-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Are high attributes more fun then low attributes?
- Thread starter Crothian
- Start date
Aus_Snow
First Post
I prefer ability scores to accurately represent the relevant aspects of the character I have in mind to begin with.
So, that varies as to whether it means high, low, whatever (over all).
It would be nice if more GMs (and more players) were fine in all ways with the concept and the realities of choosing ability scores. It is the best method, bar none.
So, that varies as to whether it means high, low, whatever (over all).
It would be nice if more GMs (and more players) were fine in all ways with the concept and the realities of choosing ability scores. It is the best method, bar none.
Halivar
First Post
Hrmmm for all the folks that choose "low" stats... what is low to you? Is it a 6, or is it a 10? I prefer all my stats above ten, with at least one 18 (more if I'm playing a paladin).
I have never found excessively high stats to interfere with my roleplay, which is the important thing.
I have never found excessively high stats to interfere with my roleplay, which is the important thing.
Psion
Adventurer
What's "low" or "high"? A bit of a dichotomy here.
Considering that I consider the standard array a bit too low (I don't feel it's appropriate to force players to take a below average score), I went with the high option.
That said, "high" to me is 2+ scores > 16, which I also disallow (even if it's rolled...)
Considering that I consider the standard array a bit too low (I don't feel it's appropriate to force players to take a below average score), I went with the high option.
That said, "high" to me is 2+ scores > 16, which I also disallow (even if it's rolled...)
).
Drowbane
First Post
High stats
Balance is relative. High stats or no, any DM worth his DM-Screen is going to challenge the party. With that in mind, I prefer high stats for the following reasons:
1) I'm a powergamer, whether or not my min/maxing ways actually net me any sort of real benefit, its fun to do.
2) I enjoy versitility and complex builds. High stats allow you to make a Monk who is actually worth having in the party. High stats allow you to make Multiclass builds without worrying quite as much about M.A.D. issues.
3) I have dozens of builds that I've never had the chance to play, many of these builds end up facing the PCs as "powergamed NPCs". Of course, I save the "kewlest" builds for my own PCs
Note: I can play with low stats, but my builds will end up being very much "been there, done that", such as a 25pt build barbarian / fighter with Str and Con, some Dex and dump stats...
Balance is relative. High stats or no, any DM worth his DM-Screen is going to challenge the party. With that in mind, I prefer high stats for the following reasons:
1) I'm a powergamer, whether or not my min/maxing ways actually net me any sort of real benefit, its fun to do.
2) I enjoy versitility and complex builds. High stats allow you to make a Monk who is actually worth having in the party. High stats allow you to make Multiclass builds without worrying quite as much about M.A.D. issues.
3) I have dozens of builds that I've never had the chance to play, many of these builds end up facing the PCs as "powergamed NPCs". Of course, I save the "kewlest" builds for my own PCs
Note: I can play with low stats, but my builds will end up being very much "been there, done that", such as a 25pt build barbarian / fighter with Str and Con, some Dex and dump stats...
Melan
Explorer
Per definitionem, anithing that results in a negative ability modifier. In 3.*, that's 9-. With a few examples (character with low Charisma, barbarian with low Intelligence), 3-5 may be too low - at least low enough to be crippling. 6-9 is the comfortable range.Halivar said:
In OD&D, who cares.
