Are high attributes more fun then low attributes?

[The Shaman]

The twenty-five point standard array is fine with me.

For that matter so is a fifteen-point ordinary array (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8).

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I enjoy both. Depends on the style of the campaign.

I find that high stats fits better for a high fantasy "we have come to save the day" kind of campaign.

And low stats for the skin-of-our-teeth "what do you expect from low rent heroes" kind of campaign.

Both are great flavors.

But I can do without seeing another low Int paladin or low Cha monk. Some classes are not very fun to play without higher stats.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I prefer relitively high stats just because of the stat requirements for feats and for spellcasting. The fact that I need a 15 plus dex and a 13 plus int to play a character concept I'm toying with (and that is minumum feat requirements with no concern for pluses to the actual attack) makes me pretty well dismiss the "you can do what you want with any stats" argument. Just from the point of veiw of wanting to be able to select feats and consider a caster multiclass if it makes sense for the character, high is the way to go.

 

[sniffles]

I definitely have more fun with high stats. I have had fun playing a character with low stats, but in the long run it's a lot less fun to play a character whose chance of success are lower. It gets really frustrating to me to forever fail nearly every attack roll and saving throw.

 

[sumi]

What is the point of playing low stats? If you started with 13 Int and were a wizard by the time you got to 11th level you could not cast any more higher level spells. So great you have no con, no dex, no skills, you have negative str, no will save and should not be able to talk your way out of trouble as you have no charisma. Then you are relying on magic, huge amounts of money or a great deal of luck.

You might as well play farmers instead of Heroes.

A balance of good stats is what matters, especially rolled rather than this point buy system which has everything on odds or evens and nothing below 8. Plus a good amount of testing adventures, good rewards and lots of laughs.

 

[Mycanid]

Sorry Crothian ... too vague for me. I would generally tend towards "low stats" starting out and then working up - I like developing the character in as many ways as possible - but I have had fun with high stats too, like Umbran said.

Nonetheless, all this aside I voted "low" after a long time of indecision.

 

[howandwhy99]

I know the poll is for only high or low choices, but what about those who prefer the baseline? I mean, the game has been designed and balanced for 25-point buy characters. That's my preference. That's neither high nor low by RAW.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

What is the point of playing low stats? If you started with 13 Int and were a wizard by the time you got to 11th level you could not cast any more higher level spells. So great you have no con, no dex, no skills, you have negative str, no will save and should not be able to talk your way out of trouble as you have no charisma. Then you are relying on magic, huge amounts of money or a great deal of luck.

You might as well play farmers instead of Heroes.

You are confounding "low stats" with both "low wealth" and "low power".

A 13 Int Wizard could spend appropriate monies to get the necessary Enhancement item so he could cast higher level spells.

The attraction for me is the low stat campaign prolong the period during which the PC has notable weaknesses. It therefore prolongs how long relatively minor magic or low CRs critters are potentially threats.

The PCs do eventually become powerful. The low stat party may have to wait until 12th level to take on that module, when a high stat 11th level party was more than ready for it. Is that a big difference?

 

[Nifft]

All of my PCs have high stats... "under the hood". (IYKWIM,AITYD.)

-- N

 

[The Shaman]

What is the point of playing low stats?...You might as well play farmers instead of Heroes.

A hero is defined by what s/he does, not by what s/he is.

IMO.