Exactly.
Even in pre 3e, the game wouldn't allow for low STR fighters since you needed a minimum STR of 9 to qualify for the class.
Low ability scores -- more fun?
- Thread starter Bullgrit
- Start date
Exactly.
Even in pre 3e, the game wouldn't allow for low STR fighters since you needed a minimum STR of 9 to qualify for the class.
Nifft
Penguin Herder
I saw an excellent low-Str Fighter in 3e! (He was an archer.)
I don't think you'll find many people lining up to play a character whose distinguishing trait is "sucks at chosen role".
Cheers, -- N
Theo R Cwithin
I cast "Baconstorm!"
A low stat might be interesting because it forces unusual or non-standard choices (eg, the low DEX fighter has some tough tactical and build decisions).
From an RP perspective, though, I don't know that the low stat, per se, is all that interesting. Rather, it's the player's interpretation (and enactment of that interpretation) that makes it interesting. Take the low DEX example: that could mean a variety of things, ranging from general oafish clumsiness ("poor agility") to bad handwriting or shaky hands ("poor manual dexterity"), or all of the above (which is what it really seems to mean mechanically!).
I think a good player uses the stat as a springboard into RP, regardless of the mechanical effects of the scores. But then, a good player uses any/all of the peculiar ciphers and doodles on his character sheet to good effect.
From an RP perspective, though, I don't know that the low stat, per se, is all that interesting. Rather, it's the player's interpretation (and enactment of that interpretation) that makes it interesting. Take the low DEX example: that could mean a variety of things, ranging from general oafish clumsiness ("poor agility") to bad handwriting or shaky hands ("poor manual dexterity"), or all of the above (which is what it really seems to mean mechanically!).
I think a good player uses the stat as a springboard into RP, regardless of the mechanical effects of the scores. But then, a good player uses any/all of the peculiar ciphers and doodles on his character sheet to good effect.
Theo R Cwithin
I cast "Baconstorm!"
I don't know about that... I think it really depends why any given player is at the table!
Personally, I kind of like characters with underwhelming prime requisites (wasn't that the oldschool term?). I've played a sorc with low-ish cha as a result of race; that sorc among orcs was quite a sorc, but in the greater world he had his share of problems: kind of a cross between Carrie and the Incredible Hulk. A low str fighter might focus on mobility, finesse or range. A low dex rogue could be quite good at subterfuge and deceit, but don't let him near a trap!
Not mechanically effective characters, to be sure, but something different-- and maybe even challenging-- to play, nonetheless.
Last edited:
If I were given that offer, my first thought would be, "While I can opt for the all 18's, will the rest of the group call me 'munchkin!' if I do it?"
I suppose I'm weird, but if someone allowed me to take all 18's in all stats, I'd jump on the offer unless I got the impression it was a, "You can do this, but if you're a 'true roleplayer' you won't!"
I'm not implying that was your premise, Crothian, so please don't take it the wrong way. But sometimes I feel that players bias themselves very strongly against those that are willing to take straight advantages like that. Now, generally, I'd likely lower a few to 16 or 14, particularly if I felt like there was pressure to not accept that offer.
But I am SURE I could come up with a fun character concept that has an 18 in all areas. "While he's very booksmart and has bouts of sagely wisdom, he is sometimes too impatient to fully think things through" could still be played with an 18 int and wis. It's just not as common. >.>
Crothian
First Post
Not our group. We don't usually call the other players names. The group is all in their 30's with families and jobs and everyone is friends out of game as well as in game. Most of the time they don't even know what the other people's ability scores are, it just isn't all that important to them to know the specific mechanics of the other characters.
Ugh, if any of my players threw around phrases like "true role player" then they would get made fun of. We role play, but they aren't the strongest group for that but they are getting better.
No worries. I remove the peer pressure not that there is much by having players select their scores in private (we have our own message boards for this) and not share what they pick. Last time I did this it was a great social experiment. After everyone picked their stats I asked all the players to write down who they thought who have picked the highest point buy total and then rank everyone else. It was funny to see who everyone thought was going to pick the highest scores and then to see that their perception was very wrong when they saw the reality.
We play in my own campaign world and their are great character concepts that come out of the world that would support straight 18's. I've shown them that balance between PCs is not as delicate as some people think and by some people I'm including them in that. As a DM I like to break people's expectations and show them that the game can still be fun by doing things different and its worked. I've gotten a little lucky at times, but my basic premise has always been as long as we are gaming with friends fun will be had.
I think that this is accurate. I think that people might prefer to play characters with both strong and weak points given equal (or near equal) power. Playing a weaker character than everybody else -- especially in 3/4E D&D where states drive a lot of a characters power -- is much less interesting.
I seem to recall Raistlin having a much lower con in AD&D; in 3.X D&D con is so important to a wizard (balancing the hit die) that any character with a 7 con would be enormously disadvantaged.
???
Dragonlance Adventures was the 1st edition AD&D tome that had stats for all the major personalities of the War of the Lance.
Raistlin had a 10 CON there so not exactly a "weakness".
Indeed, looking at the stats for DL characters, other have lower stats than Raistlin but they are all in what would be called dump stats.
Kitara has a WIS of 7 and Tas has a low INT of 9 and they are not really mechanically affected by such scores.
Interesting is how they model alcholism in Caramon. His WIS is 10 but he also has a neat willpower mechanic in dealing with addiction.
Just as importantly, looking at the list of stats in DLA, most characters are rocking multiple scores of 15+. Only one character, the minotaur Bas Ohan has multiple scores lower than 10.
lobsterGun
Explorer
I think it has something to do with needing to eek out an advantage for a character that sucks.
Think about it. When you have asskicking stats you don't need to come up with clever solutions, but when your highest stat is a 12, you'd better have a few tricks up your sleeve if you're going to hack it as an adventurer.
Think about it. When you have asskicking stats you don't need to come up with clever solutions, but when your highest stat is a 12, you'd better have a few tricks up your sleeve if you're going to hack it as an adventurer.
Similar Threads
