D&D 5E Why I Am Starting to Prefer 4d6 Drop the Lowest Over the Default Array.

[ccs]

But how do you make 14 18 15 14 15 16 interesting?

I'd make this character interesting in the same way I'd make any other character interesting. I'd write up an actual character, not just a bunch of modifiers. I'd factor in why/how those stats came to be, how they effect the character. As well as race, class, & what I'm currently doing.
And if I had an idea that seemed to suggest that some stat be lower? Then I'd just ask the DM if I could just make my ___ x instead of what I'd rolled. (I did that with my 1/2ling warlock. Even putting the lowest # I'd rolled into her str, it still felt too high. Afterall, she's a 12 year old 1/2ling - she's just NOT as strong as an adult. So we set her str at 7 & kept the original score as what she'll eventually grow into if she reaches adulthood)

Those are not in any particular order. Place them wherever you want. Like I said, a character that perfect is hard to relate to -for me-. Weaknesses are as important as strengths, there is no room for being, dizzy, distracted, clumsy, dorky, or flighty with this array.

Sure there is. I can look at that & easily see a 1st lv character who's been suddenly been transformed. Potion? Gifts from the gods/your patron? Built? Spirit stuck into a new body?
Just because I have +s doesn't mean I can't come up with flaws/quirks/personality traits that'll make a character interesting.
(Take my 1/2ling warlock for ex. She hasa few +s on her Wis. These +s though don't do anything to curb her curiosity. A truly wise character probably wouldn't do some of the things she has. They just sometimes allow a bonus when it comes to making the saving throws her actions often necessitate.... If she survives long enough her actions will eventually modify to more closely reflect her actual score. )

 

[Lanefan]

Those are not in any particular order. Place them wherever you want. Like I said, a character that perfect is hard to relate to -for me-. Weaknesses are as important as strengths, there is no room for being, dizzy, distracted, clumsy, dorky, or flighty with this array.

Sure you could be distracted. I know some people in real life - who, were they D&D characters, would probably have rather impressive stat arrays - that have the attention span of a chicken.

You can also do flighty...or flirty...or hopelessly romantic...or a wannabe dictator...or a person who can't do anything without having 5 layers of bureaucracy attached to it, all in triplicate...or a pacifist...the list goes on. In fact, I think you've got more options than you might realize.

Lan-"though my main suggestion - and this goes for pretty much every character, not just this one - is that whatever you do, take it just a bit over the top"-efan

 

[S'mon]

I'm pretty sure I'm remembering that right. It stood out last time I browsed the RC because I thought you were able to reduce any ability. I might have to reread to refresh my memory though.

In BX and Mentzer D&D you can only reduce class Primes, STR INT & WIS as I recall, not even DEX -
because OD&D had no Thieves so DEX originally not a Prime. You can only raise the Prime for your class. CON & CHA cannot be altered.

 

[cbwjm]

In BX and Mentzer D&D you can only reduce class Primes, STR INT & WIS as I recall, not even DEX -
because OD&D had no Thieves so DEX originally not a Prime. You can only raise the Prime for your class. CON & CHA cannot be altered.

Since your post notification came through while I was at my PC, I decided to check the RC it is exactly as you say. I had totally forgotten that Dex couldn't be lowered and I thought it was only Cha not Con & Cha that couldn't be lowered. I guess the Dex thing really should have been updated to allow it to be reduced since thieves were now one of the 4 but it wasn't.

 

[Wulffolk]

Previous to the point buy and standard array in 3e, it was most common in earlier editions to just plain cheat. All the meaningful bonuses required a 17 or 18, or a bare minimum 16.

It was amazing how many character's were "rolled" back then with an 18/?? STR or multiple 16+ stats. Being a Paladin usually required that kind of "luck". Most often players just kept rolling sets of stats until they liked one.

Since 3e, with the more standardized ability bonuses spread from 12 on up, and the inclusion of Ability Score Increases, it became less vital to start off with GOD-stats. If anything rolling for stats has been even more forgiving since 3e than it ever was in earlier editions.

I wonder what percentage of people that prefer point buy started with 3e or later, vs what percentage of those that prefer rolling started with earlier editions.

 

[Zardnaar]

Previous to the point buy and standard array in 3e, it was most common in earlier editions to just plain cheat. All the meaningful bonuses required a 17 or 18, or a bare minimum 16.

It was amazing how many character's were "rolled" back then with an 18/?? STR or multiple 16+ stats. Being a Paladin usually required that kind of "luck". Most often players just kept rolling sets of stats until they liked one.

Since 3e, with the more standardized ability bonuses spread from 12 on up, and the inclusion of Ability Score Increases, it became less vital to start off with GOD-stats. If anything rolling for stats has been even more forgiving since 3e than it ever was in earlier editions.

I wonder what percentage of people that prefer point buy started with 3e or later, vs what percentage of those that prefer rolling started with earlier editions.

There were other ways of rolling like Method V. Using that you often rolled 7,8,9 d6 keep best 3. The Paladin got to roll 9d6 for charisma in the 1E UA.

Its kind of fun and method 5 was for humans only since demihumans had racial packages and could MC.

2E PHB had 6 ways to do scores.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Those are not in any particular order. Place them wherever you want. Like I said, a character that perfect is hard to relate to -for me-. Weaknesses are as important as strengths, there is no room for being, dizzy, distracted, clumsy, dorky, or flighty with this array.

Plenty of room though for being bloodthirsty, egomaniacal, pacifist, vengeful, duty-bound, kind, or dedicated to noblesse oblige.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Since 3e, with the more standardized ability bonuses spread from 12 on up, and the inclusion of Ability Score Increases, it became less vital to start off with GOD-stats. If anything rolling for stats has been even more forgiving since 3e than it ever was in earlier editions.

I wonder what percentage of people that prefer point buy started with 3e or later, vs what percentage of those that prefer rolling started with earlier editions.

I was a horrible munchkin and enabler of munchkins back in AD&D (2nd edition) days--I used to bribe my brother to do my chores for me by offering him stat boosts to his characters--but the thing in between then and now which has, more than anything else, shaped my attitude towards stat rolling is the fact that I became a fan of XCOM: UFO Defense. I discovered that no matter how uber Manfred Geisler's stats are compared to Rudy Semmelweiss's stats, Rudy can still be an MVP tossing heavy explosives at the bad guys or running a motion tracker, and Manfred can still miss that crucial shot and accidentally kill a civilian. And they are both going to die, sooner or later, probably due to enemy mind control or a Blaster Bomb, and be replaced by Tony Valencio and Martin Shlock. Everybody dies or retires eventually--journey before destination.

The 5E ruleset helps though. It's a lot more forgiving of non-uber stat rolls than AD&D was.

 

[RotGrub]

Funny, I'd say labeling people you've never met as "problem players" based on a simple playstyle preference is a good way to identify a problem DM.

Yes, it works both ways. Some playstyles don't belong together at all.

 

[RotGrub]

Why is it so horrible to want to play a hero? Or to have options on what class to play while still feeling like you are contributing to the team? Especially in a game that will last a year or more? Because the issue is not "competition" it's being overshadowed by other characters 99% of the time and never feeling like you're pulling your own weight.

I could have fun playing a campaign as the second string washouts - if the other players are in the same boat. D&D is a collaborative team game. So much like how I wouldn't feel very useful if I were on the same basketball team as LeBron James, I don't want to play "Pudgy the Wimp" on the same team as "Super Dave".

The problem with your argument is that a few stat bonuses (+/-5% to 15%) isn't substantial enough to be noticed, at least not in the manner that your analogy suggests. It certainly isn't 99% at all. +1, +2, +3 are not equal to 99%.

In addition, a character is more than his stat bonuses. Characters should be persons first and foremost, interacting and role playing have little to do with rolling dice. So for a large percentage of the time during the game those bonuses are not going to overshadow the game.

On a side note, I know one DM who would give players like yourself all 18s in their main stats. The idea was that they would learn from the other players that stats mean very little if anything to the games enjoyment. They also would realize the hard-way that the game spotlight isn't attained through stats.