So, you roll 6 18's.

[LightPhoenix]

I love how half the thread is people completely missing the point of the thread. Amusing to no end.

Personally? I'd go with a weaker class mec hanically, like Cleric.

Honestly? PHB only, I'd go with a Bard, and play the character as believing he if perfect. Whether or not he is, that's up to everyone else.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

You people and your odds.

Didn't Han Solo teach you anything?

 

[delericho]

Given that choice, I would always take the point-buy. However, for the sake of argument...

Yes, I would play the character. And I would play whatever I had had in mind to play before I started to roll. (At the moment, I'm leaning towards a Rogue/Cleric of Olidamarra (sp?). I don't know what race.)

 

[amethal]

If the DM was insisting on "you play what you roll" then you have no choice but to accept all 18s.

I'd maybe play my dream character - monk 2 then multi-classing into sorcerer x (with highest score in charisma).

You need stats like that to keep a 1st level monk with highest score in charisma from dying horribly in the first fight.

Or maybe aim for fochlucan lyrist.

 

[DJCupboard]

I guess I'm not only a statistical freak of nature, but also very boring. The one and only time I ever rolled all 18s (using 4d6, reroll 1s, drop the lowest; seven times, drop the lowest, mind you, which probably doesn't improve the statistics that much) it was in front of the DM (we always rolled in front of the DM) and I played a 2E human paladin. I think he lasted maybe five adventures before the DM thought that his unnaturally high stats and his (the DM's) propensity for handing out magic items made our party a good match for the tarasque. Ah, the good old days!

~DJC~

 

[Bryon_Soulweaver]

IF that ever happened, I would play a gestalt wizard/druid until level 10 then I would switch druid with mystic theurge until level 20. That's a 30 level caster for wizard and 20 level caster for druid, plus some nifty druid abilities. And if it went up to level 30, dragon disciple/loremaster.



Heh. Of course, that might be going overboard.

 

[Zander]

This might be a good time to play that half-orc bard.

Yup, already suggested that here. Glad you agree.

Or just to go all the way with the cheese, a dwarven cleric.

Either way, it'll be fun for a grand total of maybe two sessions.

Why is that cheesy and why only two? I play a dwarven cleric of Moradin in my regular game and he's been fun for longer than that. He has good but not fantastic stats.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

You are playing in a new campaign with a great GM who is rather stringent.

You can either use a 28 point buy, or roll 4d6 (6 times) and drop lowest.

And take what you get.

You decide to roll (in front of the GM).

You get 6 18's.

1) Do you play the character?
2) If you do, what class/race? And why?

Yes I would play the character. I'd make him a human monk. His background that I would FORCE into the hands of the DM at gunpoint would include some explanation of why he's such a freak of nature. I would also endeavor to play the character EXTREMELY low-key.

Why? Well to start, as has been mentioned, more than any other character class a monk relies on really top-notch ability scores to be genuinely competitive in terms of raw power. However, IME, characters with Ubermensch scores tend to get played by their players as true supermen; as if they are jacks of all trades and masters of them all to boot. This makes the character easily disliked by other players and the DM for being shallow glory-hogs. The stats become the ONLY thing the character is about and this means the characters personality and pc/npc reactions to him make the character undesired by the player himself!

So, if the focus of the characters concept is moved firmly away from an active, gaudy, intrusive display of prowess that the scores would otherwise allow. It makes the character the PERFECT example of the fictional concept of the quiet, philosophical, humble, wandering martial arts master who will KICK YOUR ASS at the drop of a hat - but generally avoids doing so even though he can.

 

[billd91]

Of course I'd play all 18s if I rolled it. That's the double-edged sword of rolling your stats. You get the good stuff or you could just as likely get the bad stuff. That's part of the fun of rolling. It's like a box of chocolates. "You never know whut yer gunna git".

Kobold monk. Maybe a kobold paladin. A gnoll druid could be fun too.
Getting all 18s should be license to break out of the ordinary and try something a little more quirky or risky with more average stats.

 

[The_Gneech]

Why is that cheesy and why only two? I play a dwarven cleric of Moradin in my regular game and he's been fun for longer than that. He has good but not fantastic stats.

Dwarves are (a bit) overpowered; clerics are (a bit) overpowered; a character with all 18's is (vastly) overpowered.

A dwarven cleric is not inherently cheesy, particularly with "normal" stats ... but they can easily be made so with a little powergaming. So the idea was, if you're going to be cheesy, be cheesy all the way.

As for why it would only be fun for two sessions, it's just because it would be a "concept character" and I get bored with those quickly.

-The Gneech