What is the standard ability score set? Are most games playing too high?

[hong]

Ooh. Frog vs kitty. Fight! Fight! Fight!

 

[Emirikol]

All this does beg the question, "can a 15 point buy character be played to 20th level?" Obviously not in a standard game, and that's made clear in the DMG...but those Kobolds would sure remain PESKY a lot longer eh!

Player of 15th level figher: A kobold eh? I rub my chin for a moment contemplating the violence ahead. I rush into battle and strike with my sword! I rolled a 10..that means 25, did I hit?
DM: Sure, by about 14.
Player: Longsword d8..rolled an 8. With my feat and 13 strength, I did 10 points of damage!
DM: The kobold is dead. You chop him cleanly in half.
Player: Hmmm..this low point buy stuff isn't so bad....
DM: From the darkening sky..the outline of a dragon can be made..it is closing fast from above...
Player: Hmmm. Run? Is there a hole nearby?
DM: The dark dens of the kobolds might suffice
Player: Mr. Uhm Mean DM?
DM: Yes?
Player: Why do you have to throw these high hit point monsters at us? You know that we are but lowly commoners just trying to make 20th level...

jh

 

[FunkBGR]

Low Stats != Failure.

When you have lower stats, you rely on more absolutes. I'd start seeing players purchasing more healing, and wanting to create items more. They'd worry less about "my character", and worry about "our characters as a whole". That +1 bonus from BLESS becomes that much more. Aid Another would become a godsend!

Hell, AID might even get used, since it gives Temp HP.

You're still heroic too, because you're better than most others, and the feats you choose matter that much more. Save DC's low? Get Spell Focus.

 

[Piratecat]

All this does beg the question, "can a 15 point buy character be played to 20th level?"

Anyone remember 2e? "Rath is a playable character."

I recognize that weaker characters can still be heroic, and that they seem more heroic when they win the day. Would the end of Lord of the Rings be as touching if Aragorn, Gandalf, Elrond, Tom Bombadil and Glorfindel had destroyed the ring? Of course not. But in most campaigns, I personally don't particularly want to play someone with the stats of a commoner for a long period of time.

 

[Emirikol]

Are any of you using a more-progressive method of ability score advancement? You could start lower (say at the "normal" of 25 or lower) and then advance more. It would give players more to look forward to with levelling.

For example, the normal is: abil's are gained every 4 levels.
How about adding "every 5 levels all ability scores gain one point?"

Starting out at 40+ point buy doesn't seem right for a 1st level character does it?

jh

 

[Piratecat]

How about adding "every 5 levels all ability scores gain one point?"

No thanks. Characters' personalities are often defined as much or more by their low stats as by their high ones. If I make a hero whose schtick is being clumsy, I don't want his dex to rise above 9.

Interesting side comment: the guy who writes "DM of the Rings" had his computer roll up 100 million PCs, just to look at rolled stats statistically. The results are really interesting.

One Hundred Million characters, Part 1
One Hundred Million characters, Part 2

 

[el-remmen]

You have just proven to me that heroic does not necessarily equal fun. I have no interest in playing an ineffective - or, perhaps, an undereffective character - for the long term. I do recognize that other people might, but I play D&D to pretend that I'm stronger than I actually am.

Two things:

1) I was speaking rhetorically on the nature of heroism in my comment. I was not necessarily advocating it as an overall playstyle.

2) I think it is perfectly possible to have underpowered and uber-optimized characters in the same group and everyone have the same amount to contribue and fun to be had. I am not saying it is easy, or for everyone, but it is possible.

3) (I lied about it being 2) Even an under-effective D&D character is probably still stronger than you or me

Edited to add #4) I have heard Piratecat say many times (or read, I guess to be pedantic) that you can change the consequences for failing in ceratin encounters/campaign arc so not only is death not the result, but so that something even more fun can be born from it. He may not have used these exact words (I am having a hard time finding an example), but that is the gist of the idea.

 

[molonel]

It is possible to be heroic and lose.

Sure it is. A final confrontation is meaningless if victory is assurred. If there is no risk of failure, and success is a given, then that's boring.

Absolutely.

But let's distinguish that we're not talking about heroic loss, here. The glorious final conflict. Good vs. evil. Heaven vs. hell.

Your stats represent part of who your character is, and what he or she is able to accomplish. Throughout the game. Every time you play. Every skill check, every to-hit roll and every saving throw throughout the entire game.

If you're losing all the time, then while that might seem heroic to YOU, that's not how most of us - I'm guessing here, yes, but I think it's an educated guess - want to spend a Saturday afternoon.

I think most of us would have been a little disappointed if Gollum had bitten off Frodo's finger, run away with the ring, gotten captured by the Nine and Sauron plunged the entire world into darkness forever and ever, amen.

It is possible to be heroic and lose, but if you're losing all the time and having enemies pin you down and slap you with your own weapons, and taunting, "Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!" then that doesn't seem very heroic to me.

Stoic, perhaps. Heroic? Not really.

And if you're simply resetting the goal posts, as someone has already pointed out, and making a 14 Str into what would be an 18 strength in another game, then what's the fuss? You're not actually playing with lower stats. You're simply changing the scale.

It is possible to be heroic and never had a chance to succeed to begin with.

Mmmm ... no. If I want that, I'll play Call of Cthulhu so I can show up with 5 characters, and watch them get maimed, torn asunder, or gibbering mad in some dark corner of an asylum.

Heroic fantasy is about the noble struggle, the heroic victory.

That's what D&D defaults to. You can play it another way, sure, but I'm willing to be MOST people here in any edition of D&D don't play in games where they never succeed and never had a chance to succeed.

Failure is not fun. I play for challenge, and I enjoy challanges in a game, but ultimately, if I don't ever have a chance then thanks but no thanks.

 

[Hussar]

No thanks. Characters' personalities are often defined as much or more by their low stats as by their high ones. If I make a hero whose schtick is being clumsy, I don't want his dex to rise above 9.

Interesting side comment: the guy who writes "DM of the Rings" had his computer roll up 100 million PCs, just to look at rolled stats statistically. The results are really interesting.

One Hundred Million characters, Part 1
One Hundred Million characters, Part 2

That is pretty interesting actually. Funnily enough, I've seen more than a few PC's with stats on the high end of that curve.

 

[molonel]

Are any of you using a more-progressive method of ability score advancement? You could start lower (say at the "normal" of 25 or lower) and then advance more. It would give players more to look forward to with levelling.

For example, the normal is: abil's are gained every 4 levels.
How about adding "every 5 levels all ability scores gain one point?"

Starting out at 40+ point buy doesn't seem right for a 1st level character does it?

I'm playing in one low magic D&D game right now, and running two games using the d20 Modern and combining Call of Cthulu, Delta Green and GURPS Black Ops gaming style. The first used a 28 point buy. The latter two utilized a 26 point buy system with an additional requirement that one stat HAD to be an 8. I wanted to see how people would prioritize their characters, and what they would use as a dump stat.

In the former, we are getting a stat bump every even level, and a feat every odd level, according to Stephen Schubert's "It's you, not your gear" rules variant. There are no permanent stat-enhancing items, either enhancement or inherent.

In the latter, characters are getting choices every couple of levels to adjust their stats. For example, when they went through Basic Training in the Army, they received a choice of +2 to Str and +1 to Con, or +1 to Str and +2 to Con, as well as the Personal Firearms Proficiency feat.

If you're playing low magic or prefer a lower stat array for your characters, I think 1 point every 5 levels is too little, too late since you're probably never going to play to high levels, anyway.