I said two 14's. If I'm a spellcaster, I want to be able to cast my highest level spells by at the most 20th level. If I'm a fighter type, or even rogue type, I want access to the feat tree's that require a 13 in a certain stat: (Ex: Power Attack tree, Combat Expertise tree, Dodge tree). I like to have combat options, and special attacks. I'd rather take combat expertise or spring attack over weapon specialization any day, passive bonuses aren't my thing.
Do you need high stats to be an effective character?
- Thread starter Crothian
- Start date
I vote that stats don't really matter as long as everyone has about the same total bonuses. A party with a bunch of 14s or bunch of 18s plays the same IME, as long as the campaign is designed for them. I designed my campaign for about +8 in total bonuses. The only qualifier in this is that spell casters should probably have their minimum stat required for the level of spell they can cast. Being denied spells because of low stats IMO unbalances them.
I don't expect people to roleplay according to stats. There are plenty enough rolls IMC for Will saves, Knowledge checks, reaction rolls etc. Tactics and actions can be attributed as much to luck as intelligence. IMO there's no reason to base your roleplaying off of stats (though you can if you want). IMC the players stats affects their rolls and the "crunchy" part of event resolution. Everything else is up to the player. I don't know if an 18 str means that you're really muscular or have really good body mechanics and it doesn't matter to me. I know what it tells me about the game - why not just let the players choose the other details?
I don't expect people to roleplay according to stats. There are plenty enough rolls IMC for Will saves, Knowledge checks, reaction rolls etc. Tactics and actions can be attributed as much to luck as intelligence. IMO there's no reason to base your roleplaying off of stats (though you can if you want). IMC the players stats affects their rolls and the "crunchy" part of event resolution. Everything else is up to the player. I don't know if an 18 str means that you're really muscular or have really good body mechanics and it doesn't matter to me. I know what it tells me about the game - why not just let the players choose the other details?
tarchon
First Post
The balance of party stats matters more than the absolute value. If everyone has so-so stats, it's not so much a problem. It can become a problem if one PC has like +10 total bonuses and another has +0. The way I look at it like, +4 or +5 bonuses are worth a level or so of power, so low stats aren't any more or less playable than low level. When DMing, I usually add effective levels to party members for high stat bonuses when calculating encounter levels, so it's not making their lives any easier.
Gez
First Post
Crothian said:
That doesn't prevent people from planning ahead.
As for a 8-point buy being enough (i.e., a character one 15 and five 8 is efficient), I disagree. Such a one-trick-poney would be boring to play, and would have troubles qualifying for all-around useful feats, like Dodge. (Those who do not believe Mobility is useful for a spellcaster have never had their wizard PC running away from an ogre before casting spells.)
It depends where you play. In FR char that has best stat 14 is dead weight for the party (if play starts at low levels). In our group we have talked our FR DM to accept house rule that 15 is good and every char should have at least two good stats. 14 is stat that irritates me. 15 will be 16 after one stat gain but 14 needs two ... I prefer odd stat numbers (I prefer 13 to 14 
) as starting stat as there is improvement in horizon.
I voted one 16.
) as starting stat as there is improvement in horizon.I voted one 16.
Gothic_Demon
First Post
I get the feeling from reading through that the problem with ability scores is based on the DM, the Campaign, and the other players: not on the effectiveness of the character due solely to his stats.
Is a wizard with 15 INT and 8 everything else going to be powerful? If everyone else has all 18s, in a campaign for really high-powered characters where the DM doesn't like the wizard? Obviously NO.
Will the same wizard be powerful in a campaign with no magic in the hands of anyone else, where he can bring God-like powers to ignore arrows, and raise huge gouts of flame at commoners with just his bare hands and a muttered word? Ah, therein lies the difference.
I think it's all about how, not what. My players played a short campaign (14 weeks), when I had an almost TPK. Only the Paladin survived, and her at level 11. The other three players wanted to start at level 1 (fair enough), and my Paladin player didn't want a new character (fair enough), so we ran a series of adventures where the others slowly gained in power with respect to the Paladin (3.5 XP rules).
None of the level 1's were any different from the standard PHB-type characters. They had no unusual powers or races to make things up. They went into combat with the Paladin on many occasions. They died or came very close to death a number of times. But they enjoyed the experience and everyone was happy playing it.
I voted "At least one 14", because I like my players PCs to be slightly above the norm, to be just powerful enough to stand out from regular people in the street, but beyond that the skies the limit with a decent DM and some well written stories/adventures.
Is a wizard with 15 INT and 8 everything else going to be powerful? If everyone else has all 18s, in a campaign for really high-powered characters where the DM doesn't like the wizard? Obviously NO.
Will the same wizard be powerful in a campaign with no magic in the hands of anyone else, where he can bring God-like powers to ignore arrows, and raise huge gouts of flame at commoners with just his bare hands and a muttered word? Ah, therein lies the difference.
I think it's all about how, not what. My players played a short campaign (14 weeks), when I had an almost TPK. Only the Paladin survived, and her at level 11. The other three players wanted to start at level 1 (fair enough), and my Paladin player didn't want a new character (fair enough), so we ran a series of adventures where the others slowly gained in power with respect to the Paladin (3.5 XP rules).
None of the level 1's were any different from the standard PHB-type characters. They had no unusual powers or races to make things up. They went into combat with the Paladin on many occasions. They died or came very close to death a number of times. But they enjoyed the experience and everyone was happy playing it.
I voted "At least one 14", because I like my players PCs to be slightly above the norm, to be just powerful enough to stand out from regular people in the street, but beyond that the skies the limit with a decent DM and some well written stories/adventures.
Henry
Autoexreginated
Harmon said:
An aside just popped into my head, about even negative mods fitting the character...
In one D&D game, I am playing the clichéd "farmboy done good" stereotype. He is a hellraiser, but fairly book-smart (greatmum Gurda, actually Aunt, was a world-wise half-orc adventurer who took him under her wing and taught him many things about the wide world) fairly dexterous and not ugly to look at, and fights like a master swordsman with scythe, morningstar, and sword, but he is a street-smart as a STUMP. His wisdom is 6, and it's become a group fun activity to watch him make a will save, or a spot check, because he can sometimes make below a 0 if it's a poor roll.
He has:-wished the rogue good luck while he snuck past a guard
-accused the party elf of cannibalism due to a blown sense motive check
-trusted a 13-year old boy who would sell his own grandmother for profit
-came close to destroying a 200-year old Katana to make a point
and a host of other activities that has both ticked off the party and endeared him to them at the same time. The fact is, my portrayal of stump-boy's wisdom has entertained the players as much as his combat ability has helped the party.
