a good time. You can call all the players at your table that don't have a good time powergamers but it sounds like you are the one who is on a power trip.

Please read the original post. You have the option of Array before you Roll, but if you choose to Roll, you are taking a risk. If you roll "bad," then you chose the risk and suffer the consequences, just as if you had rolled multiple 18s. If you deliberately kill off a character with "bad" ability scores, then yes you are a powergamer because that character didn't mean anything to you.

Also note that I keep using "bad" in quotes. I've known players who consider anything less than multiple 18s to be "bad" rolls. 3E actually had a minimum amount, but most powergamers I knew still considered that unplayable. What is "bad" will vary greatly from game to game and from player to player.

 

[Shiroiken]

I am surprised your players show up week after week just to be punished further.

At least if I lose a hand of poker the punishment is swift and I get to move on with my life.

So... consequences are automatically punishments? Really?

BTW, I've been DMing for decades and never at a loss for players.

 

[abirdcall]

So... consequences are automatically punishments? Really?

Risk means that yes, you will be punished if you roll badly.

Your words.

BTW, I've been DMing for decades and never at a loss for players.

And I still find that surprising.

 

[delericho]

Yep, and I think that will change game to game.

I think people should agree that there is a minimum somewhere.

The math of the game doesn't work if you have a -5 to everything you do.

Can't argue with that.

Incidentally (and off-topic) - when you hit the "reply with quote" button, the QUOTE tag will pop up saying "QUOTE={name},{number}" (for example, "QUOTE=ad_hoc;6494505"). And chance you could leave the name and number bit intact? That way, the board will show who you're quoting, and even link to the post itself. Just makes it that bit easier to keep track of conversations.

 

[Crothian]

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.

It all depends on if the player can be happy with other people's success or they can only be happy if they are doing well. My perspective also comes from decades of gaming. In 1e in the 80's we had campaigns that would go to 8th or so level. If a player character died or the player wanted to try out someone new we always started at first level. In the 90's I played a lot of Rifts. We had Vagabonds in the same party as a Glitterboy. I am used to characters with a wide range of power levels and I never have had an issue with playing the worthless character.

 

[Schmoe]

I haven't thought too much about it, but if I had to define:

At least one 14+
No more than -4 in penalties
Net modifier of +0 or more.

 

[Tormyr]

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

Let's not go all Dark Dungeons on them.

 

[Umbran]

It all depends on if the player can be happy with other people's success or they can only be happy if they are doing well.

That seems to me to be an oversimplified and kind of judgemental way of putting it.

My perspective also comes from decades of gaming.

And mine doesn't? As if I was not also playing 1e in the 80s?

Your perspective comes from *you*, not from the 80s, or decades.

 

[Quartz]

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

I remember reading of that trick being used at a convention for a Paranoia adventure.