Playing a less then great stat character

[el-remmen]

I voted "Yes, I like a challenge," but I really don't consider it a challenge. There's nothing wrong with those stats, as long as you're not dead set on playing a paladin, monk, or ranger.

What he said, and for the record, are those in order, or can we place them in whatever order we like?

 

[the Jester]

Sure I'd play that character! Moreover, I would thoroughly mock another player who rolled those stats and then started whining about it. "Quit your whinging, mang!"

Heck, some of my favorite characters (mine and other folks') started off with a 3 in a stat. Makes them very memorable.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Those stats aren't that bad. I'd play that in a second.

 

[airwalkrr]

I'd feel a tad let down after rolling ability scores like that (everyone likes to hope they get a killer set) but after a minute I'd get over it and start thinking about all the other things that are far more important to my character anyway. I would play it happily.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I see nothing particluarly poor about those stats, there a bit on the low side and there is no really high stat. I would not play a paladin, mork or bard with those numbers but I'd have a decent go at anything else.

I have played worse and better. I would not care about what stats the others had either. 2 of my most memorable characters has stats worse than that. One was a fighter (really a barbarian but this was 1e) and the other a thief. The thies has low wis as int 3. He died horribly iin a trap he could not figure out. This was in the day when we rolled 3d6 and in order.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

I think the stats are pretty decent. You get some bonuses, you get a little penalty, but oh well. I'd have no problems playing them.

 

[Thurbane]

We get threads dealing with characters with not great stats like maybe a

14, 13, 11, 10, 9, 8

And the DM is not allowing you to alter these or come up with new numbers.

If you had such stats and everyone in the group had about the same but you are on the low end would you play him? Would you do so reluctantly? Or would you kill him off?

I'd play it, theres more to the game than stats, although I'll admit this character would struggle a bit...

I remember back in 1E I had a Ranger that rolled "Snake Eyes" for his hit points (back then rangers got 2d8 HD at first level) - I sent him off into the most dangerous woods I could find with nothing but a dagger to "test his manhood"...needless to say, he got killed.

 

[Quartz]

As long as everyone else had the same. It would suck if the other characters had significantly better net modifiers.

 

[drothgery]

I think the stats are pretty decent. You get some bonuses, you get a little penalty, but oh well. I'd have no problems playing them.

Err... that set is a -1 to any even stat from being a PHB hopeless character by virtue of a total modifier of zero. And with a high stat of 14, it just barely breaks the 'highest stat over 13' threshhold. Granted, all-13s guy doesn't make the cut either, and he's quite playable (though you probably don't play a human, or any race without stat modifiers).

That's umm... not very good.

 

[Xyanthon]

I voted for yes, I like a challenge. I'm not so much on stats any more as I am about story. Having said that, when I was a kid, such an outlook would have been unthinkable. My tastes have changed as I've gotten older.