Rolling for stats. Need some advice

[Dandu]

I am relived to hear some of those points.

(4) I will say, however, that a 2nd-level fighter can easily lose to a 1st-level fighter, for some of the same reasons that the orcs present a significant threat. The 1st-level fighter can be a "hard hitter," too, and because his attack bonus is likely only 1 worse than the 2nd-level fighter, his chance of hitting is almost the same -- which is essentially the same point I made about fighters with 14 Strength: they aren't that much worse than fighters with 16 or 18 Strength.

A, say, level 1 fighter with a greatsword and 14 strength deals 2d6+3 damage per attack, with an attack bonus of +4, assuming Weapon Focus.

If he had 16 strength, he would deal 2d6+4 damage and attack at +5.

With 18 strength, that becomes 2d6+6 damage at AB +6.

A fighter with Str 18 hits 10% more of the time for 30% more damage per hit.

I personally consider a fighter with Str 14 much worse than a fighter with Str 18 based on those numbers.

 

[Vegepygmy]

A fighter with Str 18 hits 10% more of the time for 30% more damage per hit.

I personally consider a fighter with Str 14 much worse than a fighter with Str 18 based on those numbers.

And therein lies the difference between us. Those numbers (which I agree are correct) are not terribly significant to me. I seem to have just as much fun playing the fighter who hits 10% less often and does 30% less damage per hit.

 

[Herzog]

I guess what I'm saying is I don't really find having a mechanical weakness to be inherently conducive to roleplaying. And my apologies if I've misread what others are saying.

No apolagies necessary, but I'd like to nuance my previous point, since I didn't think it came across:

A low stat does not a character trait make. However, it CAN function as a starting point to flesh out your character.
So the Maistlin Rajere wizard with the low strength doesn't HAVE to complain about his equipment being so heavy all the time, but it could be a reason he does.

Having a VERY low strength score would mean REALLY staying away from melee, using a crossbow instead of a normal bow, and/or focussing on ranged spell attacks. It would, in other words, encourage a style of play for that character that might be less obvious with a score of 10 or higher.

That's not to say high scores are'nt fun. I'm currently playing a barbarian who started play (at lvl 11, I think the ability points went into STR) with STR 18 DEX 16 CON 14 WIS 13 INT 13 CHA 13.
Nothing fancy, rolled the stats, assigned them as I thought was most beneficial for the character.

What was interesting to see was that a few weeks ago, the DM 'jumped' the campaign about 23 years into the future, with the appropriate age modifications.
Had I used point-buy, I doubt I would have ended up with the above stats. The resulting STR 17 DEX 15 CON 13 WIS 14 INT 14 CHA 14 were a bit harsh on my physical stats, but having all my 'mental' stats increase to the next bonus as well was a nice surprise.

Of course, most campaigns won't see an actual age change (unless you're playing a very short lived race) but having this happen to me has reinforced my belief that you can't plan everything ahead of time. Even regarding your stats.

 

[Dandu]

And therein lies the difference between us. Those numbers (which I agree are correct) are not terribly significant to me. I seem to have just as much fun playing the fighter who hits 10% less often and does 30% less damage per hit.

To add on something I realized after my first post, not only do you hit less often and softer, but you are unable to advance in power as well. Bob earlier had to choose whether to allocate a 14 to Int or Dex. I chose to give him 14 Int and 10 Dex, which means he cannot use Combat Reflexes or feats that build off of it or require Dex, like Robiliar's Gambit and Elusive Target. If it went the other way, he would not be able to use feats like Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, and Improved Disarm.

It's like being stuck in a dead end job. And while I know not everyone who works at, say, the cash register at Cheeburger hates it, it's not really where I'd like to be.

 

[billd91]

To add on something I realized after my first post, not only do you hit less often and softer, but you are unable to advance in power as well. Bob earlier had to choose whether to allocate a 14 to Int or Dex. I chose to give him 14 Int and 10 Dex, which means he cannot use Combat Reflexes or feats that build off of it or require Dex, like Robiliar's Gambit and Elusive Target. If it went the other way, he would not be able to use feats like Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, and Improved Disarm.

It's like being stuck in a dead end job. And while I know not everyone who works at, say, the cash register at Cheeburger hates it, it's not really where I'd like to be.

Is this supposed to be a defense of point buy? I suppose it gives you the fine control to invest in both (at the expense of something else). But by investing in that high Strength stat instead of a more moderate one, you're not exactly increasing your flexibility with other points. You're tying up an increasingly large proportion of them, paying a premium for the higher bonus. Most rolling methods in play make it fairly likely to have at least 3 stats over 13, enabling easy entry into Combat Expertise, Power Attack, and Dodge feat chains.

 

[Dandu]

Oh, no, it's intended to be illustrative about how low stats screw you over.

Although now that you mention it, what is the mean and standard deviation of 4d6 drop lowest? Anyone got a TI-83?

 

[kitcik]

Oh, no, it's intended to be illustrative about how low stats screw you over.

Although now that you mention it, what is the mean and standard deviation of 4d6 drop lowest? Anyone got a TI-83?

This has been done a bunch of times on the net. Dpending on how you score abilities below 8 and hopeless character re-rolls, it seems that 4d6 drop lowest equates to somewhere between 28 and 30 point buy ON AVERAGE. However, there are large variances, and point buy equivalents between 20 and 40 seem common.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Sorry Dandu, I have a TI-84+ instead.

The average for 4d6 drop lowest is a little shy of 12.25. Max of course is still 18, and minimum can be 3 still.

A quick search pulled up this page: 4d6 Drop Lowest, what to expect

For the record though, rolls can be the equivalent of -30 PB, or up to 96 PB, although no sane DM would allow a character to have 3's in all stats. The chances of rolling at least a 10 in everything on 4d6 DL is roughly 80%.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Oh, no, it's intended to be illustrative about how low stats screw you over.

Is a 14 supposed to be a "low stat"? Or are you suggesting that no fighter should ever have to choose between being eligible for the Combat Expertise feat tree and say, the Dodge feat tree? I'm really not following your logic.

If you're just pointing out that having stats below 13 may not qualify one for certain feats...uh, yeah, that's correct. But surely you're not suggesting that no one should ever have any stat below 13? And I think I made it clear earlier that a character whose highest stat is 13 or less would be considered "unplayable," so it is essentially guaranteed that any character will qualify for at least one feat tree such as Combat Expertise or Dodge.

So...were you trying to say something more profound than "it's better to have high stats than low stats," or was that about it?

 

[kitcik]

The difference between a higher stat array and a lower stat array is not as simple as getting +3 vs. +1 in your primary attribute, as was hinted at in prior posts. There are a plethora of more subtle impacts, such as the inability to qualify for certain feat trees.

The net impact to a fighter, for instance, can be fairly large at higher levels - not simply +2 TH / DMG.