D&D General The joys of playing a PC with low stats

A bit of a disclaimer first. I know lots of people don't want to play a PC with a lot stat. Or how they want to play a heroic PC and a low stat seems to take away from that. That's perfectly fine. I'm not judging folks who like that playstyle at all. Just commenting on my own experience and to present my own case as to why having a low stat can actually be more fun to play.

Longish post following...

Ever since standard array and point buy options came about, rarely did players use the rolling option, especially newer players. I almost never saw a PC with a stat lower than 8 any longer. An 8 stat is not low--it's just slightly less than average. A whole play experience just disappeared (Shadowdark brings this back but it's basically gone from the D&D game and has been for decades now).

Let me give you a recent example. In my 1e game, I'm playing a human fighter with a 6 INT. He's always dreamed of becoming a knight, and acts like one with exaggerated aplomb. One of the fellow players is playing an assassin. He happened to have a target in the keep (from Keep on the Borderlands). Somehow it was just he and I together who went to a dinner hosted by the target. The assassin poisoned the target but things got confusing and chaotic pretty quickly. The guards attacked us, and I was convinced they were the ones who invited us into a trap based on what the assassin was telling me (no ability checks, this was all role-played out, which is another topic.*..). We ended up setting the place on fire to hide our murder but I thought it was an accidental fire--the assassin did it when I was preoccupied. He also ended up stealing an item from the place.

We were basically Pinky and the Brain. We didn't plan on it being like that. I never planned on doing something like that as a PC. It was all organic and natural as it played out. But it was fun and spontaneous. Sometimes the best sessions are those that have unexpected turns and twists in the story. My initial thought of my PC was to be an honorable knight and in the first session I was involved in murder, arson, and burglary all without knowing it lol. We had a good laugh. None of that would have happened if I didn't have such a low INT score to cause me to miss clues.

And it's not just INT. I've played PCs with low CON, or low STR, or low CHA. Having a low stat often opens the door for more role-playing opportunities and helps keep every PC from feeling like a cardboard cutout of everyone else.

* As is common with AD&D, rather than rely on ability checks for the social pillar, we just role-played it all out. In 3e and beyond, I see a lot more dice rolls to see if you tricked the guard, or found the trap. Nothing wrong with that, just a different play style.

First, huge Pinky and the Brain fan here, so kudos for that!

Second, I prefer rolling myself. Point-buy and standard array do make PCs feel like cardboard cut-outs in my opinion.

Third, while I won't wish for a low roll, if I get one I run with it and enjoy the role-playing experiences. I had a low-Wisdom wizard once who kept telling bad guys things he shouldn't. He was like Sheldon from BBT, oblivious to cues and understanding social norms (this PC had average CHA 10). He knew them just failed to pick up on them.

The other players were annoyed at times that my WIS 5 PC was spilling the beans, but it was funny more than anything.

Lastly, it is also why I enjoy a rolling method of 5d6 twice, 4d6 twice, 3d6 twice, assign as you roll...

I went through a full 20-level campaign running a lizardfolk with a 6 Int and 5 Cha. He was a blast to play, as he'd been brought up in the Underdark and had no idea what surface life was like. The first time they went above ground, he tackled his nearest companion, a quite bewildered dwarven fighter, and shielded him with his own body because my PC mistook the sun for a fireball. He also had some strange notions, as a firm belief that the air was filled with acid higher up (his proof: the moon - which he referred to as "the Really Big Pearl" - was slowly getting eaten away as it went through its phases). And the other PCs soon realized he understood things better when they put them in terms he understood; thus, birds were explained away as "sky-fish." He never did understand why his companions (two dwarves, a gnome, and a human) were so squeamish about what meat they ate, when obviously, "meat is meat" (they had some weird mammalian hang-up about eating the flesh of things that could talk).

Johnathan

Richards said:

The first time they went above ground, he tackled his nearest companion, a quite bewildered dwarven fighter, and shielded him with his own body because my PC mistook the sun for a fireball.

Click to expand...

LOVE THIS!

Sacrosanct said:

A bit of a disclaimer first. I know lots of people don't want to play a PC with a lot stat. Or how they want to play a heroic PC and a low stat seems to take away from that. That's perfectly fine. I'm not judging folks who like that playstyle at all. Just commenting on my own experience and to present my own case as to why having a low stat can actually be more fun to play.

Longish post following...

Ever since standard array and point buy options came about, rarely did players use the rolling option, especially newer players. I almost never saw a PC with a stat lower than 8 any longer. An 8 stat is not low--it's just slightly less than average. A whole play experience just disappeared (Shadowdark brings this back but it's basically gone from the D&D game and has been for decades now).

Let me give you a recent example. In my 1e game, I'm playing a human fighter with a 6 INT. He's always dreamed of becoming a knight, and acts like one with exaggerated aplomb. One of the fellow players is playing an assassin. He happened to have a target in the keep (from Keep on the Borderlands). Somehow it was just he and I together who went to a dinner hosted by the target. The assassin poisoned the target but things got confusing and chaotic pretty quickly. The guards attacked us, and I was convinced they were the ones who invited us into a trap based on what the assassin was telling me (no ability checks, this was all role-played out, which is another topic.*..). We ended up setting the place on fire to hide our murder but I thought it was an accidental fire--the assassin did it when I was preoccupied. He also ended up stealing an item from the place.

We were basically Pinky and the Brain. We didn't plan on it being like that. I never planned on doing something like that as a PC. It was all organic and natural as it played out. But it was fun and spontaneous. Sometimes the best sessions are those that have unexpected turns and twists in the story. My initial thought of my PC was to be an honorable knight and in the first session I was involved in murder, arson, and burglary all without knowing it lol. We had a good laugh. None of that would have happened if I didn't have such a low INT score to cause me to miss clues.

And it's not just INT. I've played PCs with low CON, or low STR, or low CHA. Having a low stat often opens the door for more role-playing opportunities and helps keep every PC from feeling like a cardboard cutout of everyone else.

* As is common with AD&D, rather than rely on ability checks for the social pillar, we just role-played it all out. In 3e and beyond, I see a lot more dice rolls to see if you tricked the guard, or found the trap. Nothing wrong with that, just a different play style.

View attachment 407770

Click to expand...

In my game, and games I play in, we always roll, and nearly always one or more PCs have one or more significantly low stats. It's fun, and it allows characters to have interesting and realistic weaknesses. One of many reasons we don't do point buy is it has a tendency IMO to make everyone look very similar stat-wise, and that doesn't feel plausible to us.

I think part of this is also what constitutues truly "low" ability.

For one thing, I don't think the range of 3-20 (or 1-20) should encompass all levels of ability. I think it should be made clear it only represents what PCs have. If you think about the DCs in 5E, in the 5-pt increments, it follows that a 5-pt difference in ability (alone!) is necesssary to equate a Medium task becoming Hard, or an Easy task becoming Very Easy.

So, how "smart" would a PC with INT 20 have to be to justify making that Hard task (for someone with INT 10) into Medium task for them? I don't think the maximum INT represents that really. In my opinion, "maximum" INT would make a Hard task into Easy or even Very Easy.

Think about a group of PCs moving quickly across a plank over a pit with poison spikes (bad example, but whateves) while fleeing a pack of ogres or something. The DM thinks this is Easy DC 10 and calls for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check since falling during the pursuit (not to mention the poisoned spikes!) poses a significant cost of failure. Three PCs are making the roll:

DEX 18, DEX 10, and DEX 3; so +4, +0, and -4 to the checks.
Odds of making it ok are 75%, 55%, and 35%, respectively (assuming no proficiency in Acrobatics).

Honestly, does that sound right? DEX 18, virtually as good as you can get normally, could fail to make progress, maybe fall even, 25% of the time?

And DEX 3 (as low as you can roll) might make it 35%? I mean, a DEX 3 (-4) is clumsy, sure, but when you consider this scenario, does it seem that it is almost "as un-dextrous as someone can be"??? It seems to me like a person "as un-dextrous as someone can be" would be failing more than 65% of the time.

I know people don't want the treadmill effect of 3E again, but there are times when I feel like the range of the d20 almost necessitates modifiers and proficiency numbers potentially double what they currently are. shrug

Take that same scene and double the modifiers to +8, +0, and -8. Now your odds are 95% (fail on 1 only), 55%, and 15% (make it on 18,19,20 only). Even just talking about ability only, that seems more like it to me personally. shrug again

Flights of Fancy said:

I think part of this is also what constitutues truly "low" ability.

For one thing, I don't think the range of 3-20 (or 1-20) should encompass all levels of ability. I think it should be made clear it only represents what PCs have. If you think about the DCs in 5E, in the 5-pt increments, it follows that a 5-pt difference in ability (alone!) is necesssary to equate a Medium task becoming Hard, or an Easy task becoming Very Easy.

So, how "smart" would a PC with INT 20 have to be to justify making that Hard task (for someone with INT 10) into Medium task for them? I don't think the maximum INT represents that really. In my opinion, "maximum" INT would make a Hard task into Easy or even Very Easy.

Think about a group of PCs moving quickly across a plank over a pit with poison spikes (bad example, but whateves) while fleeing a pack of ogres or something. The DM thinks this is Easy DC 10 and calls for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check since falling during the pursuit (not to mention the poisoned spikes!) poses a significant cost of failure. Three PCs are making the roll:

DEX 18, DEX 10, and DEX 3; so +4, +0, and -4 to the checks.
Odds of making it ok are 75%, 55%, and 35%, respectively (assuming no proficiency in Acrobatics).

Honestly, does that sound right? DEX 18, virtually as good as you can get normally, could fail to make progress, maybe fall even, 25% of the time?

And DEX 3 (as low as you can roll) might make it 35%? I mean, a DEX 3 (-4) is clumsy, sure, but when you consider this scenario, does it seem that it is almost "as un-dextrous as someone can be"??? It seems to me like a person "as un-dextrous as someone can be" would be failing more than 65% of the time.

I know people don't want the treadmill effect of 3E again, but there are times when I feel like the range of the d20 almost necessitates modifiers and proficiency numbers potentially double what they currently are. shrug

Take that same scene and double the modifiers to +8, +0, and -8. Now your odds are 95% (fail on 1 only), 55%, and 15% (make it on 18,19,20 only). Even just talking about ability only, that seems more like it to me personally. shrug again

Click to expand...

That's a good point to put it into a different perspective. I'm thinking in 1e terms, where the ability isn't just a modifier though. There's context with each value based on the text. For example:




Each ability table has something like that. Which seems pretty funny to me now lol.

"You have no common sense!"
"Well, I guess a life of crime for me!"

I played a couple of Wizards with low Int. In some older editions they would be impossible because of minimum Int score to cast spells at all, but there isn't such limitation in 5e. If you build the Wizard around spells that don't require an attack or offer a save (so mostly a defensive/utility Wizard, but there are also a few offensive spells like Sleep which aren't affected by low Int) then you can be an effective Wizard. The drawback which remains is the low number of spells prepared, so you won't be a flexible Wizard. Nevertheless, they were fun to play for me because I like challenges!

As a DM - I try to encourage players to get at least one 16 on their PC one way or another as I find that even with the best and noblest of intentions, players lose focus more quickly when other PCs outshine theirs. There are exceptions to the rule - but it is an overwhelmingly strong tendency.

People fantasize about being powerful. They rarely fantasize about being weaker. You can tell great stories about weaker characters, but in the end playing one for 800 hours is different than reading about one or watching one on screen for a bit.

When players stick to their guns, I account for their weakness and give them an option for a backdoor to power. It might be as simple as a Headband of intellect or Gauntlets of Ogre Power ... or it might be giving them a storyline that puts a powerful magic item in their hands early. Again: This gives them an optional out on their initial preference.

Is this a DM saying, "I know better than the players and am building in an option to let them change their mind because I think they are likely to do so?" Yes. This is exactly that - a DM making sure that he preserves paths to fun that the player might appreciate more later, but does not have to take. It is DM care of players.

As a player - After I play a strong PC I like to play a weaker PC. It isn't always about attributes. Sometimes it is just being the PC that buffs, heals, absorbs hits and solves puzzles while the other PCs beat the @%@ out of the foes. However, sometimes it is being Robin to another player's Batman, or Sancho Panza to another player's Don Quixote with a 12 or 14 strength Champion fighter.

I like the switch because it gives me a different story to play.

Ah, but doesn't this 100% invalidate your assumption as a DM that players need to be provided an out if they elect to play low attribute PCs? Not really. Because there have been times that I have started out with a weak character that filled a utility role and it got boring because there wasn't much I could do. In those combat focused games, my utility role was ... meaningless. And that was a situation in which I made the exact wrong call to play a weaker PC because in that game, it did not work. DMs sometimes gave me a fix (especially if I hinted one would be appreciated), but other times my PC ended up leaning towards the high danger play in order to 'pull his weight'... and overextending your PC in D&D can be quickly deadly.

I had a really memorable character in Weird Frontiers, the weird west DCC offshoot. I rolled 4 for STR, but otherwise ok stats. Why would they have such a low strength? It came to me: Because they're old! So I created Old Sally. (Pronounced "ole" held out long and with a western twang.) She was an elderly Revelator (cleric) fond of spreading the Word through communion with the waters of life aka rot gut whiskey. "She ain't as strong as she used to be, but she's still nimble!" (AGI 15) That ridiculously low roll just gave me this instantly memorable character. I had such a blast playing her. I will say that a game where firearms were the predominant weapon did help more than a bit with keeping her viable.