Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 9386646" data-attributes="member: 7635">You only need four out of the six scores (SIWD) to be 8 or lower to be unplayable, Con and Cha aren't a factor. That is possible, though admittedly not overly likely, on 3d6 in order. That said, even if you manage to get a single 9, the ability to function in your class is still hampered. But the bigger question for me is why?: why would you really want to play a character with terrible scores. Not in the "one bad score" model of weakness in an otherwise solid set, but in the "no score above a 12, multiple scores with penalties" model that 3d6 IO can produce? Is it fun when everyone else has great scores and you struggle with basic tasks? A fighter who misses most attacks, a thief who struggles with stealth and traps, a cleric with a chance to miscast their magic? A magic user who can't learn new spells? It's funny for a minute, but a whole campaign of being useless or worse, a resource drain on the party? Why?I guess it's the same kind of challenge that playing Legend of Zelda without picking up the sword is: the thrill of playing with one hand tied behind your back. But the thing is, that is a deliberate flex, the game doesn't randomly decide if you get to use the sword or you're stuck without a weapon for most of the run. If you want to play a suboptimal character, it should be a.) your choice, not a quirk of the dice and b.) the other players should be ok with you playing a character who isn't going to contribute as much. Neither should be randomly hoisted on a player unless they want.</blockquote>

Verification