Rolling for stats. Need some advice

[Vegepygmy]

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.

Sure, I doubt anyone would argue that fact.

But the question is: is the game "no fun" (or even significantly less fun) if you can't qualify for certain feat trees?

In my case, the answer is no, it doesn't significantly affect how much fun I have playing the game. For others, it apparently does.

 

[Ashtagon]

My favourite compromise:

4d6 drop lowest, seven times (drop lowest), arrange to suit. Then calculate the point-buy equivalent cost, and either add or subtract (not both) points until it hits the GM-approved point buy value.

That enforces some measure of randomness, while still giving theoretically equivalent characters.

 

[Empirate]

Sure, I doubt anyone would argue that fact.

But the question is: is the game "no fun" (or even significantly less fun) if you can't qualify for certain feat trees?

In my case, the answer is no, it doesn't significantly affect how much fun I have playing the game. For others, it apparently does.

Say you're playing a Rogue and decide to go with TWF in combat. With your bunch of sneak attack dice, that's a good option. I'll even go out on a limb here and say it's the only really mechanically sound combat option for rogues: ranged sneak attacking is a pain (as it works only at very short range and archery takes a huge bunch of feats [note that Manyshot is barred to this character as well, btw]), and sneak attacking with a two-handed weapon just doesn't work as well.

However, if your Dex is merely 14, you're never going to get Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, even though that is your schtick. You're never going to improve at what is your only sound combat option beyond what you can already do at first level.

You're not only being less powerful than a Rogue with Dex 18, which as you pointed out doesn't mean anything, since character power isn't absolute and isn't what makes a character fun. But in this case, you're also gimped in (mechanical) character growth. Sure, you can spend your feats on Skill Focus and Chaos Devotion or whatever, but in combat, which is a lot of the time, you're prevented from using those feats that would complement your play style.

Now I don't say such a character can't be fun. But on the mechanical side, this just seems like a case of bullet-to-foot. Which is why I'd think twice about playing this character: I can't even get significantly better at what I'm supposed to be good at. I don't have the option of taking this Rogue into combat and be more than a little useful.

This doesn't have to detract from the fun of playing the character. But it narrows what you can do with him/her, mechanically, which might just cramp your style on the roleplaying side, as well. No "quickest two blades you never saw" concept for you. Merely "two blades of average quickness" possible here. Good for you if that's enough for your character concept - but more options are a good thing, as I'm so fond of saying.

 

[Dandu]

Is a 14 supposed to be a "low stat"?

No, but I believe 10, 9, and 8 are.

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.

I'm saying it sucks when you're forced to choose between Combat Expertise and co and Combat Reflexes and co since they're both great feats that help out tremendously for someone whose job it is to tank.

However, if your Dex is merely 14, you're never going to get Improved Two-Weapon Fighting,

Level up stat boosts.

 

[Empirate]

Level up stat boosts.

OK, I'll up the ante: Greater Two-Weapon Fighting.

 

[billd91]

OK, I'll up the ante: Greater Two-Weapon Fighting.

Meh, so you miss out on a 3rd attack with your off hand weapon, an attack with a relatively low chance of hitting in the first place given the rogue's BAB. I'm willing to bet there are more effective options to invest in at this point.

 

[Dandu]

Manual of Quickness of Action.

 

[kitcik]

Q: Who "needs" big stats?
A: MAD classes and feat dependent classes.

Q: Which classes are MAD classes and feat dependent classes?
A: Generally, melee classes.

Low starting stats are another "nerf" for melee classes vs. casters. QED.

 

[billd91]

I have to say that 3e certainly is an edition that enables characters to compensate for lowish stats as they develop. Level-based stat increases, spells and items to increase stats, books to provide inherent bonuses...

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

A Rogue is lucky to ever get high enough level ot qualify for Greater TWF. TWF combat sucks, and so do Rogues.

One thing I'd like to add to what I said before with, "high stats is much more helpful to those who need the help most" is related to Dandu's whole point about the level 2 Fighter vs. the riding dog:

The more powerups you give the PCs, the stronger the Fighter-types get compared to summons, pets, and all the other stuff casters can use. The importantance of this really can't be understated. Say in your game you use 32 point buy...maybe even higher. Say you allow flaws. Say you give max hit points per HD for player characters. Say you use gestalt rules. Sounds uber overpowered and cheesy, right? Guess what. In such a game, those animal companions and summons that make fighters obsolete are completely outclassed! You just gave the party a bunch of upgrades that don't help the follower-ons ONE BIT! Sure, it boosted the casters a little, too, but as long as they were able to afford a 16+ in their casting stat, they were basically set already.

You don't need to use every power boost there is. Using just 32 point buy, flaws, traits, and fixed HD (say, 3/4 max hit points) to make sure that d10 will without a doubt actually mean something. I can make a Fighter that can match or beat a riding dog / wolf out of the MM at level 1. By level 2, it's not even much of a contest anymore. If I give those things to a wizard/sorcerer/cleric/druid...he's about the same. Possibly broken if using the flaws to obtain multiple broken 1st level feats like the Dragonwrought line, but that's a problem with the broken feats, not the flaws system.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to people having backassward perceptions. You see all the time these "low magic" or "low powered" games that still allow casters, just severely limit magic items and have very strict/gruelling stat and HD rolling rules. And who ends up suffering the most from these? Noncasters! On the flip side, I've seen extremely high powered games with magic walmarts that would give the gronards seizures and very high point buy. And I have seen in those games noncasters stay relevant in combat up through level 14 at least. Granted, they still weren't very relevant out of combat and you still had to have caster players willing to not use the insanely overpowered options out there to completely break the game in half... but you get those problems regardless of how high powered your game world is.