D&D General You Were Rolling Up a New Character, and Just Rolled a 3. What Is Your Reaction?

[tetrasodium]

I don't see a problem but there are a few factors that change things a bit.

Prior to 3.x it didn't really matter what your attributes were and I think you didn't even start getting a minus one till like 6 or less, a 3 simply wasn't going to have much impact on play.

Roll stats in order vrs roll stats and assign as desired could make a difference. A 3 in con might not matter much to a spellcaster or bow user but might be fairly crippling to a fighter type build array. Asking to swap the three to an attrib that makes sense in ways not putting the party at risk is reasonable

 

[Chaltab]

I think I'd be torn between "Time to take a photo of this statistical unlikely outcome for 4d6k3." and "Oh crap, this bodes poorly."

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Depends on the ability it was rolled in, since I assume that we're doing it "in order".

I generally prefer to come up with a character concept first, although that would be out of the window if we are rolling in order.

The issue being that if I rolled an Int of 3 for example, sportsmanship would require me to play and portray my character as such: with only animal level reasoning.
I do not think I would have fun playing such a character beyond a certain point. Same probably goes for Wisdom and Charisma as well.

 

[Brendan Byrd]

My reaction to rolling a 3 (assuming 4d6, drop the lowest)?
Today is not the day to buy a lottery ticket!

 

[AlViking]

What’s wrong with playing a disabled character? Though I disagree a three is disabled.

Again, I reject the premise. Disabled characters can be heroes. They’re not mutually exclusive categories. And there’s nothing saying a three INT means a PC can’t put together a coherent sentence.

The lack of sportsmanship comes in when a player’s a-okay with rolling the dice on their stats right up until that three shows up. If you’re willing to gamble as long as you win, you’re not willing to gamble. That’s bad sportsmanship.

I'm not going to argue about this, I'm just stating a preference. I'm a normal standard person in real life, for a game I want to be a bit bigger than life.

I don't like gambling and don't want a one time roll of the dice to dictate a character I hope to play for hours on end. I don't want perfect, I want to be on even footing.

Do what works for you, I'll wish you luck with your game. Just don't tell me how to play mine, okay?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I voted 'Gift', but it's really halfway between 'Gift' and 'Comic Potential' because it doesn't particularly actually matter to me all that much.

Cause here's the thing... a '3' doesn't mean anything to me. What actually has meaning is '-4', which is the modifier for the stat. And honestly the '-4' modifier doesn't actually mean much to me either... because what actually has meaning is '-3 to 16', which is what my stat ACTUALLY is... the 20 points of swing my stat can have once you take the d20 roll into account.

And is '-3 to 16' that a big deal? Eh... to me not especially. Not when I still have a 10% chance of passing any DC 15 check on the ability score alone, and a 35% chance of passing a DC 10. And this doesn't even take into account the additional 10% added from the proficiency bonus on skills where I have proficiency. So yeah... I won't be great at a lot of standard checks... but I'll know enough to deal.

And heck... even if the '3' got assigned to one of the more-difficult-to-work-around stats like Dexterity or Constitution... it still wouldn't be that massive a heartache. If it's DEX then I'm just playing a Heavy Armor warrior character that knows I'll be going late in most combats from a poor Initiative... but I've never found Initiative to be that much of a hurdle anyway. And if it's CON... I'd not only go Heavy Armor / Shield for the higher AC to avoid as many hits as I could... but also go with any set of abilities that could grant Temp HP as often as possible to use as a buffer.

QFT

For those who are on about the "animal level reasoning":
If you have a character with a -4 in an ability, at least in 5e, you are 20% less capable than average. That's the extent it. There is absolutely nothing in the 5e DMG or PHB that forces a player to roleplay a 3 INT, for example, as if they have "animal level reasoning". The player gets to choose how they want to portray their character. That said, it might be wiser to leave the actions that could warrant an ability check for said weak ability to another party member given that ability check failure comes with meaningful consequences.

 

[Ogre Mage]

Amazing! Unless you put it in Strength, then I will cry.

You are crying for me then.

 

[Seramus]

If you have a character with a -4 in an ability, at least in 5e, you are 20% less capable than average. That's the extent it. There is absolutely nothing in the 5e DMG or PHB that forces a player to roleplay a 3 INT, for example, as if they have "animal level reasoning".

I do love the idea that animals are secretly just 20% less intelligent than your average human. Animal Farm, Charlotte's Web, Secret of NIMH, the Great Mouse Detective... all true!

 

[Osgood]

While I think of the comic potential or interesting role playing, at least two of my players are closer to the Demand a reroll category… though it would be a passive aggressive pouting campaign.